Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper experimentally synthesizes a non-Abelian electric field on a photonic frequency chain and observes the resulting Zitterbewegung, the trembling motion of the spectral center of mass.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 19:20 UTC pith:DSQLRROJ

load-bearing objection First non-Abelian electric field and Zitterbewegung in the frequency dimension, credible but missing the control that would make the identification airtight. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.09304 v1 pith:DSQLRROJ submitted 2025-09-11 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph

Non-Abelian Electric Field and Zitterbewegung on a Photonic Frequency Chain

Shu Yang , Bengy Tsz Tsun Wong , Yi Yang This is my paper
classification physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords non-Abelian gauge fieldZitterbewegungsynthetic frequency dimensionphotonic ring resonatorspin-orbit couplingFloquet band structureBloch oscillationsYang-Mills
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims to experimentally create a non-Abelian electric field—a matrix-valued generalization of the ordinary electric field—in the synthetic frequency dimension of a photonic ring resonator. The field emerges from the non-commutativity between the on-site spin-orbit coupling potential and the hopping gauge potential, and it drives Zitterbewegung, an oscillatory trembling of the spectral center of mass. Using self-heterodyne coherent detection, the authors observe this trembling and its interference with Bloch oscillations when an Abelian electric field is also present. A sympathetic reader would care because this brings non-Abelian gauge physics into a compact, programmable photonic platform that could manipulate frequency combs and simulate relativistic quantum dynamics.

Core claim

The central claim is that the non-Abelian electric field E_x = 2ω_y θ σ_x is realized in a one-dimensional photonic frequency chain, and that this field produces Zitterbewegung of the spectral center of mass. The authors construct a polarization-multiplexed, time-modulated ring resonator where the two polarization components act as pseudospins. Modulation dephasing creates an SU(2) vector potential, while polarization rotation and retardation form the non-Abelian scalar potential; their commutator yields the electric field. They verify the resulting Floquet band structure and spin textures through intensity measurements, then detect the trembling motion with a balanced self-heterodyne setup.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-Abelian electric field operator E_x = 2ω_y θ σ_x, the 01-component of the Yang-Mills field strength tensor, computed from the commutator [V, A_x] of the matrix-valued scalar and vector potentials. The experimental realization maps the ring resonator's round-trip transfer function to the tight-binding Bloch Hamiltonian H(k) = 2J cos(k+θσ_z) − ω_y σ_y − ω_z σ_z via the weak-modulation approximation J ≈ −g/2t_R. Zitterbewegung appears as the oscillation of the center of mass of the frequency spectrum, measured by balanced self-heterodyne detection.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the measured spectra with the non-Abelian electric field model depends on the first-order mapping between the ring's round-trip transfer function and the tight-binding Hamiltonian, where the modulation depth g maps to hopping strength J ≈ −g/2t_R; the fitted parameters show small offsets from nominal values (θ = 0.30π vs 0.25π, J = −0.20π vs −0.25π), indicating higher-order corrections that could alter the effective Hamiltonian if they become significant

What would settle it

Measure the Zitterbewegung oscillation frequency as a function of the spin-orbit coupling angle θ while keeping ω_y fixed, and compare with the prediction from the two-band model. The non-Abelian field E_x = 2ω_y θ σ_x implies the oscillation should vanish at θ = 0 and scale proportionally to θ for small θ. If the observed trembling does not vanish at θ = 0 or deviates markedly from this scaling, the interpretation as non-Abelian-field-driven Zitterbewegung would be falsified, and a different mechanism (e.g., higher-order band mixing) would need to be invoked.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The same ring-resonator architecture can be extended to integrated platforms such as thin-film lithium niobate, where polarization coupling can be dispersion-engineered.
  • Adding amplitude modulation opens the non-Hermitian regime, where non-Abelian fields could control complex energy winding and braiding.
  • Incorporating nonlinearity could support soliton solutions to mixed coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations and emulate aspects of quantum chromodynamics.
  • The coexistence of Abelian and non-Abelian electric fields provides a controllable photonic setting to study interference between Zitterbewegung and Bloch oscillations.
  • The scheme offers a compact route to frequency-domain optical computation and multimodal frequency comb control.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One could test the interpretation by scanning the spin-orbit coupling angle θ while keeping the polarization rotation ω_y fixed; the Zitterbewegung frequency should track the theoretical dependence on θ, and deviations would indicate higher-order band effects rather than a genuine non-Abelian field.
  • A natural extension is to add a second synthetic dimension (e.g., a second modulation loop) so that non-Abelian magnetic fields also appear, which would enable a complete test of the Yang-Mills field strength tensor in a photonic platform.
  • Rapidly modulating the polarization rotation faster than the round-trip time could switch between Zitterbewegung and Bloch-oscillation regimes dynamically, effectively creating time-varying synthetic gauge fields for quantum simulation.
  • The observed interference fringes between Zitterbewegung and Bloch oscillations in the simulations suggest that a cleaner observation might be achievable with lower noise, potentially serving as a sensitive probe of the relative phase between Abelian and non-Abelian fields.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experiment in a polarization-multiplexed, time-modulated fiber ring that realizes a one-dimensional synthetic frequency lattice with spin-orbit coupling. The authors identify the lattice Hamiltonian of Eq. (3) with a non-Abelian electric field E_x = 2ω_yθσ_x arising from the non-commutativity of the matrix-valued scalar and vector potentials. They measure the Floquet band structure and spin-resolved intensity spectra as a function of polarization rotation (φ_y) and retardation (φ_z), and compare them with analytical and full-wave numerical models. In the main dynamical experiment, they sweep φ_y in time while performing self-heterodyne coherent detection, and observe an oscillating spectral center of mass that they attribute to Zitterbewegung; with a frequency detuning they also observe an interference between this oscillation and Bloch oscillations. The paper claims the first experimental non-Abelian electric field and Zitterbewegung in the synthetic frequency dimension.

Significance. If the identification between the ring transfer function and the tight-binding Hamiltonian of Eq. (3) is quantitatively solid, the work would be a notable advance: it would demonstrate a non-Abelian electric field in a photonic synthetic dimension and the associated Zitterbewegung, a fundamental relativistic single-particle dynamics that has been difficult to observe in photonic platforms. The experiment is technically sophisticated: it uses in-line polarization-maintaining fiber, programmable polarization control, self-heterodyne balanced detection, and a full-wave time-domain simulation that reproduces many observed features. The band-structure evolution, spin-texture measurements, and the qualitative match between experiment and simulation are valuable. However, the central dynamical claim currently rests on a first-order tight-binding mapping whose own limitations are visible in the fitted parameters, and the experiment lacks a null control that would distinguish non-Abelian-electric-field-induced Zitterbewegung from a generic parametric response of the two-band system.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3 and the paragraph beginning 'Because the non-Abelian electric field is a function of ω_y'] The observed COM oscillation is measured while sweeping φ_y(t)=ω_y t_R over four cycles. The model Hamiltonian (Eq. (3)) has E_x ∝ ω_y θ, but the same time-dependent φ_y also directly changes the σ_y mass term. A parameteric drive of this type can produce oscillatory spectral dynamics even when E_x=0. The paper provides no control experiment with θ=0 (or with ω_y=0), where the non-Abelian electric field is zero by construction but the time-dependent σ_y drive is still present. The full-wave simulation includes the identical time-dependent φ_y, so agreement with experiment does not by itself separate the non-Abelian mechanism from a generic two-band parametric response. I recommend adding a θ=0 control, or an equivalent test where the predicted E_x is tuned independently of the σ_y drive.
  2. [Derivation of Eq. (3) and fit parameters in Fig. 1e / Fig. 2 caption] The identification of the experimental ring with the lattice Hamiltonian is obtained in the weak-modulation limit g→0, where J≈−g/(2t_R). The deviations from this mapping are not negligible: Fig. 1e reports fitted θ=0.30π and Jt_R=−0.20π versus nominal θ=0.25π and Jt_R=−0.25π, and the analytical spectra in Fig. 2 require g=0.47π and γ_R t_R=0.83 instead of the experimental g=0.50π and γ_R t_R=0.63. Since the non-Abelian electric field is computed from the parameters of Eq. (3), these offsets mean that the experimental value of E_x is not quantitatively pinned down by the independently set parameters. The manuscript should show that the higher-order corrections do not introduce additional terms (e.g., σ_x or σ_z couplings, k-dependent hopping or loss) that could imitate the predicted spin-orbit dynamics, and should state explicitly which parameters are fitted rather than independently mea
  3. [Eq. (1) and the claim of 'demonstrating' a non-Abelian electric field] Equation (1) defines E_x in terms of the potentials V and A_x; because those potentials are the Hamiltonian terms in Eq. (2), the existence of E_x is true by construction once Eq. (3) is accepted. The experimental evidence is therefore an indirect verification of the Hamiltonian rather than a direct measurement of the field strength. This is not by itself a flaw—most synthetic gauge-field experiments work this way—but it raises the burden on the dynamics measurement to be uniquely attributable to the non-Abelian term. The lack of a θ=0 control and the quantitative mapping uncertainty above make the current evidence consistent with but not uniquely demonstrative of non-Abelian-electric-field-induced Zitterbewegung.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption vs. main text] The Fig. 1 caption states θ=0.31π, Jt_R=−0.20π, while the text says the fitted values are θ=0.3π and Jt_R=−0.2π. Please make this consistent and include uncertainties on the fitted parameters.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says γ_R t_R=0.63 for experiment/simulation and γ_R t_R=0.83 for the analytical calculation, without explaining whether γ_R t_R is independently measured or adjusted. Please clarify the status of this parameter.
  3. [Notation in Sec. 3] ω_y is used both as the static spin-orbit coupling strength and as the sweep rate of φ_y(t). Consider using a distinct symbol (e.g., Ω_y or φ̇_y) for the modulation rate to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Fig. 3b-d] The removal of the DC line at Ω_COM=0 is described only briefly. Since the center-of-mass is computed from these spectra, the manuscript should specify the filtering procedure and confirm that it does not bias the extracted COM trajectory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the non-Abelian field is a definitional consequence of the implemented Hamiltonian, and the central ZB/BO observations are compared against an independent full-wave simulation and raw spectra, not against the same fitted quantity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Eq. (1) defines the Yang–Mills electric field; Eq. (2) posits a lattice Hamiltonian whose scalar and vector potentials are non-commuting; the commutator yields E_x = 2ω_yθσ_x. This is a mathematical consequence, not a fit. The experimental realization is then validated by independent observables: band minima (Fig. 1e), spin-resolved spectra (Fig. 2), and spectral COM dynamics (Fig. 3). The full-wave simulation uses the physical ring transfer function T = e^{iωt_R−γ_R t_R} e^{ig cos(Ωt+θσ_z)} e^{iφ_yσ_y} e^{iφ_zσ_z}, not the tight-binding model itself; its agreement with experiment is a nontrivial check of the ring model. The analytic k± formula is cited from the authors' prior work [75], but it is a direct analytic consequence of Eq. (3) and is used only for parameter estimation; the ZB/BO predictions in Fig. 3 rely on nominal parameters and the independent simulation, not on the fitted offsets. The acknowledged first-order breakdown (fitted θ and J offsets, modified g and γ_Rt_R for analytic spectra) is a quantitative accuracy limitation, not a logical circularity. No equation reduces to its inputs and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard synthetic-frequency-dimension mapping (axiom 1), the ZB interpretation (axiom 3), and four calibrated parameters: θ, J fitted from band data and g, γ_R adjusted for analytical curves. No new entities are introduced; the non-Abelian electric field is a derived combination of implemented potentials.

free parameters (4)
  • Modulation dephasing θ (nominal 0.25π, fitted 0.30π) = 0.30π (fitted from band minima in Fig. 1e)
    Fitted using the theoretical k± expression from ref [75]; used in band structure and ZB interpretation. The offset from nominal is attributed to first-order approximation breakdown.
  • Hopping strength J (nominal Jt_R=-0.25π, fitted -0.20π) = -0.20π (fitted from Fig. 1e)
    Jointly fitted with θ from the ground-state quasimomentum data; modifies the effective lattice bandwidth.
  • Modulation depth g for analytical spectra (nominal 0.5π) = 0.47π
    Adjusted for the analytical calculation in Fig. 2d-e to match experimental spectra because the first-order approximation J=-g/2t_R is violated.
  • Round-trip loss γ_R t_R for analytical spectra (experimental/simulation 0.63) = 0.83
    Adjusted for the analytical line shapes in Fig. 2d-e; the full-wave simulation keeps the experimental value 0.63.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The ring transfer function T = e^{iωt_R-γ_R t_R} e^{ig cos(Ωt+θσ_z)} e^{iϕ_y σ_y} e^{iϕ_z σ_z} maps to the tight-binding Bloch Hamiltonian H(k)=2J cos(k+θσ_z)-ω_y σ_y-ω_z σ_z in the weak-modulation limit with J≈-g/2t_R.
    Invoked after Eq. (3) and used to define the non-Abelian electric field. The first-order approximation is acknowledged as imperfect because fitted θ and J differ from nominal values.
  • domain assumption The ring modes form an effectively infinite, translationally invariant synthetic one-dimensional lattice (frequency chain) with only nearest-neighbor coupling.
    Required for Bloch band analysis and the k-space spin texture; ring boundary/finite-size effects are not treated in the main text.
  • ad hoc to paper The measured center-of-mass trajectory of the spectral amplitude as the rotation ϕ_y is swept is equivalent to the Zitterbewegung oscillation of a wavepacket in the static non-Abelian model.
    This is the interpretive step that connects Fig. 3 data to the headline ZB claim; the derivation is deferred to SM Sec. S5 and is not present in the main text.
  • domain assumption Self-heterodyne coherent detection recovers the complex electric field amplitude, including phase, of each polarization.
    Used to access the spectral amplitude center of mass; standard technique but essential to the measurement.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10407 in / 18765 out tokens · 174580 ms · 2026-08-04T19:20:04.462716+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The synthetic frequency dimension, which realizes fictitious spatial dimensions from the spectral degree of freedom, has emerged as a promising platform for engineering artificial gauge fields in studying quantum simulations and topological physics with photons. A current central task for frequency-domain photons is the creation and manipulation of nontrivial non-Abelian field strength tensors and observing their governing dynamics. Here, we experimentally demonstrate a miniaturized scheme for creating non-Abelian electric fields in a photonic frequency chain using a polarization-multiplexed, time-modulated ring resonator. By engineering spin-orbit coupling via modulation dephasing, polarization rotation, and polarization retardation, we achieve programmable control over synthetic Floquet bands and their quasimomentum spin-resolved textures. Leveraging self-heterodyne coherent detection, we demonstrate Zitterbewegung -- a trembling motion of photons -- induced by non-Abelian electric fields on the frequency chain. We further observe the interference between Zitterbewegung and Bloch oscillations arising from the coexistence of non-Abelian and Abelian electric fields. Our work bridges synthetic dimensions with non-Abelian gauge theory for versatile photonic emulation of relativistic quantum mechanics and spinor dynamics, and can be instrumental in applications like frequency-domain optical computation and multimodal frequency comb control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09304 by Bengy Tsz Tsun Wong, Shu Yang, Yi Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Non-Abelian electric fields in the photonic frequency dimension. a. One-dimensional lattice model featuring non-commutative matrix-valued scalar and vector potentials. b. Simplified schematic of the experimental setup (see full setup in SM Sec. S1A). The red and blue colors denote the horizontal and vertical polarization in the polarization-maintaining fibers (PMF), which are also labeled by the orientatio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spin textures under synthetic spin-orbit coupling in the Floquet band structure. a. Theoretical single-particle ground-state phase diagram overlaid with spin textures. Outside and inside the yellow solid curve, the SOC band possesses single and double local minima, while the white dashed line marks the ground-state degeneracy. The green crosses correspond to the measurements in b and c. b-c. Experimentally… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Self-heterodyne coherent measurement of Zitterbewegung and Bloch oscillation in spectral dynamics. a. Simplified schematic of the coherent detection setup. The rotation ϕy modulation is realized with the polarization synthesizer placed inside the ring, serving as a programmable HWP. Other optical elements inside the ring are omitted (see full setup in SM Sec. S1B). The signals were shifted by 80 MHz using … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Experimental Realization of Synthetic Magnonic Lattice via Floquet Engineering

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Experimental realization of a reconfigurable synthetic magnonic lattice in YIG via Floquet engineering that supports Bloch oscillations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dalibard, F

    J. Dalibard, F. Gerbier, G. Juzeli ¯unas, and P. ¨Ohberg, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 1523 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Goldman, G

    N. Goldman, G. Juzeli ¯unas, P. ¨Ohberg, and I. B. Spielman, Re- ports on Progress in Physics77, 126401 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Aidelsburger, S

    M. Aidelsburger, S. Nascimbene, and N. Goldman, Comptes Rendus Physique19, 394 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zilberberg,et al., Reviews of Modern Physics91, 015006 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    M. C. Banuls, R. Blatt, J. Catani, A. Celi, J. I. Cirac, M. Dal- monte, L. Fallani, K. Jansen, M. Lewenstein, S. Montangero, et al., The European physical journal D74, 165 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Aidelsburger, L

    M. Aidelsburger, L. Barbiero, A. Bermudez, T. Chanda, A. Dauphin, D. Gonz´alez-Cuadra, P. R. Grzybowski, S. Hands, F. Jendrzejewski, J. J ¨unemann,et al., Philosophical Transac- tions of the Royal Society A380, 20210064 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Y . Yang, B. Yang, G. Ma, J. Li, S. Zhang, and C. Chan, Science 383, eadf9621 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical electrodynamics(John Wiley & Sons, 2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    Ruseckas, G

    J. Ruseckas, G. Juzeli ¯unas, P. ¨Ohberg, and M. Fleischhauer, Physical review letters95, 010404 (2005)

    2005

  10. [10]

    T. D. Stanescu, C. Zhang, and V . Galitski, Physical review let- ters99, 110403 (2007)

    2007

  11. [11]

    Y .-J. Lin, K. Jim´enez-Garc´ıa, and I. B. Spielman, Nature471, 83 (2011)

    2011

  12. [12]

    Zhai, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 026001 (2015)

    H. Zhai, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 026001 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Zhang, W

    S. Zhang, W. S. Cole, A. Paramekanti, and N. Trivedi, Annual Review of Cold Atoms and Molecules , 135 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Huang, Z

    L. Huang, Z. Meng, P. Wang, P. Peng, S.-L. Zhang, L. Chen, D. Li, Q. Zhou, and J. Zhang, Nature Physics12, 540 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Z. Wu, L. Zhang, W. Sun, X.-T. Xu, B.-Z. Wang, S.-C. Ji, Y . Deng, S. Chen, X.-J. Liu, and J.-W. Pan, Science354, 83 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    Rechci ´nska, M

    K. Rechci ´nska, M. Kr ´ol, R. Mazur, P. Morawiak, R. Mirek, K. Łempicka, W. Bardyszewski, M. Matuszewski, P. Kula, W. Piecek,et al., Science366, 727 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    V . Sala, D. Solnyshkov, I. Carusotto, T. Jacqmin, A. Lemaˆıtre, H. Terc ¸as, A. Nalitov, M. Abbarchi, E. Galopin, I. Sagnes,et al., Physical Review X5, 011034 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    Liang, W

    J. Liang, W. Wen, F. Jin, Y . G. Rubo, T. C. Liew, and R. Su, Nature Photonics18, 357 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Y . Li, X. Ma, X. Zhai, M. Gao, H. Dai, S. Schumacher, and T. Gao, nature communications13, 3785 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    M. S. Spencer, Y . Fu, A. P. Schlaus, D. Hwang, Y . Dai, M. D. Smith, D. R. Gamelin, and X.-Y . Zhu, Science Advances7, eabj7667 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Y . Shi, Y . Gan, Y . Chen, Y . Wang, S. Ghosh, A. Kavokin, and Q. Xiong, Nature Materials24, 56 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Whittaker, T

    C. Whittaker, T. Dowling, A. Nalitov, A. Yulin, B. Royall, E. Clarke, M. Skolnick, I. Shelykh, and D. Krizhanovskii, Nature Photonics15, 193 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Terc ¸as, H

    H. Terc ¸as, H. Flayac, D. Solnyshkov, and G. Malpuech, Phys- ical review letters112, 066402 (2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    Gianfrate, O

    A. Gianfrate, O. Bleu, L. Dominici, V . Ardizzone, M. De Giorgi, D. Ballarini, G. Lerario, K. West, L. Pfeif- fer, D. Solnyshkov,et al., Nature578, 381 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Merkl, F

    M. Merkl, F. Zimmer, G. Juzeli ¯unas, and P. ¨Ohberg, Europhys- ics Letters83, 54002 (2008)

    2008

  26. [26]

    Vaishnav and C

    J. Vaishnav and C. W. Clark, Physical review letters100, 153002 (2008)

    2008

  27. [27]

    L. J. LeBlanc, M. Beeler, K. Jimenez-Garcia, A. R. Perry, S. Sugawa, R. Williams, and I. B. Spielman, New Journal of Physics15, 073011 (2013)

    2013

  28. [28]

    Dreisow, M

    F. Dreisow, M. Heinrich, R. Keil, A. T ¨unnermann, S. Nolte, S. Longhi, and A. Szameit, Physical Review Letters105, 143902 (2010)

    2010

  29. [29]

    C. Qu, C. Hamner, M. Gong, C. Zhang, and P. Engels, Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics88, 021604 (2013)

    2013

  30. [30]

    Zhang, Physical review letters100, 113903 (2008)

    X. Zhang, Physical review letters100, 113903 (2008)

    2008

  31. [31]

    Sedov, Y

    E. Sedov, Y . Rubo, and A. Kavokin, Physical Review B97, 245312 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Hasan, C

    M. Hasan, C. S. Madasu, K. D. Rathod, C. C. Kwong, C. Mini- atura, F. Chevy, and D. Wilkowski, Physical Review Letters 129, 130402 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Zawadzki and T

    W. Zawadzki and T. M. Rusin, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter23, 143201 (2011)

    2011

  34. [34]

    Polimeno, A

    L. Polimeno, A. Fieramosca, G. Lerario, L. De Marco, M. De Giorgi, D. Ballarini, L. Dominici, V . Ardizzone, M. Pugliese, C. Prontera,et al., Optica8, 1442 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Lovett, P

    S. Lovett, P. M. Walker, A. Osipov, A. Yulin, P. U. Naik, C. E. Whittaker, I. A. Shelykh, M. S. Skolnick, and D. N. Krizhan- ovskii, Light: Science & Applications12, 126 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Chen, R.-Y

    Y . Chen, R.-Y . Zhang, Z. Xiong, Z. H. Hang, J. Li, J. Q. Shen, and C. Chan, Nature communications10, 3125 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Osterloh, M

    K. Osterloh, M. Baig, L. Santos, P. Zoller, and M. Lewenstein, Physical review letters95, 010403 (2005)

    2005

  38. [38]

    Goldman, A

    N. Goldman, A. Kubasiak, A. Bermudez, P. Gaspard, M. Lewenstein, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Physical review let- ters103, 035301 (2009)

    2009

  39. [39]

    Y . Yang, B. Zhen, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Solja ˇci´c, Light: Science & Applications9, 177 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

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

    1975

  41. [41]

    Wilczek and A

    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 2111 (1984)

    1984

  42. [42]

    Horv ´athy, Physical Review D33, 407 (1986)

    P. Horv ´athy, Physical Review D33, 407 (1986)

    1986

  43. [43]

    A. Bohm, A. Mostafazadeh, H. Koizumi, Q. Niu, and J. Zwan- ziger,The Geometric Phase in Quantum Systems: F oundations, Mathematical Concepts, and Applications in Molecular and Condensed Matter Physics(Springer Science & Business Me- dia, 2013)

    2013

  44. [44]

    Y . Yang, C. Peng, D. Zhu, H. Buljan, J. D. Joannopoulos, B. Zhen, and M. Soljaˇci´c, Science365, 1021 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Iadecola, T

    T. Iadecola, T. Schuster, and C. Chamon, Physical review letters 117, 073901 (2016)

    2016

  46. [46]

    J. Noh, T. Schuster, T. Iadecola, S. Huang, M. Wang, K. P. Chen, C. Chamon, and M. C. Rechtsman, Nature Physics16, 989 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    Jacob, P

    A. Jacob, P. ¨Ohberg, G. Juzeli ¯unas, and L. Santos, Applied Physics B89, 439 (2007)

    2007

  48. [48]

    Z. Dong, X. Wu, Y . Yang, P. Yu, X. Chen, and L. Yuan, Nature Communications15, 7392 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Fruchart, Y

    M. Fruchart, Y . Zhou, and V . Vitelli, Nature577, 636 (2020)

    2020

  50. [50]

    J. Wu, Z. Wang, Y . Biao, F. Fei, S. Zhang, Z. Yin, Y . Hu, Z. Song, T. Wu, F. Song,et al., Nature Electronics5, 635 (2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    Q. Yan, Z. Wang, D. Wang, R. Ma, C. Lu, G. Ma, X. Hu, and Q. Gong, Advances in Optics and Photonics15, 907 (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    L. Yuan, Q. Lin, M. Xiao, and S. Fan, optica5, 1396 (2018)

    2018

  53. [53]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, N. Goldman, O. Zilberberg, and I. Carusotto, Physical Review A93, 043827 (2016)

    2016

  54. [54]

    B. A. Bell, K. Wang, A. S. Solntsev, D. N. Neshev, A. A. Suk- 7 horukov, and B. J. Eggleton, Optica4, 1433 (2017)

    2017

  55. [55]

    Ozawa and H

    T. Ozawa and H. M. Price, Nature Reviews Physics1, 349 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    A. Dutt, M. Minkov, Q. Lin, L. Yuan, D. A. Miller, and S. Fan, Nature communications10, 3122 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    A. Dutt, Q. Lin, L. Yuan, M. Minkov, M. Xiao, and S. Fan, Science367, 59 (2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Lustig and M

    E. Lustig and M. Segev, Advances in Optics and Photonics13, 426 (2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    Englebert, N

    N. Englebert, N. Goldman, M. Erkintalo, N. Mostaan, S.-P. Gorza, F. Leo, and J. Fatome, Nature Physics19, 1014 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    K. Wang, A. Dutt, K. Y . Yang, C. C. Wojcik, J. Vuˇckovi´c, and S. Fan, Science371, 1240 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    K. Wang, A. Dutt, C. C. Wojcik, and S. Fan, Nature598, 59 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    H. Chen, N. Yang, C. Qin, W. Li, B. Wang, T. Han, C. Zhang, W. Liu, K. Wang, H. Long,et al., Light: Science & Applications 10, 48 (2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

    Villa, I

    G. Villa, I. Carusotto, and T. Ozawa, Communications Physics 7, 246 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    S. K. Sridhar, R. Srikanth, A. R. Miller, F. J. McComb, and A. Dutt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04151 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    D. Yu, W. Song, L. Wang, R. Srikanth, S. Kaushik Sridhar, T. Chen, C. Huang, G. Li, X. Qiao, X. Wu,et al., Photonics Insights4, R06 (2025)

    2025

  66. [66]

    Y . Hu, C. Reimer, A. Shams-Ansari, M. Zhang, and M. Loncar, Optica7, 1189 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    H. Zhao, B. Li, H. Li, and M. Li, Nature Communications13, 5426 (2022)

    2022

  68. [68]

    Bal ˇcytis, T

    A. Bal ˇcytis, T. Ozawa, Y . Ota, S. Iwamoto, J. Maeda, and T. Baba, Science advances8, eabk0468 (2022)

    2022

  69. [69]

    Y . Hu, M. Yu, N. Sinclair, D. Zhu, R. Cheng, C. Wang, and M. Lonˇcar, Nature Communications13, 6293 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    H. X. Dinh, A. Bal ˇcytis, T. Ozawa, Y . Ota, G. Ren, T. Baba, S. Iwamoto, A. Mitchell, and T. G. Nguyen, Communications Physics7, 185 (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    Wang, X.-D

    Z.-A. Wang, X.-D. Zeng, Y .-T. Wang, J.-M. Ren, C. Ao, Z.- P. Li, W. Liu, N.-J. Guo, L.-K. Xie, J.-Y . Liu,et al., Nature Communications16, 7780 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    Zeng, Z.-A

    X.-D. Zeng, Z.-A. Wang, J.-M. Ren, Y .-T. Wang, C. Ao, W. Liu, N.-J. Guo, L.-K. Xie, J.-Y . Liu, Y .-H. Ma, Y .-Q. Wu, S. Wang, P.-Y . Li, Z.-Q. Zhou, M. Yang, J.-S. Xu, X.-W. Luo, J.-S. Tang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15470 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Cheng, K

    D. Cheng, K. Wang, and S. Fan, Physical Review Letters130, 083601 (2023)

    2023

  74. [74]

    Z. Pang, B. T. T. Wong, J. Hu, and Y . Yang, Physical Review Letters132, 043804 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    B. T. T. Wong, S. Yang, Z. Pang, and Y . Yang, Physical Review Letters134, 163803 (2025)

    2025

  76. [76]

    Cheng, K

    D. Cheng, K. Wang, C. Roques-Carmes, E. Lustig, O. Y . Long, H. Wang, and S. Fan, Nature637, 52 (2025)

    2025

  77. [77]

    Yuan and S

    L. Yuan and S. Fan, Optica3, 1014 (2016)

    2016