Curvature as a control field in helicoidal two-body systems

Abdullah Guvendi; Hassan Hassanabadi

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 32 references

Curvature as a control field in helicoidal two-body systems

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read On a helicoid, curvature and the projected magnetic field act as tunable controls for a charged two-body system, switching motion among bounded and localized regimes and driving the quantum spectrum from harmonic to quartic criticality.

desk verdict A careful 1D effective-model analysis is presented as an exact two-body result, and the missing derivation of the attractive interaction plus an unproven sector reduction undermines that central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02659 v2 pith:PT2GS5N4 submitted 2026-08-01 quant-ph

Abdullah Guvendi , Hassan Hassanabadi This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph MSC 81Q7070H0553Z05

keywords curvedmanifoldshelicoidalgeometryelectromagneticfieldsconstraineddynamicssemiclassicalquantizationquantumlocalizationcurvatureascontroltwo-bodysystems

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

This paper tries to establish that the geometry of a helicoidal surface is not a passive backdrop but a tunable control field for the relative motion of two oppositely charged particles. By pulling a uniform magnetic field onto the surface and eliminating the cyclic coordinate, the authors obtain an exact reduced Hamiltonian for the relative coordinate. From that Hamiltonian they argue that the surface twist and the magnetic field jointly change the effective kinetic inertia and the conserved momentum landscape, which in turn switches the classical motion between different bounded and localized regimes, triggers a symmetry-breaking bifurcation, and at a critical stiffness turns the quantum spectrum from harmonic to quartic. The payoff of the claim is that deformation alone can engineer localization and spectral organization in curved classical and quantum systems without external trapping potentials.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exact reduced Hamiltonian $$H = \frac{p_\$xi^{2}$}{\mu} + \kappa\$xi^{2}$ + \frac{(p_v-\$\alpha$\$xi^{2}$)^2}{\mu(1+\$\Omega$^2\$xi^{2}$)} - \frac{g}{\sqrt{\$xi^{2}$+$a^{2}$}},$$ with $\Omega=\omega/2$, $\alpha=qB\omega/8$, and $\kappa=k/2$; all curvature and gauge effects are concentrated in the single rational kinetic term. Expanding that term around $\xi=0$ gives the normal form $C_0 + A\xi^2 + B\xi^4$, where $A=\kappa - (2\alpha p_v+\Omega^2 p_v^2)/\mu + g/(2a^3)$ is the curvature-gauge renormalized stiffness. The argument hinges on $A$: its sign controls axial stability versus symmetry-broken double-well minima, its vanishing defines the classical soft-mode bifurcation and the quantum quartic critical point, and the biquadratic turning-point equation $A_2 x^2 + A_1 x + A_0 = 0$ in $x=\xi^2$ provides the exact classical diagnostic for the number of bounded regions.

What would settle it

Integrate the unreduced equations of motion derived from the Lagrangian (2.12) numerically for initial data with small nonzero $\Xi$ and $V$; if those perturbations grow or the trajectories drift away from the reduced sector, the exact reduced Hamiltonian does not describe the generic two-body problem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives, without perturbative approximation in the twist or the magnetic coupling, the reduced Hamiltonian $$H = \frac{p_\$xi^{2}$}{\mu} + \kappa\$xi^{2}$ + \frac{(p_v-\$\alpha$\$xi^{2}$)^2}{\mu(1+\$\Omega$^2\$xi^{2}$)} - \frac{g}{\sqrt{\$xi^{2}$+$a^{2}$}}$$ for the relative motion of the two bodies after eliminating the cyclic helicoidal coordinate. It claims this Hamiltonian is exact within the reflection-symmetric center-of-mass rest sector and that it captures how the helicoid's negative, spatially varying Gaussian curvature and the pullback of a uniform magnetic field reshape the effective kinetic inertia and shift the conserved longitudinal momentum. On this basis the paper establishes a turning-point criterion whose roots change from two to four, a zero-energy binding threshold controlled by geometry and gauge, a symmetry-breaking bifurcation when the renormalized stiffness $A$ vanishes, and a spectral critical point at $A=0$ where harmonic level spacing $E_n-C_0\sim(n+\gamma)$ becomes quartic critical spacing $E_n-C_0\sim(n+\gamma)^{4/3}$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole reduced description rests on assuming that fixing the center-of-mass coordinates to zero and holding them fixed is a legitimate invariant sector of the full two-body dynamics, but the paper does not prove that the full equations preserve that sector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any nonzero twist density the helicoid has negative Gaussian curvature $K=-\omega^2/(1+\omega^2\xi^2)^2$, so the effective inertia varies with position even before any magnetic field is added.
The curvature-gauge coupling can change the number of physical turning points from two to four as $\omega$ and $B$ vary, creating extra bounded intervals and dynamical barriers absent in flat space.
Zero-energy localized trajectories exist only when $p_v^2/\mu < g/a$, and the twist and magnetic field renormalize the stiffness $A$ and localization length, so geometry and gauge tune binding without an external trap.
At $A=0$ the classical axial mode softens and the system undergoes a symmetry-breaking bifurcation; the quantum spectrum simultaneously changes from harmonic to quartic critical scaling with exponent $4/3$.
In the flat-space limit $\Omega\to 0$ and $\alpha\to 0$ the Hamiltonian reduces to the usual Euclidean relative-coordinate two-body problem, so the quartic critical behavior is a purely geometric effect.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: because the turning-point condition is an algebraic biquadratic, a numerical scan over $(\omega, B, p_v)$ can map the predicted two-to-four turning-point boundary directly from the discriminant, without solving the equations of motion.
Beyond the paper: the quartic critical exponent $4/3$ is a property of the reduced one-dimensional Hamiltonian, so any tunable curved or synthetic system realizing the same rational kinetic term should show the same spectral crossover, not just the helicoid.
Beyond the paper: the reduction relies on equal masses and opposite charges; with unequal masses or charges the gauge contribution of the center-of-mass sector would not cancel, so the exact reduced form is special to the symmetric charge assignment.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a clean analysis of a one-dimensional effective Hamiltonian, but the paper's headline claim — an exact reduced Hamiltonian for the two-body helicoidal problem — does not hold up as written. The stress-test note is right. In Sec. 3 the attractive term V_int(ξ) = -g/√(ξ²+a²) is introduced by hand, yet κξ² is kept in Eq. (3.2). That is not a replacement; it is an additional confining potential. And no derivation connects that purely ξ-dependent interaction to the actual Euclidean separation of two charged particles on the helicoid, which also involves v and V. The reflection-symmetric sector restriction (Ξ = 0, Ẋ = 0) is called invariant, but the text never proves the full equations of motion preserve it. Given the coupling in (2.16)–(2.17), that closure is far from obvious. So the word 'exact' is overused. What the paper does well: within the restricted sector, the algebra is internally consistent. The turning-point classification, the phase diagrams, and the harmonic-to-quartic spectral crossover are correct for the 1D model they actually study. The Bender–Wu critical scaling connection is legitimate, and the effective-potential expansions are careful. This is useful as a toy model of curvature–gauge modified kinetic terms. The main soft spots are the ones above: an unsupported interaction and an unproven sector reduction. There is also heavy self-citation, but that alone is not a flaw. The flat-space limit in Eq. (5.22) is not a standard two-body Coulomb problem because the attractive term is already 1D, which further shows the paper is really about a 1D effective model. If the authors derived V_int from a constrained two-body Coulomb or Yukawa interaction, or explicitly proved sector invariance, the central claim would be stronger. As it stands, the reader should interpret the results as properties of a 1D Hamiltonian with curvature and gauge dressing, not as exact two-body dynamics. This paper deserves a serious referee because the model is tractable and the qualitative phenomena are plausible. A referee should require a rewrite of Sec. 3 and a clear statement or proof of the sector restriction. Who benefits: people working on curved quantum matter and effective 1D models. I would not cite it in its present form, but I would look at a revised version. Recommendation: engage with it — send to peer review with major revision. The core idea is worth testing.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies two identical charged particles of mass μ and opposite charges on a helicoidally embedded surface in a uniform magnetic field. Starting from the metric ds² = dξ² + (1+ω²ξ²)dv² and the symmetric-gauge pullback A_v = Bωξ²/2, the authors introduce center-of-mass and relative coordinates. After restricting to the reflection-symmetric center-of-mass-rest sector Ξ=0, ˙Ξ=0 (and implicitly dropping the longitudinal center-of-mass velocity), they obtain a one-dimensional reduced Hamiltonian, Eq. (2.21), that combines a harmonic relative potential, a curvature-modified longitudinal kinetic term, and a gauge-shifted conserved momentum. In Sec. 3 they introduce a finite-range attractive potential −g/√(ξ²+a²) and write the "exact reduced Hamiltonian" Eq. (3.2) while retaining the harmonic term κξ². The paper then analyzes the effective potential, zero-energy localization, turning-point structure, bifurcations, dimensionless phase diagrams, and semiclassical/quantum spectra, including a harmonic-to-quartic spectral criticality at A=0. The central claim is that curvature and gauge projection act as tunable kinetic control parameters for the two-body relative dynamics.

Significance. If the central result held, it would be significant: the paper would provide an exactly reduced two-body problem on a curved manifold in which geometry modifies the kinetic sector rather than acting as a passive background, with analytic expressions for turning points, localization thresholds, and critical spectral scaling. The algebraic reductions, series expansions, and normal-form calculations are internally consistent within the restricted sector, and the paper does not fit parameters to data; the main claims are falsifiable through the quoted phase diagrams and thresholds. However, the significance is conditional on resolving the sector-closure and interaction-origin issues raised below.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.13)–(2.21)] The derivation of the "exact reduced Hamiltonian" (2.21) requires restricting to Ξ=0 and setting ˙Ξ=0, and it also drops the V̇ contribution that still appears in the longitudinal kinetic term after Eq. (2.16). The text calls this an invariant condition but does not prove that the full Euler–Lagrange equations of Eq. (2.12) preserve this sector. Because χ(Ξ±ξ/2) and A_v(Ξ±ξ/2) couple collective and relative coordinates, the restriction is nontrivial. Without a proof that the sector is dynamically closed, Eq. (2.21) describes a restricted submanifold of the two-body phase space, not the generic two-body problem claimed in the abstract.
[Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.1)–(3.2)] The text states that the harmonic interaction is "replaced by a finite-range attractive interaction", but Eq. (3.2) retains the harmonic term κξ² alongside −g/√(ξ²+a²). This is not a replacement, and no Lagrangian for an attractive two-body model is given from which the combined potential in Eq. (3.2) follows. Since every subsequent localization, bifurcation, and spectral result uses Eq. (3.2), the central claim that curvature and gauge structure exactly control the two-body relative dynamics is not supported by the derivation as written.
[Sec. 3, Eq. (3.1)] The interaction V_int(ξ) = −g/√(ξ²+a²) depends only on the relative transverse coordinate ξ, but for the helicoidal embedding the Euclidean separation between the two particles depends on the relative longitudinal coordinate v and on V through terms such as v² plus oscillatory contributions involving ξ and v. A ξ-only attractive potential is therefore a one-dimensional ansatz rather than the physical Coulomb interaction of the charged two-body system. The paper needs either to derive V_int from the two-body Lagrangian or to explicitly present the model as an effective one-dimensional problem on the reduced coordinate.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. 6] The first sentence of the Conclusion contains a typographical artifact: "equation (2.21))" has a stray closing parenthesis.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (2.21)] The kinetic term p_ξ²/μ in Eq. (2.21) follows from the choice p_ξ = (μ/2)˙ξ, but this normalization is not stated explicitly and could confuse readers comparing with the standard p²/(2μ).
[Sec. 5, Eq. (5.1)] The quantization rule p_ξ² → −ℏ²d²/dξ² is presented as avoiding operator-ordering ambiguities, but the reduced model still contains ξ-dependent metric factors such as (1+Ω²ξ²)^(−1) that originate from the curved embedding; the authors should justify this quantization choice or state it as a convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Hamiltonian is rederived from a stated Lagrangian and the later spectral/localization results are algebraic or external-benchmark consequences.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is the reduced Hamiltonian (2.21)/(3.2). It is obtained by substituting the explicit helicoidal embedding (2.2), pulling back the symmetric-gauge potential (2.8), writing the two-body Lagrangian (2.11), introducing center-of-mass and relative coordinates, restricting to the reflection-symmetric sector, and Legendre-transforming (2.18)-(2.21). No parameter is fitted to the quantity later called a prediction, and no result is assumed in its own proof. The self-citations (e.g., [4], [15], [21]) are used for setup, for a definition of the effective inverse inertia (2.26), and for a reflection symmetry that follows directly from the embedding; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem and do not carry the derivation. The Section 3 finite-range attractive interaction is introduced explicitly as an assumption ("by assuming that the interaction depends only on the relative transverse separation"), so there is no hidden ansatz smuggled by citation. The quartic critical spectrum (5.21) is quoted from Bender-Wu [31,32], an independent external result, after setting the derived coefficient A=0. The concern that the Sec. 3 "replacement" keeps the κξ² term and that a ξ-only interaction lacks a two-body helicoidal derivation is a modeling-consistency/correctness issue, not a circularity: it does not make any derived quantity equal to its own input by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new particles or forces. All parameters are model inputs (mass, charge, twist, field, interaction, conserved momentum) and are varied by hand rather than fitted to data. The main additional assumptions are the COM-rest sector restriction, the interaction choice, and the direct 1D quantization rule.

free parameters (8)

mu (particle mass) = set to 1 in figures
Mass of each particle; a model input, not fitted.
q (charge magnitude) = set to 1 in figures
Charge of the positive particle; the other has -q; a model input.
omega (twist density) = varied, e.g., 0.5-3.5 in figures
Controls helicoidal curvature and gauge coupling alpha; treated as a control parameter.
B (magnetic field) = varied, e.g., 0.2-2.5 in figures
Controls gauge momentum shift; treated as a control parameter.
pv (conserved longitudinal momentum) = varied, e.g., 1, 4
Conserved canonical momentum from the cyclic coordinate; used as a frozen control variable.
g (attractive interaction strength) = varied, e.g., 1.8-4.0
Sets the depth of the finite-range attractive potential; not fitted.
a (regularization length) = 0.6 in figures
Smooths the attractive potential at the axis; chosen by hand.
kappa (confinement strength) = 0.04 or 0.12 in figures
Spring constant of the harmonic interaction/trap; chosen by hand.

assumptions (6)

standard math Gaussian curvature formula K = -(sqrt(chi))''/sqrt(chi) for the diagonal metric (Eq 2.5).
Invoked in Sec 2 to compute the helicoid's curvature.
standard math Legendre transform of the reduced Lagrangian yields the Hamiltonian (Eq 2.21) without operator-ordering corrections at the classical level.
Used in Sec 2 to define the reduced Hamiltonian.
domain assumption The two-body dynamics is restricted to the reflection-symmetric COM-rest sector Xi=0, V=0, Xi_dot=V_dot=0, which is asserted to be invariant.
Invoked after Eq. (2.17); no proof of dynamic closure is given.
ad hoc to paper The interparticle interaction is first taken as a harmonic spring (Eq 2.11) and later as a finite-range attractive potential -g/sqrt(xi^2+a^2) (Eq 3.1), with the harmonic term kappa xi^2 retained in the reduced Hamiltonian (Eq 3.2) without explanation.
The paper says 'replacing' but keeps both terms, an unexplained modeling choice.
domain assumption Quantization is performed by substituting p_xi -> -i hbar d/dxi in the classically reduced 1D Hamiltonian, ignoring possible geometric potential and operator-ordering terms from the original curved surface (Sec 5, Eq 5.1).
This bypasses the usual thin-layer quantization ambiguities on curved manifolds.
standard math Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization (Eq 3.24) and the quartic-oscillator spectral scaling (Eq 5.21) are applied; the latter assumes the quartic coefficient B > 0 at the critical surface A=0.
Used in Secs 3 and 5; the sign of B is not discussed at the critical surface.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Curvature as a control field in helicoidal two-body systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PT2GS5N4

@misc{pith2026260802659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Curvature as a control field in helicoidal two-body systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PT2GS5N4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02659}
}

read the original abstract

Geometry is increasingly recognized as an active physical resource capable of modifying the behavior of dynamical systems beyond conventional external control mechanisms. Here, we develop a curvature--gauge framework in which the geometry of an embedded manifold acts as a tunable control parameter for classical trajectories and semiclassical states. By deriving an exact reduced Hamiltonian for a charged two-body system confined to a helicoidal surface, we show that curvature modifies the effective kinetic structure, while the projected gauge field reshapes the conserved momentum landscape. This geometric modification leads to controllable transitions between distinct dynamical regimes, including bounded phase-space structures, zero-energy localization, symmetry-breaking bifurcations, and critical soft-mode behavior. A semiclassical analysis of the geometry-dependent effective potential reveals a spectral reconstruction in which harmonic confinement changes into quartic critical behavior at the localization threshold. These results establish engineered geometry as a route for controlling localization, dynamical stability, and spectral organization in curved classical and semiclassical systems, where deformation itself becomes a functional degree of freedom rather than a passive constraint.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02659 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Geometric and dynamical signatures of the helicoidal two-particle system. The results are obtained from the exact reduced Hamiltonian H = p 2 ξ µ + κξ2 + (pv−αξ2) 2 µ(1+Ω2ξ2) , with µ = q = 1, k = 0.08 (κ = 0.04), pv = 4, E = 18, and the reference parameters ω = 3.5 and B = 2.5 (Ω = 1.75, α = 1.09375). The color scales in panels (a)–(c) indicate the corresponding values of the control parameters ω and B. (a) Negativ… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Geometry–gauge controlled zero-energy localization. The effective potential governing the zero-energy trajectories is shown for pv = 1, µ = 1, κ = 0.12, q = 1, and a = 0.6. The black dashed line denotes the zero-energy boundary Veff (ξ; pv ) = 0, while the regions with Veff (ξ; pv) < 0 correspond to the classically accessible localization domains. (a) Magnetic-field dependence for ω = 1 and g = 2.8 with B = 0.2, 0.6… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Geometry–gauge phase structure of zero-energy localization. Phase diagrams characterizing the emergence of zero-energy bound trajectories on the helicoidal manifold. (a) The numerical localization strength S = − minξ Veff (ξ; pv) in the (B, ω) plane, obtained from the full effective potential. Positive values of S indicate the existence of a classically accessible zero-energy localization region. (b) The geometry–ga… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Geometry–gauge controlled quantum localization thresholds. The contour maps display the dimensionless critical coupling g˜c(n) = µgc(n) ap2 v required to support the nth localized quantum state below the zero-energy threshold, shown as a function of the helicoidal defo…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

Atanasov, A

V . Atanasov, A. Saxena, ”Helicoidal graphene nanoribbo ns: Chiraltronics” Physical Review B, 92 035440 (2015)

2015
[2]

V . T. Phong, E. J. Mele, ”Boundary modes from periodic mag netic and pseudo- magnetic ﬁelds in graphene” Physical Review Letters, 128 176406 (2022)

2022
[3]

Soares, A.E

C.C. Soares, A.E. Obispo, A.G. Jir´ on Vicente, L.B. Cast ro, ”Ef- fects of a uniform magnetic ﬁeld on twisted graphene nanorib bons” Annalen der Physik, 535 2200258 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

Gurtas Dogan, K

S. Gurtas Dogan, K. Hasanirokh, O. Mustafa, A. Guvendi, ” Twist- induced effects on Weyl pairs in magnetized graphene nanori bbons” Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 481 20240632 (2025)

2025
[5]

Zhang, G

D-B. Zhang, G. Seifert, K. Chang, ”Strain-induced pseud omagnetic ﬁelds in twisted graphene nanoribbons” Physical Review Letters, 112 096805 (2014)

2014
[6]

Guvendi, O

A. Guvendi, O. Mustafa, A. Karabulut, ”Damped photonic m odes in helical graphene” Annals of Physics, 480 170132 (2025)

2025
[7]

Guvendi, S

A. Guvendi, S. Gurtas Dogan, O. Mustafa, K. Hasanirokh, ”Photonic modes in twisted graphene nanoribbons” Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures, 166 116146 (2025)

2025
[8]

Ferrari, G

G. Ferrari, G. Cuoghi, ”Schr¨ odinger equation for a part icle on a curved surface in an electric and magnetic ﬁeld” Physical review letters, 100 230403 (2008)

2008

Show all 32 references

[9]

Guvendi, H

A. Guvendi, H. Hassanabadi, ”Fermion-antifermion pair in magnetized optical wormhole background” Physics Letters B, 843 138045 (2023)

2023
[10]

Gurtas Dogan, A

S. Gurtas Dogan, A. Guvendi, O. Mustafa, ”Geometric and wave optics in a BTZ optical metric-based wormhole” Physics Letters B, 868 139824 (2025)

2025
[11]

Gurtas Dogan, A

S. Gurtas Dogan, A. Guvendi, O. Mustafa, ”Ray and wave op tics in an optical wormhole” Physics Letters B, 868 139626 (2025)

2025
[12]

Gurtas Dogan, A

S. Gurtas Dogan, A. Guvendi, O. Mustafa, ”Ray geodesics and wave propagation on the Beltrami surface: optics of an optical wo rmhole” European Physical Journal C, 85 896 (2025)

2025
[13]

Gurtas Dogan, O

S. Gurtas Dogan, O. Mustafa, G. Turgut, A. Guvendi, ”Ray and wave optics in twisted graphene nanoribbons” Physica Scripta, 100 075512 (2025)

2025
[14]

Stockhofe, P

J. Stockhofe, P . Schmelcher, ”Nonadiabatic couplings and gauge-theoretical struc- ture of curved quantum waveguides” Physical Review A, 89 033630 (2014)

2014
[15]

Schmelcher, ”Helical quantum two-body problem and i ts wave packet dynam- ics” APS Open Science, 1 000032 (2026)

P . Schmelcher, ”Helical quantum two-body problem and i ts wave packet dynam- ics” APS Open Science, 1 000032 (2026). 9

2026
[16]

Guvendi, S

A. Guvendi, S. Gurtas Dogan, O. Mustafa, H. Hassan- abadi, ”Charged particle dynamics in singular spacetimes: hy- drogenic mapping and curvature-corrected thermodynamics ” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physi cs, (2026)

2026
[17]

Lopes dos Santos, N.M.R

J.M.B. Lopes dos Santos, N.M.R. Peres, A.H. Castro Neto , ”Continuum model of the twisted graphene bilayer” Physical Review B, 86 155449 (2012)

2012
[18]

Gonzalez, J

J. Gonzalez, J. Herrero, ”Graphene wormholes: A conden sed matter illustration of Dirac fermions in curved space” Nuclear physics B, 825 426–443 (2010)

2010
[19]

Errehymy, A

A. Errehymy, A. Guvendi, S. G. Dogan, O. Mustafa, ”Frame - dragging and light deﬂection in rotating optical wormhole s pacetimes” Physics Letters B, 869 139847 (2025)

2025
[20]

Garcia, P .J

G.Q. Garcia, P .J. Porf´ ırio, D.C. Moreira, C. Furtado,”Graphene wormhole trapped by external magnetic ﬁeld” Nuclear Physics B, 950 114853 (2020)

2020
[21]

Guvendi, H

A. Guvendi, H. Hassanabadi, S. Gurtas Dogan, O. Mustafa , ”Phase-space structure and nonlinear dynamics of a charged particle on a helicoidal manifold under a magnetic ﬁeld” arXiv:2607.07726 [physics.class-ph] (2026)

2026 arXiv
[22]

Koloˇ s, M

M. Koloˇ s, M. Shahzadi, A. Tursunov, ”Charged particle dynam- ics in parabolic magnetosphere around Schwarzschild black holes” European Physical Journal C, 83 323 (2023)

2023
[23]

Narzilloev, J

B. Narzilloev, J. Rayimbaev, A. Abdujabbarov, B. Ahmed ov, C. Bambi, ”Dy- namics of charged particles and magnetic dipoles around mag netized quasi- Schwarzschild black holes” European Physical Journal C, 81 269 (2021)

2021
[24]

A. N. Aliev, N. ¨Ozdemir, ”Motion of charged parti- cles around a rotating black hole in a magnetic ﬁeld” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336 241–248 (2002)

2002
[25]

Turimov, Y

B. Turimov, Y . Turaev, B. Ahmedov, Z. Stuchl´ ık, ”Circu lar motion of test particles around wormhole represented by exponenti al metric” Physics of the Dark Universe, 35 100946 (2022)

2022
[26]

Goldstein, C

H. Goldstein, C. P . Poole, and J. L. Safko, ”Classical Me chanics”, 3rd ed., Pearson Education / Addison-Wesley, Boston, (2013) 636 pages

2013
[27]

Downing, M.E

C.A. Downing, M.E. Portnoi, ”Bielectron vortices in tw o-dimensional Dirac semimetals” Nature communications, 8 897 (2017)

2017
[28]

Guvendi, M

A. Guvendi, M. An, G.Turgut, O. Mustafa, ”Bielectron V o rtices in Monolayer Dirac Semimetals” Advanced Theory and Simulations, 9 e00974 (2026)

2026
[29]

Modern quantum mechanic s

J.J. Sakurai, J. Napolitano, “Modern quantum mechanic s” (Cambridge University Press 2020)

2020
[30]

Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals (1st e d.)

K. Gottfried, “Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals (1st e d.)” (CRC Press, Boca Raton (1974) 528 pages))

1974
[31]

Bender, T.T

C.M. Bender, T.T. Wu, ”Anharmonic oscillator” Physical Review, 184 1231 (1969)

1969
[32]

Bender, T.T

C.M. Bender, T.T. Wu, ”Anharmonic oscillator. II. A stu dy of perturbation theory in large order” Physical Review D, 7 1620 (1973). 10

1973

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Atanasov, A

V . Atanasov, A. Saxena, ”Helicoidal graphene nanoribbo ns: Chiraltronics” Physical Review B, 92 035440 (2015)

2015

[2] [2]

V . T. Phong, E. J. Mele, ”Boundary modes from periodic mag netic and pseudo- magnetic ﬁelds in graphene” Physical Review Letters, 128 176406 (2022)

2022

[3] [3]

Soares, A.E

C.C. Soares, A.E. Obispo, A.G. Jir´ on Vicente, L.B. Cast ro, ”Ef- fects of a uniform magnetic ﬁeld on twisted graphene nanorib bons” Annalen der Physik, 535 2200258 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Gurtas Dogan, K

S. Gurtas Dogan, K. Hasanirokh, O. Mustafa, A. Guvendi, ” Twist- induced effects on Weyl pairs in magnetized graphene nanori bbons” Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 481 20240632 (2025)

2025

[5] [5]

Zhang, G

D-B. Zhang, G. Seifert, K. Chang, ”Strain-induced pseud omagnetic ﬁelds in twisted graphene nanoribbons” Physical Review Letters, 112 096805 (2014)

2014

[6] [6]

Guvendi, O

A. Guvendi, O. Mustafa, A. Karabulut, ”Damped photonic m odes in helical graphene” Annals of Physics, 480 170132 (2025)

2025

[7] [7]

Guvendi, S

A. Guvendi, S. Gurtas Dogan, O. Mustafa, K. Hasanirokh, ”Photonic modes in twisted graphene nanoribbons” Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures, 166 116146 (2025)

2025

[8] [8]

Ferrari, G

G. Ferrari, G. Cuoghi, ”Schr¨ odinger equation for a part icle on a curved surface in an electric and magnetic ﬁeld” Physical review letters, 100 230403 (2008)

2008