<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Generalized Lifshitz-Kosevich scaling at quantum criticality from the holographic correspondence · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0912.0008/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0912.0008/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Generalized Lifshitz-Kosevich scaling at quantum criticality from the holographic correspondence — mentioned by dzdt</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12606510</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0912.0008:12606510</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:23:44 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I think it is bad journalism, intended to boggle not enlighten. The paper mentioned is http://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.0008, and does not itself make mention of black holes. Presumably the &amp;quot;higher-dimensional&amp;quot; aspect is coming from Hartnoll and Hofman&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;large number of degrees of freedom&amp;quot; analysis. I don&amp;#x27;t know anything about this area to guess whether there is really a black hole analogy. But I am confident it isn&amp;#x27;t a useful analogy to make anything more clear!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0912.0008/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cond-mat.str-el</category></item></channel></rss>
