Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A conformal approach to matter coupled Aristotelian gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows how to build general matter couplings to Aristotelian gravity, a boostless geometry, using a conformal extension of the algebra.

desk verdict Solid conformal construction of p-brane Aristotelian gravity and matter couplings; one fixable typo in the higher-derivative dilatation weights. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16943 v1 pith:CQ3PSKGF submitted 2025-07-22 hep-th

Eric A. Bergshoeff , Giacomo Giorgi , Jan Rosseel , Patricio Salgado-Rebolledo This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords Aristoteliangravityconformalp-branefoliationnon-Lorentziangeometryintrinsictorsionelectricandmagneticfractonsdipolesymmetry
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

Aristotelian geometry describes spacetimes with a fixed split into longitudinal and transverse directions and no boost symmetry mixing them. This paper shows that the conformal compensating program—the standard technique for obtaining gravity actions from local scale symmetry—can be applied to such geometries with an arbitrary $p$-brane foliation. The central move is to extend the Aristotelian symmetry algebra to a direct sum of a Minkowski-signature conformal algebra for longitudinal directions and a Euclidean-signature conformal algebra for transverse directions, or to a subalgebra with a single anisotropic dilatation. This yields electric, magnetic, and electric-magnetic Aristotelian gravity actions that have no hidden Galilean or Carrollian boost symmetry, and the authors couple them to scalars, vectors, and higher-rank tensor gauge fields, including higher-derivative models motivated by fractons.

What carries the argument

The central object is the direct-sum conformal algebra $so(2,p+1)\oplus so(1,D-p)$, which assigns a Minkowski-signature conformal algebra to the longitudinal directions and a Euclidean-signature conformal algebra to the transverse directions, together with its an-isotropic subalgebra generated by $\{M_{AB}, J_{ab}, P_A, P_a, D=zD_1+D_2\}$. The mechanism is the conformal compensating program: scalar fields with suitable dilatation weights restore invariance under the two (or one) dilatations, and after gauge-fixing the dependent dilatation and special conformal gauge fields produce the intrinsic-torsion squares and curvature terms that define electric, magnetic, and mixed Aristotelian gravity actions.

What would settle it

A direct calculation for $p=1$ that fixes all components of the special conformal gauge field $f_\mu{}^A$, including its traceless part, would contradict the claim that the conformal method fails there; similarly, for $p=D-3$, such a solution for $f_\mu{}^a$ would refute the paper's assertion that these cases must be treated by hand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the conformal program for constructing matter-coupled gravity can be carried out for $p$-brane Aristotelian geometry by gauging the conformal extension $so(2,p+1)\oplus so(1,D-p)$ or its an-isotropic subalgebra. On the isotropic extension, two compensating scalars for the two dilatations $D_1,D_2$ generate, after gauge-fixing, three classes of Aristotelian gravity: electric actions quadratic in intrinsic torsion, magnetic actions built from the curvatures of the Aristotelian spin connections, and electric-magnetic actions containing both. The magnetic terms arise from dependent special conformal gauge fields, which are solvable because the conformal algebra contains commutators $[P_A,K_B]=2\eta_{AB}D_1+2M_{AB}$ (and the transverse analogue). A distinguishing property is that all resulting actions are not invariant under any Galilean or Carrollian boost, and all spin connections are dependent fields, so no geometric constraints are required. Matter couplings include scalar fields, a $p$-brane Aristotelian electrodynamics, and higher-derivative vector/tensor models that after gauge-fixing become massive Proca-like and scalar-charge theories coupled to electric Aristotelian gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the conformal extension of the Aristotelian algebra is the direct sum $so(2,p+1)\oplus so(1,D-p)$, chosen so that special conformal gauge fields can be solved from curvatures; the argument also assumes the conformal compensating program can run, which it fails to do for $p=1$ and $p=D-3$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electric, magnetic, and electric-magnetic Aristotelian gravity actions exist for arbitrary $0<p<D-2$ and are not obtainable as limits of Lorentz-invariant theories because they break both Galilean and Carrollian boosts.
  • Magnetic terms are produced by solving special conformal gauge fields from curvature constraints; this relies on the $[P,K]$ commutator structure and fails for $p=1$ and $p=D-3$, where the actions must be written down by hand.
  • The quadratic-derivative matter construction yields a Proca-like massive Aristotelian electrodynamics; in $D=4$ and $z=1$, the scalar compensator enters only through its phase, giving an Aristotelian analogue of conformal Maxwell theory.
  • The higher-derivative construction yields a massive scalar-charge gauge theory coupled to higher-derivative electric Aristotelian gravity, with the phase of a complex scalar acting as the compensating field for the gauged dipole symmetry.
  • Because all spin connections are dependent fields, these theories contain no Lagrange-multiplier constraints on geometry, unlike typical Galilei or Carroll gravity actions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same compensating-phase mechanism should produce mass terms for other higher-rank or mixed-symmetry gauge fields whenever a phase-like scalar can compensate a gauged shift symmetry; the construction here gives a template not tied to $p$-brane foliation.
  • The $p=1$ and $p=D-3$ failures mirror the standard breakdown of the relativistic conformal technique in two dimensions, suggesting a boundary or Liouville-type completion may restore the conformal derivation in those cases.
  • Applying the duality map $p\leftrightarrow D-p-2$, $\tau\leftrightarrow e$, $\alpha\leftrightarrow\beta$ to the matter-coupled actions predicts dual pairs of massive Aristotelian electrodynamics theories with different longitudinal/transverse mass terms.
  • The new curved-space massive scalar-charge action might support fractional quantum Hall GMP modes in Aristotelian backgrounds, an avenue the authors mention in their outlook.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a conformal (compensating) program for p-brane Aristotelian gravity. It introduces two conformal extensions of the Aristotelian algebra: the isotropic extension so(2,p+1) ⊕ so(1,D−p) with two dilatations, and its an-isotropic subalgebra with a single dilatation. Using gauge-fixing of the compensating scalars, the authors construct electric, magnetic, and electric-magnetic Aristotelian gravity actions that lack any boost symmetry. They then couple these theories to scalar, vector, and symmetric-tensor gauge fields, including quadratic-derivative and higher-derivative (fracton-inspired) models, and present a massive scalar-charge theory coupled to higher-derivative electric Aristotelian gravity.

Significance. The conformal program provides a systematic and unified construction of matter-coupled Aristotelian gravity theories with arbitrary p-brane foliation, filling a gap in the non-Lorentzian gravity literature. The paper's strengths include explicit gauge-theoretic derivations, a clear classification of intrinsic torsion tensors, the use of duality maps between Galilean and Carrollian sectors, and a transparent discussion of the exceptional cases p=1 and p=D−3. If the technical issues below are corrected, the resulting framework should be useful for applications to fractons, GMP modes, and non-boost-invariant hydrodynamics. The results are constructive rather than derived from an independent first principle, and the paper is transparent about the limitations of the conformal approach.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2(iii), after Eq. (4.61)] The sentence 'Here, z and w are given by eq. (3.38)' is inconsistent with the higher-derivative action displayed in (4.61). The flat-space model (4.43)/(4.28) is invariant under the an-isotropic dilatation only for z,w in (4.30). Using the covariant-derivative weights from (3.36) and (4.32), X_ab in (4.62) has weight 2w−2, so with z=1, w=(2−D)/2 the kinetic term Ω c2 X_ab X^ab* scales with total weight D−2D=−D rather than zero. The reference should be to (4.30), and the γ's in (4.56), which were fixed using (4.30), are then consistent. As written, the central higher-derivative matter-coupling action is not dilatation-invariant.
  2. [Eq. (4.56)] The formula for γ2 contains a sign error in the D term. Requiring the term b2 |ΦΦ*|^{γ2/2} F_ab,c F^ab,c in (4.53) to have the same scaling weight as the kinetic terms, with z,w from (4.30) and measure weight M=z(p+1)+D−p−1, gives γ2 = (6−M)/w = 2(3p−9+2D)/(p−3+D), not 2(3p−9−2D)/(p−3+D). For instance, p=1,D=4 yields γ2=2 rather than −14. With the printed γ2, the actions (4.53) and (4.61) are not dilatation-invariant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3.20)] The statement that this is 'the most general action of magnetic Aristotelian gravity' is asserted without proof; please either justify the uniqueness claim or soften the wording to 'a general action'.
  2. [After Eq. (4.61)] The phrase 'the γ's are given by by (4.56)' contains a duplicated 'by'.
  3. [Throughout] The hyphenated spelling 'an-isotropic' is used consistently, but the standard English spelling is 'anisotropic'.
  4. [Eq. (2.23)] The choice of conformal extension is presented as a construction principle rather than derived from an independent criterion; a brief discussion of why this is the natural or minimal choice would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conformal construction is self-contained; the higher-derivative z,w mismatch in eq. (4.61) is an internal consistency error, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a forward construction: a conformal extension (2.23)/(2.42) is chosen, compensating-scalar actions (3.6), (3.15), (3.21), (3.28), (3.37) are built to be invariant by explicit weight checks, and gauge-fixing then produces the Aristotelian gravity actions (3.10), (3.19), (3.27), (3.30), (3.40). Each step is shown by explicit equations; the final actions are not assumed as inputs. The use of [27] supplies definitions and the example (3.11), not the load-bearing derivation of the new actions. The only apparent problem is in §4.2(iii): eq. (4.61) states z,w are given by (3.38), whereas the gammas in (4.56) and the higher-derivative model (4.28)/(4.43) require (4.30); this makes the displayed action not dilatation-invariant as claimed. That is a mathematical inconsistency/correctness issue, not a circularity, because neither (3.38) nor (4.30) is derived from (4.61).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on the choice of conformal extension (direct sum of two conformal algebras) and on the validity of the conformal compensating program. No new physical entities are postulated, and all free parameters are coupling constants or an unfixed conformal weight; none are fitted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • w1 (dilatation weight of compensating scalar phi in S3) = arbitrary
    In the electric-magnetic action (3.21), invariance leaves w1 undetermined; it corresponds to a field-redefinition freedom of the scalar.
  • Coupling constants alpha, beta, c1, c2, b0, b1, b2, gamma1, gamma2 = unfixed real numbers (subject to inequalities such as c1 != c2)
    These coefficients appear in the constructed actions and are not fixed by the derivation; they are not fitted to data but are chosen by hand.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The conformal extension of the p-brane Aristotelian algebra is the direct sum so(2,p+1) ⊕ so(1,D-p), with the an-isotropic subalgebra as a truncation.
    This is the key structural assumption; the paper motivates it by the requirement that curvature tensors appear in dependent conformal gauge fields, but it is not derived from first principles (Section 2.2, eq. 2.23).
  • domain assumption Conventional constraints can be imposed to make spin-connections and dilatation gauge fields dependent, and special conformal gauge fields solvable for generic p.
    Follows the standard conformal compensating program (ref [28]), but the solvability requires generic p; the paper notes exceptions p=1, D-3 (Section 2.2).
  • standard math The p-brane Aristotelian intrinsic torsion classification (six components) from [25,27] is correct.
    External result from Figueroa-O'Farrill et al, used to classify conformal geometries (Section 2.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A conformal approach to matter coupled Aristotelian gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQ3PSKGF

@misc{pith2026250716943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A conformal approach to matter coupled Aristotelian gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQ3PSKGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16943}
}
abstract

We show how to take the first step in the conformal program for constructing general matter couplings to Aristotelian gravity with arbitrary $p$-brane foliation. For this purpose we extend the $p$-brane Aristotelian algebra to the direct sum of two conformal algebras: one with Minkowski signature for the longitudinal directions and a second one with Euclidean signature for the transverse directions. For some cases, it is sufficient to work with a subalgebra of this conformal extension that, instead of two dilatations that are isotropic in either the longitudinal or transverse directions, contains a single dilatation that acts on the longitudinal and transverse directions in an an-isotropic way. Using this conformal extension we show how different electric and magnetic versions of Aristotelian gravity can be constructed that all have the distinguishing property that they are not invariant under any (Galilean or Carrollian) boost symmetry. We next consider several matter couplings both for quadratic-derivative models as well as for some higher-derivative models that have recently been considered in connection with studies on fractons.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Scaling Symmetry and Carrollian Gravity

    hep-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A single scaling-Carroll gauge-theory construction interpolates between dynamical Carroll gravity, Aristotelian gravity, and fracton gauge theories coupled to curved space.

  2. Planons and their Carroll-Galilei symmetries

    hep-th 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A group-theoretic classification of planon dynamics shows that massless Galilei orbits describe planar-restricted particles, with dipoles arising from a mixed Carroll-Galilei symmetry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Structure of space-time,

    R. Penrose, “Structure of space-time,” in Battelle Rencontres, pp. 121–235. 1968

    work page 1968

  2. [2]

    Surprises with Nonrelativistic Naturalness

    P. Horava, “Surprises with Nonrelativistic Naturalness,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D25 no. 13, (2016) 1645007, arXiv:1608.06287 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Yan, Nonrelativistic Naturalness in Aristotelian Quantum Field Theories

    Z. Yan, Nonrelativistic Naturalness in Aristotelian Quantum Field Theories. PhD thesis, UC, Berkeley (main), 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Hydrodynamics without boosts

    I. Novak, J. Sonner, and B. Withers, “Hydrodynamics without boosts,” JHEP 07 (2020) 165, arXiv:1911.02578 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Non-Boost Invariant Fluid Dynamics,

    J. de Boer, J. Hartong, E. Have, N. A. Obers, and W. Sybesma, “Non-Boost Invariant Fluid Dynamics,” SciPost Phys. 9 no. 2, (2020) 018, arXiv:2004.10759 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Effective field theory for hydrodynamics without boosts,

    J. Armas and A. Jain, “Effective field theory for hydrodynamics without boosts,” SciPost Phys. 11 no. 3, (2021) 054, arXiv:2010.15782 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Godbillon-Vey Invariants of Non-Lorentzian Spacetimes and Aristotelian Hydrodynamics

    V. E. Marotta and R. J. Szabo, “Godbillon-Vey invariants of Non-Lorentzian spacetimes and Aristotelian hydrodynamics,” J. Phys. A56 no. 45, (2023) 455201, arXiv:2304.12722 [hep-th]. 30

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Hydrodynamics without Boost-Invariance from Kinetic Theory: From Perfect Fluids to Active Flocks,

    K. T. Grosvenor, N. A. Obers, and S. P. Patil, “Hydrodynamics without Boost-Invariance from Kinetic Theory: From Perfect Fluids to Active Flocks,” arXiv:2501.00025 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Symmetry constraints on generalizations of Bjorken flow,

    S. S. Gubser, “Symmetry constraints on generalizations of Bjorken flow,” Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 085027, arXiv:1006.0006 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Higher order and anisotropic hydrodynamics for Bjorken and Gubser flows,

    C. Chattopadhyay, U. Heinz, S. Pal, and G. Vujanovic, “Higher order and anisotropic hydrodynamics for Bjorken and Gubser flows,” Phys. Rev. C97 no. 6, (2018) 064909, arXiv:1801.07755 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Defects in conformal field theory,

    M. Bill` o, V. Gon¸ calves, E. Lauria, and M. Meineri, “Defects in conformal field theory,” JHEP 04 (2016) 091, arXiv:1601.02883 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Superconformal monodromy defects in N =4 SYM and LS theory,

    I. Arav, J. P. Gauntlett, Y. Jiao, M. M. Roberts, and C. Rosen, “Superconformal monodromy defects in N =4 SYM and LS theory,” JHEP 08 (2024) 177, arXiv:2405.06014 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bimetric Theory of Fractional Quantum Hall States,

    A. Gromov and D. T. Son, “Bimetric Theory of Fractional Quantum Hall States,” Phys. Rev. X7 no. 4, (2017) 041032, arXiv:1705.06739 [cond-mat.str-el]. [Addendum: Phys.Rev.X 8, 019901 (2018)]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Quantum Glassiness,

    C. Chamon, “Quantum Glassiness,” Phys. Rev. Lett.94 no. 4, (2005) 040402, arXiv:cond-mat/0404182

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string logical operators,

    J. Haah, “Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string logical operators,” Phys. Rev. A83 no. 4, (2011) 042330, arXiv:1101.1962 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Subdimensional Particle Structure of Higher Rank U(1) Spin Liquids,

    M. Pretko, “Subdimensional Particle Structure of Higher Rank U(1) Spin Liquids,” Phys. Rev. B95 no. 11, (2017) 115139, arXiv:1604.05329 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The Fracton Gauge Principle,

    M. Pretko, “The Fracton Gauge Principle,” Phys. Rev. B98 no. 11, (2018) 115134, arXiv:1807.11479 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Symmetric Tensor Gauge Theories on Curved Spaces,

    K. Slagle, A. Prem, and M. Pretko, “Symmetric Tensor Gauge Theories on Curved Spaces,” Annals Phys. 410 (2019) 167910, arXiv:1807.00827 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fractons, symmetric gauge fields and geometry,

    F. Pe˜ na Benitez, “Fractons, symmetric gauge fields and geometry,” Phys. Rev. Res.5 no. 1, (2023) 013101, arXiv:2107.13884 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Fractons, dipole symmetries and curved spacetime,

    L. Bidussi, J. Hartong, E. Have, J. Musaeus, and S. Prohazka, “Fractons, dipole symmetries and curved spacetime,” SciPost Phys. 12 no. 6, (2022) 205, arXiv:2111.03668 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Fractons in curved space,

    A. Jain and K. Jensen, “Fractons in curved space,” SciPost Phys. 12 no. 4, (2022) 142, arXiv:2111.03973 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Fracton gauge fields from higher-dimensional gravity,

    F. Pe˜ na Ben ´ ıtez and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Fracton gauge fields from higher-dimensional gravity,” JHEP 04 (2024) 009, arXiv:2310.12610 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fractons on curved spacetime in 2 + 1 dimensions,

    J. Hartong, G. Palumbo, S. Pekar, A. P´ erez, and S. Prohazka, “Fractons on curved spacetime in 2 + 1 dimensions,” SciPost Phys. 18 no. 1, (2025) 022, arXiv:2409.04525 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Spatially isotropic homogeneous spacetimes,

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill and S. Prohazka, “Spatially isotropic homogeneous spacetimes,” JHEP 01 (2019) 229, arXiv:1809.01224 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    On the intrinsic torsion of spacetime structures,

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, “On the intrinsic torsion of spacetime structures,” arXiv:2009.01948 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hydrostatic equilibrium in multi-Weyl semimetals,

    J. K. Ghosh, F. Pe˜ na Ben ´ ıtez, and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Hydrostatic equilibrium in multi-Weyl semimetals,” arXiv:2504.20361 [cond-mat.str-el]. 31

  19. [27]

    p-brane Galilean and Carrollian geometries and gravities,

    E. Bergshoeff, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, K. van Helden, J. Rosseel, I. Rotko, and T. ter Veldhuis, “p-brane Galilean and Carrollian geometries and gravities,” J. Phys. A57 no. 24, (2024) 245205, arXiv:2308.12852 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, Supergravity. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 5, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    A conformal approach to Carroll gravity,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, P. Concha, O. Fierro, E. Rodr ´ ıguez, and J. Rosseel, “A conformal approach to Carroll gravity,” JHEP 07 (2025) 075, arXiv:2412.17752 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Carroll contractions of Lorentz-invariant theories,

    M. Henneaux and P. Salgado-Rebolledo, “Carroll contractions of Lorentz-invariant theories,” JHEP 11 (2021) 180, arXiv:2109.06708 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Carroll Expansion of General Relativity,

    D. Hansen, N. A. Obers, G. Oling, and B. T. Søgaard, “Carroll Expansion of General Relativity,” SciPost Phys. 13 no. 3, (2022) 055, arXiv:2112.12684 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    The gauging procedure and carrollian gravity,

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, E. Have, S. Prohazka, and J. Salzer, “The gauging procedure and carrollian gravity,” JHEP 09 (2022) 243, arXiv:2206.14178 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A non-lorentzian primer,

    E. Bergshoeff, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, and J. Gomis, “A non-lorentzian primer,” SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes69 (2023) 1, arXiv:2206.12177 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Magneto-roton theory of collective excitations in the fractional quantum Hall effect,

    S. M. Girvin, A. H. MacDonald, and P. M. Platzman, “Magneto-roton theory of collective excitations in the fractional quantum Hall effect,” Phys. Rev. B33 (1986) 2481–2494

    1986

  27. [35]

    Evidence for chiral graviton modes in fractional quantum Hall liquids,

    J. Liang, Z. Liu, Z. Yang, Y. Huang, U. Wurstbauer, C. R. Dean, K. W. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, L. Du, and A. Pinczuk, “Evidence for chiral graviton modes in fractional quantum Hall liquids,” Nature 628 no. 8006, (2024) 78–83. 32

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.