Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Nonlinear optical realization of non-integrable phases accompanying quantum phase transitions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a low-birefringence fiber with tetragonal symmetry can make light accumulate a Hannay angle whose conic singularity matches the gauge singularity of a Bose-Einstein condensate quantum phase transition.

desk verdict Sound Hannay-angle math in a nonlinear fiber, but the only proposed material is in the wrong point group and the BEC identity is borrowed—worth refereeing, not rejecting. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12347 v2 pith:S6RRZKCJ submitted 2025-05-18 quant-ph

Chon-Fai Kam This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords HannayanglegeometricphasenonlinearopticalfibertetragonalsymmetryquantumtransitionBose-EinsteincondensateStokesvectorSchrödingerequation
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 proposes that an optical fiber can serve as a tabletop simulator of a subtle piece of quantum geometry: the gauge-field singularity that appears at a quantum phase transition in an interacting system. Its central claim is that in a low-birefringence fiber made from a material with tetragonal symmetry, the polarization state—described by the Stokes vector on the Poincaré sphere—gains a non-integrable Hannay angle when the nonlinear susceptibility coefficients are varied adiabatically around a closed loop. The angle 2-form for this phase has a conic singularity on the bifurcation surface of the polarization dynamics, and the paper identifies this singularity with the one found in Bose-Einstein condensates at the transition from Rabi oscillations to macroscopic self-trapping. A successful realization would turn an exotic many-body quantum effect into a measurable phase shift in an interferometer, using standard telecom-wavelength components and graded nano-crystal doping.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the angle 2-form $W$ for a generalized harmonic oscillator, Eq. (19). It enters because near the fixed points the Stokes-vector dynamics linearizes to the Hamiltonian $H = (\alpha q^2 + 2\beta p q + \gamma p^2)/2$, with $q = S_x$ and $p = S_z$ near the positive y-axis (and sign-flipped parameters near the negative y-axis). Hannay's formula converts the adiabatic cyclic change of $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ into the shift $\gamma_H = \oint_C W$, and the denominator $(\alpha\gamma - \beta^2)^{3/2}$ produces a conic singularity when the oscillation frequency $\omega = \sqrt{\alpha\gamma - \beta^2}$ vanishes, which is exactly the bifurcation surface of the polarization dynamics. This is the mechanism that makes a classical optical phase carry the same singularity as the quantum phase transition gauge field.

What would settle it

Measure or tabulate the third-order susceptibility tensor elements of candidate tetragonal materials (classes 4, 4bar, or 4/m): if none has c ≠ 0 with d = -c, the effect cannot be realized in a homogeneous fiber. Alternatively, build the proposed graded fiber and cycle the susceptibilities: if the output shows no Hannay-angle phase offset that grows and diverges as the loop approaches the surface $\alpha\gamma - \beta^2 = 0$, the claimed realization fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a mapping between two systems. In a fiber with tetragonal crystal classes $4$, $\bar{4}$, or $4/m$, the coupled-mode equations for the two polarization amplitudes can be written as a Hamiltonian nonlinear Schrödinger equation precisely when the susceptibility combination satisfies $d = -c$. The Hamiltonian contains a cross term $2c S_z S_x$ that the paper calls exotic because it exists only for these tetragonal classes; for fixed parameters the system is integrable, with the Stokes vector oscillating like a generalized harmonic oscillator near the circular-polarization fixed points. When the oscillator parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ are adiabatically cycled, the overall phase acquires the Hannay angle $\gamma_H = \int_C W$, with $W = (\alpha\, d\beta \wedge d\gamma + \beta\, d\gamma \wedge d\alpha + \gamma\, d\alpha \wedge d\beta)/[4(\alpha\gamma - \beta^2)^{3/2}]$. The 2-form diverges on the cone $\alpha\gamma - \beta^2 = 0$, and the paper's headline assertion is that this conic singularity is the same gauge structure as the one accompanying the BEC transition from Rabi oscillations to macroscopic self-trapping, with propagation distance $z$ playing the role of time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a fiber material can be made with one of the tetragonal classes 4, 4bar, or 4/m, with a nonzero cross coefficient c and with d = -c, and that its nonlinear susceptibilities can be graded adiabatically along the fiber while birefringence and losses stay negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cyclically grading the nonlinear susceptibilities along the fiber should produce a measurable interferometric phase offset equal to the Hannay angle, with $|\gamma_H|$ growing as the parameter loop approaches the surface $\alpha\gamma - \beta^2 = 0$.
  • Near the bifurcation surface, the singularity amplifies the phase signal, which the paper argues makes the effect observable despite small birefringence and loss.
  • The same setup gives an optical analogue of a BEC gauge-field singularity, so geometric-phase experiments could probe that structure without ultracold atom control.
  • Because the equations fit the Hamiltonian form of nonlinear quantum mechanics, the result connects classical geometric phases in nonlinear optics to geometric phases of nonlinear quantum systems, and the framework extends to metasurfaces and photonic crystals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same conic 2-form should appear in any two-mode system whose linearized dynamics is a generalized harmonic oscillator with cycled parameters, so coupled waveguides, microresonators, or engineered metasurfaces could host the same effect without tetragonal fibers.
  • A direct consequence of the symmetry analysis is a concrete search target: point groups $4$, $\bar{4}$, and $4/m$, with measured $c$ nonzero and $d = -c$; the paper's own tensor table indicates the higher-symmetry tetragonal classes cannot supply the needed cross term.
  • A quantitative experiment could test whether the measured Hannay angle diverges as the parameter loop approaches the surface $\alpha\gamma - \beta^2 = 0$ with the predicted power, confirming the match to the BEC gauge structure.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a classical nonlinear-optical realization of a Hannay angle whose angle 2-form has a conic singularity, claimed to be identical to the gauge-field singularity accompanying a quantum phase transition in a Bose-Einstein condensate (from Rabi oscillations to macroscopic self-trapping). The derivation starts from coupled-mode equations for polarization components in a low-birefringence fiber with tetragonal symmetry. Under the integrability condition d = -c, the Hamiltonian is written in Stokes-parameter form, the dynamics near the circular-polarization fixed points is linearized to a generalized harmonic oscillator, and the standard Hannay-angle 2-form W (Eq. 19) is obtained. The paper asserts that this 2-form is the same as in the BEC problem of Ref. [18] and proposes an experiment using tetragonal zirconia (ZrO2) nanocrystals in silica fibers, with adiabatic variation of the nonlinear susceptibilities along the fiber.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a tabletop classical analogue of a non-trivial gauge-field singularity structure found in an interacting quantum system, with the advantage that the geometric phase is computed from a self-contained, parameter-free derivation. The connection to Weinberg's nonlinear quantum mechanics is also a useful conceptual bridge. However, the significance is substantially tempered by two issues: the proposed ZrO2 candidate belongs to point group 4/mmm rather than 4/m, which eliminates the required exotic term and makes the predicted Hannay angle vanish for that material; and the asserted identity with the BEC gauge structure is taken entirely from the author's previous paper [18] without an explicit comparison. The theoretical core (Eqs. 13, 15-16, 19) is internally consistent, but the experimental realization claim in the abstract and Section IV is not supported by the identified material.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, ZrO2 candidate] The proposed experimental material, tetragonal zirconia, is misidentified: the cited space group P4_2/nmc belongs to point group 4/mmm, not to 4/m as claimed in the text ('These ZrO2 nanocrystals adopt space groups such as P4_2/nmc, belonging to the 4/m point-group family'). In point group 4/mmm, the vertical mirror planes force every third-order susceptibility element with an odd number of x or y indices to vanish, so the coefficients c_j and d_j defined in Eq. (C7), which involve components such as chi_xxxy and chi_xyyy, are zero. Consequently the exotic term 2c S_z S_x in Eq. (12) disappears, the linearization parameter beta = 2c in Eqs. (15)-(16) vanishes, and the angle 2-form in Eq. (19) is identically zero. The paper's own Appendix C distinguishes the classes 422, 4mm, -42m, 4/mmm from 4, -4, 4/m for exactly this reason. Thus the only concrete material candidate cannot produce the predicted Hannay angle, and the abstract's claim that the scheme is 'experimentally feasible' lacks a physical system.
  2. [Section III and Appendix C] The condition d = -c is presented as 'the symmetry properties of the third-order nonlinear susceptibility tensor in fibers with tetragonal symmetry (crystal classes 4, -4, 4/m)', but this is not a consequence of the point-group relations (C9). Equations (C9) and (C10) only fix relative signs (c_x = -c_y, d_x = -d_y); they do not require |c| = |d|. The equality d = -c is an additional integrability assumption, as the text itself acknowledges when it says 'the condition d = -c is also imposed to ensure that the coupled-mode equations can be written in the form of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation'. Since the paper offers no material, fabrication route, or physical mechanism that enforces this equality, the central construction rests on an unverified constraint. If d != -c, the system is non-integrable for fixed parameters and, by the paper's own discussion in Section V, the Hannay angle and the conic singularity are not well defined.
  3. [Section III, statement after Eq. (19)] The paper's central significance claim is that the gauge-field singularity in Eq. (19) 'is the same as the one associated with a quantum phase transition from Rabi oscillations to macroscopic self-trapping in Bose-Einstein condensates' [18]. This identity is asserted by reference to the author's prior paper only; the manuscript does not reproduce the BEC angle 2-form, specify the mapping of parameters, or demonstrate that Eq. (19) and the BEC expression describe the same singularity structure beyond sharing a conic divergence. Since this equivalence is the paper's main scientific claim, the reader needs at least an explicit comparison (e.g., the BEC 2-form in the double-well parameters and the coordinate transformation to alpha, beta, gamma) to assess whether the optical system truly realizes the same gauge structure rather than merely a similar-looking power-law divergence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (28)] 'Substitution of (28) into (28)' should read 'Substitution of (28) into (27)'.
  2. [Appendix B] The text contains an unresolved cross-reference placeholder: 'as we have demonstrated in section ??'.
  3. [Section III, adiabaticity] The adiabaticity condition for the slow variation of the nonlinear susceptibilities along the fiber is never quantified; for a generalized harmonic oscillator the relevant requirement is that the rate of change of alpha, beta, gamma be small compared with the oscillator frequency omega = sqrt(alpha gamma - beta^2), but no numerical estimate is given for the proposed fiber parameters.
  4. [Section II] The historical narrative, while informative, is longer than necessary for the paper's argument; some references (e.g., Refs. [11]-[14] on geometric phases in robotics and biomechanics) are only loosely connected to the main derivation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The optical Hannay-angle derivation is self-contained and parameter-free; the only notable circularity is that the central claim of sameness with the BEC quantum-phase-transition gauge structure rests on the author's own prior work [18].

  1. self citation load bearing [Section III, paragraph immediately after Eq. (19).]
    "The gauge field singularity in Eq. (19) is different from the conventional magnetic field singularity of a monopole, but is the same as the one associated with a quantum phase transition from Rabi oscillations to macroscopic self-trapping in Bose-Einstein condensates in an asymmetric double-well potential [18]."

    The optical derivation establishes only that W in Eq. (19) is the angle 2-form of a generalized harmonic oscillator, as rederived in Appendix A. It does not independently derive the BEC gauge structure or its conic singularity; that identification is imported solely from [18], a prior paper by the same author. Thus the paper's central significance claim, that the optical system realizes the non-integrable phase accompanying a quantum phase transition, is justified by an author-overlapping self-citation rather than by an independent first-principles derivation in this manuscript. The optical side of the calculation is not circular; it is the BEC-sameness assertion that is load-bearing and unverified here.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the nonlinear optical Hannay angle is self-contained: the coupled-mode equations follow from the tetragonal third-order susceptibility tensor in Appendix C; the Hamiltonian (10), the Stokes-vector equations (13a)-(13c), the linearization near the fixed points (15)-(16), and the generalized-harmonic-oscillator identification are all derived within the paper. Appendix A rederives the angle 2-form W for a generalized harmonic oscillator, giving Eq. (19) with the conic singularity at alpha*gamma - beta^2 = 0. No fitted parameters, external datasets, or fitted-input predictions appear, so there is no fitted-input circularity. The only circularity burden is the claim that this classical optical singularity is 'the same' as the BEC quantum-phase-transition singularity; that claim is supported entirely by citation [18], which is prior work by the same author. The material-identification issue raised by the skeptical review (tetragonal zirconia P4_2/nmc belongs to point group 4/mmm, not 4/m) is a correctness and feasibility concern, not a circularity in the derivation. Overall the mathematical core is honest and independent; the score is low because the central comparative significance claim leans on an author-overlapping citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard Hamiltonian mechanics and nonlinear optics, plus several domain and paper-specific assumptions (xi_j = 0, d = -c, small oscillations, reliance on [18]). No free parameters are fitted; the coefficients are defined by material properties. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard Hannay angle formalism and adiabatic theorem for integrable Hamiltonian systems (Appendix A)
    The paper's central result, Eq. (19), is derived from this formalism; the derivation is reproduced in App. A but the framework is taken from Hannay [79] and Berry [81].
  • domain assumption Third-order susceptibility tensor structure for tetragonal point groups 4, 4bar, 4/m (Eq. C9)
    The existence of the exotic cross term 2c S_z S_x requires nonzero elements such as chi_xxxy = -chi_yyyx; these are taken from standard nonlinear optics (Boyd [113]) and are load-bearing for the proposal.
  • domain assumption Integrability condition d = -c for the coupled-mode equations (Eq. 8, App. C)
    The Hamiltonian structure and the Hannay-angle computation require this relation; the paper notes it demands precise control of the susceptibility tensor and is fragile to material imperfections.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of birefringence and losses: xi_j = 0 (Section III, App. C)
    The derivation drops Delta-beta and alpha_j; the paper argues low-birefringence fibers with L << L_B justify this, but nonzero xi would introduce linear precession and non-Hamiltonian damping that could wash out the Hannay angle.
  • ad hoc to paper Small-oscillation linearization near the fixed points (0, +/-1, 0) (Eqs. 15-16)
    The Hannay angle is computed for the linearized harmonic oscillator; finite-amplitude corrections and the influence of the full nonlinear dynamics on the closed-loop phase are not analyzed.
  • ad hoc to paper The BEC quantum phase transition gauge structure of Ref. [18] is correct and identical to Eq. (19)
    The paper asserts the identity with the BEC conic singularity by citing the author's prior work [18] without rederiving it; this is the load-bearing bridge to the title's claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear optical realization of non-integrable phases accompanying quantum phase transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6RRZKCJ

@misc{pith2026250512347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear optical realization of non-integrable phases accompanying quantum phase transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6RRZKCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12347}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose an experimentally feasible nonlinear optical realization of a type of non-integrable phase found in interacting quantum systems at quantum phase transitions. We show that an exotic term in the dynamical equation governs the nonlinear polarization of the optical field along an anisotropic low-birefringence fiber with tetragonal symmetry. Intriguingly, by adiabatically tuning nonlinear susceptibilities along the fibers, the Stokes vector on the Poincar\'e sphere accumulates a non-integrable phase called the Hannay angle, which shares the same geometric gauge structure as that associated with quantum phase transitions. Experimental realization via adiabatically depositing nano-crystals along the fibers is discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Nonlinear optical analogues of quantum phase transitions in a squeezing-enhanced LMG model

    quant-ph 2025-05 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper's headline result, a new excited-state quantum phase transition from a squeezing term in tetragonal fibers, is not derived; what is derived is the textbook Euler-top dynamics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [18]

    Shapere and F

    A. Shapere and F. Wilczek, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 198, 557 (1989)

    1989

  2. [1]

    In the following, we focus on the polarization dynamics near the fixed points

    (14b) Hence, (13a) – (13c) are integrable. In the following, we focus on the polarization dynamics near the fixed points. Without loss of generality, we may assume that S 0 = 1. As we can see from (13a) – (13c), (S x, S y, S z) = (0,±1, 0) are two fixed points of the polariza- tion dynamics, which implies that ux and uy are equal in am- plitude, but have ...

  3. [2]

    A direct calculation yields ˙λ =−p˙q + H(p, q), where H(p, q) = c0 + (αq2 + 2βpq +γp2)/2 is the Hamiltonian of the generalized harmonic oscillator described above

    To be specific, we assign the overall phase λ to be the average of the phases of ux and uy, λ≡ (arg ux + arg uy)/2, so that we may write vx≡ q 1+p 2 eiq and vy≡ q 1−p 2 e−iq for the polarization states near the positive y-axis on the Poincare sphere. A direct calculation yields ˙λ =−p˙q + H(p, q), where H(p, q) = c0 + (αq2 + 2βpq +γp2)/2 is the Hamiltonia...

  4. [3]

    Steenrod, The topology of fibre bundles, V ol

    N. Steenrod, The topology of fibre bundles, V ol. 14 (Princeton university press, 1999)

    1999

  5. [4]

    Weinberg’s formulation of nonlinear quantum mechanics In Weinberg’s formulation of generalized quantum mechan- ics, physical states are represented by rays in a complex vector space, while observables correspond to the generat- ing functions of symmetry transformations. Unlike conven- tional quantum mechanics, where these transformations are strictly line...

  6. [5]

    Now we study the class of possible transformations ψk→ ψ′ k(ψ,ψ∗) that leave the equations of motion unchanged

    As a remark, the norm n and the Hamiltonian function H are invariant under time displacement. Now we study the class of possible transformations ψk→ ψ′ k(ψ,ψ∗) that leave the equations of motion unchanged. Let [Oa,Ob]ψ,ψ∗ be the commutator for two observables Oa and Ob, in which the di fferentiation is with respect to ψk and ψ∗ k. A direct calculation giv...

  7. [6]

    Geometric phases in nonlinear quantum mechanics In the previous section, we examined Weinberg’s nonlinear generalization of quantum mechanics. His framework is built on the assumption that the Hamiltonian functionH(ψ,ψ∗) and 14 all observables generating symmetry transformations are ho- mogeneous of degree one in bothψ andψ∗ [106, 108]. Building on this f...

  8. [7]

    (D3) Now, if we assume the coupled-mode equations can be written in the form of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, (D2a) - (D2b), and (D3) immediately yield i˙ux = ∂H ∂u∗x = Aux + C∗uy + 2E1|ux|2ux + F1u2 xu∗ y + F2|uy|2uy + 2F∗ 1|ux|2uy + H|uy|2ux + 2I∗ 1u2 yu∗ x, (D4a) i˙uy = ∂H ∂u∗y = Buy + Cux + 2E2|uy|2uy + F1|ux|2ux + F2u2 yu∗ x + 2F∗ 2|uy|2ux + H|ux|...

Show all 120 references
  1. [8]

    T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Physical Review D12, 3845 (1975)

    1975

  2. [9]

    Atiyah, in Mathematical Problems in Theoretical Physics: International Conference Held in Rome, June 6–15, 1977 (Springer, 2005) pp

    F. Atiyah, in Mathematical Problems in Theoretical Physics: International Conference Held in Rome, June 6–15, 1977 (Springer, 2005) pp. 216–221

    1977

  3. [10]

    Kam and R.-B

    C.-F. Kam and R.-B. Liu, New Journal of Physics 23, 073020 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    M. V . Berry, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 392, 45 (1984)

    1984

  5. [12]

    Kam, W.-M

    C.-F. Kam, W.-M. Zhang, D.-H. Feng, et al., Coherent States: New Insights into Quantum Mechanics with Applications (Springer, 2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    Simon, Physical Review Letters 51, 2167 (1983)

    B. Simon, Physical Review Letters 51, 2167 (1983)

    1983

  7. [14]

    X. G. Wen, Quantum field theory of many-body systems (Ox- ford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  8. [15]

    A. Bohm, A. Mostafazadeh, H. Koizumi, Q. Niu, and J. Zwanziger, The Geometric Phase in Quantum Systems: Foundations, Mathematical Concepts, and Applications in Molecular and Condensed Matter Physics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  9. [16]

    Shapere and F

    A. Shapere and F. Wilczek, Geometric phases in physics (World Scientific)

  10. [17]

    Cejnar, J

    P. Cejnar, J. Jolie, and R. F. Casten, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 2155 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Shapere and F

    A. Shapere and F. Wilczek, Am. J. Phys 57, 514 (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    Brambilla, E

    M. Brambilla, E. Ferrante, M. Birattari, and M. Dorigo, Swarm Intelligence 7, 1 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    R. L. Hatton and H. Choset, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 224, 3141 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Sachdev, Physics world 12, 33 (1999)

    S. Sachdev, Physics world 12, 33 (1999)

    1999

  15. [23]

    Caprio, P

    M. Caprio, P. Cejnar, and F. Iachello, Annals of Physics 323, 1106 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    M. V . Berry, Current Science67, 220 (1994)

    1994

  17. [25]

    C. F. Kam and R. B. Liu, Scientific reports 7, 9756 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Tomita and R

    A. Tomita and R. Y . Chiao, Physical review letters 57, 937 (1986)

    1986

  19. [27]

    Pancharatnam, Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Section A 41, 137 (1955)

    S. Pancharatnam, Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Section A 41, 137 (1955)

    1955

  20. [28]

    Pancharatnam, Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Section A 44, 398 (1956)

    S. Pancharatnam, Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Section A 44, 398 (1956)

    1956

  21. [29]

    Ramaseshan and R

    S. Ramaseshan and R. Nityananda, Current Science 55, 1225 (1986)

    1986

  22. [30]

    M. V . Berry, Journal of Modern Optics34, 1401 (1987)

    1987

  23. [31]

    J. A. Haigh, S. Langenfeld, N. J. Lambert, J. J. Baumberg, A. J. Ramsay, A. Nunnenkamp, and A. J. Ferguson, Physical Review A 92, 063845 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    R. Y . Chiao and Y . S. Wu, Physical review letters 57, 933 (1986)

    1986

  25. [33]

    M. V . Berry, in Fundamental aspects of quantum theory (Springer, 1986) pp. 267–278

    1986

  26. [34]

    L. D. Landau, L. P. Pitaevskii, and E. M. Lifshitz, Electrody- namics of continuous media, V ol. 8 (elsevier, 2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    M. V . Berry, inProceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , V ol. 431 (The Royal Society, 1990) pp. 531–537

    1990

  28. [36]

    V oigt, Magneto-und elektrooptik, V ol

    W. V oigt, Magneto-und elektrooptik, V ol. 3 (B. G. Teubner Verlag, 1908)

    1908

  29. [37]

    Cotton and H

    A. Cotton and H. Mouton, CR Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci 145, 231 (1907)

    1907

  30. [38]

    M. Roy, J. Schmit, and P. Hariharan, Optics express 17, 4495 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Franke-Arnold, M

    S. Franke-Arnold, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 34, 2527 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Slussarenko, A

    S. Slussarenko, A. Alberucci, C. P. Jisha, B. Piccirillo, E. San- tamato, G. Assanto, and L. Marrucci, Nature Photonics 10, 571 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Arbabi, Y

    A. Arbabi, Y . Horie, M. Bagheri, and A. Faraon, Nature Nan- otechnology 10 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    J. P. B. Mueller, N. A. Rubin, R. C. Devlin, B. Groever, and F. Capasso, Physical Review Letters118, 113901 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    M. Roy, P. Svahn, L. Cherel, and C. J. R. Sheppard, Optics and Lasers in Engineering 37, 631 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    M. Roy, C. J. R. Sheppard, and P. Hariharan, Optics express 12, 2512 (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    K. Y . Bliokh, A. Niv, V . Kleiner, and E. Hasman, Nature Pho- tonics 2, 748 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    S. H. Lu, C. Y . Wang, C. Y . Hsieh, K. Y . Chiu, and H. Y . Chen, Applied optics 51, 1361 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    J. R. Choi and K. H. Yeon, International Journal of Modern Physics B 19, 2213 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    I. A. Pedrosa and A. Rosas, Physical review letters 103, 010402 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Maamache, N

    M. Maamache, N. Chaabi, and J. R. Choi, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 89, 40009 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Lakehal, M

    H. Lakehal, M. Maamache, and J. R. Choi, Scientific reports 6 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    M. V . Berry, Nature326, 277 (1987)

    1987

  44. [52]

    S. P. Doshi, G. N. West, D. Gray, and R. J. Ram, Applied Physics Letters 125 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    G. P. Agrawal, Nonlinear Science at the Dawn of the 21st Cen- tury (Springer, 2000) pp. 195–211

    2000

  46. [54]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of optics: electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light(El- sevier, 2013). 18

    2013

  47. [55]

    C. F. Kam, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18618 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    C. Liu, T. Liu, Z. Zhang, Z. Sun, G. Zhang, E. Wang, and K. Liu, Nature Nanotechnology 19, 907 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Zhang, B

    Y . Zhang, B. Wang, C. Miao, H. Chai, W. Hong, F. M. Ross, and R.-T. Wen, Nature Communications15, 2247 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    L. Zhao, Z. Liu, D. Chen, F. Liu, Z. Yang, X. Li, H. Yu, H. Liu, and W. Zhou, Nano-Micro Letters 13, 49 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Stroud, Physical Review B 12, 3368 (1975)

    D. Stroud, Physical Review B 12, 3368 (1975)

    1975

  52. [60]

    I. D. Rukhlenko, W. Zhu, M. Premaratne, and G. P. Agrawal, Optics express 20, 26275 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    Stroud and P

    D. Stroud and P. M. Hui, Physical Review B 37, 8719 (1988)

    1988

  54. [62]

    X. C. Zeng, D. J. Bergman, P. M. Hui, and D. Stroud, Physical Review B 38, 10970 (1988)

    1988

  55. [63]

    Stroud and V

    D. Stroud and V . E. Wood, JOSA B6, 778 (1989)

    1989

  56. [64]

    Stroud, Superlattices and microstructures 23, 567 (1998)

    D. Stroud, Superlattices and microstructures 23, 567 (1998)

    1998

  57. [65]

    Cai and V

    W. Cai and V . M. Shalaev, Optical metamaterials , V ol. 10 (Springer, 2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    or electrospinning [67], where the field can be spatially varied along the deposition path. Nano-crystals with inherent electric dipole moments, orig- inating from shape anisotropy, ferroelectricity, or embedded polar structures, experience torque in an external electric field...

    1974

  59. [67]

    J. W. Haus, R. Inguva, and C. M. Bowden, Physical Review A 40, 5729 (1989)

    1989

  60. [68]

    Levy and D

    O. Levy and D. Stroud, Physical Review B 56, 8035 (1997)

    1997

  61. [69]

    Lior and D

    Y . Lior and D. M. Marom, JOSA B30, 1864 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    Guang, W

    Y . Guang, W. Huan-Hua, T. Guo-Tai, J. An-Quan, Z. Yue- Liang, Y . Guo-Zhen, and C. Zheng-Hao, Chinese Physics Let- ters 18, 1598 (2001)

    2001

  63. [71]

    M. Li, J. Zhang, and X. Wang, Nanomaterials 9, 714 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    X. Leng, S. He, W. Wang, H. Zhang, L. Wang, and J. Song, Journal of Science: Advanced Materials and Devices , 100967 (2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    Pigeonneau, Z

    F. Pigeonneau, Z. Lu, M. Ude, and W. Blanc, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 254, 127609 (2026)

    2026

  66. [74]

    J. Xue, T. Wu, Y . Dai, and Y . Xia, Chemical reviews 119, 5298 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    B. Wu, H. Zhu, L. Chu, W. Sun, Q. Ye, X. Sun, S. Juodkazis, and F. Chen, Small Structures , 2500256 (2025)

    2025

  68. [76]

    Thadson, S

    K. Thadson, S. Sasivimolkul, P. Suvarnaphaet, S. Visitsat- tapongse, and S. Pechprasarn, Scientific Reports 12, 2052 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    M. L. Juan, M. Righini, and R. Quidant, Nature photonics 5, 349 (2011)

    2011

  70. [78]

    J. F. De Boer, C. K. Hitzenberger, and Y . Yasuno, Biomedical optics express 8, 1838 (2017)

    2017

  71. [79]

    B. H. Park and J. F. de Boer, in Optical Coherence Tomogra- phy (Springer, 2015) pp. 1055–1101

    2015

  72. [80]

    Bonesi, H

    M. Bonesi, H. Sattmann, T. Torzicky, S. Zotter, B. Baumann, M. Pircher, E. Götzinger, C. Eigenwillig, W. Wieser, R. Huber, et al., Biomedical optics express 3, 2987 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    Q. Zhan, K. Lai, D. Cai, and D. Wang, in Asia Communi- cations and Photonics Conference (Optica Publishing Group,

  74. [82]

    L. Si, T. Huang, X. Wang, Y . Yao, Y . Dong, R. Liao, and H. Ma, Optics Express 30, 8676 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    Guasoni, P

    M. Guasoni, P. Morin, P.-Y . Bony, S. Wabnitz, and J. Fatome, Optics & Laser Technology 80, 247 (2016)

    2016

  76. [84]

    Hu and G

    Z. Hu and G. Li, Applied Physics Letters 126 (2025)

    2025

  77. [85]

    Karnieli, Y

    A. Karnieli, Y . Li, and A. Arie, Frontiers of Physics17, 12301 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    J. H. Hannay, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 18, 221 (1985)

    1985

  79. [87]

    V . I. Arnold, Mathematical methods of classical mechanics , V ol. 60 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  80. [88]

    M. V . Berry, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 18, 15 (1985)

    1985

  81. [89]

    M. R. Andrews, C. G. Townsend, H. J. Miesner, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Science 275, 637 (1997)

    1997

  82. [90]

    A. J. Leggett, Reviews of Modern Physics 73, 307 (2001)

    2001

  83. [91]

    Shabat and V

    A. Shabat and V . Zakharov, Soviet physics JETP 34, 62 (1972)

    1972

  84. [92]

    R. Y . Chiao, E. Garmire, and C. H. Townes, Physical Review Letters 13, 479 (1964)

    1964

  85. [93]

    M. N. Rosenbluth and C. S. Liu, Physical Review Letters 29, 701 (1972)

    1972

  86. [94]

    H. H. Chen and C. S. Liu, Physical Review Letters 37, 693 (1976)

    1976

  87. [95]

    C. G. Shull, D. K. Atwood, J. Arthur, and M. A. Horne, Phys- ical Review Letters 44, 765 (1980)

    1980

  88. [96]

    Gähler, A

    R. Gähler, A. G. Klein, and A. Zeilinger, Physical Review A 23, 1611 (1981)

    1981

  89. [97]

    P. A. M. Dirac, The principles of quantum mechanics, 27 (Ox- ford university press, 1981)

    1981

  90. [98]

    Nimmrichter and K

    S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger, Physical review letters 110, 160403 (2013)

    2013

  91. [99]

    Arndt and K

    M. Arndt and K. Hornberger, Nature Physics 10, 271 (2014)

    2014

  92. [100]

    J. J. Bollinger, D. J. Heinzen, W. M. Itano, S. L. Gilbert, and D. J. Wineland, Physical Review Letters 63, 1031 (1989)

    1989

  93. [101]

    R. L. Walsworth, I. F. Silvera, E. M. Mattison, and R. F. C. Vessot, Physical review letters64, 2599 (1990)

    1990

  94. [102]

    P. K. Majumder, B. J. Venema, S. K. Lamoreaux, B. R. Heckel, and E. N. Fortson, Physical review letters 65, 2931 (1990)

    1990

  95. [103]

    Bohm and J

    D. Bohm and J. P. Vigier, Physical Review 96, 208 (1954)

    1954

  96. [104]

    J. P. Vigier, Gautier-Villars, Paris (1956)

    1956

  97. [105]

    de Broglie, Non-Linear Wave Mechanics, A Causal Inter- pretation (Elsevier, New York, 1960)

    L. de Broglie, Non-Linear Wave Mechanics, A Causal Inter- pretation (Elsevier, New York, 1960)

    1960

  98. [106]

    Mielnik, Communications in Mathematical Physics 37, 221 (1974)

    B. Mielnik, Communications in Mathematical Physics 37, 221 (1974)

    1974

  99. [107]

    Born, Zeitschrift für Physik 38, 803 (1926)

    M. Born, Zeitschrift für Physik 38, 803 (1926)

    1926

  100. [108]

    Białynicki-Birula and J

    I. Białynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Cl 3, 461 (1975)

    1975

  101. [109]

    Białynicki-Birula and J

    I. Białynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, Communications in Mathematical Physics 44, 129 (1975)

    1975

  102. [110]

    Białynicki-Birula and J

    I. Białynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, Annals of Physics 100, 62 (1976)

    1976

  103. [111]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Communications in Mathematical Physics64, 73 (1978)

    1978

  104. [112]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Communications in Mathematical Physics65, 189 (1979)

    1979

  105. [113]

    Weinberg, Physical Review Letters 62, 485 (1989)

    S. Weinberg, Physical Review Letters 62, 485 (1989)

    1989

  106. [114]

    Weinberg, Nuclear Physics B-Proceedings Supplements 6, 67 (1989)

    S. Weinberg, Nuclear Physics B-Proceedings Supplements 6, 67 (1989)

    1989

  107. [115]

    Weinberg, Annals of Physics 194, 336 (1989)

    S. Weinberg, Annals of Physics 194, 336 (1989)

    1989

  108. [116]

    Weyl, The classical groups: their invariants and represen- tations (Princeton university press, 2016)

    H. Weyl, The classical groups: their invariants and represen- tations (Princeton university press, 2016)

    2016

  109. [117]

    E. A. Kuzin, J. M. E. Ayala, B. Ibarra-Escamilla, and J. W. Haus, Optics letters 26, 1134 (2001)

    2001

  110. [118]

    Ibarra-Escamilla, E

    B. Ibarra-Escamilla, E. A. Kuzin, F. Gutierrez-Zainos, R. Tellez-Garcia, J. W. Haus, R. Rojas-Laguna, and J. M. Estudillo-Ayala, Optics communications 217, 211 (2003)

    2003

  111. [119]

    Bradley and A

    C. Bradley and A. Cracknell, The mathematical theory of sym- metry in solids: representation theory for point groups and space groups (Oxford University Press, 2010)

    2010

  112. [120]

    R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear optics (Academic press, 2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.