Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Simulating Majorana fermions in black hole with Ising Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The transverse-field Ising model can simulate Majorana fermions in a Schwarzschild black hole background, with different coordinate choices yielding distinct spin Hamiltonians that converge in the continuum limit to the same covariant field

desk verdict The coordinate-wise Ising Hamiltonians and the covariance check are a genuine extension of Kinoshita et al., but Section V's Hawking particle-production claim is not supported by the numerics or the vacuum identification. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18805 v1 pith:OJRMZMLK submitted 2026-07-21 quant-ph gr-qc

John Vienn A. Estremadura , Kristian Hauser A. Villegas This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phgr-qc
keywords transverse-fieldIsingmodelMajoranafermionsSchwarzschildblackholeemergentgeneralcovarianceHawkingradiationsimulationquantumquenchspincorrelationmeasurements
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 show that a simple one-dimensional spin chain—the transverse-field Ising model—can act as a tabletop quantum simulator for Majorana fermions living in the curved spacetime of a Schwarzschild black hole. The authors construct explicit spin Hamiltonians from four different coordinate descriptions of the same black hole: Schwarzschild, tortoise, Kruskal, and conformally flat coordinates. Although these Hamiltonians look completely different at the lattice level, the paper proves that in the continuum limit they all reduce to the same Majorana quantum field theory; coordinate changes in spacetime become relations between distinct microscopic models, giving an emergent form of general covariance. The paper further proposes that black hole particle production can be simulated by preparing the ground state of the Kruskal spin model and then suddenly quenching the transverse field to the tortoise form, and that the produced particles show up in measurable spin correlation functions. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a concrete experimental route to phenomena like Hawking radiation that are otherwise far too weak to observe directly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the dictionary established in Section II between the ADM metric functions α, β, γ and the parameters of the spin Hamiltonian: exchange couplings J^ab_j and transverse field h_j. Concretely, the continuum Majorana Hamiltonian is reproduced by choosing the couplings from α/γ, β, and the free function p(t,x), and the transverse field from p and the mass term mα. The inverse Jordan-Wigner transformation lets every fermionic observable be expressed as Pauli correlation functions, so the proposed black-hole particle-production signal is in principle measurable. The proof of emergent general covariance uses the fact that the Lagrangian density transforms as a scalar densi

What would settle it

Measure or compute the tortoise-frame fermion number after the Kruskal-to-tortoise quench for a massless Majorana fermion (m=0) on a sequence of finer lattices: the paper's identification predicts it vanishes identically, whereas any nonzero value would indicate that the finite-lattice Kruskal ground state is not the true continuum vacuum or that the quench does not implement the vacuum Bogoliubov transformation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Jordan-Wigner-fermion continuum limit of the transverse-field Ising model with spatially varying couplings and fields is exactly the Hamiltonian of a massive Majorana field in a 1+1-dimensional ADM spacetime, and that plugging in the metric functions of Schwarzschild spacetime in any of four coordinate systems yields a distinct Ising Hamiltonian with the same continuum limit. The authors prove the continuum actions are diffeomorphism invariant, so the different spin models describe the same physics; the covariance emerges only at low energies and is absent in the microscopic lattice description. The free function p(t,x) parametrizes microscopic non-uniqueness wi

Load-bearing premise

The whole black-hole particle-production simulation rests on identifying the ground state of the finite, static Kruskal spin Hamiltonian at a single time slice with the exact Kruskal vacuum of the continuum field theory, and assuming the sudden transverse-field quench to the tortoise model implements the correct Bogoliubov transformation between vacua.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The four spin models constructed from Schwarzschild, tortoise, Kruskal, and conformally flat coordinates of the same black hole have identical continuum physics, so an experiment that realizes any one of them is, in the low-energy limit, realizing the same Majorana QFT on a Schwarzschild background.
  • Preparing the Kruskal-model ground state and then switching the transverse field to the tortoise form creates particles; their number is given by tractable spin correlations (Eq. 69), meaning the analogue Hawking signal can be read out with existing measurement techniques.
  • Numerically, the fitted Hawking temperature decreases with increasing Schwarzschild radius (k_B T/J ≈ 0.192, 0.191, 0.190 for r_s = 1, 5, and 20), matching the physical trend that more massive black holes are colder.
  • In the massless limit the Kruskal and tortoise vacua coincide and particle production vanishes identically, so the simulation's particle signal is entirely driven by the mass term through mα, tying the effect to the gravitational red-shift factor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper treats the ground state of the static Kruskal Hamiltonian at one Kruskal time slice as exactly the continuum Kruskal vacuum; one testable extension is to check whether this identification survives at finite lattice spacing and finite system size by computing the occupation number for m=0 on successively finer lattices.
  • Because the p-freedom parametrizes distinct UV completions with the same continuum theory, the construction suggests a family of lattice models that all realize the same black-hole geometry; one could test this universality by computing the particle-production spectrum for different choices of p and verifying that the low-energy part is unchanged.
  • The emergent general covariance proven here for two-dimensional Majorana fields raises the question whether the same mechanism extends to higher-dimensional spin models or to fermions with spin, where a spin connection would appear; that would be a natural next test of the universality class the authors propose.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs transverse-field Ising models whose continuum limits are Majorana QFTs in a two-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole background. It derives spin Hamiltonians from Schwarzschild, tortoise, Kruskal, and conformally flat coordinates, and argues that in the continuum limit these different microscopic models converge to the same Majorana field theory, exhibiting an emergent general covariance. The central new proposal (Section V) is a quench protocol: prepare the ground state of the Kruskal spin Hamiltonian, suddenly switch to the tortoise spin Hamiltonian, and measure the resulting fermion number through spin correlations. Numerical diagonalization is used to extract a Fermi-Dirac-like distribution, from which fitted Hawking temperatures are quoted.

Significance. If the construction and the particle-production protocol were sound, the paper would offer a concrete tabletop analogue of Hawking radiation and a rare example of emergent general covariance. The manuscript contains genuinely useful elements: an explicit dictionary between spin parameters and metric functions (Eq. 14), a transparent derivation of the continuum Hamiltonian, a proof of invariance of the action under ADM-compatible coordinate transformations (Section IV C), and an explicit spin-correlation formula (Eq. 69) that could guide measurements. However, the numerical validation of the central claim fails on multiple independent fronts. The fitted temperatures are almost independent of the Schwarzschild radius, the massless limit gives identically zero particle production, and the matrix product defining the Bogoliubov transformation (Eq. 74) is not well defined because the two BdG matrices live in different lattice bases. These are not presentation issues; they undermine the paper's main new result.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (41)] The protocol's load-bearing premise—that the ground state of the finite Kruskal Hamiltonian (41) at a fixed Kruskal time t~K=0.5 is the Kruskal vacuum of the continuum QFT—is asserted, not derived. The Kruskal metric (37) with conformal factor (40) has no time-translation symmetry in t~, so a single instantaneous ground state need not coincide with the global Kruskal vacuum. The sudden quench to the tortoise Hamiltonian (35) is likewise not shown to implement the Bogoliubov transformation between vacua. Without this identification, Eq. (75) merely measures the difference between two lattice ground states, not black-hole particle production.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 2(b)] The fitted temperatures k_B T/J ~ 0.192, 0.191, 0.190 for r_s=1, 5, 20 are essentially independent of r_s, whereas the Hawking temperature scales as T_H=1/(4π r_s)—a factor of 20 across this range. The near-constancy of the fitted values shows that the particle numbers are controlled by the fixed lattice parameters or by the mass-dependent difference between the two Hamiltonians, not by the spacetime curvature. The statement that the model 'correctly reproduces the expected trend' is contradicted by the quoted numbers.
  3. [Section V, m=0 limit] In the m=0 limit, the transverse fields in Eq. (42) and Eq. (59) both reduce to unity, so H_K=H_T and the particle number vanishes identically, as the authors verify. For massless Majorana fermions in a black-hole background, Hawking particle production should be nonzero. This exact cancellation demonstrates that the simulated particle production is an artifact of the mass-dependent transverse-field difference, not a realization of vacuum inequivalence. This is a direct and decisive test that the protocol does not simulate Hawking radiation.
  4. [Section V, Eq. (74)] Equation (74) forms M = T K^{-1}, where T is the BdG matrix of the tortoise Hamiltonian (35) defined on a lattice labeled by the tortoise coordinate x*, and K is the BdG matrix of the Kruskal Hamiltonian (41) defined on a lattice labeled by the Kruskal spatial coordinate x~. These matrices act on different site bases. No change-of-basis matrix or interpolation between the two spatial lattices is provided. Consequently, the numerical particle numbers in Fig. 2 are not well-defined as expectation values in a single spacetime, and the quoted Fermi-Dirac temperatures lack a rigorous basis.
  5. [Section IV and abstract] The general-covariance proof in Section IV is explicitly restricted to ADM-compatible coordinate transformations within the same spacetime patch. The abstract, however, claims that Schwarzschild, tortoise, Kruskal, and conformally flat models 'converge in the continuum limit to the same Majorana field theory, exhibiting an emergent form of general covariance.' The Kruskal and tortoise models are not related by a single ADM-compatible diffeomorphism covering the same patch, and no proof connects their continuum limits across the horizon. The covariance claim should be qualified, and the cross-coordinate identification used in Section V is therefore unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (20) and (23)] The transverse-field definitions are missing the lattice-spacing factor in the mass term: they should read g_j = f_j - ε r_s/(2 x_j^2) - m ε sqrt(f_j) and g~_j = -f_j - ε r_s/(2 x_j^2) - m ε sqrt(-f_j). The ε factor appears correctly in later equations such as Eq. (30) and Eq. (35), so this is an inconsistency in the defining equations.
  2. [Section V, text after Eq. (75)] The paper attributes oscillations in the low-lying modes to evaluation at finite Kruskal time 'before the system has fully relaxed to its steady state.' However, the tortoise number operator f†_a f_a is stationary under the tortoise Hamiltonian (55); expectation values are time-independent. The stated explanation is inconsistent with the formalism.
  3. [Notation, Section V] The symbol n is overloaded: it denotes a lattice site index, a mode index in Eq. (75), and the particle number n_a in Eq. (69). Please introduce distinct notation for these quantities.
  4. [Reference [20]] Reference [20] is cited as 'draft version available online' without a stable arXiv or journal identifier; please update to the published version if available.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states 'fermion number of the Kruskal vacuum using the Ising model, as measured by an observer in tortoise coordinates.' The calculation is performed by BdG diagonalization, not by direct measurement; the wording should clarify that this is a numerical evaluation of Eq. (75).

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central particle-production result is defined into existence: the 'Kruskal vacuum' is stipulated to be a single-time-slice lattice ground state, and the 'Hawking temperature' is a Fermi-Dirac fit parameter; the emergent-covariance result is also hardwired by the Eq. (13)-(14) dictionary.

  1. self definitional [Section V, after Eq. (41), and Eqs. (58), (75)]
    "We begin with an Ising system whose spatially varying transverse field is engineered such that it is described by the Kruskal Hamiltonian in Eq. (41). The system is then prepared in its ground state, which corresponds to the vacuum of its fermionic excitations. This state is precisely the Kruskal vacuum, |Ω K⟩."

    The paper does not derive the continuum Kruskal vacuum; it declares the finite-lattice ground state to be that vacuum. Once |Ω_K⟩ is defined as the ground state of H_K (Eq. 41), and the tortoise number operator is defined from the BdG diagonalization of H_T (Eq. 55), Eq. (75) — n_a = Σ|M21|² with M = T K^{-1} — is an algebraic consequence of the two diagonalizations. The 'simulated Hawking radiation' is therefore the basis-change mismatch between two engineered lattice Hamiltonians, not a computed consequence of spacetime vacuum inequivalence. The paper's own m=0 limit (both transverse fields equal 1, particle number zero) confirms the effect is controlled by the difference of input Hamiltonians, whereas massless Hawking radiation would not vanish.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Fig. 2(b) discussion]
    "Fitting the numerical results to the Fermi-Dirac distribution yields Hawking temperatures of kBT /J∼0.192, 0.191, and 0.190 for Schwarzschild radii rs = 1, 5, and 20, respectively... Thus, the analogue model correctly reproduces the expected trend that the Hawking temperature decreases as the Schwarzschild radius increases."

    The thermal spectrum and its temperature are not outputs of the model; they are obtained by fitting the numerically computed occupation numbers to a Fermi-Dirac form. The fit function imposes the thermal shape, so the assertion that the model 'correctly reproduces the expected trend' is a restatement of the fitted values. Moreover, the fitted temperatures are almost independent of rs (0.192, 0.191, 0.190), whereas the Hawking temperature scales as TH = 1/(4πrs); the nearly flat trend does not provide independent confirmation. The central 'prediction' reduces to the parameter of the fitting function.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section II, Eqs. (13)-(14); Section IV A and IV D]
    "For different values of parameters, this describes a family of spin chain models that converge to Eq. (5) in the continuum limit. ... The foundation of this argument is the dictionary established in Section II between the spin model parameters and the metric functions of the curved spacetime."

    The spin Hamiltonians are constructed by matching their continuum limit to Eq. (13), which is the coordinate-expression of the covariant Majorana action Eq. (2). Their convergence to the same Majorana QFT in the continuum limit is therefore enforced by the dictionary, not derived from the microscopic dynamics. The Section IV proof of coordinate invariance applies to the input continuum action, so the claimed 'emergent general covariance' is a property of the construction rather than an independent output of the lattice models.

full rationale

No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-imported-from-authors circularity is present: the dictionary is taken from Kinoshita et al. [9], an external, different-author framework, and the coordinate covariance proof is internally carried out. The main circularity is in the paper's central particle-production simulation. The Kruskal vacuum is stipulated to be the ground state of a single-Kruskal-time-slice Ising Hamiltonian, so the subsequent tortoise-occupation number is the basis-change overlap between two constructed lattice Hamiltonians; this is a quench calculation whose label 'Hawking radiation' is supplied by definition rather than by derivation. The Hawking temperature is then obtained by fitting the computed occupations to a Fermi-Dirac distribution, so the thermal form and temperature are fit parameters rather than predictions, and the claimed 'trend' is only a post hoc reading of three nearly equal fitted numbers. The emergent-general-covariance claim is, similarly, baked into the Section II dictionary because every spin model was engineered to flow to the same covariant continuum action. These issues warrant a partial-circularity score of 6; the numerical diagonalization itself is a well-defined computation, but the physical predictions claimed from it reduce to the definitions and the fit.

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

No new particles or forces are introduced. The principal external inputs are the published Kinoshita et al. dictionary and boundary-condition paper; the principal internally fitted quantity is the Hawking temperature.

free parameters (4)
  • Hawking temperature k_B T / J = ≈0.192, 0.191, 0.190 (fits for r_s = 1, 5, 20)
    Obtained by fitting the simulated tortoise-mode distribution to a Fermi-Dirac function; used as evidence for black-hole particle production, but it is a fit, not a derivation.
  • Kruskal time slice tilde t_K = 0.5
    Chosen in the numerical protocol; the Kruskal Hamiltonian and vacuum are evaluated on this slice, and the low-mode oscillations are attributed to this finite time.
  • Lattice spacing epsilon = 1
    Fixed in numerics; no continuum-limit or finite-size convergence study is reported.
  • Chain length L = 101 sites
    Chosen for the BdG diagonalization; no systematic convergence in L is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Kinoshita et al. dictionary (Eqs. 5-14) maps Majorana QFT in an ADM metric to a spin-chain Hamiltonian.
    Everything in the paper is built on this published mapping, which is reviewed but not re-derived in Section II.
  • domain assumption The open-boundary fermion-doubling condition, Eq. (15), from Kinoshita et al. [18], constrains the free function p at the boundaries.
    Used to justify the choice p = 1 and to avoid fermion doubling; Section II.
  • standard math The continuum Majorana action is covariant under ADM-compatible diffeomorphisms, and the field transforms as Eq. (46).
    Used in Section IV to prove emergent general covariance; this is standard, but it is the content of the emergence claim.
  • ad hoc to paper The ground state of the static finite Kruskal spin chain at fixed Kruskal time t̃_K = 0.5 equals the Kruskal vacuum |Ω_K⟩.
    Section V asserts this identification without a rigorous derivation that the lattice ground state and the QFT vacuum coincide on a curved-slice discretization.
  • domain assumption Horizon crossing is not part of the model; ADM-foliable exterior and interior patches are handled separately.
    Section III.A/IV.A explicitly exclude transformations that exchange causal roles across the horizon, limiting the simulator's domain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating Majorana fermions in black hole with Ising Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJRMZMLK

@misc{pith2026260718805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating Majorana fermions in black hole with Ising Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJRMZMLK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18805}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum field theory (QFT) in curved spacetime has led to profound predictions, including the Unruh effect and Hawking radiation, yet their direct observation remains extraordinarily challenging because of their extremely weak signatures. Here, we show that the transverse-field Ising model provides a quantum simulator for Majorana fermions in a Schwarzschild black hole background. Remarkably, different coordinate representations of the same spacetime-Schwarzschild, tortoise, Kruskal, and conformally flat-map onto distinct microscopic Ising spin models. Despite their microscopic differences, these models converge in the continuum limit to the same Majorana field theory, exhibiting an emergent form of general covariance. This provides a rare example of a fundamental symmetry of general relativity arising as an emergent property of a condensed matter system. We further demonstrate how black hole particle production can be simulated and detected through spin correlation measurements, and discuss experimental platforms capable of realizing these models. Our work establishes a practical route for investigating fermionic QFT in curved spacetime using controllable quantum many-body systems and tabletop experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Transverse magnetic field as a function of position for spin systems generated using (a) Schwarzschild, (b) tortoise, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Numerical simulation of the fermion number of the Kruskal vacuum using the Ising model, as measured by an observer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Planck length

    This removes theσ y j σy j+1 coupling giving us the Ising Hamiltonian with site-dependent transverse mag- netic field: H=− 1 2ϵ NX j=1 n σx j σx j+1 + [1−mϵΩ(t, x)]σz j o .(30) Alternatively, one can also choosep(t, x) =−1 and get rid of theσ x j σx j+1 interaction. We emphasize that, unlike the Schwarzschild spin models, the conformally flat spin models ...

  2. [2]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Physical Review D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  3. [3]

    Parker, Particle creation in expanding universes, Phys- ical Review Letters21, 562 (1968)

    L. Parker, Particle creation in expanding universes, Phys- ical Review Letters21, 562 (1968)

    1968

  4. [4]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    Barcel´ o, S

    C. Barcel´ o, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Analogue grav- ity, Living Reviews in Relativity14, 10.12942/lrr-2011-3 (2011)

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2011-3 2011

  6. [6]

    C. R. Almeida and M. J. Jacquet, Analogue gravity and the hawking effect: Historical perspective and literature review, The European Physical Journal H48, 15 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Liu, R.-Q

    Z. Liu, R.-Q. Yang, H. Fan, and J. Wang, Simulation of the massless dirac field in 1+1d curved spacetime, Sci- ence China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy68, 290411 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    M. D. Horner, A. Hallam, and J. K. Pachos, Chiral spin- chain interfaces exhibiting event-horizon physics, Phys. 13 Rev. Lett.130, 016701 (2023)

    2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Forbes, M

    E. Forbes, M. D. Horner, A. Hallam, J. Barker, and J. K. Pachos, Exploring interacting chiral spin chains in terms of black hole physics, Phys. Rev. B108, 245142 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Kinoshita, K

    S. Kinoshita, K. Murata, D. Yamamoto, and R. Yoshii, Spin systems as quantum simulators of quantum field theories in curved spacetimes, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023197 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Kinoshita, K

    S. Kinoshita, K. Murata, D. Yamamoto, and R. Yoshii, Spin systems as quantum field theories in inflationary universe: A study with unruh-dewitt detectors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04086 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Calliari, M

    G. Calliari, M. Di Liberto, H. Pichler, and T. V. Zache, Quantum simulating continuum field theories with large- spin lattice models, PRX Quantum6, 030304 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Falque, A

    K. Falque, A. Delhom, Q. Glorieux, E. Giacobino, A. Bramati, and M. J. Jacquet, Polariton fluids as quan- tum field theory simulators on tailored curved space- times, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 023401 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Viermann, M

    C. Viermann, M. Sparn, N. Liebster, M. Hans, E. Kath, A. Parra-L´ opez, M. Tolosa-Sime´ on, N. S´ anchez-Kuntz, T. Haas, H. Strobel, S. Floerchinger, and M. K. Oberthaler, Quantum field simulator for dynamics in curved spacetime, Nature611, 260 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    J. I. Cirac, P. Maraner, and J. K. Pachos, Cold atom sim- ulation of interacting relativistic quantum field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 190403 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Deger, M

    A. Deger, M. D. Horner, and J. K. Pachos, Ads/cft corre- spondence with a three-dimensional black hole simulator, Phys. Rev. B108, 155124 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    R.-Q. Yang, H. Liu, S. Zhu, L. Luo, and R.-G. Cai, Sim- ulating quantum field theory in curved spacetime with quantum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023107 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Poisson,A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, 2004) pp

    E. Poisson,A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, 2004) pp. xvi + 233

    2004

  11. [19]

    Kinoshita, K

    S. Kinoshita, K. Murata, D. Yamamoto, and R. Yoshii, Simulating quantum field theories with boundaries in curved spacetimes using open spin systems (2026), arXiv:2602.17935 [hep-th]

    2026

  12. [20]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cam- bridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    V. F. Mukhanov and S. Winitzki,Introduction to Quan- tum Fields in Classical Backgrounds(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2004) draft version available online

    2004

  14. [22]

    R. D. Sorkin, An example relevant to the kretschmann– einstein debate, Modern Physics Letters A17, 695 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0110012 [gr-qc]

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. D. Norton, General covariance, gauge theories, and the kretschmann objection, inSymmetries in Physics: Philo- sophical Reflections, edited by K. Brading and E. Castel- lani (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) pp. 110–123

    2003

  16. [24]

    I. V. Kharuk and S. M. Sibiryakov, Emergent lorentz invariance with chiral fermions, Theor. Math. Phys.189, 1755 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Wen,Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons, Oxford Graduate Texts (Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 2004)

    X.-G. Wen,Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons, Oxford Graduate Texts (Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Deconfined quantum critical points, Sci- ence303, 1490 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Coldea, D

    R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, E. M. Wheeler, E. Wawrzyn- ska, D. Prabhakaran, M. Telling, K. Habicht, P. Smeibidl, and K. Kiefer, Quantum criticality in an ising chain: Ex- perimental evidence for emergent e8 symmetry, Science 327, 177 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    J. A. Ringler, A. I. Kolesnikov, and K. A. Ross, Single- ion properties of the transverse-field ising model material conb2o6, Physical Review B105, 224421 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Quantum simulations with trapped ions, Nature Physics8, 277 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, Engineered two-dimensional ising interactions in a trapped-ion quantum simulator with hundreds of spins, Nature484, 489 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator, Nature 551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Macr ` ı, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two- dimensional arrays of single rydberg atoms for realizing quantum ising models, Nature534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with in- dividually controlled rydberg atoms, Nature Physics16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Borish, J

    V. Borish, J. King, V. Shkolnik, R. Verresen, V. Vrancken, T. H. Hsieh, I. Bloch, F. Pollmann, and C. Gross, Transverse-field ising dynamics in a rydberg- dressed atomic gas, Physical Review Letters124, 063601 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum sim- ulation, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.