Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Wormhole Geometry from a Magnetic Vortex

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single magnetic vortex realizes the exterior, core-truncated geometry of an Ellis wormhole for a Hund-coupled electron, with winding-controlled deflection and Berry-flux signatures.

desk verdict A magnetic vortex really does map onto the exterior Ellis metric, but the headline q^2/J deflection law is a metric-only result that the geometric scalar potential swamps in the physical regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12285 v1 pith:2T2U2RW7 submitted 2026-08-12 cond-mat.mes-hall gr-qchep-th

Dušan DJ orj̣ ević , Fabián Molina , Vladimir Juričić This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallgr-qchep-th
keywords emergentgeometrymagneticvortexElliswormholequantummetricBerryphaseAharonov-Bohmeffectelectronlensinghoneycomblattice
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 claims that a single magnetic vortex makes a Hund-coupled electron move as if it lived in the exterior geometry of an Ellis wormhole, a known solution of general relativity. The effect is controlled by one length scale, $a_q = |q|\hbar/(2\sqrt{mJ})$, set by the vortex winding $q$ and the exchange coupling $J$, so larger winding or weaker coupling enlarges the throat. The electron's deflection angle reduces to the exact Ellis lensing law, $2K_{\mathrm{ell}}(a_q/b)-\pi$, which collapses onto a single universal curve when plotted against the impact parameter in units of $a_q$. A separate signature comes from the spin Berry phase: the vortex carries effective flux $q/2$, producing a half-flux Aharonov--Bohm response that is maximal for odd winding and vanishes for even winding. Both signatures are presented as experimentally accessible, and the same metric can be programmed into a designer honeycomb lattice.

What carries the argument

The central object is the emergent metric obtained by projecting a Hund-coupled electron onto the locally spin-aligned band, the quantum-metric correction $g_{ij} = \delta_{ij} + r_0^2\,\partial_i\Phi\,\partial_j\Phi$ with $r_0 = \hbar/(2\sqrt{mJ})$. For the vortex phase $\Psi = q\phi$, this gives the ultrastatic Ellis metric $ds^2 = dr^2 + (r^2 + a_q^2)\,d\phi^2$ with $a_q = |q| r_0$. The argument is carried by two identities: the geodesic deflection reduces to the complete elliptic integral $\Theta(b) = 2K_{\mathrm{ell}}(a_q/b) - \pi$, and the Berry connection of the planar texture yields flux $\gamma = q/2$. These two objects supply the metric-scale and Berry-flux signatures that the paper computes and tests in the lattice emulator.

What would settle it

Measure the deflection angle of electrons scattered by a magnetic vortex in the weak-field regime at fixed winding $q$ and impact parameter $b$ while changing the exchange coupling $J$ over a large range: if the geometric scalar potential dominates, the deflection will not scale as $1/J$ as the metric-only prediction requires, falsifying the universality claim. A direct measurement of the total scattering phase shift, compared with the sum of metric and scalar contributions, would decide the same question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the strong-exchange limit, projecting the electron onto the locally spin-aligned band turns spatial variation of the magnetization into a correction to the effective metric, $g_{ij} = \delta_{ij} + (\hbar^2/4mJ)\,\partial_i \mathbf{S}\cdot\partial_j \mathbf{S}$. For a vortex texture of winding $q$, the resulting spatial metric is $ds^2 = dr^2 + (r^2 + a_q^2)\,d\phi^2$, which after the coordinate change $\rho = \sqrt{r^2 + a_q^2}$ becomes the ultrastatic equatorial Ellis-wormhole geometry with shape function $b(\rho) = a_q^2/\rho$. The microscopic vortex core truncates the geometry at short distances, so the electron probes only the exterior branch of the throat. The paper claims that geodesics of this metric obey the Ellis deflection law and that the Berry connection, enclosing flux $\oint A = \pi q$, produces an Aharonov--Bohm cross section proportional to $\sin^2(\pi q/2)$: maximal for odd winding, absent for even winding. The same exterior vielbein can be engineered in a honeycomb lattice, where valley-symmetrized wave packets follow the predicted geodesic.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the physically measured electron deflection is the metric geodesic deflection of Eq. (11), isolated from the geometric scalar potential $U_{\mathrm{geom}} = \hbar^2 q^2/(8mr^2)$ that the same projection produces and that dominates the scattering phase in the strong-exchange limit $J\gg E$ used throughout.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The deflection law is a closed-form prediction: measuring an electron's bending angle as a function of impact parameter around a vortex should reveal the curve $2K_{\mathrm{ell}}(a_q/b)-\pi$, with no free parameters beyond $a_q$.
  • Configurations with the same $q^2/J$ have the same $a_q$ and therefore identical deflection in laboratory units, giving a sharp universality test that does not require rescaling.
  • The Berry-phase result predicts an on/off Aharonov--Bohm pattern controlled by winding parity: odd winding gives half-flux interference, even winding suppresses it.
  • The honeycomb emulator turns the metric into an engineering target, allowing wave-packet geodesics to be compared with the continuum prediction in a controlled lattice.
  • The logarithmic strong-deflection divergence near the throat is regularized by the microscopic core, so the core profile determines how close to the throat the continuum Ellis law applies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the same projection also produces a repulsive $1/r^2$ scalar potential that is independent of $J$ at fixed $q$, an experiment varying $J$ at fixed $q$ and $b$ can separate metric lensing from scalar scattering: the metric contribution should fall as $1/J$ while the scalar contribution stays fixed.
  • The texture--geometry dictionary suggested here is open-ended; if the vortex prediction is confirmed, the same projection method should predict distinct effective geometries for merons, skyrmions, and vortex--antivortex pairs.
  • Near the throat, the marginal $1/r^2$ potential may support defect-localized resonances observable in local spectral probes, giving a spectral fingerprint that complements the deflection measurement.
  • The honeycomb emulator's valley symmetrization is a lattice-specific device; a genuine magnetic sample has no valley degree of freedom, so the magnetic experiment is the direct test of the wormhole claim while the lattice serves as a quantum simulator.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives an effective spatial metric for a Hund-coupled electron in the field of a planar magnetic vortex, showing that for zero spiral wave vector the metric is ds^2 = -dt^2 + dr^2 + (r^2 + a_q^2) d\phi^2 with a_q = |q| \hbar/(2\sqrt{mJ}), i.e., the exterior ultrastatic Ellis wormhole geometry. It obtains the closed-form deflection law \Theta(b) = 2 K_ell(a_q/b) - \pi and its weak-field tail proportional to q^2/(J b^2), argues for a universal q^2/J collapse, and derives a Berry phase \pi q that yields a half-flux Aharonov-Bohm response with odd/even winding parity. A tight-binding emulator with suppressed tangential hoppings is shown to reproduce the valley-symmetrized metric geodesic in the exterior.

Significance. The geometric identification is elegant and, as a statement about the projected metric, algebraically clean: the vortex term in the quantum-metric correction is exactly the Ellis shape function, and the deflection integral is evaluated in closed form. The paper also provides an exact Abel-resummed Aharonov-Bohm cross section, a parity-selected Berry response, and an open, reproducible numerical pipeline with phase-shift benchmarks and geodesic-level checks, which are concrete strengths. The central physical-signature claim, however, is broader than what the calculation supports because the projected Hamiltonian contains a long-ranged geometric scalar potential whose contribution dominates in the J >> E regime used throughout.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Eq. (12), and SM §S4] The headline observable—the universal q^2/J Ellis deflection collapse—is derived from the metric alone, but the same projection produces the repulsive inverse-square potential U_geom = \hbar^2 q^2/(8 m r^2) (SM Eq. S15). For a classical trajectory of energy E, this potential gives a weak-field deflection \Theta_scalar \approx \pi \hbar^2 q^2/(16 m E b^2), which is a factor J/E larger than \Theta_metric from Eq. (12) in the strong-exchange limit J >> E used throughout the paper. Thus the total deflection of the projected electron does not collapse as claimed: the paired configurations (q,J) = (1,J0) and (2,4J0) share the metric scale a_q but have scalar deflections differing by q^2 = 4. The statement in SM §S4 that the scalar term dominates the asymptotic quantum-scattering phase while "the geodesic deflection remains a clean probe" is not supported unless the scalar contribution is explicitly removed. The manuscript should either present the measured deflection as the metric contribution after a concrete subtraction protocol (for example, measuring the J-difference at fixed q), or restrict the claims to the metric-only contribution and state clearly that the physical vortex deflection contains an additional dominant term.
  2. [§5 and SM §S6] The designer honeycomb emulator sets the on-site scalar potential to zero (SM §S6) and therefore validates the engineered metric's geodesic response, but it does not validate the magnetic-vortex observable. In the magnetic system U_geom is an unavoidable part of the same adiabatic projection, so the emulator is not an end-to-end analogue of the proposed magnetic experiment. The text should state this scope limitation in the main text and avoid implying that the valley-symmetrized wave-packet simulation confirms the magnetic deflection signature.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4 (Scattering and Berry phase)] The notation "H A = \pi q" in the scattering section should be written as "\oint A = \pi q" to make clear that a closed-loop Berry phase is being evaluated.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] In the Fig. 2(b) caption, the normalized impact parameter is denoted both as "\tilde b" and as "b = b/a_q"; please use a single, consistent symbol such as \tilde b throughout the caption and text.
  3. [Abstract and §4] The phrase "half-flux Aharonov-Bohm response" should specify that this is half of the 2\pi emergent Berry flux, not a half magnetic flux quantum, to avoid confusion with ordinary electromagnetic Aharonov-Bohm effects.
  4. [References] Reference [26] to the Supplemental Material lacks author and version information; if possible, provide a stable citation or DOI for the SM and for the code repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wormhole metric, deflection law, and Berry-phase signatures are derived from the openly cited quantum-metric formula and computed, not fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The emergent metric (Eq. 1) is taken from the openly cited external quantum-metric result of Ref. [20]; the paper then computes the vortex phase gradient, obtains the Ellis form (Eqs. 5-6), derives the Ricci scalar, solves the geodesic equation to get the deflection law (Eqs. 10-12), and derives the Berry flux gamma = q/2 from the standard Berry connection of spin coherent states. Each of these steps is a calculation from stated inputs; no parameter is fitted to the predicted observable, and the Ellis scale a_q = |q| hbar/(2 sqrt(mJ)) is set by q and J before any deflection is computed. The geometric scalar potential U_geom is derived and explicitly separated from the metric lensing; whether U_geom dominates the full scattering amplitude in the J >> E regime is a physics-correctness question, not a circularity. The designer honeycomb emulator is a programmed consistency check: the hopping profile is engineered to reproduce the target vielbein, and the wave-packet simulation then independently verifies that the valley-symmetrized centroid follows the continuum geodesic. There is no load-bearing self-citation, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern. The only external input is the cited quantum-metric formula, which is independent support rather than a self-referential premise.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the Ellis scale a_q is determined by the winding q and Hund coupling J. The central derivation relies on the quantum-metric formula from Ref [20] and the model vortex texture; the main structural assumption is that the metric deflection is the observable, which the paper's own scalar potential analysis undermines.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Quantum-metric correction g_ij = delta_ij + (hbar^2/4mJ) partial_i S . partial_j S (Eq. 1)
    Taken from Ref [20] as the emergent metric for a Hund-coupled electron in a smooth magnetization; the entire wormhole geometry is obtained by inserting the vortex texture into this formula.
  • domain assumption Strong-exchange projection: J >> E and slowly varying texture
    The projected single-band description and the metric form require the Hund coupling to dominate the electron energy; the paper notes validity conditions in SM Sec. S1 and assumes they hold in the exterior.
  • domain assumption Planar easy-plane vortex texture S = (cos q phi, -sin q phi, 0) with k = 0
    The vortex is the model textural defect; the metric (5) follows from this phase winding. The spiral wave vector k is set to zero to isolate the universal vortex geometry.
  • domain assumption Microscopic vortex core supplies a short-distance cutoff and does not alter the exterior metric
    The paper treats the ideal continuum vortex as characterizing the exterior, with the core regularizing the throat. The lensing law is applied only for r much larger than the core size.
  • ad hoc to paper The observable electron deflection is governed by the metric geodesics alone, with the geometric scalar potential U_geom separable or negligible
    The paper derives the deflection from metric (5) only, while its own SM (Sec. S4) shows U_geom = hbar^2 q^2/(8mr^2) dominates the scattering phase in the J >> E regime. The claimed universal collapse is a property of the metric part, not the full Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Engineered honeycomb hoppings reproduce the inverse vielbein of the core-regularized Ellis metric in the continuum limit
    The lattice emulator (Eq. 16) is constructed so the tangential hopping is suppressed near the core, giving v_phi/v_F = r/sqrt(r^2+a_q^2); the wave-packet simulation then checks the resulting dynamics.
  • standard math Ellis wormhole lensing law and shape function are standard results
    The deflection integral reduces to the complete elliptic integral and the shape function b(rho)=a_q^2/rho is the known Ellis form from Refs [22-29].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wormhole Geometry from a Magnetic Vortex." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2T2U2RW7

@misc{pith2026260812285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wormhole Geometry from a Magnetic Vortex},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2T2U2RW7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12285}
}
read the original abstract

Strong coupling to a magnetic texture makes an electron propagate through an emergent curved space. We show that an elementary vortex realizes the exterior spatial geometry of an Ellis wormhole: an ultrastatic throat with radius fixed by the topological charge and Hund exchange, cut off at short distances by the microscopic core. Two separable signatures follow directly: the electron deflection collapses onto a single Ellis curve governed by the vortex winding and exchange coupling, while the spin Berry phase produces a half-flux Aharonov--Bohm response switched on and off by winding parity. The same metric can be emulated in a designer honeycomb lattice, where the valley-symmetrized wave-packet response follows the predicted exterior geodesic. These signatures are accessible through real-space electron deflection and scattering, providing experimentally distinct probes of the emergent geometry and Berry flux. The magnetic vortex thus turns a topological defect into a tunable curved-space lens for electrons in quantum materials and designer lattices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12285 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. V. Berry, Quantal phase factors accompanying adia- batic changes, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don A392, 45 (1984)

    work page 1984

  2. [2]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states, Communications in Math- ematical Physics76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  3. [3]

    Resta, The insulating state of matter: a geometrical theory, European Physical Journal B79, 121 (2011)

    R. Resta, The insulating state of matter: a geometrical theory, European Physical Journal B79, 121 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    P.Törmä,Essay: Wherecanquantumgeometryleadus?, Physical Review Letters131, 240001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    W. G. Unruh, Experimental black-hole evaporation?, Physical Review Letters46, 1351 (1981)

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    Barceló, S

    C. Barceló, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Analogue gravity, Living Reviews in Relativity14, 3 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    González, F

    J. González, F. Guinea, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, The electronic spectrum of fullerenes from the dirac equa- tion, Nuclear Physics B406, 771 (1993), arXiv:cond- mat/9208004

    work page arXiv 1993

  8. [8]

    Electronic properties of curved graphene sheets

    A. Cortijo and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Electronic proper- 6 ties of curved graphene sheets, Europhysics Letters77, 47002 (2007), arXiv:cond-mat/0603717

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    M. A. H. Vozmediano, M. I. Katsnelson, and F. Guinea, Gauge fields in graphene, Physics Reports496, 109 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    F.deJuan, A.Cortijo,andM.A.H.Vozmediano,Charge inhomogeneities due to smooth ripples in graphene sheets, Physical Review B76, 165409 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    N. Levy, S. A. Burke, K. L. Meaker, M. Panlasigui, A. Zettl, F. Guinea, A. H. Castro Neto, and M. F. Crom- mie, Strain-induced pseudo-magnetic fields greater than 300 tesla in graphene nanobubbles, Science329, 544 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    de Juan, M

    F. de Juan, M. Sturla, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, Space dependent fermi velocity in strained graphene, Physi- cal Review Letters108, 227205 (2012), arXiv:1201.2656 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Wagner, F

    G. Wagner, F. de Juan, and D. X. Nguyen, Landau lev- els in curved space realized in strained graphene, Sci- Post Physics Core5, 029 (2022), arXiv:1911.02028 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2022

  6. [14]

    Boada, A

    O. Boada, A. Celi, J. I. Latorre, and M. Lewenstein, Dirac equation for cold atoms in artificial curved space- times, New Journal of Physics13, 035002 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    D. A. Genov, S. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Mimicking celes- tial mechanics in metamaterials, Nature Physics5, 687 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Könye, L

    V. Könye, L. Mertens, C. Morice, D. Chernyavsky, A. G. Moghaddam, J. van Wezel, and J. van den Brink, Anisotropic optics and gravitational lensing of tilted Weyl fermions, Phys. Rev. B107, L201406 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Könye, C

    V. Könye, C. Morice, D. Chernyavsky, A. G. Moghad- dam, J. van den Brink, and J. van Wezel, Horizon physics of quasi-one-dimensional tilted Weyl cones on a lattice, Phys. Rev. Research4, 033237 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    De Beule, S

    C. De Beule, S. Groenendijk, T. Meng, and T. L. Schmidt, Artificial event horizons in Weyl semimetal het- erostructures and their non-equilibrium signatures, Sci- Post Phys.11, 095 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Argüello-Luengo, U

    J. Argüello-Luengo, U. Bhattacharya, A. Celi, R. W. Chhajlany, T. Grass, M. Plodzien, D. Rakshit, T. Sala- mon, P. Stornati, L. Tarruell, and M. Lewenstein, Syn- thetic dimensions for topological and quantum phases, Commun. Phys.7, 143 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Onishi, N

    Y. Onishi, N. Paul, and L. Fu, Emergent curved space and gravitational lensing in quantum materials, Phys. Rev. B113, 024401 (2026), arXiv:2506.04335 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2026

  13. [21]

    N. D. Mermin, The topological theory of defects in or- dered media, Reviews of Modern Physics51, 591 (1979)

    1979

  14. [22]

    H. G. Ellis, Ether flow through a drainhole - a particle modelingeneralrelativity,J.Math.Phys.14,104(1973)

    1973

  15. [23]

    K. A. Bronnikov, Scalar-tensor theory and scalar charge, Acta Physica Polonica B4, 251 (1973)

    1973

  16. [24]

    M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Wormholes in space-time and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity, Am. J. Phys.56, 395 (1988)

    1988

  17. [25]

    Visser,Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(AIP Press, Woodbury, NY, 1995)

    M. Visser,Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(AIP Press, Woodbury, NY, 1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    S1, the emer- gent metric and wormhole curvature; Sec

    (2026), see Supplemental Material for Sec. S1, the emer- gent metric and wormhole curvature; Sec. S2, the role of the spiral wave vector; Sec. S3, the elliptic lensing inte- gral; Sec. S4, Berry flux and scalar potential; Sec. S5, the partial-wave cross section with Aharonov–B...

    2026

  19. [27]

    Nakajima and H

    K. Nakajima and H. Asada, Deflection angle of light in an Ellis wormhole geometry, Phys. Rev. D85, 107501 (2012), arXiv:1204.3710 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Chetouani and G

    L. Chetouani and G. Clément, Geometrical optics in the ellis geometry, General Relativity and Gravitation16, 111 (1984)

    1984

  21. [29]

    Tsukamoto, Strong deflection limit analysis and grav- itational lensing of an Ellis wormhole, Phys

    N. Tsukamoto, Strong deflection limit analysis and grav- itational lensing of an Ellis wormhole, Phys. Rev. D94, 124001 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    G. E. Volovik, Linear momentum in ferromagnets, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.20, L83 (1987)

    1987

  23. [31]

    Aharonov and A

    Y. Aharonov and A. Casher, Topological quantum ef- fects for neutral particles, Physical Review Letters53, 319 (1984)

    1984

  24. [32]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Significance of electromag- netic potentials in the quantum theory, Physical Review 115, 485 (1959)

    1959

  25. [33]

    Polini, F

    M. Polini, F. Guinea, M. Lewenstein, H. C. Manoha- ran, and V. Pellegrini, Artificial honeycomb lattices for electrons, atoms and photons, Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 625 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zil- berberg, and I. Carusotto, Topological photonics, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015006 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    C. H. Lee, S. Imhof, C. Berger, F. Bayer, J. Brehm, L. W. Molenkamp, T. Kiessling, and R. Thomale, Topolectrical circuits, Commun. Phys.1, 39 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Papanicolaou and T

    N. Papanicolaou and T. N. Tomaras, Dynamics of mag- netic vortices, Nucl. Phys. B360, 425 (1991)

    1991

  29. [37]

    Shinjo, T

    T. Shinjo, T. Okuno, R. Hassdorf, K. Shigeto, and T. Ono, Magnetic vortex core observation in circular dots of permalloy, Science289, 930 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    Wachowiak, J

    A. Wachowiak, J. Wiebe, M. Bode, O. Pietzsch, M. Mor- genstern, and R. Wiesendanger, Direct observation of in- ternal spin structure of magnetic vortex cores, Science 298, 577 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Topological properties and dynamics of magnetic skyrmions, Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 899 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Göbel, I

    B. Göbel, I. Mertig, and O. A. Tretiakov, Beyond skyrmions: Review and perspectives of alternative mag- netic quasiparticles, Physics Reports895, 1 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Schulz, R

    T. Schulz, R. Ritz, A. Bauer, M. Halder, M. Wagner, C. Franz, C. Pfleiderer, K. Everschor, M. Garst, and A. Rosch, Emergent electrodynamics of skyrmions in a chiral magnet, Nature Physics8, 301 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Wormhole Geometry from a Magnetic Vor- tex

    D. Ðorđević, F. Molina, and V. Juričić, Code for “Wormhole Geometry from a Magnetic Vor- tex”,https://github.com/dusandjordjevic-ff/ Vortex-Wormhole-.git(2026). Supplemental Material: Wormhole Geometry from a Magnetic Vortex Dušan -Dorđević,1 Fabián Molina,2 and Vladimir Jurič...

    2026

  35. [43]

    Onishi, N

    Y. Onishi, N. Paul, and L. Fu,Emergent curved space and gravitational lensing in quantum materials, Phys. Rev. B 113, 024401 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Wormhole Geometry from a Magnetic Vortex

    Code for “Wormhole Geometry from a Magnetic Vortex”,https://github.com/dusandjordjevic-ff/ Vortex-Wormhole-.git

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.