r
X
i
v
:
g
r

q
c
/
0
5
0
5
0
6
5
v
3
1
2
M
a
y
2
0
1
1
Analogue Gravity
Carlos Barcel´o
Instituto de Astrof´ısica de Andaluc´ıa (IAACSIC)
Glorieta de la Astronom´ıa,
18008 Granada, Spain
email: carlos@iaa.es
http://www.iaa.csic.es/
Stefano Liberati
SISSA
International School for Advanced Studies
Via Bonomea 265, I34136 Trieste, Italy,
and
INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
email: liberati@sissa.it
http://www.sissa.it/
~
liberati
Matt Visser
School of Mathematics, Statistics, and Operations Research
Victoria University of Wellington; PO Box 600
Wellington 6140, New Zealand
email: matt.visser@msor.vuw.ac.nz
http://www.msor.victoria.ac.nz/
~
visser
Abstract
Analogue gravity is a research programme which investigates analogues of general relativis
tic gravitational ﬁelds within other physical systems, typically but not exclusively condensed
matter systems, with the aim of gaining new insights into their corresponding problems. Ana
logue models of (and for) gravity have a long and distinguished history dating back to the
earliest years of general relativity. In this review article we will discuss the history, aims,
results, and future prospects for the various analogue models. We start the discussion by
presenting a particularly simple example of an analogue model, before exploring the rich
history and complex tapestry of models discussed in the literature. The last decade in par
ticular has seen a remarkable and sustained development of analogue gravity ideas, leading to
some hundreds of published articles, a workshop, two books, and this review article. Future
prospects for the analogue gravity programme also look promising, both on the experimental
front (where technology is rapidly advancing) and on the theoretical front (where variants of
analogue models can be used as a springboard for radical attacks on the problem of quantum
gravity).
1
Update (10 May 2011)
Completely revised and updated previous version. Signiﬁcantly extended Sections 2.4, 3, 4.1,
4.2, 5, and 7. Introduced new Section 6. Eight new ﬁgures have been added. The number of
references increased from 434 to 702.
2
1 Introduction
And I cherish more than anything else the Analogies, my most trustworthy masters.
They know all the secrets of Nature, and they ought to be least neglected in Geometry.
– Johannes Kepler
Figure 1: Artistic impression of cascading sound cones (in the geometrical acoustics limit) forming
an acoustic black hole when supersonic ﬂow tips the sound cones past the vertical.
Figure 2: Artistic impression of trapped waves (in the physical acoustics limit) forming an acoustic
black hole when supersonic ﬂow forces the waves to move downstream.
Analogies have played a very important role in physics and mathematics – they provide new
ways of looking at problems that permit crossfertilization of ideas among diﬀerent branches of
science. A carefully chosen analogy can be extremely useful in focusing attention on a speciﬁc
problem, and in suggesting unexpected routes to a possible solution. In this review article we
3
will focus on “analogue gravity”, the development of analogies (typically but not always based on
condensed matter physics) to probe aspects of the physics of curved spacetime – and in particular
to probe aspects of curved space quantum ﬁeld theory, and to obtain lessons of potential relevance
on the road towards a theory of quantum gravity.
The most wellknown of these analogies is the use of sound waves in a moving ﬂuid as an
analogue for light waves in a curved spacetime. Supersonic ﬂuid ﬂow can then generate a “dumb
hole”, the acoustic analogue of a “black hole”, and the analogy can be extended all the way
to mathematically demonstrating the presence of phononic Hawking radiation from the acoustic
horizon. This particular example provides (at least in principle) a concrete laboratory model for
curvedspace quantum ﬁeld theory in a realm that is technologically accessible to experiment.
There are many other “analogue models” that may be useful for this or other reasons – some
of the analogue models are interesting for experimental reasons, others are useful for the way they
provide new light on perplexing theoretical questions. The information ﬂow is, in principle, bi
directional and sometimes insights developed within the context of general relativity can be used
to understand aspects of the analogue model.
Of course, analogy is not identity, and we are in no way claiming that the analogue models we
consider are completely equivalent to general relativity – merely that the analogue model (in order
to be interesting) should capture and accurately reﬂect a suﬃcient number of important features
of general relativity (or sometimes special relativity). The list of analogue models is extensive, and
in this review we will seek to do justice both to the key models, and to the key features of those
models.
1.1 Overview
In the following sections we shall:
• Discuss the ﬂowing ﬂuid analogy in some detail.
• Summarise the history and motivation for various analogue models.
• Discuss the many physics issues various researchers have addressed.
• Provide a representative catalogue of extant models.
• Discuss the main physics results obtained to date, both on the theoretical and experimental
sides.
• Outline some of the many possible directions for future research.
• Summarise the current state of aﬀairs.
By that stage the interested reader will have had a quite thorough introduction to the ideas,
techniques, and hopes of the analogue gravity programme.
1.2 Motivations
The motivation for these investigations (both historical and current) is rather mixed. In modern
language, the reasons to investigate analogue models are:
• Partly to use condensed matter to gain insight into classical general relativity.
• Partly to use condensed matter to gain insight into curvedspace quantum ﬁeld theory.
• Partly to develop an observational window on curvedspace quantum ﬁeld theory.
4
• Partly to use classical general relativity to gain insight into condensed matter physics.
• Partly to gain insight into new and radicallydiﬀerent ways of dealing with “quantum/emergent
gravity”.
1.3 Going further
Apart from this present review article, and the references contained herein, there are several key
items that stand out as starting points for any deeper investigation:
• The book “Artiﬁcial Black Holes”, edited by Novello, Visser, and Volovik [470].
• The archival website for the “Analogue models” workshop:
– http://www.msor.victoria.ac.nz/
~
visser/Analog/
• The book “The Universe in a Helium Droplet”, by Volovik [660].
• The Physics Reports article, “Superﬂuid analogies of cosmological phenomena”, by Volovik
[655].
• The review article by Balbinot, Fabbri, Fagnocchi, and Parentani [21] (focussing largely on
backreaction and shortdistance eﬀects).
• The Lecture Notes in Physics volume on “Quantum Analogies” edited by Unruh and Sch¨ utz
hold [614].
5
2 The Simplest Example of an Analogue Spacetime
Acoustics in a moving ﬂuid is the simplest and cleanest example of an analogue model [607, 622, 626,
624]. The basic physics is simple, the conceptual framework is simple, and speciﬁc computations
are often simple (whenever, that is, they are not impossibly hard).
1
2.1 Background
The basic physics is this: A moving ﬂuid will drag sound waves along with it, and if the speed of
the ﬂuid ever becomes supersonic, then in the supersonic region sound waves will never be able to
ﬁght their way back upstream [607, 622, 626, 624]. This implies the existence of a “dumb hole”,
a region from which sound can not escape.
2
Of course this sounds very similar, at the level of a
nonmathematical verbal analogy, to the notion of a “black hole” in general relativity. The real
question is whether this verbal analogy can be turned into a precise mathematical and physical
statement – it is only after we have a precise mathematical and physical connection between (in
this example) the physics of acoustics in a ﬂuid ﬂow and at least some signiﬁcant features of general
relativity that we can claim to have an “analogue model of (some aspects of) gravity”.
Figure 3: A moving ﬂuid will drag sound pulses along with it.
Now the features of general relativity that one typically captures in an “analogue model” are
the kinematic features that have to do with how ﬁelds (classical or quantum) are deﬁned on curved
spacetime, and the sine qua non of any analogue model is the existence of some “eﬀective metric”
that captures the notion of the curved spacetimes that arise in general relativity. (At the very least,
one might wish to capture the notion of the Minkowski geometry of special relativity.) Indeed, the
verbal description above (and its generalizations in other physical frameworks) can be converted
into a precise mathematical and physical statement, which ultimately is the reason that analogue
models are of physical interest. The analogy works at two levels:
• Geometrical acoustics.
• Physical acoustics.
The advantage of geometrical acoustics is that the derivation of the precise mathematical form of
the analogy is so simple as to be almost trivial, and that the derivation is extremely general. The
1
The need for a certain degree of caution regarding the allegedly straightforward physics of simple ﬂuids might
be inferred from the fact that the Clay Mathematics Institute is currently oﬀering a US$ 1,000,000 Millennium
Prize for signiﬁcant progress on the question of existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Navier–Stokes equation.
See http://www.claymath.org/millennium/ for details.
2
In correct English, the word “dumb” means “mute”, as in “unable to speak”. The word “dumb” does not mean
“stupid”, though even many native English speakers get this wrong.
6
disadvantage is that in the geometrical acoustics limit one can deduce only the causal structure of
the spacetime, and does not obtain a unique eﬀective metric. The advantage of physical acoustics
is that, while the derivation of the analogy holds in a more restricted regime, the analogy can do
more for you in that it can now uniquely determine a speciﬁc eﬀective metric and accommodate a
wave equation for the sound waves.
2.2 Geometrical acoustics
At the level of geometrical acoustics we need only assume that:
• The speed of sound c, relative to the ﬂuid, is well deﬁned.
• The velocity of the ﬂuid v, relative to the laboratory, is well deﬁned.
Then, relative to the laboratory, the velocity of a sound ray propagating, with respect to the ﬂuid,
along the direction deﬁned by the unit vector n, is
dx
dt
= c n +v. (1)
This deﬁnes a sound cone in spacetime given by the condition n
2
= 1, i.e.,
−c
2
dt
2
+ (dx −vdt)
2
= 0 . (2)
That is
−[c
2
−v
2
] dt
2
− 2v dx dt + dx dx = 0 . (3)
t
x
Subsonic Sonic Supersonic
Figure 4: A moving ﬂuid will tip the “sound cones” as it moves. Supersonic ﬂow will tip the sound
cones past the vertical.
Solving this quadratic equation for dx as a function of dt provides a double cone associated with
each point in space and time. This is associated with a conformal class of Lorentzian metrics [607,
622, 626, 624, 470]
g = Ω
2
_
−(c
2
−v
2
) −v
T
−v I
_
, (4)
7
where Ω is an unspeciﬁed but nonvanishing function.
The virtues of the geometric approach are its extreme simplicity and the fact that the basic
structure is dimensionindependent. Moreover, this logic rapidly (and relatively easily) generalises
to more complicated physical situations.
3
2.3 Physical acoustics
It is well known that for a static homogeneous inviscid ﬂuid the propagation of sound waves is
governed by the simple wave equation [370, 372, 443, 577]
∂
2
t
φ = c
2
∇
2
φ. (5)
Generalizing this result to a ﬂuid that is nonhomogeneous, or to a ﬂuid that is in motion, possibly
even in nonsteady motion, is more subtle than it at ﬁrst would appear. To derive a wave equation
in this more general situation we shall start by adopting a few simplifying assumptions to allow us
to derive the following theorem.
Theorem. If a ﬂuid is barotropic and inviscid, and the ﬂow is irrotational (though possibly time
dependent) then the equation of motion for the velocity potential describing an acoustic disturbance
is identical to the d’Alembertian equation of motion for a minimallycoupled massless scalar ﬁeld
propagating in a (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian geometry
∆φ ≡
1
√
−g
∂
µ
_√
−g g
µν
∂
ν
φ
_
= 0. (6)
Under these conditions, the propagation of sound is governed by an acoustic metric – g
µν
(t, x).
This acoustic metric describes a (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian (pseudo–Riemannian) geometry.
The metric depends algebraically on the density, velocity of ﬂow, and local speed of sound in the
ﬂuid. Speciﬁcally
g
µν
(t, x) ≡
ρ
c
_
¸
¸
_
−(c
2
−v
2
)
.
.
. −v
T
−v
.
.
. I
_
¸
¸
_
. (7)
(Here I is the 3 3 identity matrix.) In general, when the ﬂuid is nonhomogeneous and ﬂowing,
the acoustic Riemann tensor associated with this Lorentzian metric will be nonzero.
Comment. It is quite remarkable that even though the underlying ﬂuid dynamics is Newtonian,
nonrelativistic, and takes place in ﬂat spaceplustime, the ﬂuctuations (sound waves) are governed
by a curved (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian (pseudoRiemannian) spacetime geometry. For practi
tioners of general relativity this observation describes a very simple and concrete physical model
for certain classes of Lorentzian spacetimes, including (as we shall later see) black holes. On the
other hand, this discussion is also potentially of interest to practitioners of continuum mechanics
and ﬂuid dynamics in that it provides a simple concrete introduction to Lorentzian diﬀerential
geometric techniques.
3
For instance, whenever one has a system of PDEs that can be written in ﬁrstorder quasilinear symmetric
hyperbolic form, then it is an exact nonperturbative result that the matrix of coeﬃcients for the ﬁrstderivative
terms can be used to construct a conformal class of metrics that encodes the causal structure of the system of
PDEs. For barotropic hydrodynamics this is brieﬂy discussed in [138]. This analysis is related to the behaviour of
characteristics of the PDEs, and ultimately can be linked back to the Fresnel equation that appears in the eikonal
limit.
8
Proof. The fundamental equations of ﬂuid dynamics [370, 372, 443, 577] are the equation of con
tinuity
∂
t
ρ +∇ (ρ v) = 0, (8)
and Euler’s equation (equivalent to F = ma applied to small lumps of ﬂuid)
ρ
dv
dt
≡ ρ [∂
t
v + (v ∇)v] = f . (9)
Start the analysis by assuming the ﬂuid to be inviscid (zero viscosity), with the only forces present
being those due to pressure.
4
Then, for the force density, we have
f = −∇p. (10)
Via standard manipulations the Euler equation can be rewritten as
∂
t
v = v (∇v) −
1
ρ
∇p −∇
_
1
2
v
2
_
. (11)
Now take the ﬂow to be vorticity free, that is, locally irrotational. Introduce the velocity potential
φ such that v = −∇φ, at least locally. If one further takes the ﬂuid to be barotropic (this means
that ρ is a function of p only), it becomes possible to deﬁne
h(p) =
_
p
0
dp
′
ρ(p
′
)
; so that ∇h =
1
ρ
∇p. (12)
Thus, the speciﬁc enthalpy, h(p), is a function of p only. Euler’s equation now reduces to
−∂
t
φ +h +
1
2
(∇φ)
2
= 0. (13)
This is a version of Bernoulli’s equation.
Now linearise these equations of motion around some assumed background (ρ
0
, p
0
, φ
0
). Set
ρ = ρ
0
+ǫρ
1
+O(ǫ
2
), (14)
p = p
0
+ǫp
1
+O(ǫ
2
), (15)
φ = φ
0
+ǫφ
1
+O(ǫ
2
). (16)
Sound is deﬁned to be these linearised ﬂuctuations in the dynamical quantities. Note that this
is the standard deﬁnition of (linear) sound and more generally of acoustical disturbances. In
principle, of course, a ﬂuid mechanic might really be interested in solving the complete equations
of motion for the ﬂuid variables (ρ, p, φ). In practice, it is both traditional and extremely useful
to separate the exact motion, described by the exact variables, (ρ, p, φ), into some average bulk
motion, (ρ
0
, p
0
, φ
0
), plus low amplitude acoustic disturbances, (ǫρ
1
, ǫp
1
, ǫφ
1
). See, for example,
[370, 372, 443, 577].
Since this is a subtle issue that we have seen cause considerable confusion in the past, let us
be even more explicit by asking the rhetorical question: “How can we tell the diﬀerence between
a wind gust and a sound wave?” The answer is that the diﬀerence is to some extent a matter of
convention – suﬃciently lowfrequency longwavelength disturbances (wind gusts) are convention
ally lumped in with the average bulk motion. Higherfrequency, shorterwavelength disturbances
are conventionally described as acoustic disturbances. If you wish to be hypertechnical, we can
introduce a highpass ﬁlter function to deﬁne the bulk motion by suitably averaging the exact
4
It is straightforward to add external forces, at least conservative body forces such as Newtonian gravity.
9
ﬂuid motion. There are no deep physical principles at stake here – merely an issue of convention.
The place where we are making a speciﬁc physical assumption that restricts the validity of our
analysis is in the requirement that the amplitude of the highfrequency shortwavelength distur
bances be small. This is the assumption underlying the linearization programme, and this is why
suﬃciently highamplitude sound waves must be treated by direct solution of the full equations of
ﬂuid dynamics.
Linearizing the continuity equation results in the pair of equations
∂
t
ρ
0
+∇ (ρ
0
v
0
) = 0, (17)
∂
t
ρ
1
+∇ (ρ
1
v
0
+ρ
0
v
1
) = 0. (18)
Now, the barotropic condition implies
h(p) = h
_
p
0
+ǫp
1
+O(ǫ
2
)
_
= h
0
+ǫ
p
1
ρ
0
+O(ǫ
2
). (19)
Use this result in linearizing the Euler equation. We obtain the pair
−∂
t
φ
0
+h
0
+
1
2
(∇φ
0
)
2
= 0. (20)
−∂
t
φ
1
+
p
1
ρ
0
−v
0
∇φ
1
= 0. (21)
This last equation may be rearranged to yield
p
1
= ρ
0
(∂
t
φ
1
+v
0
∇φ
1
) . (22)
Use the barotropic assumption to relate
ρ
1
=
∂ρ
∂p
p
1
=
∂ρ
∂p
ρ
0
(∂
t
φ
1
+v
0
∇φ
1
). (23)
Now substitute this consequence of the linearised Euler equation into the linearised equation of
continuity. We ﬁnally obtain, up to an overall sign, the wave equation:
−∂
t
_
∂ρ
∂p
ρ
0
(∂
t
φ
1
+v
0
∇φ
1
)
_
+∇
_
ρ
0
∇φ
1
−
∂ρ
∂p
ρ
0
v
0
(∂
t
φ
1
+v
0
∇φ
1
)
_
= 0. (24)
This wave equation describes the propagation of the linearised scalar potential φ
1
. Once φ
1
is
determined, Equation (22) determines p
1
, and Equation (23) then determines ρ
1
. Thus this wave
equation completely determines the propagation of acoustic disturbances. The background ﬁelds
p
0
, ρ
0
and v
0
= −∇φ
0
, which appear as timedependent and positiondependent coeﬃcients in
this wave equation, are constrained to solve the equations of ﬂuid motion for a barotropic, inviscid,
and irrotational ﬂow. Apart from these constraints, they are otherwise permitted to have arbitrary
temporal and spatial dependencies.
Now, written in this form, the physical import of this wave equation is somewhat less than
pellucid. To simplify things algebraically, observe that the local speed of sound is deﬁned by
c
−2
≡
∂ρ
∂p
. (25)
Now construct the symmetric 4 4 matrix
f
µν
(t, x) ≡
ρ
0
c
2
_
¸
¸
_
−1
.
.
. −v
j
0
−v
i
0
.
.
. (c
2
δ
ij
−v
i
0
v
j
0
)
_
¸
¸
_
. (26)
10
(Greek indices run from 0 – 3, while Roman indices run from 1 – 3.) Then, introducing (3+1)
dimensional spacetime coordinates, which we write as x
µ
≡ (t; x
i
) , the above wave Equation (24)
is easily rewritten as
∂
µ
(f
µν
∂
ν
φ
1
) = 0. (27)
This remarkably compact formulation is completely equivalent to Equation (24) and is a much more
promising steppingstone for further manipulations. The remaining steps are a straightforward
application of the techniques of curved space (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian geometry.
Now in any Lorentzian (i.e., pseudo–Riemannian) manifold the curved space scalar d’Alembertian
is given in terms of the metric g
µν
(t, x) by
∆φ ≡
1
√
−g
∂
µ
_√
−g g
µν
∂
ν
φ
_
. (28)
(See, for example, [213, 446, 597, 445, 274, 670].) The inverse metric, g
µν
(t, x), is pointwise the
matrix inverse of g
µν
(t, x), while g ≡ det(g
µν
). Thus one can rewrite the physically derived wave
Equation (24) in terms of the d’Alembertian provided one identiﬁes
√
−g g
µν
= f
µν
. (29)
This implies, on the one hand,
det(f
µν
) = (
√
−g)
4
g
−1
= g. (30)
On the other hand, from the explicit expression (26), expanding the determinant in minors yields
det(f
µν
) =
_
ρ
0
c
2
_
4
_
(−1) (c
2
−v
2
0
) −(−v
0
)
2
¸
_
c
2
¸
_
c
2
¸
= −
ρ
4
0
c
2
. (31)
Thus,
g = −
ρ
4
0
c
2
;
√
−g =
ρ
2
0
c
. (32)
Therefore, we can pick oﬀ the coeﬃcients of the inverse (contravariant) acoustic metric
g
µν
(t, x) ≡
1
ρ
0
c
_
¸
¸
_
−1
.
.
. −v
j
0
−v
i
0
.
.
. (c
2
δ
ij
−v
i
0
v
j
0
)
_
¸
¸
_
. (33)
We could now determine the metric itself simply by inverting this 44 matrix (and if the reader is
not a general relativist, proceeding in this direct manner is deﬁnitely the preferred option). On the
other hand, for general relativists it is even easier to recognise that one has in front of one a speciﬁc
example of the Arnowitt–Deser–Misner split of a (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian spacetime metric
into space + time, more commonly used in discussing initial value data in general relativity. (See,
for example, [445, pp. 505–508].) The (covariant) acoustic metric is then read oﬀ by inspection
g
µν
≡
ρ
0
c
_
¸
¸
_
−(c
2
−v
2
0
)
.
.
. −v
j
0
−v
i
0
.
.
. δ
ij
_
¸
¸
_
. (34)
Equivalently, the acoustic interval (acoustic lineelement) can be expressed as
ds
2
≡ g
µν
dx
µ
dx
ν
=
ρ
0
c
_
−c
2
dt
2
+ (dx
i
−v
i
0
dt) δ
ij
(dx
j
−v
j
0
dt)
_
. (35)
This completes the proof of the theorem.
11
We have presented the theorem and proof, which closely follows the discussion in [624], in
considerable detail because it is a standard template that can be readily generalised in many ways.
This discussion can then be used as a starting point to initiate the analysis of numerous and diverse
physical models.
2.4 General features of the acoustic metric
A few brief comments should be made before proceeding further:
• Observe that the signature of this eﬀective metric is indeed (−, +, +, +), as it should be to
be regarded as Lorentzian.
• Observe that in physical acoustics it is the inverse metric density,
f
µν
=
√
−g g
µν
(36)
that is of more fundamental signiﬁcance for deriving the wave equation than is the metric
g
µν
itself. (This observation continues to hold in more general situations where it is often
signiﬁcantly easier to calculate the tensor density f
µν
than it is to calculate the eﬀective
metric g
µν
.)
• It should be emphasised that there are two distinct metrics relevant to the current discussion:
– The physical spacetime metric is, in this case, just the usual ﬂat metric of Minkowski
space:
η
µν
≡ (diag[−c
2
light
, 1, 1, 1])
µν
. (37)
(Here c
light
is the speed of light in vacuum.) The ﬂuid particles couple only to the
physical metric η
µν
. In fact the ﬂuid motion is completely nonrelativistic, so that
[[v
0
[[ ≪c
light
, and it is quite suﬃcient to consider Galilean relativity for the underlying
ﬂuid mechanics.
– Sound waves on the other hand, do not “see” the physical metric at all. Acoustic
perturbations couple only to the eﬀective acoustic metric g
µν
.
• It is quite remarkable that (to the best of our knowledge) a version of this acoustic metric
was ﬁrst derived and used in Moncrief’s studies of the relativistic hydrodynamics of accretion
ﬂows surrounding black holes [448]. Indeed, Moncrief was working in the more general case
of a curved background “physical” metric, in addition to a curved “eﬀective” metric. We
shall come back to this work later on, in our historical section. (See also Section 4.1.2.)
• However, the geometry determined by the acoustic metric does inherit some key properties
from the existence of the underlying ﬂat physical metric. For instance, the topology of the
manifold does not depend on the particular metric considered. The acoustic geometry inherits
the underlying topology of the physical metric – ordinary ℜ
4
– with possibly a few regions
excised (due to whatever hardwall boundary conditions one might wish to impose on the
ﬂuid). In systems constrained to have eﬀectively less than 3 spacelike dimensions one can
reproduce more complicated topologies (consider, for example, an eﬀectively onedimensional
ﬂow in a tubular ring).
• Furthermore, the acoustic geometry automatically inherits from the underlying Newtonian
time parameter, the important property of “stable causality” [274, 670]. Note that
g
µν
(∇
µ
t) (∇
ν
t) = −
1
ρ
0
c
< 0. (38)
12
This precludes some of the more entertaining causalityrelated pathologies that sometimes
arise in general relativity. (For a general discussion of causal pathologies in general relativity,
see, for example, [274, 272, 273, 125, 275, 630]).
• Other concepts that translate immediately are those of “ergoregion”, “trapped surface”,
“apparent horizon”, and “event horizon”. These notions will be developed more fully in the
following subsection.
• The properly normalised fourvelocity of the ﬂuid is
V
µ
=
(1; v
i
0
)
√
ρ
0
c
, (39)
so that
g
µν
V
µ
V
ν
= g(V, V ) = −1. (40)
This fourvelocity is related to the gradient of the natural time parameter by
∇
µ
t = (1, 0, 0, 0); ∇
µ
t = −
(1; v
i
0
)
ρ
0
c
= −
V
µ
√
ρ
0
c
. (41)
Thus the integral curves of the ﬂuid velocity ﬁeld are orthogonal (in the Lorentzian metric) to
the constant time surfaces. The acoustic proper time along the ﬂuid ﬂow lines (streamlines)
is
τ =
_
√
ρ
0
c dt, (42)
and the integral curves are geodesics of the acoustic metric if and only if ρ
0
c is position
independent.
• Observe that in a completely general (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian geometry the metric has
6 degrees of freedom per point in spacetime. (4 4 symmetric matrix ⇒ 10 independent
components; then subtract 4 coordinate conditions).
In contrast, the acoustic metric is more constrained. Being speciﬁed completely by the three
scalars φ
0
(t, x), ρ
0
(t, x), and c(t, x), the acoustic metric has, at most, 3 degrees of freedom
per point in spacetime. The equation of continuity actually reduces this to 2 degrees of
freedom, which can be taken to be φ
0
(t, x) and c(t, x).
Thus, the simple acoustic metric of this section can, at best, reproduce some subset of the
generic metrics of interest in general relativity.
• A point of notation: Where the general relativist uses the word “stationary” the ﬂuid dy
namicist uses the phrase “steady ﬂow”. The generalrelativistic word “static” translates to
a rather messy constraint on the ﬂuid ﬂow (to be discussed more fully below).
• Finally, we should emphasise that in Einstein gravity the spacetime metric is related to the
distribution of matter by the nonlinear Einstein–Hilbert diﬀerential equations. In contrast,
in the present context, the acoustic metric is related to the distribution of matter in a simple
algebraic fashion.
13
2.4.1 Horizons and ergoregions
In the next two subsections we shall undertake to more fully explain some of the technical details
underlying the acoustic analogy. Concepts and quantities such as horizons, ergoregions and “sur
face gravity” are important features of standard general relativity, and analogies are useful only
insofar as they adequately preserve these notions.
Let us start with the notion of an ergoregion: Consider integral curves of the vector
K
µ
≡ (∂/∂t)
µ
= (1, 0, 0, 0)
µ
. (43)
If the ﬂow is steady, then this is the time translation Killing vector. Even if the ﬂow is not steady
the background Minkowski metric provides us with a natural deﬁnition of “at rest”. Then
5
g
µν
(∂/∂t)
µ
(∂/∂t)
ν
= g
tt
= −[c
2
−v
2
]. (44)
This quantity changes sign when [[v[[ > c. Thus, any region of supersonic ﬂow is an ergoregion.
(And the boundary of the ergoregion may be deemed to be the ergosurface.) The analogue of
this behaviour in general relativity is the ergosphere surrounding any spinning black hole – it is a
region where space “moves” with superluminal velocity relative to the ﬁxed stars [445, 274, 670].
A trapped surface in acoustics is deﬁned as follows: Take any closed twosurface. If the ﬂuid
velocity is everywhere inwardpointing and the normal component of the ﬂuid velocity is everywhere
greater than the local speed of sound, then no matter what direction a sound wave propagates, it
will be swept inward by the ﬂuid ﬂow and be trapped inside the surface. The surface is then said
to be outertrapped. (For comparison with the usual situation in general relativity see [274, pp.
319–323] or [670, pp. 310–311].) Innertrapped surfaces (antitrapped surfaces) can be deﬁned by
demanding that the ﬂuid ﬂow is everywhere outwardpointing with supersonic normal component.
It is only because of the fact that the background Minkowski metric provides a natural deﬁnition
of “at rest” that we can adopt such a simple and straightforward deﬁnition. In ordinary general
relativity we need to develop considerable additional technical machinery, such as the notion of the
“expansion” of bundles of ingoing and outgoing null geodesics, before deﬁning trapped surfaces.
That the above deﬁnition for acoustic geometries is a specialization of the usual one can be seen
from the discussion in [274, pp. 262–263]. The acoustic trapped region is now deﬁned as the region
containing outer trapped surfaces, and the acoustic (future) apparent horizon as the boundary of
the trapped region. That is, the acoustic apparent horizon is the twosurface for which the normal
component of the ﬂuid velocity is everywhere equal to the local speed of sound. (We can also
deﬁne antitrapped regions and past apparent horizons but these notions are of limited utility in
general relativity.)
6
The fact that the apparent horizon seems to be ﬁxed in a foliationindependent manner is
only an illusion due to the way in which the analogies work. A particular ﬂuid ﬂow reproduces a
speciﬁc “metric”, (a matrix of coeﬃcients in a speciﬁc coordinate system, not a “geometry”), and,
in particular, a speciﬁc foliation of spacetime. (Only “internal” observers see a “geometry”; see the
discussion in Section 7.4). The same “geometry” written in diﬀerent coordinates would give rise
to a diﬀerent ﬂuid ﬂow (if at all possible, as not all coordinate representations of a ﬁxed geometry
give rise to acoustic metrics) and, therefore, to a diﬀerent apparent horizon.
The event horizon (absolute horizon) is deﬁned, as in general relativity, by demanding that it be
the boundary of the region from which null geodesics (phonons) cannot escape. This is actually the
future event horizon. A past event horizon can be deﬁned in terms of the boundary of the region
5
Henceforth, in the interests of notational simplicity, we shall drop the explicit subscript 0 on background ﬁeld
quantities unless there is speciﬁc risk of confusion.
6
This discussion naturally leads us to what is perhaps the central question of analogue models – just how much
of the standard “laws of black hole mechanics” [51, 671] carry over into these analogue models? Quite a lot but not
everything – that is our main topic for the rest of the review.
14
t
x
Figure 5: A moving ﬂuid can form “trapped surfaces” when supersonic ﬂow tips the sound cones
past the vertical.
15
Figure 6: A moving ﬂuid can form an “acoustic horizon” when supersonic ﬂow prevents upstream
motion of sound waves.
that cannot be reached by incoming phonons – strictly speaking this requires us to deﬁne notions
of past and future null inﬁnities, but we will simply take all relevant incantations as understood.
In particular, the event horizon is a null surface, the generators of which are null geodesics.
In all stationary geometries the apparent and event horizons coincide, and the distinction is
immaterial. In timedependent geometries the distinction is often important. When computing
the surface gravity, we shall restrict attention to stationary geometries (steady ﬂow). In ﬂuid
ﬂows of high symmetry (spherical symmetry, plane symmetry), the ergosphere may coincide with
the acoustic apparent horizon, or even the acoustic event horizon. This is the analogue of the
result in general relativity that for static (as opposed to stationary) black holes the ergosphere
and event horizon coincide. For many more details, including appropriate null coordinates and
Carter–Penrose diagrams, both in stationary and timedependent situations, see [37].
2.4.2 Surface gravity
Because of the deﬁnition of event horizon in terms of phonons (null geodesics) that cannot escape
the acoustic black hole, the event horizon is automatically a null surface, and the generators of
the event horizon are automatically null geodesics. In the case of acoustics, there is one particular
parameterization of these null geodesics that is “most natural”, which is the parameterization
in terms of the Newtonian time coordinate of the underlying physical metric. This allows us to
unambiguously deﬁne a “surface gravity” even for nonstationary (timedependent) acoustic event
horizons, by calculating the extent to which this natural time parameter fails to be an aﬃne
parameter for the null generators of the horizon. (This part of the construction fails in general
relativity where there is no universal natural timecoordinate unless there is a timelike Killing
vector – this is why extending the notion of surface gravity to nonstationary geometries in general
relativity is so diﬃcult.)
When it comes to explicitly calculating the surface gravity in terms of suitable gradients of the
ﬂuid ﬂow, it is nevertheless very useful to limit attention to situations of steady ﬂow (so that the
acoustic metric is stationary). This has the added bonus that for stationary geometries the notion
of “acoustic surface gravity” in acoustics is unambiguously equivalent to the general relativity
deﬁnition. It is also useful to take cognizance of the fact that the situation simpliﬁes considerably
for static (as opposed to merely stationary) acoustic metrics.
16
To set up the appropriate framework, write the general stationary acoustic metric in the form
ds
2
=
ρ
c
_
−c
2
dt
2
+ (dx −v dt)
2
¸
. (45)
The time translation Killing vector is simply K
µ
= (1;
0 ), with
K
2
≡ g
µν
K
µ
K
ν
≡ −[[K[[
2
= −
ρ
c
[c
2
−v
2
]. (46)
The metric can also be written as
ds
2
=
ρ
c
_
−(c
2
−v
2
) dt
2
−2v dx dt + (dx)
2
¸
. (47)
Static acoustic spacetimes: Now suppose that the vector v/(c
2
−v
2
) is integrable, (the gradient
of some scalar), then we can deﬁne a new time coordinate by
dτ = dt +
v dx
c
2
−v
2
. (48)
Substituting this back into the acoustic line element gives
ds
2
=
ρ
c
_
−(c
2
−v
2
) dτ
2
+
_
δ
ij
+
v
i
v
j
c
2
−v
2
_
dx
i
dx
j
_
. (49)
In this coordinate system the absence of the timespace crossterms makes manifest that the acous
tic geometry is in fact static (there exists a family of spacelike hypersurfaces orthogonal to the
timelike Killing vector). The condition that an acoustic geometry be static, rather than merely
stationary, is thus seen to be
∇
_
v
(c
2
−v
2
)
_
= 0. (50)
That is, (since in deriving the existence of the eﬀective metric we have already assumed the ﬂuid
to be irrotational),
v ∇(c
2
−v
2
) = 0. (51)
This requires the ﬂuid ﬂow to be parallel to another vector that is not quite the acceleration but
is closely related to it. (Note that, because of the vorticity free assumption,
1
2
∇v
2
is just the
threeacceleration of the ﬂuid, it is the occurrence of a possibly position dependent speed of sound
that complicates the above.) Note that because of the barotropic assumption we have
∇c
2
=
∂c
2
∂ρ
∂ρ
∂p
∇p =
∂
2
p
∂ρ
2
∂ρ
∂p
ρ a. (52)
That is
∇(c
2
−v
2
) =
_
∂
2
p
∂ρ
2
∂ρ
∂p
ρ −2
_
a. (53)
So (given that the geometry is already stationary) the condition for a static acoustic geometry
reduces to
_
∂
2
p
∂ρ
2
∂ρ
∂p
ρ −2
_
v a = 0. (54)
This condition can be satisﬁed in two ways, either by having v  a, or by having the very speciﬁc
(and not particularly realistic) equation of state
p =
1
3
kρ
3
+C; c
2
= kρ
2
. (55)
17
Note that for this particular barotropic equation of state the conformal factor drops out.
Once we have a static geometry, we can of course directly apply all of the standard tricks [601]
for calculating the surface gravity developed in general relativity. We set up a system of ﬁducial
observers (FIDOS) by properly normalizing the timetranslation Killing vector
V
FIDO
≡
K
[[K[[
=
K
_
(ρ/c) [c
2
−v
2
]
. (56)
The fouracceleration of the FIDOS is deﬁned as
A
FIDO
≡ (V
FIDO
∇)V
FIDO
, (57)
and using the fact that K is a Killing vector, it may be computed in the standard manner
A
FIDO
= +
1
2
∇[[K[[
2
[[K[[
2
. (58)
That is
A
FIDO
=
1
2
_
∇(c
2
−v
2
)
(c
2
−v
2
)
+
∇(ρ/c)
(ρ/c)
_
. (59)
The surface gravity is now deﬁned by taking the norm [[A
FIDO
[[, multiplying by the lapse function,
[[K[[ =
_
(ρ/c) [c
2
−v
2
], and taking the limit as one approaches the horizon: [v[ → c (remember
that we are currently dealing with the static case). The net result is
[[A
FIDO
[[ [[K[[ =
1
2
n ∇(c
2
−v
2
) +O(c
2
− v
2
), (60)
so that the surface gravity is given in terms of a normal derivative by
7
g
H
=
1
2
∂(c
2
−v
2
)
∂n
¸
¸
¸
¸
H
= c
H
∂[c −v[
∂n
¸
¸
¸
¸
H
. (61)
This is not quite Unruh’s result [607, 608] since he implicitly took the speed of sound to be
a positionindependent constant. (This is of course a completely appropriate approximation for
water, which was the working ﬂuid he was considering.) The fact that prefactor ρ/c drops out of the
ﬁnal result for the surface gravity can be justiﬁed by appeal to the known conformal invariance of
the surface gravity [315]. Though derived in a totally diﬀerent manner, this result is also compatible
with the expression for “surfacegravity” obtained in the solidstate black holes of Reznik [523],
wherein a position dependent (and singular) refractive index plays a role analogous to the acoustic
metric. As a further consistency check, one can go to the spherically symmetric case and check
that this reproduces the results for “dirty black holes” enunciated in [621]. Finally, note that we
can also write the expression for surface gravity as
g
H
=
¸
¸
¸
¸
1 −
1
2
∂
2
p
∂ρ
2
∂ρ
∂p
ρ
¸
¸
¸
¸
[[a[[, (62)
demonstrating that (in a static acoustic spacetime) the surface gravity is (up to a dimensionless
factor depending on the equation of state) directly related to the acceleration of the ﬂuid as it
crosses the horizon. For water p = kρ +C, c
2
= k, and g
H
= [[a[[; for a Bose–Einstein condensate
(BEC) we shall later on see that p =
1
2
kρ
2
+C, implying c
2
= kρ, which then leads to the simple
result g
H
=
1
2
[[a[[.
7
Because of the background Minkowski metric there can be no possible confusion as to the deﬁnition of this
normal derivative.
18
Since this is a static geometry, the relationship between the Hawking temperature and surface
gravity may be veriﬁed in the usual fasttrack manner – using the Wick rotation trick to analytically
continue to Euclidean space [245]. If you don’t like Euclidean signature techniques (which are in
any case only applicable to equilibrium situations) you should go back to the original Hawking
derivations [270, 271].
8
We should emphasize that the formula for the Hawking temperature contains both the surface
gravity g
H
and the speed of sound c
H
at the horizon [624]. Speciﬁcally
kT
H
=
g
H
2πc
H
. (63)
In view of the explicit formula for g
H
above, this can also be written as
kT
H
=
2π
∂[c −v[
∂n
¸
¸
¸
¸
H
, (64)
which is closer to the original form provided by Unruh [607] (which corresponds to c being constant).
Purely on dimensional grounds it is a spatial derivative of velocity (which has the same engineering
dimension as frequency) that is the determining factor in specifying the physicallynormalised
Hawking temperature. (Since there is a strong tendency in classical general relativity to adopt
units such that c → 1, and even in these analogue models it is common to adopt units such that
c
H
→ 1, this has the potential to lead to some confusion. If you choose units to measure the
surface gravity as a physical acceleration, then it is the quantity g
H
/c
H
, which has the dimensions
of frequency that governs the Hawking ﬂux [624].)
One ﬁnal comment to wrap up this section: The coordinate transform we used to put the
acoustic metric into the explicitly static form is perfectly good mathematics, and from the general
relativity point of view is even a simpliﬁcation. However, from the point of view of the underlying
Newtonian physics of the ﬂuid, this is a rather bizarre way of deliberately desynchronizing your
clocks to take a perfectly reasonable region – the boundary of the region of supersonic ﬂow –
and push it out to “time” plus inﬁnity. From the ﬂuid dynamics point of view this coordinate
transformation is correct but perverse, and it is easier to keep a good grasp on the physics by
staying with the original Newtonian time coordinate.
Stationary (nonstatic) acoustic spacetimes: If the ﬂuid ﬂow does not satisfy the integra
bility condition, which allows us to introduce an explicitly static coordinate system, then deﬁning
the surface gravity is a little trickier.
Recall that by construction the acoustic apparent horizon is, in general, deﬁned to be a two
surface for which the normal component of the ﬂuid velocity is everywhere equal to the local speed
of sound, whereas the acoustic event horizon (absolute horizon) is characterised by the boundary
of those null geodesics (phonons) that do not escape to inﬁnity. In the stationary case these
notions coincide, and it is still true that the horizon is a null surface, and that the horizon can be
ruled by an appropriate set of null curves. Suppose we have somehow isolated the location of the
acoustic horizon, then, in the vicinity of the horizon, we can split up the ﬂuid ﬂow into normal
and tangential components
v = v
⊥
+v
; where v
⊥
= v
⊥
ˆ n. (65)
Here (and for the rest of this particular section) it is essential that we use the natural Newtonian
time coordinate inherited from the background Newtonian physics of the ﬂuid. In addition ˆ n is
8
There are a few potential subtleties in the derivation of the existence of Hawking radiation, which we are, for
the time being, glossing over; see Section 5.1 for details.
19
a unit vector ﬁeld that, at the horizon, is perpendicular to it, and away from the horizon is some
suitable smooth extension. (For example, take the geodesic distance to the horizon and consider
its gradient.) We only need this decomposition to hold in some open set encompassing the horizon
and do not need to have a global decomposition of this type available. Furthermore, by deﬁnition
we know that v
⊥
= c at the horizon. Now consider the vector ﬁeld
L
µ
= ( 1; v
i
). (66)
Since the spatial components of this vector ﬁeld are by deﬁnition tangent to the horizon, the
integral curves of this vector ﬁeld will be generators for the horizon. Furthermore, the norm of
this vector (in the acoustic metric) is
[[L[[
2
= −
ρ
c
_
−(c
2
−v
2
) −2v
v +v
v
_
=
ρ
c
(c
2
−v
2
⊥
). (67)
In particular, on the acoustic horizon L
µ
deﬁnes a null vector ﬁeld, the integral curves of which
are generators for the acoustic horizon. We shall now verify that these generators are geodesics,
though the vector ﬁeld L is not normalised with an aﬃne parameter, and in this way shall calculate
the surface gravity.
Consider the quantity (L ∇)L and calculate
L
α
∇
α
L
µ
= L
α
(∇
α
L
β
−∇
β
L
α
)g
βµ
+
1
2
∇
β
(L
2
)g
βµ
. (68)
To calculate the ﬁrst term note that
L
µ
=
ρ
c
(−[c
2
− v
2
⊥
]; v
⊥
). (69)
Thus,
L
[α,β]
= −
_
¸
¸
_
0
.
.
. −∇
i
_
ρ
c
(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
¸
+∇
j
_
ρ
c
(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
¸ .
.
.
_
ρ
c
v
⊥
_
[i,j]
_
¸
¸
_
. (70)
And so:
L
α
L
[β,α]
=
_
v
∇
_
ρ
c
(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
_
; ∇
j
_
ρ
c
(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
_
+v
i
_
ρ
c
[v
⊥
[ˆ n
_
[j,i]
_
. (71)
On the horizon, where c = v
⊥
, and additionally assuming v
∇ρ = 0 so that the density is
constant over the horizon, this simpliﬁes tremendously
(L
α
L
[β,α]
)[
horizon
= −
ρ
c
_
0; ∇
j
(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
_
= −
ρ
c
∂(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
∂n
(0; ˆ n
j
) . (72)
Similarly, for the second term we have
∇
β
(L
2
) =
_
0; ∇
j
_
ρ
c
(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
__
. (73)
On the horizon this again simpliﬁes
∇
β
(L
2
)[
horizon
= +
ρ
c
_
0; ∇
j
(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
_
= +
ρ
c
∂(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
∂n
(0; ˆ n
j
) . (74)
There is partial cancellation between the two terms, and so
(L
α
∇
α
L
µ
)
horizon
= +
1
2
ρ
c
∂(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
∂n
(0; ˆ n
j
) , (75)
20
while
(L
µ
)
horizon
=
ρ
c
(0; c ˆ n
j
) . (76)
Comparing this with the standard deﬁnition of surface gravity [670]
9
(L
α
∇
α
L
µ
)
horizon
= +
g
H
c
(L
µ
)
horizon
, (77)
we ﬁnally have
g
H
=
1
2
∂(c
2
−v
2
⊥
)
∂n
= c
∂(c −v
⊥
)
∂n
. (78)
This is in agreement with the previous calculation for static acoustic black holes, and insofar as
there is overlap, is also consistent with results of Unruh [607, 608], Reznik [523], and the results for
“dirty black holes” [621]. From the construction it is clear that the surface gravity is a measure of
the extent to which the Newtonian time parameter inherited from the underlying ﬂuid dynamics
fails to be an aﬃne parameter for the null geodesics on the horizon.
10
Again, the justiﬁcation for going into so much detail on this speciﬁc model is that this style of
argument can be viewed as a template – it will (with suitable modiﬁcations) easily generalise to
more complicated analogue models.
2.4.3 Example: vortex geometry
As an example of a ﬂuid ﬂow where the distinction between ergosphere and acoustic event horizon
is critical, consider the “draining bathtub” ﬂuid ﬂow. We shall model a draining bathtub by
a (3+1) dimensional ﬂow with a linear sink along the zaxis. Let us start with the simplifying
assumption that the background density ρ is a positionindependent constant throughout the ﬂow
(which automatically implies that the background pressure p and speed of sound c are also constant
throughout the ﬂuid ﬂow). The equation of continuity then implies that for the radial component
of the ﬂuid velocity we must have
v
ˆ r
∝
1
r
. (79)
In the tangential direction, the requirement that the ﬂow be vorticity free (apart from a possible
deltafunction contribution at the vortex core) implies, via Stokes’ theorem, that
v
ˆ
t
∝
1
r
. (80)
(If these ﬂow velocities are nonzero, then following the discussion of [641] there must be some
external force present to set up and maintain the background ﬂow. Fortunately it is easy to see
that this external force aﬀects only the background ﬂow and does not inﬂuence the linearised
ﬂuctuations we are interested in.)
For the background velocity potential we must then have
φ(r, θ) = −A ln(r/a) −B θ. (81)
Note that, as we have previously hinted, the velocity potential is not a true function (because it
has a discontinuity on going through 2π radians). The velocity potential must be interpreted as
9
There is an issue of normalization here. On the one hand we want to be as close as possible to general relativistic
conventions. On the other hand, we would like the surface gravity to really have the dimensions of an acceleration.
The convention adopted here, with one explicit factor of c, is the best compromise we have come up with. (Note
that in an acoustic setting, where the speed of sound is not necessarily a constant, we cannot simply set c → 1 by
a choice of units.)
10
There are situations in which this surface gravity is a lot larger than one might naively expect [398].
21
being deﬁned patchwise on overlapping regions surrounding the vortex core at r = 0. The velocity
of the ﬂuid ﬂow is
v = −∇φ =
(A ˆ r +B
ˆ
θ)
r
. (82)
Dropping a positionindependent prefactor, the acoustic metric for a draining bathtub is ex
plicitly given by
ds
2
= −c
2
dt
2
+
_
dr −
A
r
dt
_
2
+
_
r dθ −
B
r
dt
_
2
+ dz
2
. (83)
Equivalently
ds
2
= −
_
c
2
−
A
2
+B
2
r
2
_
dt
2
−2
A
r
dr dt −2Bdθ dt + dr
2
+r
2
dθ
2
+ dz
2
. (84)
A similar metric, restricted to A = 0 (no radial ﬂow), and generalised to an anisotropic speed of
sound, has been exhibited by Volovik [646], that metric being a model for the acoustic geometry
surrounding physical vortices in superﬂuid
3
He. (For a survey of the many analogies and simi
larities between the physics of superﬂuid
3
He, see Section 4.2.2 and references therein. For issues
speciﬁcally connected to the Standard Electroweak Model see [667].) Note that the metric given
above is not identical to the metric of a spinning cosmic string, which would instead take the
form [623]
ds
2
= −c
2
(dt −
˜
Adθ)
2
+ dr
2
+ (1 −
˜
B)r
2
dθ
2
+ dz
2
. (85)
Figure 7: A collapsing vortex geometry (draining bathtub): The green spirals denote streamlines
of the ﬂuid ﬂow. The outer circle represents the ergosurface (ergocircle) while the inner circle
represents the [outer] event horizon.
In conformity with previous comments, the vortex ﬂuid ﬂow is seen to possess an acoustic
metric that is stably causal and which does not involve closed timelike curves. At large distances
it is possible to approximate the vortex geometry by a spinning cosmic string [646], but this
approximation becomes progressively worse as the core is approached. Trying to force the existence
22
of closed timelike curves leads to the existence of evanescent waves in what would be the achronal
region, and therefore to the breakdown of the analogue model description [8].
The ergosphere (ergocircle) forms at
r
ergosphere
=
√
A
2
+B
2
c
. (86)
Note that the sign of A is irrelevant in deﬁning the ergosphere and ergoregion: It does not matter
if the vortex core is a source or a sink.
The acoustic event horizon forms once the radial component of the ﬂuid velocity exceeds the
speed of sound, that is, at
r
horizon
=
[A[
c
. (87)
The sign of A now makes a diﬀerence. For A < 0 we are dealing with a future acoustic horizon
(acoustic black hole), while for A > 0 we are dealing with a past event horizon (acoustic white
hole).
2.4.4 Example: slab geometry
A popular model for the investigation of event horizons in the acoustic analogy is the one
dimensional slab geometry where the velocity is always along the z direction and the velocity
proﬁle depends only on z. The continuity equation then implies that ρ(z) v(z) is a constant, and
the acoustic metric becomes
ds
2
∝
1
v(z) c(z)
_
−c(z)
2
dt
2
+¦dz −v(z) dt¦
2
+ dx
2
+ dy
2
_
. (88)
That is
ds
2
∝
1
v(z) c(z)
_
−
_
c(z)
2
−v(z)
2
_
dt
2
−2v(z) dz dt + dx
2
+ dy
2
+ dz
2
¸
. (89)
If we set c = 1 and ignore the x, y coordinates and conformal factor, we have the toy model
acoustic geometry discussed in many papers. (See for instance the early papers by Unruh [608,
p. 2828, Equation (8)], Jacobson [310, p. 7085, Equation (4)], Corley and Jacobson [148], and
Corley [145].) Depending on the velocity proﬁle one can simulate black holes, white holes or black
holewhite hole pairs, interesting for analyzing the black hole laser eﬀect [150] or aspects of the
physics of warpdrives [197].
In this situation one must again invoke an external force to set up and maintain the ﬂuid ﬂow.
Since the conformal factor is regular at the event horizon, we know that the surface gravity and
Hawking temperature are independent of this conformal factor [315]. In the general case it is
important to realise that the ﬂow can go supersonic for either of two reasons: The ﬂuid could
speed up, or the speed of sound could decrease. When it comes to calculating the “surface gravity”
both of these eﬀects will have to be taken into account.
2.4.5 Example: Painlev´e–Gullstrand geometry
To see how close the acoustic metric can get to reproducing the Schwarzschild geometry it is
ﬁrst useful to introduce one of the more exotic representations of the Schwarzschild geometry:
the Painlev´e–Gullstrand line element, which is simply an unusual choice of coordinates on the
Schwarzschild spacetime.
11
In modern notation the Schwarzschild geometry in outgoing (+) and
11
The Painlev´e–Gullstrand line element is sometimes called the Lemaˆıtre line element.
23
ingoing (–) Painlev´e–Gullstrand coordinates may be written as:
ds
2
= −dt
2
+
_
dr ±
_
2GM
r
dt
_
2
+r
2
_
dθ
2
+ sin
2
θ dφ
2
_
. (90)
Equivalently
ds
2
= −
_
1 −
2GM
r
_
dt
2
±
_
2GM
r
dr dt + dr
2
+r
2
_
dθ
2
+ sin
2
θ dφ
2
_
. (91)
This representation of the Schwarzschild geometry was not (until the advent of the analogue
models) particularly wellknown, and it has been independently rediscovered several times during
the 20th century. See, for instance, Painlev´e [484], Gullstrand [264], Lemaˆıtre [379], the related
discussion by Israel [305], and more recently, the paper by Kraus and Wilczek [364]. The Painlev´e–
Gullstrand coordinates are related to the more usual Schwarzschild coordinates by
t
PG
= t
S
±
_
4M arctanh
_
_
2GM
r
_
−2
√
2GMr
_
. (92)
Or equivalently
dt
PG
= dt
S
±
_
2GM/r
1 −2GM/r
dr. (93)
With these explicit forms in hand, it becomes an easy exercise to check the equivalence between
the Painlev´e–Gullstrand line element and the more usual Schwarzschild form of the line element. It
should be noted that the + sign corresponds to a coordinate patch that covers the usual asymptotic
region plus the region containing the future singularity of the maximallyextended Schwarzschild
spacetime. Thus, it covers the future horizon and the black hole singularity. On the other hand the
− sign corresponds to a coordinate patch that covers the usual asymptotic region plus the region
containing the past singularity. Thus it covers the past horizon and the white hole singularity.
As emphasised by Kraus and Wilczek, the Painlev´e–Gullstrand line element exhibits a number
of features of pedagogical interest. In particular the constanttime spatial slices are completely
ﬂat. That is, the curvature of space is zero, and all the spacetime curvature of the Schwarzschild
geometry has been pushed into the time–time and time–space components of the metric.
Given the Painlev´e–Gullstrand line element, it might seem trivial to force the acoustic metric
into this form: Simply take ρ and c to be constants, and set v =
_
2GM/r. While this certainly
forces the acoustic metric into the Painlev´e–Gullstrand form, the problem with this is that this
assignment is incompatible with the continuity equation ∇ (ρv) ,= 0 that was used in deriving
the acoustic equations.
The best we can actually do is this: Pick the speed of sound c to be a positionindependent
constant, which we normalise to unity (c = 1). Now set v =
_
2GM/r, and use the continuity
equation ∇ (ρv) = 0 plus spherical symmetry to deduce ρ[v[ ∝ 1/r
2
so that ρ ∝ r
−3/2
. Since the
speed of sound is taken to be constant, we can integrate the relation c
2
= dp/dρ to deduce that the
equation of state must be p = p
∞
+c
2
ρ and that the background pressure satisﬁes p−p
∞
∝ c
2
r
−3/2
.
Overall, the acoustic metric is now
ds
2
∝ r
−3/2
_
_
−dt
2
+
_
dr ±
_
2GM
r
dt
_
2
+r
2
_
dθ
2
+ sin
2
θ dφ
2
_
_
_
. (94)
So we see that the net result is conformal to the Painlev´e–Gullstrand form of the Schwarzschild
geometry but not identical to it. For many purposes this is good enough. We have an event
24
horizon; we can deﬁne surface gravity; we can analyse Hawking radiation.
12
Since surface gravity
and Hawking temperature are conformal invariants [315] this is suﬃcient for analysing basic features
of the Hawking radiation process. The only way in which the conformal factor can inﬂuence the
Hawking radiation is through backscattering oﬀ the acoustic metric. (The phonons are minimally
coupled scalars, not conformallycoupled scalars, so there will in general be eﬀects on the frequency
dependent greybody factors.) If we focus attention on the region near the event horizon, the
conformal factor can simply be taken to be a constant, and we can ignore all these complications.
2.4.6 Causal structure
We can now turn to another aspect of acoustic black holes, i.e., their global causal structure, which
we shall illustrate making use of the Carter–Penrose conformal diagrams [445, 274]. A systematic
study in this sense was performed in [37] for 1+1 geometries (viewed either as a dimensional
reduction of a physical 3+1 system, or directly as geometrical acoustic metrics). The basic idea
underlying the conformal diagram of any noncompact 1+1 manifold is that its metric can always
be conformally mapped to the metric of a compact geometry, with a boundary added to represent
events at inﬁnity. Since compact spacetimes are in some sense “ﬁnite”, they can then properly
be drawn on a sheet of paper, something that is sometimes very useful in capturing the essential
features of the geometry at hand.
The basic steps in the acoustic case are the same as in standard general relativity: Starting
from the coordinates (t, x) as in Equation (35), one has to introduce appropriate null coordinates
(analogous to the Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates) (u, v), then, by exponentiation, null Kruskal
like coordinates (U, W), and ﬁnally compactify by means of a new coordinate pair (, J) involving
a suitable function mapping an inﬁnite range to a ﬁnite one (typically the arctan function). We
shall explicitly present only the conformal diagrams for an acoustic black hole, and a black hole
white hole pair, as these particular spacetimes will be of some relevance in what follows. We
redirect the reader to [37] for other geometries and technical details.
Acoustic black hole: For the case of a single isolated blackhole horizon we ﬁnd the Carter–
Penrose diagram of Figure 8. (In the ﬁgure we have introduced an aspect ratio diﬀerent from unity
for the coordinates  and J, in order to make the various regions of interest graphically more
clear.) As we have already commented, in the acoustic spacetimes, with no periodic identiﬁcations,
there are two clearlydiﬀerentiated notions of asymptotia, “right” and “left”. In all our ﬁgures we
have used subscripts “right” and “left” to label the diﬀerent null and spacelike inﬁnities. In
addition, we have denoted the diﬀerent sonicpoint boundaries with ℑ
±
right
or ℑ
±
left
depending on
whether they are the starting point (– sign) or the ending point (+ sign) of the null geodesics in
the right or left parts of the diagram.
In contradistinction to the Carter–Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole (which in
the current context would have to be an eternal black hole, not one formed via astrophysical stellar
collapse) there is no singularity. On reﬂection, this feature of the conformal diagram should be
obvious, since the ﬂuid ﬂow underlying the acoustic geometry is nowhere singular.
Note that the event horizon 1 is the boundary of the causal past of future right null inﬁnity;
that is, 1 =
˙
J
−
(ℑ
+
right
), with standard notations [445].
Acoustic blackhole–whitehole pair: The acoustic geometry for a blackhole–whitehole
combination again has no singularities in the ﬂuid ﬂow, and no singularities in the spacetime
12
Similar constructions work for the Reissner–Nordstr¨om geometry [398], as long as one does not get too close to
the singularity. (With c = 1 one needs r > Q
2
/(2m) to avoid an imaginary ﬂuid velocity.) Likewise, certain aspects
of the Kerr geometry can be emulated in this way [641]. (One needs r > 0 in the Doran coordinates [176, 633] to
avoid closed timelike curves.) As a ﬁnal remark, let us note that de Sitter space corresponds to v ∝ r and ρ ∝ 1/r
3
.
For further details see Section 2.5.
25
Figure 8: Conformal diagram of an acoustic black hole.
curvature. In particular, from Figure 9, we note the complete absence of singularities.
2.5 Cosmological metrics
In a cosmological framework the key items of interest are the Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW)
geometries, more properly called the Friedmann–Lemaˆıtre–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) geometries.
The simulation of such geometries has been considered in various works such as [46, 47, 105, 106,
194, 195, 196, 328, 403, 674, 675, 676, 683, 677] with a speciﬁc view to enhancing our understanding
of “cosmological particle production” driven by the expansion of the universe.
Essentially there are two ways to use the acoustic metric, written as
ds
2
=
ρ
c
s
_
−(c
2
s
−v
2
) dt
2
−2v dxdt +dx
2
¸
, (95)
to reproduce cosmological spacetimes. One is based on physical explosion, the other on rapid
variations in the “eﬀective speed of light”.
2.5.1 Explosion
We can either let the explosion take place more or less spherically symmetrically, or through a
pancakelike conﬁguration, or through a cigarlike conﬁguration.
Threedimensional explosion: Following the cosmological ideas of [46, 47, 105, 106, 195, 674,
675, 676], and the BEC technologies described in [126, 336, 337], one can take a homogeneous
system ρ(t), c
s
(t) and a radial proﬁle for the velocity v = (
˙
b/b)r, with b a scale factor depending
only on t. (This is actually very similar to the situation in models for Newtonian cosmology, where
26
Figure 9: Conformal diagram of an acoustic blackhole–whitehole pair. Note the complete absence
of singularities.
position is simply related to velocity via “time of ﬂight”.) Then, deﬁning a new radial coordinate
as r
b
= r/b the metric can be expressed as
ds
2
=
ρ
c
s
_
−c
2
s
dt
2
+b
2
(dr
2
b
+r
2
b
dΩ
2
2
)
¸
. (96)
Introducing a Hubblelike parameter,
H
b
(t) =
˙
b(t)
b(t)
, (97)
the equation of continuity can be written as
˙ ρ + 3H
b
(t) ρ = 0; ⇒ ρ(t) =
ρ
0
b
3
(t)
, (98)
with ρ
0
constant. Finally, we arrive at the metric of a spatiallyﬂat FLRW geometry
ds
2
= −T
2
(t) dt
2
+a
2
s
(t) (dr
2
b
+r
2
b
dΩ
2
2
), (99)
with
T(t) ≡
√
ρ c
s
; a
s
(t) ≡
_
ρ
c
s
b. (100)
The proper Friedmann time, τ, is related to the laboratory time, t, by
τ =
_
T(t) dt. (101)
27
Then,
ds
2
= −dτ
2
+a
2
s
(τ) (dr
2
b
+r
2
b
dΩ
2
2
). (102)
The “physical” Hubble parameter is
H =
1
a
s
da
s
dτ
. (103)
If one now wishes to speciﬁcally mimic de Sitter expansion, then we would make
a
s
(τ) = a
0
exp(H
0
τ). (104)
Whether or not this can be arranged (in this explosive model with comoving coordinates) depends
on the speciﬁc equation of state (which is implicitly hidden in c
s
(t)) and the dynamics of the
explosion (encoded in b(t)).
Twodimensional explosion: By holding the trap constant in the z direction, and allowing the
BEC to expand in a pancake in the x and y directions (now best relabeled as r and φ) one can in
principle arrange
ds
2
=
ρ(x, t)
c
s
(x, t)
_
−¦c
2
s
(x, t) −v(r, t)
2
¦ dt
2
−2v(r, t)dr dt + dr
2
+r
2
dφ
2
+ dz
2
¸
. (105)
Onedimensional explosion: An alternative “explosive” route to FLRW cosmology is to take
a long thin cigarshaped BEC and let it expand along its axis, while keeping it trapped in the
transverse directions [196, 194]. The relevant acoustic metric is now
ds
2
=
ρ(x, t)
c
s
(x, t)
_
−¦c
2
s
(x, t) −v(x, t)
2
¦ dt
2
− 2v(x, t)dxdt + dx
2
+¦dy
2
+ dz
2
¦
¸
. (106)
The virtue of this situation is that one is keeping the condensate under much better control and
has a simpler dimensionallyreduced problem to analyze. (Note that the true physics is 3+1
dimensional, albeit squeezed along two directions, so the conformal factor multiplying the acoustic
metric is that appropriate to 3+1 dimensions. See also Section 2.7.2.)
2.5.2 Varying the eﬀective speed of light
The other avenue starts from a ﬂuid at rest v = 0 with respect to the laboratory at all times:
ds
2
= −ρ c
s
dt
2
+
ρ
c
s
dx
2
. (107)
Now it is not diﬃcult to imagine a situation in which ρ remains spatially and temporally constant,
in a suﬃciently large region of space, while the speed of sound decreases with time (e.g., we shall
see that this can be made in analogue models based on Bose–Einstein condensates by changing
with time the value of the scattering length [46, 47, 328, 676, 683, 677]). This again reproduces an
expanding spatiallyﬂat FLRW Universe. The proper Friedmann time, τ, is again related to the
laboratory time, t, by
τ =
_
√
ρ c
s
dt. (108)
Then, deﬁning a
s
(t) ≡
_
ρ/c
s
, we have
ds
2
= −dτ
2
+a
2
s
(τ) (dr
2
b
+r
2
b
dΩ
2
2
). (109)
28
If one now speciﬁcally wishes to speciﬁcally mimic de Sitter expansion then we would wish
a
s
(τ) = a
0
exp(H
0
τ). (110)
Whether or not this can be arranged (now in this nonexplosive model with tunable speed of sound)
depends on the speciﬁc manner in which one tunes the speed of sound as a function of laboratory
time.
2.6 Regaining geometric acoustics
Up to now, we have been developing general machinery to force acoustics into Lorentzian form.
This can be justiﬁed either with a view to using ﬂuid mechanics to teach us more about general
relativity, or to using the techniques of Lorentzian geometry to teach us more about ﬂuid mechanics.
For example, given the machinery developed so far, taking the short wavelength/high frequency
limit to obtain geometrical acoustics is now easy. Sound rays (phonons) follow the null geodesics
of the acoustic metric. Compare this to general relativity, where in the geometrical optics approx
imation, light rays (photons) follow null geodesics of the physical spacetime metric. Since null
geodesics are insensitive to any overall conformal factor in the metric [445, 274, 670], one might as
well simplify life by considering a modiﬁed conformallyrelated metric
h
µν
≡
_
¸
¸
_
−(c
2
−v
2
0
)
.
.
. −v
j
0
−v
i
0
.
.
. δ
ij
_
¸
¸
_
. (111)
This immediately implies that, in the geometric acoustics limit, sound propagation is insensitive
to the density of the ﬂuid. In this limit, acoustic propagation depends only on the local speed
of sound and the velocity of the ﬂuid. It is only for speciﬁcally waverelated properties that the
density of the medium becomes important.
We can rephrase this in a language more familiar to the acoustics community by invoking the
eikonal approximation. Express the linearised velocity potential, φ
1
, in terms of an amplitude, a,
and phase, ϕ, by φ
1
∼ ae
iϕ
. Then, neglecting variations in the amplitude a, the wave equation
reduces to the eikonal equation
h
µν
∂
µ
ϕ ∂
ν
ϕ = 0. (112)
This eikonal equation is blatantly insensitive to any overall multiplicative prefactor (conformal
factor). As a sanity check on the formalism, it is useful to rederive some standard results. For
example, let the null geodesic be parameterised by x
µ
(t) ≡ (t; x(t)). Then the null condition
implies
h
µν
dx
µ
dt
dx
ν
dt
= 0
⇐⇒ −(c
2
−v
2
0
) −2v
i
0
dx
i
dt
+
dx
i
dt
dx
i
dt
= 0
⇐⇒
_
_
_
_
dx
dt
−v
0
_
_
_
_
= c. (113)
Here the norm is taken in the ﬂat physical metric. This has the obvious interpretation that the
ray travels at the speed of sound, c, relative to the moving medium.
Furthermore, if the geometry is stationary (steady ﬂow) one can do slightly better. Let x
µ
(s) ≡
(t(s); x(s)) be some null path from x
1
to x
2
, parameterised in terms of physical arc length (i.e.,
29
[[dx/ds[[ ≡ 1). Then the tangent vector to the path is
dx
µ
ds
=
_
dt
ds
;
dx
i
ds
_
. (114)
The condition for the path to be null (though not yet necessarily a null geodesic) is
g
µν
dx
µ
ds
dx
ν
ds
= 0. (115)
Using the explicit algebraic form for the metric, this can be expanded to show
−(c
2
−v
2
0
)
_
dt
ds
_
2
−2v
i
0
_
dx
i
ds
__
dt
ds
_
+ 1 = 0. (116)
Solving this quadratic
_
dt
ds
_
=
−v
i
0
_
dx
i
ds
_
+
_
c
2
−v
2
0
+
_
v
i
0
dx
i
ds
_
2
c
2
−v
2
0
. (117)
Therefore, the total time taken to traverse the path is
T[γ] =
_
x2
x1
(dt/ds) ds =
_
γ
1
c
2
−v
2
0
_
_
(c
2
−v
2
0
)ds
2
+ (v
i
0
dx
i
)
2
−v
i
0
dx
i
_
. (118)
If we now recall that extremising the total time taken is Fermat’s principle for sound rays, we see
that we have checked the formalism for stationary geometries (steady ﬂow) by reproducing the
discussion of Landau and Lifshitz [372, p. 262].
13
2.7 Generalizing the physical model
There are a large number of ways in which the present particularlysimple analogue model can be
generalised. Obvious issues within the current physical framework are:
• Adding external forces.
• Working in truly (1+1) or (2+1) dimensional systems.
• Adding vorticity, to go beyond the irrotational constraint.
Beyond these immediate questions, we could also seek similar eﬀects in other physical or mathe
matical frameworks.
2.7.1 External forces
Adding external forces is (relatively) easy, an early discussion can be found in [624] and more
details are available in [641]. The key point is that with an external force one can to some extent
shape the background ﬂow (see for example the discussion in [249]). However, upon linearization,
the ﬂuctuations are insensitive to any external force.
13
Mathematically, one can view the time taken to traverse such a path as a particular instance of Finsler distance –
it is, in fact, the distance function associated with a Randers metric. See [246], and brief discussion in Section 3.2.10.
30
2.7.2 The role of dimension
The role of spacetime dimension in these acoustic geometries is sometimes a bit surprising and
potentially confusing. This is important because there is a real physical distinction, for instance,
between truly (2+1)dimensional systems and eﬀectively (2+1)dimensional systems in the form
of (3+1)dimensional systems with cylindrical (pancakelike) symmetry. Similarly, there is a real
physical distinction between a truly (1+1)dimensional system and a (3+1)dimensional system
with transverse (cigarlike) symmetry. We emphasise that in Cartesian coordinates the wave equa
tion
∂
∂x
µ
_
f
µν
∂
∂x
ν
φ
_
= 0, (119)
where
f
µν
=
_
−ρ/c
2
−ρ v
j
/c
2
−ρ v
i
/c
2
ρ ¦δ
ij
−v
i
v
j
/c
2
¦
_
, (120)
holds independent of the dimensionality of spacetime. It depends only on the Euler equation, the
continuity equation, a barotropic equation of state, and the assumption of irrotational ﬂow [607,
622, 626, 624].
Introducing the inverse acoustic metric g
µν
, deﬁned by
f
µν
=
√
−g g
µν
; g =
1
det(g
µν
)
, (121)
the wave Equation (119) corresponds to the d’Alembertian wave equation in a curved spacetime
with contravariant metric tensor:
g
µν
=
_
ρ
c
_
−2/(d−1)
_
−1/c
2
−v
T
/c
2
−v/c
2
I
d×d
−v ⊗v
T
/c
2
_
, (122)
where d is the dimension of space (not spacetime). The covariant acoustic metric is then
g
µν
=
_
ρ
c
_
2/(d−1)
_
−
_
c
2
−v
2
_
−v
T
−v I
d×d
_
. (123)
d = 3: The acoustic line element for three space and one time dimension reads
g
µν
=
_
ρ
c
_
_
−
_
c
2
−v
2
_
−v
T
−v I
3×3
_
. (124)
d = 2: The acoustic line element for two space and one time dimension reads
g
µν
=
_
ρ
c
_
2
_
−
_
c
2
−v
2
_
−v
T
−v I
2×2
_
. (125)
This situation would be appropriate, for instance, when dealing with surface waves or exci
tations conﬁned to a particular substrate.
d = 1: The naive form of the acoustic metric in (1+1) dimensions is illdeﬁned, because the
conformal factor is raised to a formally inﬁnite power. This is a side eﬀect of the wellknown
conformal invariance of the Laplacian in 2 dimensions. The wave equation in terms of the
densitised inverse metric f
µν
continues to make good sense; it is only the step from f
µν
to
the eﬀective metric that breaks down. Acoustics in intrinsically (1+1) dimensional systems
does not reproduce the conformallyinvariant wave equation in (1+1) dimensions.
Note that this issue only presents a diﬃculty for physical systems that are intrinsically one
dimensional. A threedimensional system with plane symmetry, or a twodimensional system
with line symmetry, provides a perfectly wellbehaved model for (1+1) dimensions, as in the
cases d = 3 and d = 2 above.
31
2.7.3 Adding vorticity
For the preceding analysis to hold, it is necessary and suﬃcient that the ﬂow locally be vorticity free,
∇v = 0, so that velocity potentials exist on an atlas of open patches. Note that the irrotational
condition is automatically satisﬁed for the superﬂuid component of physical superﬂuids. (This
point has been emphasised by Comer [143], who has also pointed out that in superﬂuids there will
be multiple acoustic metrics – and multiple acoustic horizons – corresponding to ﬁrst and second
sound.) Even for normal ﬂuids, vorticityfree ﬂows are common, especially in situations of high
symmetry. Furthermore, the previous condition enables us to handle vortex ﬁlaments, where the
vorticity is concentrated into a thin vortex core, provided we do not attempt to probe the vortex
core itself. It is not necessary for the velocity potential φ to be globally deﬁned.
Though physically important, dealing with situations of distributed vorticity is much more
diﬃcult, and the relevant wave equation is more complicated in that the velocity scalar is now
insuﬃcient to completely characterise the ﬂuid ﬂow.
14
An approach similar to the spirit of the
present discussion, but in terms of Clebsch potentials, can be found in [502]. The eikonal approx
imation (geometrical acoustics) leads to the same conformal class of metrics previously discussed,
but in the realm of physical acoustics the wave equation is considerably more complicated than a
simple d’Alembertian. (Roughly speaking, the vorticity becomes a source for the d’Alembertian,
while the vorticity evolves in response to gradients in a generalised scalar potential. This seems to
take us outside the realm of models of direct interest to the general relativity community.)
15
2.8 Simple Lagrangian metamodel
As a ﬁrst (and rather broad) example of the very abstract ways in which the notion of an acoustic
metric can be generalised, we start from the simple observation that irrotational barotropic ﬂuid
mechanics can be described by a Lagrangian, and ask if we can extend the notion of an acoustic
metric to all (or at least some wide class of) Lagrangian systems?
Indeed, suppose we have a single scalar ﬁeld φ whose dynamics is governed by some generic
Lagrangian /(∂
µ
φ, φ), which is some arbitrary function of the ﬁeld and its ﬁrst derivatives (here
we will follow the notation and ideas of [44]). In the general analysis that follows the previous
irrotational and inviscid ﬂuid system is included as a particular case; the dynamics of the scalar ﬁeld
φ is now much more general. We want to consider linearised ﬂuctuations around some background
solution φ
0
(t, x) of the equations of motion, and to this end we write
φ(t, x) = φ
0
(t, x) +ǫφ
1
(t, x) +
ǫ
2
2
φ
2
(t, x) +O(ǫ
3
). (126)
14
Vorticity is automatically generated, for instance, whenever the background ﬂuid is nonbarotropic, and, in
particular, when ∇ρ ×∇p = 0. Furthermore, it has been argued in [559] that quantum backreaction can also act as
a source for vorticity.
15
In [233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240] the author has attempted to argue that vorticity can be related to the
concept of torsion in a general aﬃne connexion. We disagree. Although deriving a wave equation in the presence
of vorticity very deﬁnitely moves one beyond the realm of a simple Riemannian spacetime, adding torsion to the
connexion is not suﬃcient to capture the relevant physics.
32
Now use this to expand the Lagrangian around the classical solution φ
0
(t, x):
/(∂
µ
φ, φ) = /(∂
µ
φ
0
, φ
0
) +ǫ
_
∂/
∂(∂
µ
φ)
∂
µ
φ
1
+
∂/
∂φ
φ
1
_
+
ǫ
2
2
_
∂/
∂(∂
µ
φ)
∂
µ
φ
2
+
∂/
∂φ
φ
2
_
+
ǫ
2
2
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
∂
µ
φ
1
∂
ν
φ
1
+ 2
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂φ
∂
µ
φ
1
φ
1
+
∂
2
/
∂φ ∂φ
φ
1
φ
1
_
+O(ǫ
3
).
(127)
It is particularly useful to consider the action
S[φ] =
_
d
d+1
x /(∂
µ
φ, φ), (128)
since doing so allows us to integrate by parts. (Note that the Lagrangian / is taken to be a scalar
density, not a true scalar.) We can now use the Euler–Lagrange equations for the background ﬁeld
∂
µ
_
∂/
∂(∂
µ
φ)
_
−
∂/
∂φ
= 0, (129)
to discard the linear terms (remember we are linearizing around a solution of the equations of
motion) and so we get
S[φ] = S[φ
0
] +
ǫ
2
2
_
d
d+1
x
_
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
_
∂
µ
φ
1
∂
ν
φ
1
+
_
∂
2
/
∂φ ∂φ
−∂
µ
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂φ
__
φ
1
φ
1
_
+O(ǫ
3
). (130)
Having set things up this way, the equation of motion for the linearised ﬂuctuation is now easily
read oﬀ as
∂
µ
__
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
_
∂
ν
φ
1
_
−
_
∂
2
/
∂φ ∂φ
−∂
µ
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂φ
__
φ
1
= 0. (131)
This is a secondorder diﬀerential equation with positiondependent coeﬃcients (these coeﬃcients
all being implicit functions of the background ﬁeld φ
0
).
This can be given a nice clean geometrical interpretation in terms of a d’Alembertian wave
equation – provided we deﬁne the eﬀective spacetime metric by
√
−g g
µν
≡ f
µν
≡
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
_¸
¸
¸
¸
φ0
. (132)
Note that this is another example of a situation in which calculating the inverse metric density is
easier than calculating the metric itself.
Suppressing the φ
0
except when necessary for clarity, this implies [in (d+1) dimensions, d space
dimensions plus 1 time dimension]
(−g)
(d−1)/2
= −det
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
_
. (133)
33
Therefore,
g
µν
(φ
0
) =
_
−det
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
__
−1/(d−1)
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
φ0
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
_¸
¸
¸
¸
φ0
. (134)
And, taking the inverse,
g
µν
(φ
0
) =
_
−det
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
__
1/(d−1)
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
φ0
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
_
−1
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
φ0
. (135)
We can now write the equation of motion for the linearised ﬂuctuations in the geometrical form
[∆(g(φ
0
)) −V (φ
0
)] φ
1
= 0, (136)
where ∆ is the d’Alembertian operator associated with the eﬀective metric g(φ
0
), and V (φ
0
) is the
backgroundﬁelddependent (and so, in general, positiondependent) “mass term”:
V (φ
0
) =
1
√
−g
_
∂
2
/
∂φ ∂φ
−∂
µ
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂φ
__
(137)
That is,
V (φ
0
) =
_
−det
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂(∂
ν
φ)
__
−1/(d−1)
_
∂
2
/
∂φ ∂φ
−∂
µ
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ) ∂φ
__
. (138)
Thus, V (φ
0
) is a true scalar (not a density). Note that the diﬀerential Equation (136) is automat
ically formally selfadjoint (with respect to the measure
√
−g d
d+1
x).
It is important to realise just how general the result is (and where the limitations are): It works
for any Lagrangian depending only on a single scalar ﬁeld and its ﬁrst derivatives. The linearised
PDE will be hyperbolic (and so the linearised equations will have wavelike solutions) if and only
if the eﬀective metric g
µν
has Lorentzian signature ±[−, +
d
]. Observe that if the Lagrangian
contains nontrivial second derivatives you should not be too surprised to see terms beyond the
d’Alembertian showing up in the linearised equations of motion.
As a speciﬁc example of the appearance of eﬀective metrics due to Lagrangian dynamics we re
iterate the fact that inviscid irrotational barotropic hydrodynamics naturally falls into this scheme
(which is why, with hindsight, the derivation of the acoustic metric presented earlier in this review
was so relatively straightforward). In inviscid irrotational barotropic hydrodynamics the lack of
viscosity (dissipation) guarantees the existence of a Lagrangian; which a priori could depend on
several ﬁelds. Since the ﬂow is irrotational v = −∇φ is a function only of the velocity potential,
and the Lagrangian is a function only of this potential and the density. Finally, the equation of
state can be used to eliminate the density leading to a Lagrangian that is a function only of the
single ﬁeld φ and its derivatives [44].
34
2.9 Going further
The class of analogue models based on ﬂuid mechanics is now quite large and the literature is
extensive. Most of the relevant detailed discussion will be deferred until subsequent sections, so
for the time being we shall just mention reasonably immediate generalizations such as:
• Working with speciﬁc ﬂuids.
– Superﬂuids.
– Bose–Einstein condensates.
• Abstract generalizations.
– Normal modes in generic systems.
– Multiple signal speeds.
We next turn to a brief historical discussion, seeking to place the work of the last two decades into
its proper historical perspective.
35
3 History
From the point of view of the general relativity community the history of analogue models can
reasonably neatly (but superﬁcially) be divided into an “historical” period (essentially pre1981)
and a “modern” period (essentially post1981). We shall in the next subsection 3.1 focus more
precisely on the early history of analogue models, and speciﬁcally those that seem to us to have
had a direct historical connection with the sustained burst of work carried out in the last 20 years.
3.1 Historical period
Of course, the division into pre1981 and post1981 articles is at a deeper level somewhat deceptive.
There have been several analogue models investigated over the years, with diﬀerent aims, diﬀerent
levels of sophistication, and ultimately diﬀerent levels of development. Armed with a good library
and some hindsight it is possible to ﬁnd interesting analogues in a number of places.
16
3.1.1 Optics – the Gordon metric
Perhaps the ﬁrst paper to seriously discuss analogue models and eﬀective metric techniques was
that of Gordon (yes, he of the Klein–Gordon equation) [258]. Note that Gordon seemed largely
interested in trying to describe dielectric media by an “eﬀective metric”. That is: Gordon wanted
to use a gravitational ﬁeld to mimic a dielectric medium. What is now often referred to as the
Gordon metric is the expression
[g
eﬀective
]
µν
= η
µν
+
_
1 −n
−2
¸
V
µ
V
ν
, (139)
where η
µν
is the ﬂat Minkowski metric, n is the positiondependent refractive index, and V
µ
is the
(constant) 4velocity of the medium.
After that, there was sporadic interest in eﬀective metric techniques. An historicallyimportant
contribution was one of the problems in the wellknown book “The Classical Theory of Fields” by
Landau and Lifshitz [373]. See the end of Chapter 10, Paragraph 90, and the problem immediately
thereafter: “Equations of electrodynamics in the presence of a gravitational ﬁeld”. Note that in
contrast to Gordon, here the interest is in using dielectric media to mimic a gravitational ﬁeld.
In France the idea was taken up by Pham Mau Quan [503], who showed that (under certain
conditions) Maxwell’s equations can be expressed directly in terms of the eﬀective metric speciﬁed
by the coeﬃcients
[g
eﬀective
]
µν
= g
µν
+
_
1 −
1
ǫµ
_
V
µ
V
ν
, (140)
where g
µν
is the ordinary spacetime metric, ǫ and µ are the permeability and permittivity, and
V
µ
is the 4velocity of the medium. The trajectories of the electromagnetic rays are interpreted in
this case as geodesics of null length of this new eﬀective metric.
Three articles that directly used the dielectric analogy to analyse speciﬁc physics problems are
those of Skrotskii [576], Balazs [18], and Winterberg [689]. The general formalism was more fully
developed in articles such as those by Pleba´ nski [511, 510], and a good summary of this classical
period can be found in the article by de Felice [168]. In summary and with the beneﬁt of hindsight:
16
Indeed, historically, though not of direct relevance to general relativity, analogue models played a key role
in the development of electromagnetism – Maxwell’s derivation of his equations for the electromagnetic ﬁeld was
guided by a rather complicated “analogue model” in terms of spinning vortices of aether. Of course, once you have
the equations in hand you can treat them in their own right and forget the model that guided you – which is exactly
what happened in this particular case.
36
An arbitrary gravitational ﬁeld can always be represented as an equivalent optical medium, but
subject to the somewhat unphysical restriction that
[magnetic permitivity] ∝ [electric permeability]. (141)
If an optical medium does not satisfy this constraint (with a position independent proportionality
constant) then it is not completely equivalent to a gravitational ﬁeld. For a position dependent
proportionality constant complete equivalence can be established in the geometric optics limit, but
for wave optics the equivalence is not complete.
Subsequently, Anderson and Spiegel [7] extended and modiﬁed the notion of the Gordon metric
to allow the medium to be a ﬂowing ﬂuid – so the 4vector V
a
is no longer assumed to be a constant.
In hindsight, using modern notation and working in full generality, the Gordon metric can be
justiﬁed as follows: Consider an arbitrary curved spacetime with physical metric g
ab
containing
a ﬂuid of 4velocity V
a
and refractive index n. Pick a point in the manifold and adopt Gaussian
normal coordinates around that point so that g
ab
→ η
ab
. Now perform a Lorentz transformation
to go to to a local inertial frame comoving with the ﬂuid, so that V
a
→ (1;
0) and one is now in
Gaussian normal coordinates comoving with the ﬂuid. In this coordinate patch, the light rays, by
deﬁnition of the refractive index, locally propagate along the light cones
−
1
n
2
dt
2
+[[dx[[
2
= 0, (142)
implying in these special coordinates the existence of an optical metric
(
µν
∝
_
¸
¸
_
−1/n
2
0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
_
¸
¸
_
. (143)
That is, transforming back to arbitrary coordinates:
(
µν
∝ −
1
n
2
V
µ
V
ν
+¦g
µν
+ V
µ
V
ν
¦ ∝ g
µν
+
_
1 −
1
n
2
_
V
µ
V
ν
. (144)
Note that in the ray optics limit, because one only has the light cones to work with, one can neither
derive nor is it even meaningful to specify the overall conformal factor.
3.1.2 Acoustics
After the pioneering hydrodynamical paper by White in 1973 [687], which studied acoustic ray
tracing in nonrelativistic moving ﬂuids, there were several papers in the 1980s using an acoustic
analogy to investigate the propagation of shockwaves in astrophysical situations, most notably
those of Moncrief [448] and Matarrese [433, 434, 432]. In particular, in Moncrief’s work [448] the
linear perturbations of a relativistic perfect ﬂuid on a Schwarzschild background were studied, and
it was shown that the wave equation for such perturbations can be expressed as a relativistic wave
equation on some eﬀective (acoustic) metric (which can admit acoustic horizons). In this sense [448]
can be seen as a precursor to the later works on acoustic geometries and acoustic horizons. Indeed,
because they additionally permit a general relativistic Schwarzschild background, the results of
Moncrief [448] are, in some sense, more general than those considered in the mainstream acoustic
gravity papers that followed.
In spite of these impressive results, we consider these papers to be part of the “historical
period” for the main reason that such works are philosophically orthogonal to modern developments
in analogue gravity. Indeed the main motivation for such works was the study of perfect ﬂuid
37
dynamics in accretion ﬂows around black holes, or in cosmological expansion, and in this context
the description via an acoustic eﬀective background was just a tool in order to derive results
concerning conservation laws and stability. This is probably why, even if temporally, [448] pre
dates Unruh’s 1981 paper by one year, and while [433, 434, 432] postdate Unruh’s 1981 paper by
a few years, there seems to have not been any crossconnection.
3.1.3 Surface waves
Somewhat ironically, 1983 marked the appearance of some purely experimental results on surface
waves in water obtained by Badulin et al. [17]. At the time these results passed unremarked by the
relativity community, but they are now of increasing interest, and are seen to be precursors of the
theoretical work reported in [560, 531] and the modern experimental work reported in [532, 682].
3.2 Modern period
3.2.1 The years 1981–1999
The key event in the “modern” period (though largely unrecognised at the time) was the 1981
publication of Unruh’s paper “Experimental black hole evaporation” [607], which implemented an
analogue model based on ﬂuid ﬂow, and then used the power of that analogy to probe fundamental
issues regarding Hawking radiation from “real” generalrelativistic black holes.
We believe that Unruh’s 1981 article represents the ﬁrst observation of the now widely es
tablished fact that Hawking radiation has nothing to do with general relativity per se, but that
Hawking radiation is instead a fundamental curvedspace quantum ﬁeld theory phenomenon that
occurs whenever a horizon is present in an eﬀective geometry.
17
Though Unruh’s 1981 paper was
seminal in this regard, it lay largely unnoticed for many years.
Some 10 years later Jacobson’s article “Blackhole evaporation and ultrashort distances” [307]
used Unruh’s analogy to build a physical model for the “transPlanckian modes” believed to be
relevant to the Hawking radiation process. Progress then sped up with the relatively rapid appear
ance of [308] and [608]. (This period also saw the independent rediscovery of the ﬂuid analogue
model by one of the present authors [622], and the ﬁrst explicit consideration of superﬂuids in this
regard [143].)
The later 1990s then saw continued work by Jacobson and his group [309, 310, 148, 146, 150,
322], with new and rather diﬀerent contributions coming in the form of the solidstate models
considered by Reznik [523, 522]. [285] is an attempt at connecting Hawking evaporation with the
physics of collapsing bubbles. This was part of a more general programme aimed at connecting
blackhole thermodynamics with perfectﬂuid thermodynamics [286]. This period also saw the
introduction of the more general class of superﬂuid models considered by Volovik and his collab
orators [644, 645, 359, 183, 649, 647, 648, 326, 651, 652], more precise formulations of the notions
of horizon, ergosphere, and surface gravity in analogue models [624, 626], and discussions of the
implications of analogue models regarding Bekenstein–Hawking entropy [625, 626]. Optical models
were considered in [389]. Finally, analogue spacetimes based on special relativistic acoustics were
considered in [72].
By the year 2000, articles on one or another aspect of analogue gravity were appearing at the
rate of over 20 per year, and it becomes impractical to summarise more than a selection of them.
17
We emphasise: To get Hawking radiation you need an eﬀective geometry, a horizon, and a suitable quantum
ﬁeld theory on that geometry.
38
3.2.2 The year 2000
Key developments in 2000 were the introduction, by Garay and collaborators, of the use of Bose–
Einstein condensates as a working ﬂuid [231, 232], and the extension of those ideas by the present
authors [43]. Further aﬁeld, the transPlanckian problem also reared its head in the context of
cosmological inﬂation, and analogue model ideas previously applied to Hawking radiation were
reused in that context [341, 457].
That year also marked the appearance of a review article on superﬂuid analogues [655], more
work on “nearhorizon” physics [210], and the transference of the idea of analogueinspired “mul
tiple metric” theories into cosmology, where they can be used as the basis for a precise deﬁnition
of what is meant by a VSL (“variable speed of light”) cosmology [58]. Models based on nonlinear
electrodynamics were investigated in [26],
3
HeA based models were reconsidered in [316, 653], and
“slow light” models in quantum dielectrics were considered in [390, 391, 382]. The most radical
proposal to appear in 2000 was that of Laughlin et al. [131]. Based on taking a superﬂuid analogy
rather literally, they mooted an actual physical breakdown of general relativity at the horizon of a
black hole [131].
Additionally, the workshop on “Analogue models of general relativity”, held at CBPF (Rio
de Janeiro) gathered some 20 international participants and greatly stimulated the ﬁeld, leading
ultimately to the publication of a book [470] in 2002.
3.2.3 The year 2001
This year saw more applications of analogueinspired ideas to cosmological inﬂation [179, 441, 440,
343, 459], to neutron star cores [116], and to the cosmological constant [656, 658].
Closer to the heart of the analogue programme were the development of a “normal mode”
analysis in [44, 45, 637], the development of dielectric analogues in [557], speculations regarding
the possibly emergent nature of Einstein gravity [50, 637], and further developments regarding the
use of
3
HeA [178] as an analogue for electromagnetism. Experimental proposals were considered
in [48, 637, 539]. Vorticity was discussed in [502], and the use of BECs as a model for the breakdown
of Lorentz invariance in [636]. Analogue models based on nonlinear electrodynamics were discussed
in [169]. Acoustics in an irrotational vortex were investigated in [207].
The excitation spectrum in superﬂuids, speciﬁcally the fermion zero modes, were investigated
in [654, 303], while the relationship between rotational friction in superﬂuids and superradiance
in rotating spacetimes was discussed in [104]. More work on “slow light” appeared in [91]. The
possible role of Lorentz violations at ultrahigh energy was emphasised in [312].
3.2.4 The year 2002
“What did we learn from studying acoustic black holes?” was the title and theme of Parentani’s
article in 2002 [492], while Sch¨ utzhold and Unruh developed a rather diﬀerent ﬂuidbased analogy
based on gravity waves in shallow water [560, 560]. Superradiance was investigated in [57], while
the propagation of phonons and quasiparticles was discussed in [209, 208]. More work on “slow
light” appeared in [211, 509]. Applications to inﬂationary cosmology were developed in [460], while
analogue spacetimes relevant to braneworld cosmologies were considered in [28].
The stability of an acoustic white hole was investigated in [386], while further developments
regarding analogue models based on nonlinear electrodynamics were presented by Novello and
collaborators in [170, 171, 468, 464, 214]. Though analogue models lead naturally to the idea of
highenergy violations of Lorentz invariance, it must be stressed that deﬁnite observational evidence
for violations of Lorentz invariance is lacking – in fact, there are rather strong constraints on how
strong any possible Lorentz violating eﬀect might be [318, 317].
39
3.2.5 The year 2003
This year saw further discussion of analogueinspired models for blackhole entropy and the cosmo
logical constant [661, 668], and the development of analogue models for FRW geometries [195, 194,
46, 177, 403]. There were several further developments regarding the foundations of BECbased
models in [47, 196], while analogue spacetimes in superﬂuid neutron stars were further investigated
in [117].
Eﬀective geometry was the theme in [466], while applications of nonlinear electrodynamics (and
its eﬀective metric) to cosmology were presented in [467]. Superradiance was further investigated
in [56, 54], while the limitations of the “slow light” analogue were explained in [612]. Vachaspati
argued for an analogy between phase boundaries and acoustic horizons in [615]. Emergent relativity
was again addressed in [378]. The review article by Burgess [98] emphasised the role of general
relativity as an eﬀective ﬁeld theory – the sine qua non for any attempt at interpreting general
relativity as an emergent theory. The lecture notes by Jacobson [313] give a nice introduction to
Hawking radiation and its connection to analogue spacetimes.
3.2.6 The year 2004
The year 2004 saw the appearance of some 30 articles on (or closely related to) analogue models.
Eﬀective geometries in astrophysics were discussed by Perez Bergliaﬀa [501], while the physical
realizability of acoustic Hawking radiation was addressed in [159, 616]. More cosmological issues
were raised in [616, 675], while a speciﬁcally astrophysical use of the acoustic analogy was invoked
in [160, 161, 162]. BECbased horizons were again considered in [249, 247], while backreaction
eﬀects were the focus of attention in [25, 23, 344]. More issues relating to the simulation of FRW
cosmologies were raised in [204, 206].
Unruh and Sch¨ utzhold discussed the universality of the Hawking eﬀect [613], and a new proposal
for possibly detecting Hawking radiation in an electromagnetic wave guide [562]. The causal struc
ture of analogue spacetimes was considered in [37], while quasinormal modes attracted attention
in [69, 392, 112, 452]. Two dimensional analogue models were considered in [101].
There were attempts at modeling the Kerr geometry [641], and generic “rotating” space
times [132], a proposal for using analogue models to generate massive phonon modes in BECs [640,
642], and an extension of the usual formalism for representing weakﬁeld gravitational lensing in
terms of an analogue refractive index [81]. Finally, we mention the development of yet more strong
observational bounds on possible ultrahighenergy Lorentz violation [319, 320].
3.2.7 The year 2005
The year 2005 saw continued and vigorous activity on the analogue model front. More studies of the
superresonance phenomenon appeared [55, 193, 347, 578], and a minisurvey was presented in [111].
Quasinormal modes again received attention in [135], while the Magnus force was reanalysed in
terms of the acoustic geometry in [699]. Singularities in the acoustic geometry are considered
in [102], while backreaction has received more attention in [559].
The original version of this Living Review appeared in May of 2005 [49], and since then activity
has, if anything, increased. Work on BECrelated models included [401, 402, 678, 642, 679, 605,
205], while additional work on superradiance [136], the background ﬂuid ﬂow [103], and quasi
normal modes [537] also appeared. Dynamical phase transitions were considered in [551], and
astrophysical applications to accretion ﬂow in [2, 165]. The connection between white hole horizon
and the classical notion of a “hydraulic jump” was explored in [662] and in [572]. A “spacetime
condensate” point of view was advocated in [299], and analogue applications to “quantum tele
portation” were considered in [243]. A nice survey of analogue ideas and backreaction eﬀects was
presented in [21] (and related articles [23, 25]). Finally, we mention the appearance in 2005 of
40
another Living Review, one that summarises and systematises the very stringent bounds that have
been developed on possible ultrahighenergy Lorentz violation [435].
3.2.8 The year 2006
A key article, which appeared in 2006, involved the “inverse” use of the acoustic metric to help
understand hydrodynamic ﬂuid ﬂow in quarkgluon plasma [123]. The relationship between mod
iﬁed dispersion relations and Finsler spacetimes was discussed in [251]. Backreaction eﬀects were
again considered in [20].
Using analogue ideas as backdrop, Markopoulou developed a pregeometric model for quantum
gravity in [421]. Analogue implications visavis entanglement entropy were discussed in [226, 225].
A microscopic analysis of the microtheory underlying acoustic Hawking radiation in a “piston”
geometry appeared in [248]. Volovik extended and explained his views on quantum hydrodynamics
as a model for quantum gravity in [664]. Applications to the cosmological constant were considered
in [543]. More BECrelated developments appeared in [680, 38, 39, 29, 24, 188, 189]. An analogue
model based on a suspended “shoestring” was explored in [282]. Superresonance was again dis
cussed in [352]. More analogueinspired work on blackhole accretion appeared in [164], while
“ripplons” (quantised surface capillary waves) were discussed in [663]. Modiﬁed dispersion rela
tions again attracted attention [250], and analogue inspired ideas concerning constrained systems
were explored in [357]. Quasinormal frequencies were considered in [134]. Finally, we emphasise
particularly the realization that the occurrence of Hawkinglike radiation does not require the
presence of an event horizon or even a trapped region [38, 39].
3.2.9 The year 2007
Emergent geometry [16, 14, 15, 618] was an important theme in 2007, as were eﬀorts at moving
beyond the semiclassical description [491]. BECbased analogue models were adapted to investigat
ing “signature change events” in [684]. Acoustic crosssections were considered in [156]. “Rimfall”
was discussed in [609].
Analogueinspired ideas were adapted to the study of gravitational collapse in [40], while the
importance of nonlocal correlations in the Hawking ﬂux was emphasized in [22]. Quantum ﬁeld
theoretic anomalies were considered in [345], while entanglement entropy was investigated in [324].
The speciﬁc shape of the de Laval nozzle needed to acoustically reproduce linearised perturbations
of the Schwarzschild geometry was discussed in [1], and quasinormal frequencies were investigated
in [692]. Superradiance and disclinations were considered in [167]. Theoretical aspects of the
circular hydraulic jump were investigated in [519].
The use of analogue spacetimes as “toy models” for quantum gravity was emphasized in [643,
632]. Within the optics community Philbin, Leonhardt, and coworkers initiated the study of
“ﬁbreoptic black holes” [505, 504]. Within the ﬂuid dynamics community, wavetank experiments
were initiated [532] by Rousseaux and coworkers, who demonstrated the presence of negative
phasevelocity waves. Dissipationinduced breakdown of Lorentz invariance was considered by
Parentani in [494, 495], and BECbased models continued to attract attention [676, 30, 31, 333].
While analyzing quark matter, acoustic metrics were found to be useful in [419] (see also [418]).
Analogues based on ion traps were considered by Sch¨ utzhold in [558], while a toy model for
backreaction was explored in [414]. Further aﬁeld, analogue models were used to motivate a
“Abraham–Lorentz” interpretation of relativity in terms of a physicallyreal aether and physically
real Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction [36]. In a similar vein analogue models were used to motivate
a counterfactual counterhistorical approach to the Bohm versus Copenhagen interpretations of
quantum physics [463]. Analogueinspired ideas regarding the possible “localization” of the origin
of the Hawking ﬂux were investigated by Unruh in [610]. Additionally, an analogue inspired analysis
41
of accretion appeared in [163], while astrophysical constraints on modiﬁed dispersion relations were
improved and extended in [409, 394].
3.2.10 The year 2008
This year saw the introduction of “quantum graphity” [358, 356], an analogueinspired model for
quantum gravity. The BEC theme continued to generate attention [368], in particular regarding
cosmological particle production [677, 683], and Hawking radiation [119]. A minireview appeared
in [553]. The theme of “emergence” was also represented in articles such as [255, 252, 329].
Localization of the Hawking radiation was again addressed in [563], while sensitivity of the Hawking
ﬂux to the presence of superluminal dispersion was considered in [33]. Astrophysical constraints on
modiﬁed dispersion relations were again considered in [408, 410], while applications to quark matter
were investigated in [415, 417]. Possible applications to hightemperature superconductivity were
reported in [444]. Quantum ﬁeld theoretic anomalies in an acoustic geometry were considered in [60,
691], while (2+1) acoustic blackhole thermodynamics were investigated in [346]. Gravitational
collapse was again discussed in [40].
Gibbons and coworkers used analoguebased ideas in their analysis of general stationary space
times, demonstrating that the spatial slices of stationary spacetimes are best thought of as a special
class of Finsler spaces, in particular, Randers spaces [246]. Attempts at developing a generally use
ful notion of Finsler spacetime were discussed in [573, 575], with Finslerian applications to the Higgs
mechanism being investigated in [569]. Signature change, now not in a BEC context, was again
addressed in [686]. Blackhole lasers were considered in [388], and the ﬂuidgravity correspondence
in [5]. Backreaction of the Hawking ﬂux was again considered in [556], while the analogue physics
of a “photon ﬂuid” was considered in [420]. In [73] analogue ideas were applied to polytrope models
of Newtonian stars, while superradiance was considered in [598].
3.2.11 The year 2009
This year saw intriguing and unexpected relations develop between analogue spacetimes and Hoˇrava
gravity [584, 585, 634, 666, 570]. These connections seem primarily related to the way Hoˇrava’s
projectability condition interleaves with the ADM decomposition of the metric, and to the manner
in which Hoˇrava’s distinguished spacetime foliation interleaves with the preferred use of Painlev´e–
Gullstrandlike coordinates.
The theme of emergent gravity continues to play a role [300, 395, 571], as does the theme of
nontrivial dispersion relations [413, 412, 411, 396, 437]. A variant of quantum graphity was further
developed in [268], and a matrix model implementation of analogue spacetime was developed
in [220]. Quasinormal modes were considered in [174, 700], with a survey appearing in [70].
Acoustic scattering was considered in [173]. Applications to quark matter were again investigated
in [416]. In [340], the universe was interpreted as a “soap ﬁlm”. Nonlinear electrodynamics was
again considered in [260]. A model based on liquid crystals appeared in [500]. Attempts at
including backreaction in a cosmological ﬂuid context were investigated in [451, 450]. Possible
experimental implementations of acoustic black holes using circulating ion rings are discussed
in [290], while ultrashort laser pulses are considered in [187]. Signature change events were again
considered in [685], while analogueinspired lessons regarding the fundamental nature of time were
investigated in [330] and [254]. Noncanonical quantum ﬁelds were considered in [304].
In [217, 218] analogue ideas are implemented in an unusual direction: ﬂuid dynamics is used to
model aspects of quantum ﬁeld theory. That the transPlanckian and information loss problems are
linked is argued in [397]. The BEC paradigm for acoustic geometry is again discussed in [331] and
[520], while universal aspects of superradiant scattering are considered in [524]. Most remarkably,
a BECbased black hole analogue was experimentally realised in [369]. (See Sections 6.2 and 7.13.)
42
3.2.12 The year 2010
This current year has already (September) seen some 50 articles appear that can legitimately claim
to have either direct or tangential relationships to the analogue spacetime programme. Being nec
essarily very selective, we ﬁrst mention work related to “entropic” attempts at understanding
the “emergence” of general relativity and the spacetime “degrees of freedom” from the quantum
regime [483, 482, 130, 590, 355]. The use of correlations as a potential experimental probe has been
theoretically investigated in [19, 118, 190, 496, 512, 564, 604], while an analysis of optimality con
ditions for the detection of Hawking–Unruh radiation appeared in [13]. Entanglement issues were
explored in [427]. More work on “emergent horizons” has appeared in [552, 554, 555]. Relativistic
ﬂuids have been revisited in [639], with speciﬁc applications to relativistic BECs being reported
in [191]. Possible measurement protocols for Hawking radiation in ionic systems were discussed
in [291]. In [34] analogue spacetimes were used to carefully separate the notion of “emergent
manifold” from that of “emergent curvature”. Quantum graphity was again considered in [110].
Stepfunction discontinuities in BECs were considered in [186, 438]. (Signature change can
be viewed as an extreme case of stepfunction discontinuity [684, 685, 686].) Black holes induced
by dielectric eﬀects, and their associated Hawking radiation, were considered in [63]. The acous
tic geometry of polytrope rotating Newtonian stars was considered in [74]. Random ﬂuids were
investigated in [365]. Finsler spacetime geometries were again considered in [574], while the re
lationship between analogue spacetimes and foundational mathematical relativity was discussed
in [139]. Further aﬁeld, analogue spacetimes were used as an aid to understanding “warp drive”
spacetimes [32].
Quantum sound in BECs was again investigated in [35], BECbased particle creation in [367],
and BECbased black hole lasers in [199]. Optical eﬀective geometries in Kerr media were discussed
in [100]. 2+1 dimensional drainingbathtub geometries were probed in [477]. Theoretical and
historical analyses of surface waves in a wave tank were presented in [531]. Finally, we mention
the stunning experimental veriﬁcation by Weinfurtner et al. of the existence of classical stimulated
Hawking radiation in a wave ﬂume [682], and the experimental detection of photons associated
with a phase velocity horizon by Belgiorno et al. [66].
3.2.13 The future?
Interest in analogue models, analogue spacetimes, and analogue gravity is intense and shows no
signs of abating. Interest in these ideas now extends far beyond the general relativity community,
and there is signiﬁcant promise for direct laboratorybased experimental input. We particularly
wish to encourage the reader to keep an eye out for future developments regarding the possi
ble experimental veriﬁcation of the existence of Hawking radiation or the closely related Unruh
radiation.
3.3 Going further
To further complicate the history, there is large body of work for which analogue spacetime ideas
provide part of the background gestalt, even if the speciﬁc connection may sometimes be somewhat
tenuous. Among such articles, we mention:
• Analoguebased “geometrical” interpretations of pseudomomentum, Iordanskii forces, Mag
nus forces, and the acoustic Aharanov–Bohm eﬀect [227, 592, 593, 594, 595, 650].
• An analogueinspired interpretation of the Kerr spacetime [267].
• The use of analogies to clarify the Newtonian limit of general relativity [602], to provide
heuristics for motivating interest in speciﬁc spacetimes [525, 631], and to discuss a simple
interpretation of the notion of a horizon [473].
43
• Discrete [583, 281, 436] and noncommutative [140] spacetimes partially inﬂuenced and
ﬂavoured by analogue ideas.
• Analoguebased hints on how to implement “doubly special relativity” (DSR) [361, 362, 363,
599], and a cautionary analysis of why this might be diﬃcult [561].
• Possible blackhole phase transitions placed in an analogue context [591].
• Attempts at deriving inertia and passive gravity, (though not active gravity), from analogue
ideas [442].
• Applications of analogue ideas in braneworld [241] and Kaluza–Klein [242] settings.
• Analogue inspired views on the “mathematical universe” [332].
• Cosmological structure formation viewed as noise ampliﬁcation [568].
• Modiﬁed inﬂationary scenarios [140, 142].
• Discussions of unusual topology, “acoustic wormholes”, and unusual temporal structure [453,
455, 514, 581, 582, 701, 702].
• Magnon contributions to BEC physics [97, 665].
• Analogue models based on plasmon physics [581, 582].
• Abstract quantum ﬁeld theoretic considerations of the Unruh eﬀect [695].
• The interpretation of blackhole entropy in terms of universal “near horizon” behaviour of
quantum ﬁelds living on spacetime [114, 115].
• Numerous suggestions regarding possible transPlanckian physics [12, 59, 121, 128, 129, 284,
440, 528, 600].
• Numerous suggestions regarding a minimum length in quantum gravity [71, 78, 93, 144, 230,
293, 294, 295, 361, 362, 363, 405, 407, 406, 579].
• Standard quantum ﬁeld theory physics reformulated in the light of analogue models [9, 10,
203, 215, 393, 398, 399, 400, 422, 471, 472, 486, 485, 487, 493, 515, 695].
• Standard general relativity supplemented with analogue viewpoints and insights [354, 376,
422, 456, 325, 475].
• The discussion of, and argument for, a possible reassessment of fundamental features of
quantum physics and general relativity [11, 259, 342, 377, 400, 488, 535, 544].
• Nonstandard viewpoints on quantum physics and general relativity [157, 292, 479, 529, 527,
545, 546, 547, 548].
• Soliton physics [497], defect physics [172], and the Fizeau eﬀect [454], presented with an
analogue ﬂavour.
• Analogueinspired models of blackhole accretion [516, 517, 518].
• Cosmological horizons from an analogue spacetime perspective [244].
• Analogueinspired insights into renormalization group ﬂow [107].
44
• An analysis of “wave catastrophes” inspired by analogue models [348].
• Improved numerical techniques for handling wave equations [688], and analytic techniques
for handling wave tails [80], partially based on analogue ideas.
From the above the reader can easily appreciate the broad interest in, and wide applicability of,
analogue spacetime models.
There is not much more that we can usefully say here. We have doubtless missed some articles
of historical importance, but with a good library or a fast Internet connection the reader will be
in as good a position as we are to ﬁnd any additional historical articles.
45
4 A Catalogue of Models
In this section, we will attempt to categorise the very many analogue models researchers have
investigated. Perhaps the most basic subdivision is into classical models and quantum models, but
even then many other levels of reﬁnement are possible. Consider for instance the following list:
• Classical models:
– Classical sound.
– Sound in relativistic hydrodynamics.
– Water waves (gravity waves).
– Classical refractive index.
– Normal modes.
• Quantum models:
– Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs).
– The Heliocentric universe.
(Helium as an exemplar for just about anything.)
– Slow light.
We will now provide a few words on each of these topics.
4.1 Classical models
4.1.1 Classical sound
Sound in a nonrelativistic moving ﬂuid has already been extensively discussed in Section 2, and
we will not repeat such discussion here. In contrast, sound in a solid exhibits its own distinct and
interesting features, notably in the existence of a generalization of the normal notion of birefringence
– longitudinal modes travel at a diﬀerent speed (typically faster) than do transverse modes. This
may be viewed as an example of an analogue model which breaks the “light cone” into two at
the classical level; as such this model is not particularly useful if one is trying to simulate special
relativistic kinematics with its universal speed of light, though it may be used to gain insight into
yet another way of “breaking” Lorentz invariance (and the equivalence principle).
4.1.2 Sound in relativistic hydrodynamics
When dealing with relativistic sound, key historical papers are those of Moncrief [448] and Bilic [72],
with astrophysical applications being more fully explored in [162, 161, 160], and with a more recent
pedagogical followup in [639]. It is convenient to ﬁrst quickly motivate the result by working in
the limit of relativistic ray acoustics where we can safely ignore the wave properties of sound. In
this limit we are interested only in the “sound cones”. Let us pick a curved manifold with physical
spacetime metric g
µν
, and a point in spacetime where the background ﬂuid 4velocity is V
µ
while
the speed of sound is c
s
. Now (in complete direct conformity with our discussion of the generalised
optical Gordon metric) adopt Gaussian normal coordinates so that g
µν
→η
µν
, and go to the local
rest frame of the ﬂuid, so that V
µ
→(1;
0) and
g
µν
→
_
¸
¸
_
−1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
_
¸
¸
_
; h
µν
= g
µν
+ V
µ
V
ν
→
_
¸
¸
_
0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
_
¸
¸
_
. (145)
46
In the rest frame of the ﬂuid the sound cones are (locally) given by
−c
2
s
dt
2
+[[dx[[
2
= 0, (146)
implying in these special coordinates the existence of an acoustic metric
(
µν
∝
_
¸
¸
_
−c
2
s
0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
_
¸
¸
_
. (147)
That is, transforming back to arbitrary coordinates:
(
µν
∝ −c
2
s
V
µ
V
ν
+¦g
µν
+V
µ
V
ν
¦ ∝ g
µν
+
_
1 −c
2
s
_
V
µ
V
ν
. (148)
Note again that in the ray acoustics limit, because one only has the sound cones to work with, one
can neither derive (nor is it even meaningful to specify) the overall conformal factor. When going
beyond the ray acoustics limit, seeking to obtain a relativistic wave equation suitable for describing
physical acoustics, all the “fuss” is simply over how to determine the overall conformal factor (and
to verify that one truly does obtain a d’Alembertian equation using the conformallyﬁxed acoustic
metric).
One proceeds by combining the relativistic Euler equation, the relativistic energy equation, an
assumed barotropic equation of state, and assuming a relativistic irrotational ﬂow of the form [639]
V
µ
=
g
µν
∇
ν
Θ
[[∇Θ[[
. (149)
In this situation the relativistic Bernoulli equation can be shown to be
ln [[∇Θ[[ = +
_
p
0
dp
̺(p) +p
, (150)
where we emphasize that ̺ is now the energy density (not the mass density), and the total particle
number density can be shown to be
n(p) = n
(p=0)
exp
_
_
̺(p)
̺
(p=0)
d̺
̺ +p(̺)
_
. (151)
After linearization around some suitable background [448, 72, 639], the perturbations in the scalar
velocity potential Θ can be shown to satisfy a dimensionindependent d’Alembertian equation
∇
µ
_
n
2
0
̺
0
+p
0
_
−
1
c
2
s
V
µ
0
V
ν
0
+h
µν
_
∇
ν
Θ
1
_
= 0, (152)
which leads to the identiﬁcation of the relativistic acoustic metric as
√
−( (
µν
=
n
2
0
̺
0
+p
0
_
−
1
c
2
s
V
µ
0
V
ν
0
+h
µν
_
. (153)
The dimensiondependence now comes from solving this equation for (
µν
. Therefore, we ﬁnally
have the (contravariant) acoustic metric
(
µν
=
_
n
2
0
c
−1
s
̺
0
+p
0
_
−2/(d−1)
_
−
1
c
2
s
V
µ
0
V
ν
0
+h
µν
_
, (154)
47
and (covariant) acoustic metric
(
µν
=
_
n
2
0
c
−1
s
̺
0
+p
0
_
2/(d−1)
_
−c
2
s
[V
0
]
µ
[V
0
]
ν
+h
µν
_
. (155)
In the nonrelativistic limit p
0
≪̺
0
and ̺
0
≈ ¯ m n
0
, where ¯ m is the average mass of the particles
making up the ﬂuid (which by the barotropic assumption is a timeindependent and position
independent constant). So in the nonrelativistic limit we recover the standard result for the
conformal factor [639]
n
2
0
c
−1
s
̺
0
+p
0
→
n
0
¯ mc
s
=
1
¯ m
2
ρ
0
c
s
∝
ρ
0
c
s
. (156)
Under what conditions is the fully general relativistic discussion of this section necessary? (The
nonrelativistic analysis is, after all, the basis of the bulk of the work in “analogue spacetimes”, and
is perfectly adequate for many purposes.) The current analysis will be needed in three separate
situations:
• when working in a nontrivial curved general relativistic background;
• whenever the ﬂuid is ﬂowing at relativistic speeds;
• less obviously, when the internal degrees of freedom of the ﬂuid are relativistic, even if the
overall ﬂuid ﬂow is nonrelativistic. (That is, in situations where it is necessary to distinguish
the energy density ̺ from the mass density ρ; this typically happens in situations where the
ﬂuid is strongly selfcoupled – for example in neutron star cores or in relativistic BECs [191].
See Section 4.2.)
4.1.3 Shallow water waves (gravity waves)
A wonderful example of the occurrence of an eﬀective metric in nature is that provided by gravity
waves in a shallow basin ﬁlled with liquid [560]. (See Figure 10.)
18
If one neglects the viscosity
and considers an irrotational ﬂow, v = ∇φ, one can write Bernoulli’s equation in the presence of
Earth’s gravity as
∂
t
φ +
1
2
(∇φ)
2
= −
p
ρ
−gz −V
. (157)
Here ρ is the density of the ﬂuid, p its pressure, g the gravitational acceleration and V
a potential
associated with some external force necessary to establish an horizontal ﬂow in the ﬂuid. We denote
that ﬂow by v
B
. We must also impose the boundary conditions that the pressure at the surface,
and the vertical velocity at the bottom, both vanish. That is, p(z = h
B
) = 0, and v
⊥
(z = 0) = 0.
Once a horizontal background ﬂow is established, one can see that the perturbations of the
velocity potential satisfy
∂
t
δφ +v
B
∇
δφ = −
δp
ρ
. (158)
If we now expand this perturbation potential in a Taylor series
δφ =
∞
n=0
z
n
n!
δφ
n
(x, y), (159)
18
Of course, we now mean “gravity wave” in the traditional ﬂuid mechanics sense of a water wave whose restoring
force is given by ordinary Newtonian gravity. Waves in the fabric of spacetime are more properly called “gravitational
waves”, though this usage seems to be in decline within the general relativity community. Be very careful in any
situation where there is even a possibility of confusing the two concepts.
48
it is not diﬃcult to prove [560] that surface waves with long wavelengths (long compared with the
depth of the basin, λ ≫h
B
), can be described to a good approximation by δφ
0
(x, y) and that this
ﬁeld “sees” an eﬀective metric of the form
ds
2
=
1
c
2
_
−(c
2
−v
2
B
) dt
2
−2v
B
dx dt +dx dx
_
, (160)
where c ≡
√
gh
B
. The link between small variations of the potential ﬁeld and small variations of
the position of the surface is provided by the following equation
δv
⊥
= −h
B
∇
2
δφ
0
= ∂
t
δh +v
B
∇
δh =
d
dt
δh. (161)
The entire previous analysis can be generalised to the case in which the bottom of the basin is
not ﬂat, and the background ﬂow not purely horizontal [560]. Therefore, one can create diﬀerent
eﬀective metrics for gravity waves in a shallow ﬂuid basin by changing (from point to point) the
background ﬂow velocity and the depth, h
B
(x, y).
(x,y) v
B
x,y
z
B
h
δh
Figure 10: Gravity waves in a shallow ﬂuid basin with a background horizontal ﬂow.
The main advantage of this model is that the velocity of the surface waves can very easily be
modiﬁed by changing the depth of the basin. This velocity can be made very slow, and consequently,
the creation of ergoregions should be relatively easier than in other models. As described here, this
model is completely classical given that the analogy requires long wavelengths and slow propagation
speeds for the gravity waves. Although the latter feature is convenient for the practical realization
of analogue horizons, it is a disadvantage in trying to detect analogue Hawking radiation as the
relative temperature will necessarily be very low. (This is why, in order to have a possibility of
experimentally observing (spontaneous) Hawking evaporation and other quantum phenomena, one
would need to use ultracold quantum ﬂuids.) However, the gravity wave analogue can certainly
serve to investigate the classical phenomena of mode mixing that underlies the quantum processes.
It is this particular analogue model (and its extensions to ﬁnite depth and surface tension) that
underlies the experimental [532] and theoretical [531] work of Rousseaux et al., the historically
important experimental work of Badulin et al. [17], and the very recent experimental veriﬁcation
by Weinfurtner et al. of the existence of classical stimulated Hawking radiation [682].
49
4.1.4 More general water waves
If one moves beyond shallowwater surface waves the physics becomes more complicated. In the
shallowwater regime (wavelength λ much greater than water depth d) the comoving dispersion
relation is a simple linear one ω = c
s
k, where the speed of sound can depend on both position and
time. Once one moves to ﬁnitedepth (λ ∼ d) or deep (λ ≪ d) water, it is a standard result that
the comoving dispersion relation becomes
ω =
_
gk tanh(kd) = c
s
k
_
tanh(kd)
kd
. (162)
See, for instance, Lamb [370] ¸228, p. 354, Equation (5). A more modern discussion in an analogue
spacetime context is available in [643]. Adding surface tension requires a brief computation based
on Lamb [370] ¸267 p. 459, details can be found in [643]. The net result is
ω = c
s
k
_
1 +k
2
/K
2
_
tanh(kd)
kd
. (163)
Here K
2
= gρ/σ is a constant depending on the acceleration due to gravity, the density, and the
surface tension [643]. Once one adds the eﬀects of ﬂuid motion, one obtains
ω = v k +c
s
k
_
1 +k
2
/K
2
_
tanh(kd)
kd
. (164)
All of these features, ﬂuid motion, ﬁnite depth, and surface tension (capillarity), seem to be present
in the 1983 experimental investigations by Badulin et al. [17]. All of these features should be kept
in mind when interpreting the experimental [532] and theoretical [531] work of Rousseaux et al.,
and the very recent experimental work by Weinfurtner et al. [682].
A feature that is sometimes not remarked on is that the careful derivation we have previously
presented of the acoustic metric, or in this particular situation the derivation of the shallowwater
wave eﬀective metric [560], makes technical assumptions tantamount to asserting that one is in the
regime where the comoving dispersion relation takes the linear form ω ≈ c
s
k. Once the comoving
dispersion relation becomes nonlinear, the situation is more subtle, and based on a geometric
acoustics approximation to the propagation of signal waves one can introduce several notions of
conformal “rainbow” metric (momentumdependent metric). Consider
g
ab
(k
2
) ∝
_
_
−
_
c
2
(k
2
) −δ
ij
v
i
v
j
_
+v
j
+v
i
+h
ij
_
_
, (165)
and the inverse
g
ab
(k
2
) ∝
_
_
−1 +v
j
+v
i
c
2
(k
2
) h
ij
−v
i
v
j
_
_
. (166)
At a minimum we could think of using the following notions of propagation speed
c(k
2
) →
_
¸
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
¸
_
c
phase
(k
2
);
c
group
(k
2
);
c
sound
= lim
k→0
c
phase
(k
2
) provided this equals lim
k→0
c
group
(k
2
);
c
signal
= lim
k→∞
c
phase
(k
2
).
(167)
Brillouin, in his classic paper [92], identiﬁed at least six useful notions of propagation speed, and
many would argue that the list can be further reﬁned. Each one of these choices for the rainbow
50
metric encodes diﬀerent physics, and is useful for diﬀerent purposes. It is still somewhat unclear
as to which of these rainbow metrics is “best” for interpreting the experimental results reported
in [17, 532, 682].
4.1.5 Classical refractive index
The macroscopic Maxwell equations inside a dielectric take the wellknown form
∇ B = 0, ∇E +∂
t
B = 0, (168)
∇ D = 0, ∇H−∂
t
D = 0, (169)
with the constitutive relations H = µ
−1
B and D = ǫ E. Here, ǫ is the 3 3 permittivity tensor
and µ the 33 permeability tensor of the medium. These equations can be written in a condensed
way as
∂
α
_
Z
µανβ
F
νβ
_
= 0 (170)
where F
νβ
= A
[ν,β]
is the electromagnetic tensor,
F
0i
= −F
i0
= −E
i
, F
ij
= ε
ijk
B
k
, (171)
and (assuming the medium is at rest) the nonvanishing components of the 4thrank tensor Z are
given by
Z
0i0j
= −Z
0ij0
= Z
i0j0
= −Z
i00j
= −
1
2
ǫ
ij
; (172)
Z
ijkl
=
1
2
ε
ijm
ε
kln
µ
−1
mn
; (173)
supplemented by the conditions that Z is both antisymmetric on its ﬁrst pair of indices and
also antisymmetric on its second pair of indices. In contrast the LeviCivita tensor ε is fully
antisymmetric on all three of its indices. Without signiﬁcant loss of generality we can ask that
Z also be symmetric under pairwise interchange of the ﬁrst pair of indices with the second pair –
thus Z exhibits most of the algebraic symmetries of the Riemann tensor, though this appears to
merely be accidental, and not fundamental in any way.
If we compare this to the Lagrangian for electromagnetism in curved spacetime
/ =
√
−g g
µα
g
νβ
F
µν
F
αβ
(174)
we see that in curved spacetime we can also write the electromagnetic equations of motion in the
form (170) where now (for some constant K):
Z
µναβ
= K
√
−g
_
g
µα
g
νβ
−g
µβ
g
να
_
. (175)
If we consider a static gravitational ﬁeld we can always rewrite it as a conformal factor multiplying
an ultrastatic metric
g
µν
= Ω
2
¦−1 ⊕g
ij
¦ (176)
then
Z
0i0j
= −Z
0ij0
= Z
i0j0
= −Z
i00j
= −K
√
−g g
ij
; (177)
Z
ijkl
= K
√
−g
_
g
ik
g
jl
−g
il
g
jk
_
. (178)
The fact that Z is independent of the conformal factor Ω is simply the reﬂection of the well
known fact that the Maxwell equations are conformally invariant in (3+1) dimensions. Thus, if we
51
wish to have the analogy (between a static gravitational ﬁeld and a dielectric medium at rest) hold
at the level of the wave equation (physical optics) we must satisfy the two stringent constraints
K
√
−g g
ij
=
1
2
ǫ
ij
; (179)
K
√
−g
_
g
ik
g
jl
−g
il
g
jk
_
=
1
2
ε
ijm
ε
kln
µ
−1
mn
. (180)
The second of these constraints can be written as
K
√
−g ε
ijm
ε
kln
_
g
ik
g
jl
_
= µ
−1
mn
. (181)
In view of the standard formula for 3 3 determinants
ε
ijm
ε
kln
_
X
ik
X
jl
_
= 2 det X X
−1
mn
, (182)
this now implies
2K
g
ij
√
−g
= µ
−1
ij
, (183)
whence
1
2K
√
−g g
ij
= µ
ij
. (184)
Comparing this with
2K
√
−g g
ij
= ǫ
ij
, (185)
we now have:
ǫ
ij
= 4 K
2
µ
ij
; (186)
g
ij
=
4 K
2
det ǫ
ǫ
ij
=
1
4 K
2
det µ
µ
ij
. (187)
To rearrange this, introduce the matrix square root [µ
1/2
]
ij
, which always exists because µ is real
positive deﬁnite and symmetric. Then
g
ij
=
_
_
µ
1/2
ǫ µ
1/2
det(µ ǫ)
_1/2
_
ij
. (188)
Note that if you are given the static gravitational ﬁeld (in the form Ω, g
ij
) you can always solve it to
ﬁnd an equivalent analogue in terms of permittivity/permeability (albeit an analogue that satisﬁes
the mildly unphysical constraint ǫ ∝ µ).
19
On the other hand, if you are given permeability and
permittivity tensors ǫ and µ, then it is only for that subclass of media that satisfy ǫ ∝ µ that
one can perfectly mimic all of the electromagnetic eﬀects by an equivalent gravitational ﬁeld. Of
course, this can be done provided one only considers wavelengths that are suﬃciently long for the
macroscopic description of the medium to be valid. In this respect it is interesting to note that
the behaviour of the refractive medium at high frequencies has been used to introduce an eﬀective
cutoﬀ for the modes involved in Hawking radiation [523]. We shall encounter this model (which
is also known in the literature as a solid state analogue model) later on when we consider the
transPlanckian problem for Hawking radiation. Let us stress that if one were able to directly
probe the quantum eﬀective photons over a dielectric medium, then one would be dealing with a
quantum analogue model instead of a classical one.
19
The existence of this constraint has been independently rederived several times in the literature. In contrast,
other segments of the literature seem blithely unaware of this important restriction on just when permittivity and
permeability are truly equivalent to an eﬀective metric.
52
Eikonal approximation: With a bit more work this discussion can be extended to a medium
in motion, leading to an extension of the Gordon metric. Alternatively, one can agree to ask more
limited questions by working at the level of geometrical optics (adopting the eikonal approxima
tion), in which case there is no longer any restriction on the permeability and permittivity tensors.
To see this, construct the matrix
C
µν
= Z
µανβ
k
α
k
β
. (189)
The dispersion relations for the propagation of photons (and therefore the sought for geometrical
properties) can be obtained from the reduced determinant of C (notice that the [full] determinant
of C is identically zero as C
µν
k
ν
= 0; the reduced determinant is that associated with the three
directions orthogonal to k
ν
= 0). By choosing the gauge A
0
= 0 one can see that this reduced
determinant can be obtained from the determinant of the 3 3 submatrix C
ij
. This determinant
is
det(C
ij
) =
1
8
det
_
−ω
2
ǫ
ij
+ε
ikm
ε
jln
µ
−1
mn
k
k
k
l
_
(190)
or, after making some manipulations,
det(C
ij
) =
1
8
det
_
−ω
2
ǫ
ij
+ (det µ)
−1
(µ
ij
µ
kl
k
k
k
l
−µ
im
k
m
µ
jl
k
l
)
¸
. (191)
To simplify this, again introduce the matrix square roots [µ
1/2
]
ij
and [µ
−1/2
]
ij
, which always exist
because the relevant matrices are real positive deﬁnite and symmetric. Then deﬁne
˜
k
i
= [µ
1/2
]
ij
k
j
(192)
and
[˜ ǫ]
ij
= det(µ) [µ
−1/2
ǫ µ
−1/2
]
ij
(193)
so that
det(C
ij
) ∝ det
_
−ω
2
[˜ ǫ]
ij
+δ
ij
[δ
mn
˜
k
m
˜
k
n
] −
˜
k
i
˜
k
j
_
. (194)
The behaviour of this dispersion relation now depends critically on the way that the eigenvalues
of ˜ ǫ are distributed.
3 degenerate eigenvalues: If all eigenvalues are degenerate then ˜ ǫ = ˜ ǫ I, implying ǫ ∝ µ but
now with the possibility of a positiondependent proportionality factor (in the case of physical
optics the proportionality factor was constrained to be a positionindependent constant). In this
case we now easily evaluate
ǫ =
tr(ǫ)
tr(µ)
µ and ˜ ǫ = det µ
tr(ǫ)
tr(µ)
, (195)
while
det(C
ij
) ∝ ω
2
_
ω
2
−[˜ ǫ
−1
δ
mn
˜
k
m
˜
k
n
]
_
2
. (196)
That is
det(C
ij
) ∝ ω
2
_
ω
2
−[g
ij
k
i
k
j
]
_
2
, (197)
with
g
ij
=
1
˜ ǫ
[µ]
ij
=
tr(µ) [µ]
ij
tr(ǫ) det µ
=
tr(ǫ) [ǫ]
ij
tr(µ) det ǫ
. (198)
53
This last result is compatible with but more general than the result obtained under the more
restrictive conditions of physical optics. In the situation where both permittivity and permeability
are isotropic, (ǫ
ij
= ǫ δ
ij
and µ
ij
= µ δ
ij
) this reduces to the perhaps more expected result
g
ij
=
δ
ij
ǫ µ
. (199)
2 distinct eigenvalues: If ˜ ǫ has two distinct eigenvalues then the determinant det(C
ij
) factorises
into a trivial factor of ω
2
and two quadratics. Each quadratic corresponds to a distinct eﬀective
metric. This is the physical situation encountered in uniaxial crystals, where the ordinary and
extraordinary rays each obey distinct quadratic dispersion relations [82]. From the point of view
of analogue models this corresponds to a twometric theory.
3 distinct eigenvalues: If ˜ ǫ has three distinct eigenvalues then the determinant det(C
ij
) is
the product of a trivial factor of ω
2
and a nonfactorizable quartic. This is the physical situation
encountered in biaxial crystals [82, 638], and it seems that no meaningful notion of the eﬀective
Riemannian metric can be assigned to this case. (The use of Finsler geometries in this situation
is an avenue that may be worth pursuing [306]. But note some of the negative results obtained
in [573, 575, 574].)
Abstract linear electrodynamics: Hehl and coworkers have championed the idea of using
the linear constitutive relations of electrodynamics as the primary quantities, and then treating
the spacetime metric (even for ﬂat space) as a derived concept. See [474, 276, 371, 277].
Nonlinear electrodynamics: In general, the permittivity and permeability tensors can be
modiﬁed by applying strong electromagnetic ﬁelds (this produces an eﬀectively nonlinear elec
trodynamics). The entire previous discussion still applies if one considers the photon as the linear
perturbation of the electromagnetic ﬁeld over a background conﬁguration
F
µν
= F
bg
µν
+f
ph
µν
. (200)
The background ﬁeld F
bg
µν
sets the value of ǫ
ij
(F
bg
), and µ
ij
(F
bg
). Equation (170) then becomes an
equation for f
ph
µν
. This approach has been extensively investigated by Novello and coworkers [465,
469, 170, 468, 466, 467, 464, 214].
Summary: The propagation of photons in a dielectric medium characterised by 33 permeability
and permittivity tensors constrained by ǫ ∝ µ is equivalent (at the level of geometric optics)
to the propagation of photons in a curved spacetime manifold characterised by the ultrastatic
metric (198), provided one only considers wavelengths that are suﬃciently long for the macroscopic
description of the medium to be valid. If, in addition, one takes a ﬂuid dielectric, by controlling its
ﬂow one can generalise the Gordon metric and again reproduce metrics of the Painlev´e–Gullstrand
type, and therefore geometries with ergoregions. If the proportionality constant relating ǫ ∝ µ
is position independent, one can make the stronger statement (187) which holds true at the level
of physical optics. Recently this topic has been revitalised by the increasing interest in (classical)
metamaterials.
4.1.6 Normal mode metamodels
We have already seen how linearizing the Euler–Lagrange equations for a single scalar ﬁeld naturally
leads to the notion of an eﬀective spacetime metric. If more than one ﬁeld is involved the situation
54
becomes more complicated, in a manner similar to that of geometrical optics in uniaxial and
biaxial crystals. (This should, with hindsight, not be too surprising since electromagnetism, even
in the presence of a medium, is deﬁnitely a Lagrangian system and deﬁnitely involves more than
one single scalar ﬁeld.) A normal mode analysis based on a general Lagrangian (many ﬁelds but
still ﬁrst order in derivatives of those ﬁelds) leads to a concept of refringence, or more speciﬁcally
multirefringence, a generalization of the birefringence of geometrical optics. To see how this comes
about, consider a straightforward generalization of the oneﬁeld case.
We want to consider linearised ﬂuctuations around some background solution of the equations
of motion. As in the singleﬁeld case we write (here we will follow the notation and conventions of
[45])
φ
A
(t, x) = φ
A
0
(t, x) +ǫ φ
A
1
(t, x) +
ǫ
2
2
φ
A
2
(t, x) +O(ǫ
3
). (201)
Now use this to expand the Lagrangian
/(∂
µ
φ
A
, φ
A
) = /(∂
µ
φ
A
0
, φ
A
0
) +ǫ
_
∂/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
)
∂
µ
φ
A
1
+
∂/
∂φ
A
φ
A
1
_
+
ǫ
2
2
_
∂/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
)
∂
µ
φ
A
2
+
∂/
∂φ
A
φ
A
2
_
+
ǫ
2
2
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂(∂
ν
φ
B
)
∂
µ
φ
A
1
∂
ν
φ
B
1
+2
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂φ
B
∂
µ
φ
A
1
φ
B
1
+
∂
2
/
∂φ
A
∂φ
B
φ
A
1
φ
B
1
_
+O(ǫ
3
). (202)
Consider the action
S[φ
A
] =
_
d
d+1
x /(∂
µ
φ
A
, φ
A
). (203)
Doing so allows us to integrate by parts. As in the singleﬁeld case we can use the Euler–Lagrange
equations to discard the linear terms (since we are linearizing around a solution of the equations
of motion) and so get
S[φ
A
] = S[φ
A
0
]
+
ǫ
2
2
_
d
d+1
x
_
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂(∂
ν
φ
B
)
_
∂
µ
φ
A
1
∂
ν
φ
B
1
+2
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂φ
B
_
∂
µ
φ
A
1
φ
B
1
+
_
∂
2
/
∂φ
A
∂φ
B
_
φ
A
1
φ
B
1
_
+ O(ǫ
3
). (204)
Because the ﬁelds now carry indices (AB) we cannot cast the action into quite as simple a form
as was possible in the singleﬁeld case. The equation of motion for the linearised ﬂuctuations are
now read oﬀ as
∂
µ
__
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂(∂
ν
φ
B
)
_
∂
ν
φ
B
1
_
+∂
µ
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂φ
B
φ
B
1
_
−∂
µ
φ
B
1
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
B
) ∂φ
A
−
_
∂
2
/
∂φ
A
∂φ
B
_
φ
B
1
= 0. (205)
55
This is a linear secondorder system of partial diﬀerential equations with positiondependent co
eﬃcients. This system of PDEs is automatically selfadjoint (with respect to the trivial “ﬂat”
measure d
d+1
x).
To simplify the notation we introduce a number of deﬁnitions. First
f
µν
AB
≡
1
2
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂(∂
ν
φ
B
)
+
∂
2
/
∂(∂
ν
φ
A
) ∂(∂
µ
φ
B
)
_
. (206)
This quantity is independently symmetric under interchange of µ, ν and A, B. We will want to
interpret this as a generalization of the “densitised metric”, f
µν
, but the interpretation is not as
straightforward as for the singleﬁeld case. Next, deﬁne
Γ
µ
AB
≡ +
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂φ
B
−
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
B
) ∂φ
A
+
1
2
∂
ν
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
ν
φ
A
) ∂(∂
µ
φ
B
)
−
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂(∂
ν
φ
B
)
_
. (207)
This quantity is antisymmetric in A, B. One might want to interpret this as some sort of “spin
connection”, or possibly as some generalization of the notion of “Dirac matrices”. Finally, deﬁne
K
AB
= −
∂
2
/
∂φ
A
∂φ
B
+
1
2
∂
µ
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
A
) ∂φ
B
_
+
1
2
∂
µ
_
∂
2
/
∂(∂
µ
φ
B
) ∂φ
A
_
. (208)
This quantity is by construction symmetric in (AB). We will want to interpret this as some sort
of “potential” or “mass matrix”. Then the crucial point for the following discussion is to realise
that Equation (205) can be written in the compact form
∂
µ
_
f
µν
AB
∂
ν
φ
B
1
_
+
1
2
_
Γ
µ
AB
∂
µ
φ
B
1
+∂
µ
(Γ
µ
AB
φ
B
1
)
¸
+K
AB
φ
B
1
= 0. (209)
Now it is more transparent that this is a formally selfadjoint secondorder linear system of PDEs.
Similar considerations can be applied to the linearization of any hyperbolic system of secondorder
PDEs.
Consider an eikonal approximation for an arbitrary direction in ﬁeld space; that is, take
φ
A
(x) = ǫ
A
(x) exp[−iϕ(x)], (210)
with ǫ
A
(x) a slowly varying amplitude, and ϕ(x) a rapidly varying phase. In this eikonal approxi
mation (where we neglect gradients in the amplitude, and gradients in the coeﬃcients of the PDEs,
retaining only the gradients of the phase) the linearised system of PDEs (209) becomes
¦f
µν
AB
∂
µ
ϕ(x) ∂
ν
ϕ(x) + Γ
µ
AB
∂
µ
ϕ(x) +K
AB
¦ ǫ
B
(x) = 0. (211)
This has a nontrivial solution if and only if ǫ
A
(x) is a null eigenvector of the matrix
f
µν
AB
k
µ
k
ν
+ Γ
µ
AB
k
µ
+K
AB
, (212)
where k
µ
= ∂
µ
ϕ(x). Now, the condition for such a null eigenvector to exist is that
F(x, k) ≡ det ¦f
µν
AB
k
µ
k
ν
+ Γ
µ
AB
k
µ
+K
AB
¦ = 0, (213)
with the determinant to be taken on the ﬁeld space indices AB. This is the natural generalization
to the current situation of the Fresnel equation of birefringent optics [82, 375]. Following the anal
ogy with the situation in electrodynamics (either nonlinear electrodynamics, or more prosaically
56
propagation in a birefringent crystal), the null eigenvector ǫ
A
(x) would correspond to a speciﬁc
“polarization”. The Fresnel equation then describes how diﬀerent polarizations can propagate at
diﬀerent velocities (or in more geometrical language, can see diﬀerent metric structures). In the
language of particle physics, this determinant condition F(x, k) = 0 is the natural generalization of
the “mass shell” constraint. Indeed, it is useful to deﬁne the mass shell as a subset of the cotangent
space by
T(x) ≡
_
k
µ
¸
¸
¸
¸
F(x, k) = 0
_
. (214)
In more mathematical language we are looking at the null space of the determinant of the “symbol”
of the system of PDEs. By investigating F(x, k) one can recover part (not all) of the information
encoded in the matrices f
µν
AB
, Γ
µ
AB
, and K
AB
, or equivalently in the “generalised Fresnel equa
tion” (213). (Note that for the determinant equation to be useful it should be nonvacuous; in
particular one should carefully eliminate all gauge and spurious degrees of freedom before construct
ing this “generalised Fresnel equation”, since otherwise the determinant will be identically zero.)
We now want to make this analogy with optics more precise, by carefully considering the notion of
characteristics and characteristic surfaces. We will see how to extract from the the highfrequency
highmomentum regime described by the eikonal approximation all the information concerning the
causal structure of the theory.
One of the key structures that a Lorentzian spacetime metric provides is the notion of causal
relationships. This suggests that it may be proﬁtable to try to work backwards from the causal
structure to determine a Lorentzian metric. Now the causal structure implicit in the system of
secondorder PDEs given in Equation (209) is described in terms of the characteristic surfaces, and
it is for this reason that we now focus on characteristics as a way of encoding causal structure,
and as a surrogate for some notion of a Lorentzian metric. Note that, via the Hadamard theory
of surfaces of discontinuity, the characteristics can be identiﬁed with the inﬁnitemomentum limit
of the eikonal approximation [265]. That is, when extracting the characteristic surfaces we neglect
subdominant terms in the generalised Fresnel equation and focus only on the leading term in the
symbol (f
µν
AB
). In the language of particle physics, going to the inﬁnitemomentum limit puts us
on the light cone instead of the mass shell; and it is the light cone that is more useful in determining
causal structure. The “normal cone” at some speciﬁed point x, consisting of the locus of normals
to the characteristic surfaces, is deﬁned by
A(x) ≡
_
k
µ
¸
¸
¸
¸
det (f
µν
AB
k
µ
k
µ
) = 0
_
. (215)
As was the case for the Fresnel Equation (213), the determinant is to be taken on the ﬁeld indices
AB. (Remember to eliminate spurious and gauge degrees of freedom so that this determinant is
not identically zero.) We emphasise that the algebraic equation deﬁning the normal cone is the
leading term in the Fresnel equation encountered in discussing the eikonal approximation. If there
are N ﬁelds in total then this “normal cone” will generally consist of N nested sheets each with
the topology (not necessarily the geometry) of a cone. Often several of these cones will coincide,
which is not particularly troublesome, but unfortunately it is also common for some of these cones
to be degenerate, which is more problematic.
It is convenient to deﬁne a function Q(x, k) on the cotangent bundle
Q(x, k) ≡ det (f
µν
AB
(x) k
µ
k
µ
) . (216)
The function Q(x, k) deﬁnes a completelysymmetric spacetime tensor (actually, a tensor density)
with 2N indices
Q(x, k) = Q
µ1ν1µ2ν2···µNνN
(x) k
µ1
k
ν1
k
µ2
k
ν2
k
µN
k
νN
. (217)
57
(Remember that f
µν
AB
is symmetric in both µν and AB independently.) Explicitly, using the
expansion of the determinant in terms of completely antisymmetric ﬁeldspace Levi–Civita tensors
Q
µ1ν1µ2ν2···µNνN
=
1
N!
ǫ
A1A2···AN
ǫ
B1B2···BN
f
µ1ν1
A1B1
f
µ2ν2
A2B2
f
µNνN
ANBN
. (218)
In terms of this Q(x, k) function, the normal cone is
A(x) ≡
_
k
µ
¸
¸
¸
¸
Q(x, k) = 0
_
. (219)
In contrast, the “Monge cone” (aka “ray cone”, aka “characteristic cone”, aka “null cone”) is the
envelope of the set of characteristic surfaces through the point x. Thus the “Monge cone” is dual to
the “normal cone”, its explicit construction is given by (Courant and Hilbert [154, vol. 2, p. 583]):
/(x) =
_
t
µ
=
∂Q(x, k)
∂k
µ
¸
¸
¸
¸
k
µ
∈ A(x)
_
. (220)
The structure of the normal and Monge cones encode all the information related with the causal
propagation of signals associated with the system of PDEs. We will now see how to relate this
causal structure with the existence of eﬀective spacetime metrics, from the experimentally favoured
singlemetric theory compatible with the Einstein equivalence principle to the most complicated
case of pseudoFinsler geometries [306].
• Suppose that f
µν
AB
factorises
f
µν
AB
= h
AB
f
µν
. (221)
Then
Q(x, k) = det(h
AB
) [f
µν
k
µ
k
ν
]
N
. (222)
The Monge cones and normal cones are then true geometrical cones (with the N sheets lying
directly on top of one another). The normal modes all see the same spacetime metric, deﬁned
up to an unspeciﬁed conformal factor by g
µν
∝ f
µν
. This situation is the most interesting
from the point of view of general relativity. Physically, it corresponds to a singlemetric
theory, and mathematically it corresponds to a strict algebraic condition on the f
µν
AB
.
• The next most useful situation corresponds to the commutativity condition:
f
µν
AB
f
αβ
BC
= f
αβ
AB
f
µν
BC
; that is [ f
µν
, f
αβ
] = 0. (223)
If this algebraic condition is satisﬁed, then for all spacetime indices µν and αβ the f
µν
AB
can be simultaneously diagonalised in ﬁeld space leading to
¯
f
µν
AB
= diag¦
¯
f
µν
1
,
¯
f
µν
2
,
¯
f
µν
3
, . . . ,
¯
f
µν
N
¦ (224)
and then
Q(x, k) =
N
A=1
[
¯
f
µν
A
k
µ
k
ν
]. (225)
This case corresponds to an Nmetric theory, where up to an unspeciﬁed conformal factor
g
µν
A
∝
¯
f
µν
A
. This is the natural generalization of the twometric situation in biaxial crystals.
• If f
µν
AB
is completely general, satisfying no special algebraic condition, then Q(x, k) does
not factorise and is, in general, a polynomial of degree 2N in the wave vector k
µ
. This is the
natural generalization of the situation in biaxial crystals. (And for any deeper analysis of
this situation one will almost certainly need to adopt pseudoFinsler techniques [306]. But
note some of the negative results obtained in [573, 575, 574].)
58
The message to be extracted from this rather formal discussion is that eﬀective metrics are
rather general and mathematically robust objects that can arise in quite abstract settings – in the
abstract setting discussed here it is the algebraic properties of the object f
µν
AB
that eventually
leads to monometricity, multimetricity, or worse. The current abstract discussion also serves to
illustrate, yet again,
1. that there is a signiﬁcant diﬀerence between the levels of physical normal modes (wave
equations), and geometrical normal modes (dispersion relations), and
2. that the densitised inverse metric is in many ways more fundamental than the metric itself.
4.2 Quantum models
4.2.1 Bose–Einstein condensates
We have seen that one of the main aims of research in analogue models of gravity is the possibility
of simulating semiclassical gravity phenomena, such as the Hawking radiation eﬀect or cosmological
particle production. In this sense systems characterised by a high degree of quantum coherence,
very cold temperatures, and low speeds of sound oﬀer the best test ﬁeld. One could reasonably
hope to manipulate these systems to have Hawking temperatures on the order of the environment
temperature (∼ 100 nK) [48]. Hence it is not surprising that in recent years Bose–Einstein conden
sates (BECs) have become the subject of extensive study as possible analogue models of general
relativity [231, 232, 45, 48, 47, 195, 194].
Let us start by very brieﬂy reviewing the derivation of the acoustic metric for a BEC system,
and show that the equations for the phonons of the condensate closely mimic the dynamics of a
scalar ﬁeld in a curved spacetime. In the dilute gas approximation, one can describe a Bose gas
by a quantum ﬁeld
´
Ψ satisfying
i
∂
∂t
´
Ψ =
_
−
2
2m
∇
2
+V
ext
(x) +κ(a)
´
Ψ
†
´
Ψ
_
´
Ψ. (226)
Here κ parameterises the strength of the interactions between the diﬀerent bosons in the gas. It
can be reexpressed in terms of the scattering length a as
κ(a) =
4πa
2
m
. (227)
As usual, the quantum ﬁeld can be separated into a macroscopic (classical) condensate and a ﬂuc
tuation:
´
Ψ = ψ+´ ϕ, with ¸
´
Ψ¸ = ψ. Then, by adopting the selfconsistent meanﬁeld approximation
(see, for example, [261])
´ ϕ
†
´ ϕ´ ϕ ≃ 2¸ ´ ϕ
†
´ ϕ¸ ´ ϕ +¸ ´ ϕ´ ϕ¸ ´ ϕ
†
, (228)
one can arrive at the set of coupled equations:
i
∂
∂t
ψ(t, x) =
_
−
2
2m
∇
2
+V
ext
(x) +κ n
c
_
ψ(t, x)
+κ¦2˜ nψ(t, x) + ˜ mψ
∗
(t, x)¦ ; (229)
i
∂
∂t
´ ϕ(t, x) =
_
−
2
2m
∇
2
+V
ext
(x) +κ 2n
T
_
´ ϕ(t, x)
+κ m
T
´ ϕ
†
(t, x). (230)
59
Here
n
c
≡ [ψ(t, x)[
2
; m
c
≡ ψ
2
(t, x); (231)
˜ n ≡ ¸ ´ ϕ
†
´ ϕ¸; ˜ m ≡ ¸ ´ ϕ ´ ϕ¸; (232)
n
T
= n
c
+ ˜ n; m
T
= m
c
+ ˜ m. (233)
The equation for the classical wave function of the condensate is closed only when the backreaction
eﬀect due to the ﬂuctuations is neglected. (This backreaction is hiding in the parameters ˜ m and
˜ n.) This is the approximation contemplated by the Gross–Pitaevskii equation. In general, one will
have to solve both equations simultaneously. Adopting the Madelung representation for the wave
function of the condensate
ψ(t, x) =
_
n
c
(t, x) exp[−iθ(t, x)/], (234)
and deﬁning an irrotational “velocity ﬁeld” by v ≡ ∇θ/m, the Gross–Pitaevskii equation can be
rewritten as a continuity equation plus an Euler equation:
∂
∂t
n
c
+∇ (n
c
v) = 0, (235)
m
∂
∂t
v +∇
_
mv
2
2
+V
ext
(t, x) +κn
c
−
2
2m
∇
2
√
n
c
√
n
c
_
= 0. (236)
These equations are completely equivalent to those of an irrotational and inviscid ﬂuid apart from
the existence of the quantum potential
V
quantum
= −
2
2m
∇
2
√
n
c
√
n
c
, (237)
which has the dimensions of an energy. Note that
n
c
∇
i
V
quantum
≡ n
c
∇
i
_
−
2
2m
∇
2
√
n
c
√
n
c
_
= ∇
j
_
−
2
4m
n
c
∇
i
∇
j
ln n
c
_
, (238)
which justiﬁes the introduction of the quantum stress tensor
σ
quantum
ij
= −
2
4m
n
c
∇
i
∇
j
ln n
c
. (239)
This tensor has the dimensions of pressure, and may be viewed as an intrinsically quantum
anisotropic pressure contributing to the Euler equation. If we write the mass density of the
Madelung ﬂuid as ρ = m n
c
, and use the fact that the ﬂow is irrotational, then the Euler equation
takes the form
ρ
_
∂
∂t
v + (v ∇)v
_
+ρ ∇
_
V
ext
(t, x)
m
_
+∇
_
κρ
2
2m
2
_
+∇ σ
quantum
= 0. (240)
Note that the term V
ext
/m has the dimensions of speciﬁc enthalpy, while κρ
2
/(2m) represents a
bulk pressure. When the gradients in the density of the condensate are small one can neglect the
quantum stress term leading to the standard hydrodynamic approximation. Because the ﬂow is
irrotational, the Euler equation is often more conveniently written in Hamilton–Jacobi form:
m
∂
∂t
θ +
_
[∇θ]
2
2m
+V
ext
(t, x) +κn
c
−
2
2m
∇
2
√
n
c
√
n
c
_
= 0. (241)
60
Apart from the wave function of the condensate itself, we also have to account for the (typically
small) quantum perturbations of the system (230). These quantum perturbations can be described
in several diﬀerent ways, here we are interested in the “quantum acoustic representation”
´ ϕ(t, x) = e
−iθ/
_
1
2
√
n
c
´ n
1
−i
√
n
c
´
θ
1
_
, (242)
where ´ n
1
,
´
θ
1
are real quantum ﬁelds. By using this representation, Equation (230) can be rewritten
as
∂
t
´ n
1
+
1
m
∇
_
n
1
∇θ +n
c
∇
´
θ
1
_
= 0, (243)
∂
t
´
θ
1
+
1
m
∇θ ∇
´
θ
1
+κ(a) n
1
−
2
2m
D
2
´ n
1
= 0. (244)
Here D
2
represents a secondorder diﬀerential operator obtained by linearizing the quantum po
tential. Explicitly:
D
2
´ n
1
≡ −
1
2
n
−3/2
c
[∇
2
(n
+1/2
c
)] ´ n
1
+
1
2
n
−1/2
c
∇
2
(n
−1/2
c
´ n
1
). (245)
The equations we have just written can be obtained easily by linearizing the Gross–Pitaevskii
equation around a classical solution: n
c
→ n
c
+ ´ n
1
, φ → φ +
´
φ
1
. It is important to realise that
in those equations the backreaction of the quantum ﬂuctuations on the background solution has
been assumed negligible. We also see in Equations (243) and (244) that time variations of V
ext
and time variations of the scattering length a appear to act in very diﬀerent ways. Whereas the
external potential only inﬂuences the background Equation (241) (and hence the acoustic metric
in the analogue description), the scattering length directly inﬂuences both the perturbation and
background equations. From the previous equations for the linearised perturbations it is possible to
derive a wave equation for
´
θ
1
(or alternatively, for ´ n
1
). All we need is to substitute in Equation (243)
the ´ n
1
obtained from Equation (244). This leads to a PDE that is secondorder in time derivatives
but inﬁniteorder in space derivatives – to simplify things we can construct the symmetric 4 4
matrix
f
µν
(t, x) ≡
_
¸
¸
_
f
00
.
.
. f
0j
f
i0
.
.
. f
ij
_
¸
¸
_
. (246)
(Greek indices run from 0 – 3, while Roman indices run from 1 – 3.) Then, introducing (3+1)
dimensional spacetime coordinates,
x
µ
≡ (t; x
i
) (247)
the wave equation for θ
1
is easily rewritten as
∂
µ
(f
µν
∂
ν
´
θ
1
) = 0. (248)
Where the f
µν
are diﬀerential operators acting on space only:
f
00
= −
_
κ(a) −
2
2m
D
2
_
−1
(249)
f
0j
= −
_
κ(a) −
2
2m
D
2
_
−1
∇
j
θ
0
m
(250)
f
i0
= −
∇
i
θ
0
m
_
κ(a) −
2
2m
D
2
_
−1
(251)
f
ij
=
n
c
δ
ij
m
−
∇
i
θ
0
m
_
κ(a) −
2
2m
D
2
_
−1
∇
j
θ
0
m
. (252)
61
Now, if we make a spectral decomposition of the ﬁeld
´
θ
1
we can see that for wavelengths larger than
/mc
s
(this corresponds to the “healing length”, as we will explain below), the terms coming from
the linearization of the quantum potential (the D
2
) can be neglected in the previous expressions,
in which case the f
µν
can be approximated by (momentum independent) numbers, instead of
diﬀerential operators. (This is the heart of the acoustic approximation.) Then, by identifying
√
−g g
µν
= f
µν
, (253)
the equation for the ﬁeld
´
θ
1
becomes that of a (massless minimally coupled) quantum scalar ﬁeld
over a curved background
∆θ
1
≡
1
√
−g
∂
µ
_√
−g g
µν
∂
ν
_
´
θ
1
= 0, (254)
with an eﬀective metric of the form
g
µν
(t, x) ≡
n
c
m c
s
(a, n
c
)
_
¸
¸
_
−¦c
s
(a, n
c
)
2
−v
2
¦
.
.
. −v
j
−v
i
.
.
. δ
ij
_
¸
¸
_
. (255)
Here, the magnitude c
s
(n
c
, a) represents the speed of the phonons in the medium:
c
s
(a, n
c
)
2
=
κ(a) n
c
m
. (256)
With this eﬀective metric now in hand, the analogy is fully established, and one is now in a position
to start asking more speciﬁc physics questions.
Lorentz breaking in BEC models – the eikonal approximation: It is interesting to con
sider the case in which the above “hydrodynamical” approximation for BECs does not hold. In
order to explore a regime where the contribution of the quantum potential cannot be neglected we
can use the eikonal approximation, a highmomentum approximation where the phase ﬂuctuation
´
θ
1
is itself treated as a slowlyvarying amplitude times a rapidly varying phase. This phase will be
taken to be the same for both ´ n
1
and
´
θ
1
ﬂuctuations. In fact, if one discards the unphysical pos
sibility that the respective phases diﬀer by a timevarying quantity, any timeconstant diﬀerence
can be safely reabsorbed in the deﬁnition of the (complex) amplitudes. Speciﬁcally, we shall write
´
θ
1
(t, x) = Re ¦/
θ
exp(−iφ)¦ , (257)
´ n
1
(t, x) = Re ¦/
ρ
exp(−iφ)¦ . (258)
As a consequence of our starting assumptions, gradients of the amplitude, and gradients of the
background ﬁelds, are systematically ignored relative to gradients of φ. (Warning: What we are
doing here is not quite a “standard” eikonal approximation, in the sense that it is not applied
directly on the ﬂuctuations of the ﬁeld ψ(t, x) but separately on their amplitudes and phases ρ
1
and φ
1
.) We adopt the notation
ω =
∂φ
∂t
; k
i
= ∇
i
φ. (259)
Then the operator D
2
can be approximated as
D
2
´ n
1
≡ −
1
2
n
−3/2
c
[∆(n
+1/2
c
)] ´ n
1
+
1
2
n
−1/2
c
∆(n
−1/2
c
´ n
1
) (260)
≈ +
1
2
n
−1
c
[∆´ n
1
] (261)
= −
1
2
n
−1
c
k
2
´ n
1
. (262)
62
A similar result holds for D
2
acting on
´
θ
1
. That is, under the eikonal approximation we eﬀectively
replace the operator D
2
by the function
D
2
→−
1
2
n
−1
c
k
2
. (263)
For the matrix f
µν
this eﬀectively results in the (explicitly momentum dependent) replacement
f
00
→ −
_
κ(a) +
2
k
2
4m n
c
_
−1
(264)
f
0j
→ −
_
κ(a) +
2
k
2
4m n
c
_
−1
∇
j
θ
0
m
(265)
f
i0
→ −
∇
i
θ
0
m
_
κ(a) +
2
k
2
4m n
c
_
−1
(266)
f
ij
→
n
c
δ
ij
m
−
∇
i
θ
0
m
_
κ(a) +
2
k
2
4m n
c
_
−1
∇
j
θ
0
m
. (267)
As desired, this has the net eﬀect of making f
µν
a matrix of (explicitly momentum dependent)
numbers, not operators. The physical wave equation (248) now becomes a nonlinear dispersion
relation
f
00
ω
2
+ (f
0i
+f
i0
) ω k
i
+f
ij
k
i
k
j
= 0. (268)
After substituting the approximate D
2
into this dispersion relation and rearranging, we see (re
member: k
2
= [[k[[
2
= δ
ij
k
i
k
j
)
−ω
2
+ 2 v
i
0
ωk
i
+
n
c
k
2
m
_
κ(a) +
2
4mn
c
k
2
_
−(v
i
0
k
i
)
2
= 0. (269)
That is:
_
ω −v
i
0
k
i
_
2
=
n
c
k
2
m
_
κ(a) +
2
4mn
c
k
2
_
. (270)
Introducing the speed of sound c
s
, this takes the form:
ω = v
i
0
k
i
±
¸
c
2
s
k
2
+
_
2m
k
2
_
2
. (271)
At this stage some observations are in order:
1. It is interesting to recognize that the dispersion relation (271) is exactly in agreement with
that found in 1947 by Bogoliubov [79] (reprinted in [508]; see also [374]) for the collective
excitations of a homogeneous Bose gas in the limit T →0 (almost complete condensation). In
his derivation Bogoliubov applied a diagonalization procedure for the Hamiltonian describing
the system of bosons.
2. Coincidentally this is the same dispersion relation that one encounters for shallowwater
surface waves in the presence of surface tension. See Section 4.1.4.
3. Because of the explicit momentum dependence of the comoving phase velocity and comoving
group velocity, once one goes to high momentum the associated eﬀective metric should be
thought of as one of many possible “rainbow metrics” as in Section 4.1.4. See also [643]. (At
low momentum one, of course, recovers the hydrodynamic limit with its uniquely speciﬁed
standard metric.)
63
4. It is easy to see that Equation (271) actually interpolates between two diﬀerent regimes
depending on the value of the wavelength λ = 2π/[[k[[ with respect to the “acoustic Compton
wavelength” λ
c
= h/(mc
s
). (Remember that c
s
is the speed of sound; this is not a standard
particle physics Compton wavelength.) In particular, if we assume v
0
= 0 (no background
velocity), then, for large wavelengths λ ≫λ
c
, one gets a standard phonon dispersion relation
ω ≈ c[[k[[. For wavelengths λ ≪ λ
c
the quasiparticle energy tends to the kinetic energy of
an individual gas particle and, in fact, ω ≈
2
k
2
/(2m).
We would also like to highlight that in relative terms, the approximation by which one
neglects the quartic terms in the dispersion relation gets worse as one moves closer to a
horizon where v
0
= −c
s
. The nondimensional parameter that provides this information is
deﬁned by
δ ≡
_
1 +
λ
2
c
4λ
2
−1
(1 − v
0
/c
s
)
≃
1
(1 −v
0
/c
s
)
λ
2
c
8λ
2
. (272)
As we will discuss in Section 5.2, this is the reason why sonic horizons in a BEC can exhibit
diﬀerent features from those in standard general relativity.
5. The dispersion relation (271) exhibits a contribution due to the background ﬂow v
i
0
k
i
, plus
a quartic dispersion at high momenta. The group velocity is
v
i
g
=
∂ω
∂k
i
= v
i
0
±
_
c
2
+
2
2m
2
k
2
_
_
c
2
k
2
+
_
2m
k
2
_
2
k
i
. (273)
Indeed, with hindsight, the fact that the group velocity goes to inﬁnity for large k was pre
ordained: After all, we started from the generalised nonlinear Schr¨odinger equation, and we
know what its characteristic curves are. Like the diﬀusion equation the characteristic curves of
the Schr¨odinger equation (linear or nonlinear) move at inﬁnite speed. If we then approximate
this generalised nonlinear Schr¨odinger equation in any manner, for instance by linearization,
we cannot change the characteristic curves: For any wellbehaved approximation technique,
at high frequency and momentum we should recover the characteristic curves of the system
we started with. However, what we certainly do see in this analysis is a suitably large region
of momentum space for which the concept of the eﬀective metric both makes sense, and leads
to ﬁnite propagation speed for mediumfrequency oscillations.
Relativistic BECextension: Bose–Einstein condensation can occur not only for nonrelativistic
bosons but for relativistic ones as well. The main diﬀerences between the thermodynamical prop
erties of these condensates at ﬁnite temperature are due both to the diﬀerent energy spectra and
also to the presence, for relativistic bosons, of antibosons. These diﬀerences result in diﬀerent
conditions for the occurrence of Bose–Einstein condensation, which is possible, e.g., in two spatial
dimensions for a homogeneous relativistic Bose gas, but not for its nonrelativistic counterpart –
and also, more importantly for our purposes, in the diﬀerent structure of their excitation spectra.
In [191] an analogue model based on a relativistic BEC was studied. We summarise here the
main results. The Lagrangian density for an interacting relativistic scalar Bose ﬁeld
ˆ
φ(x, t) may
be written as
ˆ
/ =
1
c
2
∂
ˆ
φ
†
∂t
∂
ˆ
φ
∂t
−∇
ˆ
φ
†
∇
ˆ
φ −
_
m
2
c
2
2
+V (t, x)
_
ˆ
φ
†
ˆ
φ −U(
ˆ
φ
†
ˆ
φ; λ
i
) , (274)
where V (t, x) is an external potential depending both on time t and position x, m is the mass of
the bosons and c is the light velocity. U is an interaction term and the coupling constant λ
i
(t, x)
64
can depend on time and position too (this is possible, for example, by changing the scattering
length via a Feshbach resonance [151, 175]). U can be expanded as
U(
ˆ
φ
†
ˆ
φ; λ
i
) =
λ
2
2
ˆ ρ
2
+
λ
3
6
ˆ ρ
3
+ (275)
where ˆ ρ =
ˆ
φ
† ˆ
φ. The usual twoparticle λ
2
ˆ
φ
4
interaction corresponds to the ﬁrst term (λ
2
/2)ˆ ρ
2
,
while the second term represents the threeparticle interaction and so on.
The ﬁeld
ˆ
φ can be written as a classical ﬁeld (the condensate) plus perturbation:
ˆ
φ = φ(1 +
ˆ
ψ) . (276)
It is worth noticing now that the expansion in Equation (276) can be linked straightforwardly to
the previously discussed expansion in phase and density perturbations
ˆ
θ
1
, ˆ ρ
1
, by noting that
ˆ ρ
1
ρ
=
ˆ
ψ +
ˆ
ψ
†
2
,
ˆ
θ
1
=
ˆ
ψ −
ˆ
ψ
†
2i
.
Setting ψ ∝ exp[i (k x −ωt)] one then gets from the equation of motion [191]
_
−
m
q k +
u
0
c
ω −
2mc
2
ω
2
+
2m
k
2
__
m
q k −
u
0
c
ω −
2mc
2
ω
2
+
2m
k
2
_
−
_
c
0
c
_
2
ω
2
+c
2
0
k
2
= 0 , (277)
where, for convenience, we have deﬁned the following quantities as
u
µ
≡
m
η
µν
∂
ν
θ , (278)
c
2
0
≡
2
2m
2
U
′′
(ρ; λ
i
)ρ , (279)
q ≡ mu/ . (280)
Here q is the speed of the condensate ﬂow and c is the speed of light. For a condensate at rest
(q = 0) one then obtains the following dispersion relation
ω
2
±
= c
2
_
_
_
k
2
+ 2
_
mu
0
_
2
_
1 +
_
c
0
u
0
_
2
_
±2
_
mu
0
_
¸
k
2
+
_
mu
0
_
2
_
1 +
_
c
0
u
0
_
2
_
2
_
_
_
. (281)
The dispersion relation (281) is suﬃciently complicated to prevent any obvious understanding of
the regimes allowed for the excitation of the system. It is much richer than the nonrelativistic
case. For example, it allows for both a massless/gapless (phononic) and massive/gapped mode,
respectively for the ω
−
and ω
+
branches of (281). Nonetheless, it should be evident that diﬀerent
regimes are determined by the relative strength of the the ﬁrst two terms on the righthand side
of Equation (281) (note that the same terms enter in the square root). This can be summarised,
in low and high momentum limits respectively, for k much less or much greater than
mu
0
_
1 +
_
c
0
u
0
_
2
_
≡
mu
0
(1 +b), (282)
where b encodes the relativistic nature of the condensate (the larger b the more the condensate is
relativistic).
65
Table 1: Dispersion relation of gapless and gapped modes in diﬀerent regimes. Note that we have
c
2
s
= c
2
b/(1 +b), and c
2
s,gap
= c
2
(2 +b)/(1 +b), while m
eﬀ
= 2(µ/c
2
)(1 +b)
3/2
/(2 +b).
Gapless Gapped
b ≪1 b ≫1
k ≪
mu
0
(1+b)
k ≪
2mc
0
ω
2
= c
2
s
k
2
ω
2
= c
2
s
k
2
ω
2
=
m
2
eff
c
4
s,gap
2
+ c
2
s,gap
k
2
2mc
0
≪k ≪
mu
0
ω =
(ck)
2
2µ
k ≫
mu
0
(1+b)
ω
2
= c
2
k
2
A detailed discussion of the diﬀerent regimes would be inappropriately long for this review; it
can be found in [191]. The results are summarised in Table 1. Note that µ ≡ mcu
0
plays the role of
the chemical potential for the relativistic BEC. One of the most remarkable features of this model
is that it is a condensed matter system that interpolates between two diﬀerent Lorentz symmetries,
one at low energy and a diﬀerent Lorentz symmetry at high energy.
Finally, it is also possible to recover an acoustic metric for the massless (phononic) perturbations
of the condensate in the low momentum limit (k ≪mu
0
(1 +b)/):
g
µν
=
ρ
_
1 − u
σ
u
σ
/c
2
o
_
η
µν
_
1 −
u
σ
u
σ
c
2
0
_
+
u
µ
u
ν
c
2
0
_
. (283)
As should be expected, it is just a version of the acoustic geometry for a relativistic ﬂuid pre
viously discussed, and in fact can be cast in the form of Equation (155) by suitable variable
redeﬁnitions [191].
4.2.2 The Heliocentric universe
Helium is one of the most fascinating elements provided by nature. Its structural richness confers
on helium a paradigmatic character regarding the emergence of many and varied macroscopic
properties from the microscopic world (see [660] and references therein). Here, we are interested
in the emergence of eﬀective geometries in helium, and their potential use in testing aspects of
semiclassical gravity.
Helium four, a bosonic system, becomes superﬂuid at low temperatures (2.17 K at vapour
pressure). This superﬂuid behaviour is associated with condensation in the vacuum state of a
macroscopically large number of atoms. A superﬂuid is automatically an irrotational and inviscid
ﬂuid, so, in particular, one can apply to it the ideas worked out in Section 2. The propagation of
classical acoustic waves (scalar waves) over a background ﬂuid ﬂow can be described in terms of an
eﬀective Lorentzian geometry: the acoustic geometry. However, in this system one can naturally
go considerably further, into the quantum domain. For long wavelengths, the quasiparticles in
this system are quantum phonons. One can separate the classical behaviour of a background
ﬂow (the eﬀective geometry) from the behaviour of the quantum phonons over this background.
In this way one can reproduce, in laboratory settings, diﬀerent aspects of quantum ﬁeld theory
over curved backgrounds. The speed of sound in the superﬂuid phase is typically on the order of
cm/sec. Therefore, at least in principle, it should not be too diﬃcult to establish conﬁgurations
with supersonic ﬂows and their associated ergoregions.
Helium three, the fermionic isotope of helium, in contrast, becomes superﬂuid at much lower
temperatures (below 2.5 milliK). The reason behind this rather diﬀerent behaviour is the pairing
66
of fermions to form eﬀective bosons (Cooper pairing), which are then able to condense. In the
3
He
A phase, the structure of the fermionic vacuum is such that it possesses two Fermi points, instead
of the more typical Fermi surface. In an equilibrium conﬁguration one can choose the two Fermi
points to be located at ¦p
x
= 0, p
y
= 0, p
z
= ±p
F
¦ (in this way, the zaxis signals the direction of
the angular momentum of the pairs). Close to either Fermi point the spectrum of quasiparticles
becomes equivalent to that of Weyl fermions. From the point of view of the laboratory, the system
is not isotropic, it is axisymmetric. There is a speed for the propagation of quasiparticles along
the zaxis, c
≃ cm/sec, and a diﬀerent speed, c
⊥
≃ 10
−5
c
, for propagation perpendicular to the
symmetry axis. However, from an internal observer’s point of view this anisotropy is not “real”,
but can be made to disappear by an appropriate rescaling of the coordinates. Therefore, in the
equilibrium case, we are reproducing the behaviour of Weyl fermions over Minkowski spacetime.
Additionally, the vacuum can suﬀer collective excitations. These collective excitations will be
experienced by the Weyl quasiparticles as the introduction of an eﬀective electromagnetic ﬁeld and
a curved Lorentzian geometry. The control of the form of this geometry provides the sought for
gravitational analogy.
Apart from the standard way to provide a curved geometry based on producing nontrivial
ﬂows, there is also the possibility of creating topologically nontrivial conﬁgurations with a builtin
nontrivial geometry. For example, it is possible to create a domainwall conﬁguration [327, 326] (the
wall contains the zaxis) such that the transverse velocity c
⊥
acquires a proﬁle in the perpendicular
direction (say along the xaxis) with c
⊥
passing through zero at the wall (see Figure 11). This
particular arrangement could be used to reproduce a blackhole–whitehole conﬁguration only if
the soliton is set up to move with a certain velocity along the xaxis. This conﬁguration has the
advantage that it is dynamically stable, for topological reasons, even when some supersonic regions
are created.
x
y
z
c (x)
Figure 11: Domain wall conﬁguration in
3
He.
A third way in which superﬂuid helium can be used to create analogues of gravitational conﬁg
urations is the study of surface waves (or ripplons) on the interface between two diﬀerent phases
of
3
He [657, 659]. In particular, if we have a thin layer of
3
HeA in contact with another thin layer
of
3
HeB, the oscillations of the contact surface “see” an eﬀective metric of the form [657, 659]
ds
2
=
1
(1 −α
A
α
B
U
2
)
_
−
_
1 −W
2
−α
A
α
B
U
2
_
dt
2
−2W dx dt +dx dx
_
, (284)
67
where
W≡ α
A
v
A
+α
B
v
B
, U ≡ v
A
−v
B
, (285)
and
α
A
≡
h
B
ρ
A
h
A
ρ
B
+h
B
ρ
A
; α
B
≡
h
A
ρ
B
h
A
ρ
B
+h
B
ρ
A
. (286)
(All of this provided that we are looking at wavelengths larger than the layer thickness, k h
A
≪1
and k h
B
≪1.)
v (x,y)
v (x,y)
A−phase
B−phase
h
A
h
B B
A
x
z
y
Figure 12: Ripplons in the interface between two sliding superﬂuids.
The advantage of using surface waves instead of bulk waves in superﬂuids is that one could
create horizons without reaching supersonic speeds in the bulk ﬂuid. This could alleviate the
appearance of dynamical instabilities in the system, that in this case are controlled by the strength
of the interaction of the ripplons with bulk degrees of freedom [657, 659].
4.2.3 Slow light in ﬂuids
The geometrical interpretation of the motion of light in dielectric media leads naturally to conjec
ture that the use of ﬂowing dielectrics might be useful for simulating general relativity metrics with
ergoregions and black holes. Unfortunately, these types of geometry require ﬂow speeds compara
ble to the group velocity of the light. Since typical refractive indexes in nondispersive media are
quite close to unity, it is then clear that it is practically impossible to use them to simulate such
general relativistic phenomena. However recent technological advances have radically changed this
state of aﬀairs. In particular the achievement of controlled slowdown of light, down to velocities
of a few meters per second (or even down to complete rest) [617, 338, 96, 353, 506, 603, 565], has
opened a whole new set of possibilities regarding the simulation of curvedspace metrics via ﬂowing
dielectrics.
But how can light be slowed down to these “snaillike” velocities? The key eﬀect used to achieve
this takes the name of Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT). A laser beam is coupled to
the excited levels of some atom and used to strongly modify its optical properties. In particular one
generally chooses an atom with two longlived metastable (or stable) states, plus a higher energy
state that has some decay channels into these two lower states. The coupling of the excited states
induced by the laser light can aﬀect the transition from a lower energy state to the higher one, and
hence the capability of the atom to absorb light with the required transition energy. The system
can then be driven into a state where the transitions between each of the lower energy states and
the higher energy state exactly cancel out, due to quantum interference, at some speciﬁc resonant
frequency. In this way the higherenergy level has null averaged occupation number. This state
is hence called a “dark state”. EIT is characterised by a transparency window, centered around
68
the resonance frequency, where the medium is both almost transparent and extremely dispersive
(strong dependence on frequency of the refractive index). This in turn implies that the group
velocity of any light probe would be characterised by very low real group velocities (with almost
vanishing imaginary part) in proximity to the resonant frequency.
Let us review the most common setup envisaged for this kind of analogue model. A more
detailed analysis can be found in [383]. One can start by considering a medium in which an EIT
window is opened via some control laser beam which is oriented perpendicular to the direction
of the ﬂow. One then illuminates this medium, now along the ﬂow direction, with some probe
light (which is hence perpendicular to the control beam). This probe beam is usually chosen to
be weak with respect to the control beam, so that it does not modify the optical properties of the
medium. In the case in which the optical properties of the medium do not vary signiﬁcantly over
several wavelengths of the probe light, one can neglect the polarization and can hence describe the
propagation of the latter with a simple scalar dispersion relation [390, 211]
k
2
=
ω
2
c
2
[1 +χ(ω)] , (287)
where χ is the susceptibility of the medium, related to the refractive index n via the simple relation
n =
√
1 +χ.
It is easy to see that in this case the group and phase velocities diﬀer
v
g
=
∂ω
∂k
=
c
√
1 +χ +
ω
2n
∂χ
∂ω
; v
ph
=
ω
k
=
c
√
1 +χ
. (288)
So even for small refractive indexes one can get very low group velocities, due to the large dispersion
in the transparency window, and in spite of the fact that the phase velocity remains very near to
c. (The phase velocity is exactly c at the resonance frequency ω
0
). In an ideal EIT regime the
probe light experiences a vanishing susceptibility χ near the the critical frequency ω
0
, this allows
us to express the susceptibility near the critical frequency via the expansion
χ(ω) =
2α
ω
0
(ω −ω
0
) +O
_
(ω − ω
0
)
3
_
, (289)
where α is sometimes called the “group refractive index”. The parameter α depends on the dipole
moments for the transition from the metastable states to the high energy one, and most importantly
depends on the ratio between the probelight energy per photon, ω
0
, and the controllight energy
per atom [383]. This might appear paradoxical because it seems to suggest that for a dimmer
control light the probe light would be further slowed down. However this is just an artiﬁcial
feature due to the extension of the EIT regime beyond its range of applicability. In particular in
order to be eﬀective the EIT requires the control beam energy to dominate all processes and hence
it cannot be dimmed at will.
At resonance we have
v
g
=
∂ω
∂k
→
c
1 +α
≈
c
α
; v
ph
=
ω
k
→c. (290)
We can now generalise the above discussion to the case in which our highly dispersive medium
ﬂows with a characteristic velocity proﬁle u(x, t). In order to ﬁnd the dispersion relation of the
probe light in this case we just need to transform the dispersion relation (287) from the comoving
frame of the medium to the laboratory frame. Let us consider for simplicity a monochromatic
probe light (more realistically a pulse with a very narrow range of frequencies ω near ω
0
). The
motion of the dielectric medium creates a local Doppler shift of the frequency
ω →γ (ω
0
−u k) , (291)
69
where γ is the usual relativistic factor. Given that k
2
−ω
2
/c
2
is a Lorentz invariant, it is then easy
to see that this Doppler detuning aﬀects the dispersion relation (287) only via the susceptibility
dependent term. Given further that in any realistic case one would deal with nonrelativistic ﬂuid
velocities u ≪c we can then perform an expansion of the dispersion relation up to second order in
u/c. Expressing the susceptibility via Equation (289) we can then rewrite the dispersion relation
in the form [390]
g
µν
k
µ
k
ν
= 0, (292)
where
k
ν
=
_
ω
0
c
, −k
_
, (293)
and
g
µν
=
_
−(1 +αu
2
/c
2
) −αu
T
/c
2
−αu/c
2
I
3×3
−4αu ⊗u
T
/c
2
_
. (294)
(Note that most of the original articles on this topic adopt the opposite signature (+−−−).) The
inverse of this tensor will be the covariant eﬀective metric experienced by the probe light, whose
rays would then be null geodesics of the line element ds
2
= g
µν
dx
µ
dx
ν
. In this sense the probe
light will propagate as in a curved background. Explicitly one ﬁnds the covariant metric to be
g
µν
=
_
−A −Bu
T
−Bu I
3×3
−Cu ⊗u
T
_
, (295)
where
A =
1 −4αu
2
/c
2
1 + (α
2
−3α)u
2
/c
2
−4α
2
u
4
/c
4
; (296)
B =
1
1 + (α
2
−3α)u
2
/c
2
−4α
2
u
4
/c
4
; (297)
C =
1 −(4/α + 4u
2
/c
2
)
1 + (α
2
−3α)u
2
/c
2
−4α
2
u
4
/c
4
. (298)
Several comments are in order concerning the metric (295). First of all, it is clear that, although
more complicated than an acoustic metric, it will still be possible to cast it into the Arnowitt–
Deser–Misnerlike form [627]
g
µν
=
_
−[c
2
eﬀ
−g
ab
u
a
eﬀ
u
b
eﬀ
] [u
eﬀ
]
i
[u
eﬀ
]
j
[g
eﬀ
]
ij
_
, (299)
where the eﬀective speed u
eﬀ
is proportional to the ﬂuid ﬂow speed u and the threespace eﬀective
metric g
eﬀ
is (rather diﬀerently from the acoustic case) nontrivial.
In any case, the existence of this ADM form already tells us that an ergoregion will always
appear once the norm of the eﬀective velocity exceeds the eﬀective speed of light (which for slow
light is approximately c/α, where α can be extremely large due to the huge dispersion in the
transparency window around the resonance frequency ω
0
). However, a trapped surface (and hence
an optical black hole) will form only if the inward normal component of the eﬀective ﬂow velocity
exceeds the group velocity of light. In the slow light setup so far considered such a velocity turns
out to be u = c/(2
√
α).
The realization that ergoregions and event horizons can be simulated via slow light may lead
one to the (erroneous) conclusion that this is an optimal system for simulating particle creation
by gravitational ﬁelds. However, as pointed out by Unruh in [470, 612], such a conclusion would
70
turn out to be overenthusiastic. In order to obtain particle creation through “mode mixing”,
(mixing between the positive and negative norm modes of the incoming and outgoing states), an
inescapable requirement is that there must be regions where the frequency of the quanta as seen
by a local comoving observer becomes negative.
In a ﬂowing medium this can, in principle, occur thanks to the tilting of the dispersion relation
due to the Doppler eﬀect caused by the velocity of the ﬂow Equation (291); but this also tells us
that the negative norm mode must satisfy the condition ω
0
− u k < 0, but this can be satisﬁed
only if the velocity of the medium exceeds [ω
0
/k[, which is the phase velocity of the probe light,
not its group velocity. This observation suggests that the existence of a “phase velocity horizon”
is an essential ingredient (but not the only essential ingredient) in obtaining Hawking radiation.
A similar argument indicates the necessity for a speciﬁc form of “group velocity horizon”, one
that lies on the negative norm branch. Since the phase velocity in the slow light setup we are
considering is very close to c, the physical speed of light in vacuum, not very much hope is left for
realizing analogue particle creation in this particular laboratory setting.
However, it was also noticed by Unruh and Sch¨ utzhold [612] that a diﬀerent setup for slow light
might deal with this and other issues (see [612] for a detailed summary). In the setup suggested
by these authors there are two strongbackground counterpropagating control beams illuminating
the atoms. The ﬁeld describing the beat ﬂuctuations of this electromagnetic background can be
shown to satisfy, once the dielectric medium is in motion, the same wave equation as that on
a curved background. In this particular situation the phase velocity and the group velocity are
approximately the same, and both can be made small, so that the previously discussed obstruction
to mode mixing is removed. So in this new setup it is concretely possible to simulate classical
particle creation such as, e.g., superradiance in the presence of ergoregions.
Nonetheless, the same authors showed that this does not open the possibility for a simulation
of quantum particle production (e.g., Hawking radiation). This is because that eﬀect also requires
the commutation relations of the ﬁeld to generate the appropriate zeropoint energy ﬂuctuations
(the vacuum structure) according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This is not the case for
the eﬀective ﬁeld describing the beat ﬂuctuations of the system we have just described, which is
equivalent to saying that it does not have a proper vacuum state (i.e., analogue to any physical
ﬁeld). Hence, one has to conclude that any simulation of quantum particle production is precluded.
4.2.4 Slow light in ﬁbre optics
In addition to the studies of slow light in ﬂuids, there has now been a lot of work done on slow light
in a ﬁbreoptics setting [505, 504, 64, 63], culminating in recent experimental detection of photons
apparently associated with a phasevelocity horizon [66]. The key issue here is that the Kerr eﬀect
of nonlinear optics can be used to change the refractive index of an optical ﬁbre, so that a “carrier”
pulse of light traveling down the ﬁbre carries with it a region of high refractive index, which acts
as a barrier to “probe” photons (typically at a diﬀerent frequency). If the relative velocities of the
“carrier” pulse and “probe” are suitably arranged then the arrangement can be made to mimic a
blackhole–whitehole pair. This system is described more fully in Section 6.4.
4.2.5 Lattice models
The quantum analogue models described above all have an underlying discrete structure: namely
the atoms they are made of. In abstract terms one can also build an analogue model by considering
a quantum ﬁeld on speciﬁc lattice structures representing diﬀerent spacetimes. In [310, 149, 322] a
fallinglattice blackhole analogue was put forward, with a view to analyzing the origin of Hawking
particles in blackhole evaporation. The positions of the lattice points in this model change with
time as they follow freely falling trajectories. This causes the lattice spacing at the horizon to
grow approximately linearly with time. By deﬁnition, if there were no horizons, then for long
71
wavelengths compared with the lattice spacing one would recover a relativistic quantum ﬁeld theory
over a classical background. However, the presence of horizons makes it impossible to analyze the
ﬁeld theory only in the continuum limit, it becomes necessary to recall the fundamental lattice
nature of the model.
4.2.6 Graphene
A very interesting addition to the catalogue of analogue systems is the graphene (see, for example,
these reviews [127, 339]). Although graphene and some of its peculiar electronic properties have
been known since the 1940s [672], only recently has it been speciﬁcally proposed as a system
with which to probe gravitational physics [153, 152]. Graphene (or monolayer graphite) is a
twodimensional lattice of carbon atoms forming a hexagonal structure (see Figure 13). From the
perspective of this review, its most important property is that its Fermi surface has two independent
Fermi points (see Section 4.2.2 on helium). The lowenergy excitations around these points can
be described as massless Dirac ﬁelds in which the light speed is substituted by a “sound” speed c
s
about 300 times smaller:
∂
t
ψ
j
= c
s
k=1,2
σ
k
∂
x
k
ψ
j
. (300)
Here ψ
j
with j = 1, 2 represent two types of massless spinors (one for each Fermi point), the σ
k
are the Pauli sigma matrices, and c
s
= 3ta/2, with a = 1.4
˚
A being the interatomic distance, and
t = 2.8 eV the hopping energy for an electron between two nearestneighboring atoms.
Figure 13: The graphene hexagonal lattice is made of two interpenetrating triangular lattices.
Each is associated with one Fermi point.
From this perspective graphene can be used to investigate ultrarelativistic phenomena such as
the Klein paradox [339]. On the other hand, graphene sheets can also acquire curvature. A nonzero
curvature can be produced by adding strain ﬁelds to the sheet, imposing a curved substrate, or by
introducing topological defects (e.g., some pentagons within the hexagonal structure) [669]. It has
been suggested that, regarding the electronic properties of graphene, the sheet curvature promotes
the Dirac equation to its curved space counterpart, at least on the average [153, 152]. If this
proves to be experimentally correct, it will make graphene a good analogue model for a diverse
set of spacetimes. This set, however, does not include blackhole spacetimes, as the curvatures
mentioned above are purely spatial and do not aﬀect the temporal components of the metric.
72
4.3 Going further
We feel that the catalogue we have just presented is reasonably complete and covers the key items.
For additional background on many of these topics, we would suggest sources such as the books
“Artiﬁcial Black Holes” [470] and “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” [660]. For more speciﬁc
detail, check this review’s bibliography, and use SPIRES (or the beta version of INSPIRE) to check
for recent developments.
73
5 Phenomenology of Analogue Models
Of course, the entire motivation for looking at analogue models is to be able to learn more physics.
One could start studying analogue models with the idea of seeing whether it is possible (either
theoretically or in practice) to reproduce in the laboratory various gravitational phenomena whose
real existence in nature cannot be currently checked. These are phenomena that surpass our present
(and foreseeable) observational capabilities, but yet, we believe in their existence because it follows
from seemingly strong theoretical arguments within the standard frameworks of general relativity
and ﬁeld theory in curved space. However, the interest of this approach is not merely to reproduce
these gravitational phenomena in some formal analogue model, but to see which departures from
the ideal case show up in real analogue models, and to analyse whether similar deviations are likely
to appear in real gravitational systems.
When one thinks about emergent gravitational features in condensedmatter systems, one im
mediately realises that these features only appear in the lowenergy regime of the analogue systems.
When these systems are probed at high energies (short length scales) the eﬀective geometrical de
scription of the analogue models break down, as one starts to be aware that the systems are actually
composed of discrete pieces (atoms and molecules). This scenario is quite similar to what one ex
pects to happen with our geometrical description of the Universe, when explored with microscopic
detail at the Planck scale.
That is, the study of analogue models of general relativity is giving us insights as to how the
standard theoretical picture of diﬀerent gravitational phenomena could change when taking into
account additional physical knowledge coming from the existence of an underlying microphysical
structure. Quite robustly, these studies are telling us already that the ﬁrst deviations from the
standard general relativity picture can be encoded in the form of highenergy violations of Lorentz
invariance in particle dispersion relations. Beyond these ﬁrst deviations, the analogue models of
general relativity provide wellunderstood examples (the underlying physics is well known) in which
a description in terms of ﬁelds in curved spacetimes shows up as a lowenergyregime emergent
phenomena.
The analogue models are being used to shed light on these general questions through a number
of speciﬁc routes. Let us now turn to discussing several speciﬁc physics issues that are being
analysed from this perspective.
5.1 Hawking radiation
5.1.1 Basics
As is well known, in 1974 Stephen Hawking announced that quantum mechanically black holes
should emit radiation with a spectrum approximately that of a black body [270, 271]. We shall
not rederive the existence of Hawking radiation from scratch, but will instead assume a certain
familiarity with at least the basics of the phenomenon. (See, for instance, [95] or [309].) The
collapse of a distribution of matter will end up forming an evaporating black hole emitting particles
from its horizon toward future null inﬁnity. Hawking radiation is a quantumﬁeldincurvedspace
eﬀect: The existence of radiation emission is a kinematic eﬀect that does not rely on Einstein’s
equations. Therefore, one can aim to reproduce it in a condensedmatter system. Within standard
ﬁeld theory, a minimal requirement for having Hawking radiation is the existence in the background
conﬁguration of an apparent horizon [629]. So, in principle, to be able to reproduce Hawking
radiation in a laboratory one would have to fulﬁll at least two requirements:
1. To choose an adequate analogue system; it has to be a quantum analogue model (see Sec
tion 4) such that its description could be separated into a classical eﬀective background
spacetime plus some standard relativistic quantum ﬁelds living on it (it can happen that
74
the quantum ﬁelds do not satisfy the appropriate commutation or anticommutation rela
tions [612]).
2. To conﬁgure the analogue geometry such that it includes some sort of horizon. That is,
within an appropriate quantum analogue model, the formation of an apparent horizon for
the propagation of the quantum ﬁelds should excite the ﬁelds such as to result in the emission
of a thermal distribution of ﬁeld particles.
20
This is a straightforward and quite naive translation of the standard Hawking eﬀect derivation to
the condensed matter realm. However, in reality, this translation process has to take into account
additional issues that, as we are trying to convey, instead of problems, are where the interesting
physics lies.
1. The eﬀective description of the quantum analogue systems as ﬁelds over a background geom
etry breaks down when probed at suﬃciently short length scales. This could badly inﬂuence
the main features of Hawking radiation. In fact, immediately after the inception of the idea
that black holes radiate, it was realised that there was a potential problem with the calcula
tion [606]. It strongly relies on the validity of quantum ﬁeld theory on curved backgrounds up
to arbitrary high energies. Following a wave packet with a certain frequency at future inﬁnity
backwards in time, we can see that it had to contain arbitrarily large frequency components
with respect to a local free fall observer (well beyond the Planck scale) when it was close to
the horizon. In principle, any unknown physics at the Planck scale could strongly inﬂuence
the Hawking process so that one should view it with caution. This is the transPlanckian
problem of Hawking radiation. To create an analogue model exhibiting Hawking radiation
will be, therefore, equivalent to giving a solution to the transPlanckian problem.
2. In order to clearly observe Hawking radiation, one should ﬁrst be sure that there is no other
source of instabilities in the system that could mask the eﬀect. In analogue models such as
liquid helium or BECs the interaction of a radial ﬂow (with speed on the order of the critical
Landau speed, which in these cases coincides with the sound speed [359]) with the surface
of the container (an electromagnetic potential in the BECs case) might cause the production
of rotons and quantised vortices, respectively. Thus, in order to produce an analogue model
of Hawking radiation, one has to be somewhat ingenious. For example, in the liquid helium
case, instead of taking acoustic waves in a supersonic ﬂow stream as the analogue model,
it is preferable to use as analogue model ripplons in the interface between two diﬀerent
phases, A and B phases, of helium three [657]. Another option is to start from a moving
domain wall conﬁguration. Then, the topological stability of the conﬁguration prevents its
destruction when creating a horizon [326, 327]. In the case of BECs, a way to suppress
the formation of quantised vortices is to take eﬀectively onedimensional conﬁgurations. If
the transverse dimension of the ﬂow is smaller than the healing length, then there is no
space for the existence of a vortex [48]. In either liquid helium or BECs, there is also the
possibility of creating an apparent horizon by rapidly approaching a critical velocity proﬁle
(see Figure 14), but without actually crossing into the supersonic regime [37], softening in
this way the appearance of dynamical instabilities.
20
One could also imagine systems in which the eﬀective metric fails to exist on one side of the horizon (or even
more radically, on both sides). The existence of particle production in this kind of system will then depend on the
speciﬁc interactions between the subsystems characterizing each side of the horizon. For example, in stationary
conﬁgurations it will be necessary that these interactions allow negative energy modes to disappear beyond the
horizon, propagating forward in time (as happens in an ergoregion). Whether these systems will provide adequate
analogue models of Hawking radiation or not is an interesting question that deserves future analysis. Certainly
systems of this type lie well outside the class of usual analogue models.
75
x
v
v(t,x)
t=t
1
t=t
2
t=t
−c
Figure 14: Velocity proﬁle for a left going ﬂow; the proﬁle is dynamically modiﬁed with time so
that it reaches the proﬁle with a sonic point at the asymptotic future.
3. Real analogue models cannot, strictly speaking, reproduce eternal blackhole conﬁgurations.
An analogue model of a black hole has always to be created at some ﬁnite laboratory time.
Therefore, one is forced to carefully analyse the creation process, as it can greatly inﬂuence the
Hawking eﬀect. Depending on the procedure of creation, one could end up in quite diﬀerent
quantum states for the ﬁeld and only some of them might exhibit Hawking radiation. This
becomes more important when considering that the analogue models incorporate modiﬁed
dispersion relations. An inappropriate preparation, together with modiﬁed dispersion relation
eﬀects, could completely eliminate Hawking radiation [613, 35].
4. Another important issue is the need to characterise “how quantum” a speciﬁc analogue
model is. Even though, strictly speaking, one could say that any system undergoes quantum
ﬂuctuations, the point is how important they are in its description. In trying to build an
analogue model of Hawking’s quantum eﬀect, the relative value of Hawking temperature
with respect to the environment is going to tell us whether the system can be really thought
of as a quantum analogue model or as eﬀectively classical. For example, in our standard
cosmological scenario, for a black hole to radiate at temperatures higher than that of the
Cosmic Microwave Background, ≈ 3 K, the black hole should have a diameter on the order
of micrometers or less. We would have to say that such black holes are no longer classical,
but semiclassical. The black holes for which we have some observational evidence are of
much higher mass and size, so their behaviour can be thought of as completely classical.
Estimates of the Hawking temperature reachable in BECs yield T ∼ 100 nK [48]. This has
the same order of magnitude of the temperature as the BECs themselves. This is telling us
that, regarding the Hawking process, BECs can be considered to be highlyquantum analogue
models.
5. There is also the very real question of whether one should trust semiclassical calculations at
all when it comes to dealing with backreaction in the Hawking eﬀect. See, for instance, the
arguments presented by Helfer ([278, 279, 280], and references therein).
Because of its importance, let us now review what we know about the eﬀects of highenergy
dispersion relations on the Hawking process.
5.1.2 UV robustness
We saw in the introduction to this section that the transPlanckian problem of Hawking radiation
was one of the strongest motivations for the modern research into analogue models of gravity. In
76
fact, it was soon realised that such models could provide a physical framework within which a
viable solution of the problem could be found. Let us explain why and how.
As we have said, the requirement of a reservoir of ultrahigh frequency modes near the hori
zon seems to indicate a possible (and worrisome) sensitivity of the blackhole radiation to the
microscopic structure of spacetime. Actually, by assuming exact Lorentz invariance, one could, in
principle, always locally transform the problematic ultrahigh frequency modes to low energy ones
via some appropriate Lorentz transformation [307]. However there are (at least) two problems in
doing so:
1. One has to rely on the physics of reference frames moving ultra fast with respect to us, as
the reference frame needed would move arbitrarily close to the speed of light. Hence, we
would have to apply Lorentz invariance in a regime of arbitrarily large boosts that is as yet
untested, and in principle never completely testable given the noncompactness of the boost
subgroup. The assumption of an exact boost symmetry is linked to the scalefree nature of
spacetime given that unbounded boosts expose ultrashort distances. Hence, the assumption
of exact Lorentz invariance needs, in the end, to rely on some ideas regarding the nature of
spacetime at ultrashort distances.
2. Worse, even given these assumptions, “one cannot boost away an swave”. That is, given
the expected isotropy of Hawking radiation, a boost in any given direction could, at most,
tame the transPlanckian problem only in that speciﬁc direction. Indeed, the problem is then
not ameliorated in directions orthogonal to the boost, and would become even worse on the
opposite side of the black hole.
It was this type of reasoning that led in the nineties to a careful reconsideration of the cru
cial ingredients required for the derivation of Hawking radiation [307, 308, 608]. In particular
investigators explored the possibility that spacetime microphysics could provide a shortdistance,
Lorentzbreaking cutoﬀ, but at the same time leave Hawking’s results unaﬀected at energy scales
well below that set by the cutoﬀ.
Of course, ideas about a possible cutoﬀ imposed by the discreteness of spacetime at the Planck
scale had already been discussed in the literature well before Unruh’s seminal paper [607]. However,
such ideas were running into serious diﬃculties given that a naive shortdistance cutoﬀ posed on
the available modes of a free ﬁeld theory results in a complete removal of the evaporation process
(see, e.g., Jacobson’s article [307] and references therein, and the comments in [278, 279, 280]).
Indeed there are alternative ways through which the eﬀect of the shortscale physics could be taken
into account, and analogue models provide a physical framework where these ideas could be put
to the test. In fact, analogue models provide explicit examples of emergent spacetime symmetries;
they can be used to simulate blackhole backgrounds; they may be endowed with quantizable
perturbations and, in most of the cases, they have a wellknown microscopic structure. Given that
Hawking radiation can be, at least in principle, simulated in such systems, one might ask how and
if the transPlanckian problem is resolved in these cases.
Modiﬁed dispersion relations: The general feature that most of the work on this subject has
focused on is that in analogue models the quasiparticles propagating on the eﬀective geometry are
actually collective excitations of atoms. This generically implies that their dispersion relation will
be a relativistic one only at low energies (large scales),
21
and in each case there will be some short
length scale (e.g., intermolecular distance for a ﬂuid, coherence length for a superﬂuid, healing
21
Actually, even relativistic behaviour at low energy can be nongeneric, but we assume in this discussion that
an analogue model by deﬁnition is a system for which all the linearised perturbations do propagate on the same
Lorentzian background at low energies.
77
length for a BEC) beyond which deviations will be nonnegligible. In general, such microphysics
induced corrections to the dispersion relation take the form
E
2
= c
2
_
m
2
c
2
+k
2
+ ∆(k, K)
_
, (301)
where K is the scale that describes the transition to the full microscopic system (what we might
call – within this section – the “analogue Planck scale”).
In general, the best one can do is to expand ∆(k, K) around k = 0, obtaining an inﬁnite power
series (of which it will be safe to retain only the lowestorder terms), although in some special
models (like BEC) the series is automatically ﬁnite due to intrinsic properties of the system. (In
any case, one can see that most of the analogue models so far considered lead to modiﬁcations
of the form ±k
3
/K or ±k
4
/K
2
.) Depending on the sign in front of the modiﬁcation, the group
velocity at high energy can be larger (+) or smaller (−) than the low energy speed of light c.
These cases are usually referred to in the literature as “superluminal” and “subluminal” dispersion
relations.
Most of the work on the transPlanckian problem in the 1990s focused on studying the eﬀect on
Hawking radiation due to such modiﬁcations of the dispersion relations at high energies in the case
of acoustic analogues [307, 308, 608, 148], and the question of whether such phenomenology could
be applied to the case of real black holes (see e.g., [94, 310, 148, 490]).
22
In all the aforementioned
works, Hawking radiation can be recovered under some suitable assumptions, as long as neither
the blackhole temperature nor the frequency at which the spectrum is considered are too close to
the scale of microphysics K. However, the applicability of these assumptions to the real case of
black hole evaporation is an open question. It is also important to stress that the mechanism by
which the Hawking radiation is recovered is conceptually rather diﬀerent depending on the type of
dispersion relation considered. We concisely summarise here the main results (but see, e.g., [613]
for further details).
Subluminal dispersion relations: This was the case originally considered by Unruh [608],
ω = K (tanh(k/K)
n
)
1/n
, (302)
and by Corley and Jacobson [148]
ω
2
= k
2
−k
4
/K
2
, (303)
where both dispersion relations are given in the comoving frame.
The key feature is that in the presence of a subluminal modiﬁcation the group velocity of
the modes increases with k only up to some turning point (which is equivalent to saying that
the group velocity does not asymptote to c, which could be the speed of sound, but instead is
upper bounded). For values of k beyond the turning point the group velocity decreases to zero
(for Equation (302)) or becomes imaginary (for Equation (303)). See Figure 15 for a schematic
representation of this eﬀect (for Equation (302)). In the latter case, this can be interpreted as
signifying the breakdown of the regime where the dispersion relation (303) can be trusted. The
picture that emerged from these analyses concerning the origin of the outgoing Hawking modes at
inﬁnity is quite surprising. In fact, if one traces back in time an outgoing mode, as it approaches
the horizon, it decreases its group velocity below the speed of sound. At some point before reaching
the horizon, the outgoing mode will appear as a combination of ingoing modes dragged into the
black hole by the ﬂow. Stepping further back in time it is seen that such modes are located at
larger and larger distances from the horizon, and tend to have very high wave numbers far away
22
However, see also [522, 528] for a radically diﬀerent alternative approach based on the idea of “superoscillations”
where ultrahigh frequency modes near the horizon can be mimicked (to arbitrary accuracy) by the exponential tail
of an exponentiallylarge amplitude mostly hidden behind the horizon.
78
k
ckΓ
k
ω − vk
ω
v < c
v > c
Figure 15: The picture shows a subsonic dispersion relation as a relation ω − vk = ±c[k[Γ
k
. In
particular we plot a dispersion of the type Γ
k
= K
_
tanh(k
2
/K
2
) originally employed by Unruh.
For supersonic velocities the dispersion relation has two real roots. For subsonic velocities and ω
greater than a critical frequency ω
c
, the dispersion relation has four real roots.
at early times. The important point is that one of the modes has “negative norm”. (That is, the
norm is negative in the appropriate Klein–Gordonlike inner product [35].) In this way one ﬁnds
what might be called a “mode conversion”, where the origin of the outgoing Hawking quanta seems
to originate from ingoing modes, which have “bounced oﬀ” the horizon without reaching trans
Planckian frequencies in its vicinities. Several detailed analytical and numerical calculations have
shown that such a conversion indeed happens [608, 94, 148, 147, 283, 538, 613, 413, 412] and that
the Hawking result, speciﬁcally the presence of a Planckian spectrum of particles at a temperature
T ≃ κ/(2π) moving outwards toward the asymptotic region, can be recovered for K ≫ κ where
κ is the blackhole surface gravity. In fact, the condition to recover a Planckian spectrum is
a bit more subtle. In the mode conversion process every frequency experiences the horizon as
located at a diﬀerent position, and so, having a diﬀerent surface gravity (a rainbow geometry).
To have an approximately Planckian spectrum one would need this frequencydependent surface
gravity to stay almost constant for frequencies below and around κ (see, for example, the analysis
in [413, 412, 199]). This condition seems to be easily realizable. In addition, we would like to point
out another subtlety of these analogue blackhole conﬁgurations: It is necessary that the constant
ﬂow velocity reached at the asymptotic region is diﬀerent from zero. For the particular dispersion
relation in Equation (303), [v[ ≥ κ/K so that the Planckian form is not cut down at frequencies
around κ.
Let us mention here (more details in Section 6.1) that the classical counterpart of the above
described modeconversion mechanism has recently been observed for the ﬁrst time in a wave
tank experiment [682]. It is remarkable that the exponential factor associated with a black body
spectrum is clearly observed even with the inherent noise of the experiment. We will have to wait
for the repetition of the same sort of experiment in a more explicitly quantum system to observe
the spontaneous production of particles with a Planckian spectrum.
79
Superluminal dispersion relations: The case of a superluminal dispersion relation is quite
diﬀerent and, as we have seen, has some experimental interest, given that this is the kind of
dispersion relation that arises in some promising analogue models (e.g., BECs). In this situation,
the outgoing modes are actually seen as originating from behind the horizon (see Figure 16). This
implies that these modes somehow originate from the singularity (which can be a region of high
turbulence in acoustic blackhole analogues), and hence it would seem that not much can be said
in this case. However, it is possible to show that if one imposes vacuum boundary conditions on
these modes near the singularity, then it is still possible to recover the Hawking result, i.e., thermal
radiation outside the black hole [147].
Figure 16: The picture shows a supersonic dispersion relation as a relation ω − vk = ±c[k[Γ
k
.
In particular, we plot a dispersion of the type Γ
k
=
_
1 +k
2
/K
2
. For supersonic velocities the
dispersion relation has two real roots. For supersonic velocities and ω less than a critical frequency
ω
c
, the dispersion relation has four real roots.
The understanding of the physics behind the presence of Hawking radiation in superluminal
dispersive theories has greatly improve recently through the detailed analysis of 1+1 stationary
conﬁgurations possessing one black or white horizon connecting two asymptotic regions [413] (for
previous work dealing with mode conversion through a horizon, see [386]). One of the asymptotic
regions corresponds to the asymptotic region of a blackhole spacetime and is subsonic; the other
asymptotic region is supersonic and replaces the internal singularity. Once the appropriate acoustic
geometry is deﬁned, this analysis considers a Klein–Gordon ﬁeld equation in this geometry, modiﬁed
by a ∂
4
x
term that gives rise to the quartic dispersion relation ω
2
= k
2
+k
4
/K
2
. For this setup it
has been shown that the relevant Bogoliubov coeﬃcients have the form β
ω
′
,i;ω,j
= δ(ω − ω
′
)β
ω;ij
,
with β
ω;ij
a 3 3 matrix. To recover from these coeﬃcients a Planckian spectrum of particles at
the external asymptotic region, the relevant condition happens to be not κ ≪K but κ ≪ω
c
where
ω
c
= Kf(v
int−asym
) and with f() a speciﬁc function of v
int−asym
, the value of the ﬂow velocity
at the internal (or supersonic) asymptotic region [413]. In all cases, for ω > ω
c
the Bogoliubov
coeﬃcients are exactly zero. When v
int−asym
is just above c = 1, that is, when the ﬂow is only
80
“slightly supersonic”, the function f() can become very small f(v
int−asym
) ∝ (v
int−asym
− 1)
3/2
,
and thus also the critical frequency ω
c
at which particle production is cut oﬀ. If this happens
at frequencies comparable with κ the whole Planckian spectrum will be truncated and distorted.
Therefore, to recover a Planckian spectrum of particles at the external asymptotic region one needs
to have a noticeable supersonic region.
As with subsonic dispersion, the existence of a notion of rainbow geometry makes modes of
diﬀerent frequency experience diﬀerent surface gravities. One can think of the distortion of the
Planckian spectrum as having a running κ(ω) that, for these conﬁgurations, interpolates between
its low energy, or geometric value, κ(ω = 0) = κ
0
and a value of zero for ω →ω
c
. This transition is
remarkably sudden for the smooth proﬁles analyzed. If κ
0
≪ω
c
, then κ(ω) will stay constant and
equal to κ
0
throughout the relevant part of the spectrum reproducing Hawking’s result. However,
in general terms one can say that the spectrum takes into account the characteristic of the proﬁle
deep inside the supersonic region (the analogue of the black hole interior). The existence of
superluminal modes makes it possible to obtain information from inside the (low energy) horizon.
In these analyses based on stationary conﬁgurations, the quantum ﬁeld was always assumed to
be in the invacuum state. Is this vacuum state, which has thermal properties, in terms of out 
observers? However, it is interesting to realise that the dispersive character of the theory allows
one to select for these systems a diﬀerent, perfectly regular state, which is empty of both incoming
and outgoing particles in the external asymptotic region [35]. This state can be interpreted as the
regular generalization to a dispersive theory of the Boulware state for a ﬁeld in a stationary black
hole (let us recall that this state is not regular at the horizons). This implies that, in principle,
one could set up a semiclassically stable acoustic black hole geometry. Another important result
of the analysis in [413] is that stationary white holes do also Hawking radiate and in a very similar
way to black holes.
These analyses have been repeated for the speciﬁc case of the ﬂuctuations of a BEC [412]
with identical qualitative results. The reasons for this is that, although the Bogoliubov–de Gennes
system of equations is diﬀerent from the modiﬁed scalar ﬁeld equation analyzed in previous papers,
they share the same quartic dispersion relation. Apart from the more formal treatments of BECs,
Carusotto et al. reported [119, 118] the numerical observation of the Hawking eﬀect in simulations
in which a blackhole horizon has been created dynamically from an initially homogeneous ﬂow.
The observation of the eﬀect has been through the calculation of twopoint correlation functions
(see Section 5.1.6 below). These simulations strongly suggest that any nonquasistatic formation
of a horizon would give place to Hawking radiation.
It is particularly interesting to note that this recovery of the standard result is not always
guaranteed in the presence of superluminal dispersion relations. Corley and Jacobson [150] in fact
discovered a very peculiar type of instability due to such superluminal dispersion in the presence
of black holes with inner horizons. The net result of the investigation carried out in [150] is that
the compact ergoregion characterizing such conﬁgurations is unstable to selfamplifying Hawking
radiation. The presence of such an instability was also identiﬁed in the dynamical analysis carried
on in [231, 232, 29] where Bose–Einstein condensate analogue black holes were considered. As we
have already mentioned, the spectrum associated with the formation of a black hole horizon in a
superluminal dispersive theory depends, in a more or less obvious fashion, on the entire form of
the internal velocity proﬁle. In the case in which the internal region contains an additional white
horizon, the resulting spectrum is completely changed. These conﬁgurations, in addition to a
steady Hawking ﬂux, produce a selfampliﬁed particle emission; from this feature arises their name
“blackhole lasers”. In the recent analyses in [155, 199] it has been shown that the complete set
of modes to be taken into account in these conﬁgurations is composed of a continuous sector with
real frequencies, plus a discrete sector with complex frequencies of positive imaginary part. These
discrete frequencies encode the unstable behaviour of these conﬁgurations, and are generated as
resonant modes inside the supersonic cavity encompassed between the two horizons.
81
5.1.3 General conditions for Hawking radiation
Is it possible to reduce the rather complex phenomenology just described to a few basic assumptions
that must be satisﬁed in order to recover Hawking radiation in the presence of Lorentzviolating
dispersion relations? A tentative answer is given in [613], where the robustness of the Hawking
result is considered for general modiﬁed (subluminal as well as superluminal) dispersion relations.
The authors of [613] assume that the geometrical optics approximation breaks down only in the
proximity of the event horizon (which is equivalent to saying that the particle production happens
only in such a region). Here, the wouldbe transPlanckian modes are converted into subPlanckian
ones. Then, they try to identify the minimal set of assumptions that guarantees that such “con
verted modes” are generated in their ground states (with respect to a freely falling observer), as
this is a wellknown condition in order to recover Hawking’s result. They end up identifying three
basic assumptions that guarantee such emergence of modes in the ground state at the horizon.
• First, the preferred frame selected by the breakdown of Lorentz invariance must be the freely
falling one instead of the rest frame of the static observer at inﬁnity (which coincides in this
limit with the laboratory observer).
• Second, the Planckian excitations must start oﬀ in the ground state with respect to freely
falling observers.
• Finally, they must evolve in an adiabatic way (i.e., the Planck dynamics must be much faster
than the external subPlanckian dynamics).
Of course, although several systems can be found in which such conditions hold, it is also possible
to show [613] that realistic situations in which at least one of these assumptions is violated can be
imagined. Hence, it is still an open question whether real black hole physics does indeed satisfy
such conditions, and whether it is therefore robust against modiﬁcations induced by the violation
of Lorentz invariance.
5.1.4 Source of the Hawking quanta
There is a point of view (not universally shared within the community) that asserts that the
transPlanckian problem also makes it clear that the rayoptics limit cannot be the whole story
behind Hawking radiation. Indeed, it is precisely the ray optics approximation that leads to the
transPlanckian problem. Presumably, once one goes beyond ray optics, to the wave optics limit,
it will be the region within a wavelength or so of the horizon (possibly the region between the
horizon and the unstable circular photon orbit) that proves to be quantummechanically unstable
and will ultimately be the “origin” of the Hawking photons. If this picture is correct, then the
blackhole particle production is a lowfrequency and lowwavenumber process. See, for instance,
[563, 610, 611]. Work along these lines is continuing.
5.1.5 Which surface gravity?
One issue that has become increasingly important, particularly in view of recent experimental
advances, is the question of exactly which particular deﬁnition of surface gravity is the appropriate
one for controlling the temperature of the Hawking radiation. In standard general relativity with
Killing horizons there is no ambiguity, but there is already considerable maneuvering room once
one goes to evolving horizons in general relativity, and even more ambiguities once one adopts
modiﬁed dispersion relations (as is very common in analogue spacetimes).
Already at the level of timedependent systems in standard general relativity there are two
reasonably natural deﬁnitions of surface gravity, one in terms of the inaﬃnity of null geodesics
skimming along the event horizon, and another in terms of the peeling properties of those null
82
geodesics that escape the black hole to reach future null inﬁnity. It is this latter deﬁnition that
is relevant for Hawkinglike ﬂuxes from nonstationary systems (e.g., evaporating black holes) and
in such systems it never coincides with the inaﬃnitybased deﬁnition of the surface gravity except
possibly at asymptotic futuretimelike inﬁnity i
+
. Early comments along these lines can be found
in [94, 95]; more recently this point was highlighted in [42, 41].
Regarding analogue models of gravity, the conclusions do not change when working in the hydro
dynamic regime (where there is a strict analogy with GR). This point was implicitly made in [37, 41]
and clearly stressed in [412]. If we now add modiﬁed dispersion relations, there are additional levels
of complication coming from the distinction between “group velocity horizons”, and “phase velocity
horizons”, and the fact that null geodesics have to be replaced by modiﬁed characteristic curves.
The presence of dispersion also makes explicit that the crucial notion underlying Hawking emission
is the “peeling” properties of null ray characteristics. For instance, the relevant “peeling” surface
gravity for determining Hawking ﬂuxes has to be determined locally, in the vicinity of the Killing
horizon, and over a ﬁnite frequency range. (See for instance [612, 505, 504, 532, 66, 682, 412] for
some discussion of this and related issues.) This “surface gravity” is actually an emergent quantity
coming from averaging the naive surface gravity (the slope of the c–v proﬁle) on a ﬁnite region
around the wouldbe Killing horizon associated with the acoustic geometry [200]. Work on these
important issues is ongoing.
5.1.6 How to detect Hawking radiation: Correlations
While the robustness of Hawking radiation against UV violations of the acoustic Lorentz invariance
seems a wellestablished feature by now (at least in static or stationary geometries), its strength is
indubitably a main concern for a future detection of this eﬀect in a laboratory. As we have seen,
the Hawking temperature in acoustic systems is simply related to the gradient of the ﬂow velocity
at the horizon (see Equation (61)). This gradient cannot be made arbitrarily large and, for the
hydrodynamic approximation to hold, one actually needs it to be at least a few times the typical
coherence length (e.g., the healing length for a BEC) of the superﬂuid used for the experiment.
This implies that in a cold system, with low speed of sound, like a BEC, the expected power
loss due to the Hawking emission could be estimated to be on the order of P ≈ 10
−48
W (see,
e.g., [48]): arguably too faint to be detectable above the thermal phonon background due to the
ﬁnite temperature of the condensate (alternatively, one can see that the Hawking temperature is
generally below the typical temperature of the BEC, albeit they are comparable and both in the
nanoKelvin range). Despite this, it is still possible that a detection of the spontaneous quantum
particle creation can be obtained via some other feature rather than the spectrum of the Hawking
ﬂux. A remarkable possibility in this sense is oﬀered by the fact that vacuum particle creation
leads generically to a spectrum, which is (almost) Planckian but not thermal (in the sense that all
the higher order ﬁeld correlators are trivial combinations of the twopoint one).
23
Indeed, particles created by the mode mixing (Bogoliubov) mechanism are generically in a
squeezed state (in the sense that the in vacuum appears as a squeezed state when expressed
in terms of the out vacuum) [313] and such a state can be distinguished from a real thermal one
exactly by the nontrivial structure of its correlators. This discrimination mechanism was suggested
a decade ago in the context of dynamical Casimir eﬀect explanations of Sonoluminescence [65],
and later envisaged for analogue black holes in [48], but was ﬁnally investigated and fully exploited
only recently in a stream of papers focussed on the BEC set up [22, 119, 412, 520, 19, 118, 190,
496, 512, 564, 604]. The outcome of such investigations (carried out taking into account the full
Bogoliubov spectrum) is quite remarkable as it implies that indeed, while the Hawking ﬂux is
23
Note however, that for a real black hole and Lorentzinvariant physics, the spectrum observed at inﬁnity is
indistinguishable from thermal given that no correlation measurement is allowed, since the Hawking partners are
spacelike separated across the horizon. This fact is indeed the root of the information paradox.
83
generically outpowered by the condensate intrinsic thermal bath, it is, in principle, possible to
have a clear cut signature of the Hawking eﬀect by looking at the densitydensity correlator for
phonons on both sides of the acoustic horizon. In fact, the latter will show a deﬁnite structure
totally absent when the ﬂow is always subsonic or always supersonic. Even more remarkably, it
was shown, both via numerical simulations as well as via a detailed analytical investigation, that
a realistic ﬁnite temperature background does not spoil the long distance correlations which are
intrinsic to the Hawking eﬀect (and, indeed, for nonexcessively large condensate temperatures the
correlations can be ampliﬁed).
This seems to suggest that for the foreseeable future the correlation pattern will oﬀer the most
amenable route for obtaining a clean signature of the (spontaneous) Hawking eﬀect in acoustic
analogues. (For stimulated Hawking emission, see [682].) Finally, it is interesting to add that
the correlator analysis can be applied to a wider class of analogue systems, in particular it has
been applied to analogue black holes based on cold atoms in ion rings [290], or extended to the
study of the particle creation in timevarying external ﬁelds (dynamical Casimir eﬀect) in Bose–
Einstein condensates (where the timevarying quantity is the scattering length via a Feshbach
resonance) [118]. As we shall see, such studies are very interesting for their possible application as
cosmological particle production simulations (possibly including Lorentzviolations eﬀects). (See
Section 5.4, and [512].)
5.1.7 Open issues
In spite of the remarkable insight given by the models discussed above (based on modiﬁed dispersion
relations) it is not possible to consider them fully satisfactory in addressing the transPlanckian
problem. In particular, it was soon recognised [149, 311] that in this framework it is not possible
to explain the origin of the short wavelength incoming modes, which are “progenitors” of the
outgoing modes after bouncing oﬀ in the proximity of the horizon. For example, in the Unruh
model (302), one can see that if one keeps tracking a “progenitor” incoming mode back in time,
then its group velocity (in the comoving frame) drops to zero as its frequency becomes more and
more blue shifted (up to arbitrarily large values), just the situation one was trying to avoid. This
is tantamount to saying that the transPlanckian problem has been moved from the region near
the horizon out to the region near inﬁnity. In the Corley–Jacobson model (303) this unphysical
behaviour is removed thanks to the presence of the physical cutoﬀ K. However, it is still true that
in tracking the incoming modes back in time one ﬁnally sees a wave packet so blue shifted that
[k[ = K. At this point one can no longer trust the dispersion relation (303) (which in realistic
analogue models is emergent and not fundamental anyway), and hence the model has no predictive
power regarding the ultimate origin of the relevant incoming modes.
These conclusions regarding the impossibility of clearly predicting the origin at early times of
the modes ultimately to be converted into Hawking radiation are not speciﬁc to the particular
dispersion relations (302) or (303) one is using. In fact, the Killing frequency is conserved on a
static background; thus, the incoming modes must have the same frequency as the outgoing ones.
Hence, in the case of strictly Lorentz invariant dispersion relations there can be no modemixing
and particle creation. This is why one actually has to assume that the WKB approximation fails
in the proximity of the horizon and that the modes are there in the vacuum state for the comoving
observer. In this sense, the need for these assumptions can be interpreted as evidence that these
models are not yet fully capable of solving the transPlanckian problem. Ultimately, these issues
underpin the analysis by Sch¨ utzhold and Unruh regarding the spatial “origin” of the Hawking
quanta [563, 610, 611].
84
5.1.8 Solid state and lattice models
It was to overcome this type of issue that alternative ways of introducing an ultraviolet cutoﬀ due
to the microphysics were considered [522, 523, 149]. In particular, in [523] the transparency of the
refractive medium at high frequencies has been used to introduce an eﬀective cutoﬀ for the modes
involved in Hawking radiation in a classical refractive index analogue model (see Section 4.1.5). In
this model an event horizon for the electromagnetic ﬁeld modes can be simulated by a surface of
singular electric and magnetic permeabilities. This would be enough to recover Hawking radiation
but it would imply the unphysical assumption of a refractive index, which is valid at any frequency.
However, it was shown in [523] that the Hawking result can be recovered even in the case of a
dispersive medium, which becomes transparent above some ﬁxed frequency K (which we can
imagine as the plasma frequency of the medium); the only (crucial) assumption being again that
the “transPlanckian” modes with k > K are in their ground state near the horizon.
An alternative avenue was considered in [149]. There a lattice description of the background was
used for imposing a cutoﬀ in a more physical way with respect to the continuum dispersive models
previously considered. In such a discretised spacetime, the ﬁeld takes values only at the lattice
points, and wavevectors are identiﬁed modulo 2π/ℓ where ℓ is the lattice characteristic spacing;
correspondingly one obtains a sinusoidal dispersion relation for the propagating modes. Hence,
the problem of recovering a smooth evolution of incoming modes to outgoing ones is resolved by
the intrinsicallyregularised behaviour of the wave vectors ﬁeld. In [149] the authors explicitly
considered the Hawking process for a discretised version of a scalar ﬁeld, where the lattice is
associated with the freefall coordinate system (taken as the preferred system). With such a
choice, it is possible to preserve a discrete lattice spacing. Furthermore, the requirement of a ﬁxed
shortdistance cutoﬀ leads to the choice of a lattice spacing constant at inﬁnity, and that the lattice
points are at rest at inﬁnity and fall freely into the black hole.
24
In this case, the lattice spacing
grows in time and the lattice points spread in space as they fall toward the horizon. However,
this time dependence of the lattice points is found to be of order 1/κ, and hence unnoticeable to
longwavelength modes and relevant only for those with wavelengths on the order of the lattice
spacing. The net result is that, on such a lattice, long wavelength outgoing modes are seen to
originate from short wavelength incoming modes via a process analogous to the Bloch oscillations
of accelerated electrons in crystals [149, 311].
5.1.9 Analogue spacetimes as background gestalt
In addition, among the many papers using analogue spacetimes as part of their background mindset
when addressing these issues we mention:
• “Top down” calculations of Hawking radiation starting from some idealised model of quantum
gravity [4, 335, 461, 462].
• “Bottom up” calculations of Hawking radiation starting from curved space quantum ﬁeld
theory [52, 53, 108, 109, 124, 184, 185, 216, 428, 430, 429, 431, 489, 526].
• TransHawking versions of Hawking radiation, either as reformulations of the physics, or as
alternative scenarios [62, 120, 222, 223, 257, 266, 278, 279, 280, 384, 478, 480, 530, 536, 541,
542, 549, 550, 567, 591].
• Black hole entropy viewed in the light of analogue spacetimes [158].
• Hawking radiation interpreted as a statement about particles traveling along complex space
time trajectories [481, 567, 586].
24
[149] also considered the case of a lattice with proper distance spacing constant in time but this has the problem
that the proper spacing of the lattice goes to zero at spatial inﬁnity, and hence there is no ﬁxed shortdistance cutoﬀ.
85
5.2 Dynamical stability of horizons
Although the two issues are very closely related, as we will soon see, we have to carefully distinguish
between the stability analysis of the modes of a linear ﬁeld theory (with or without modiﬁed
dispersion relations – MDR) over a ﬁxed background, and the stability analysis of the background
itself.
5.2.1 Classical stability of the background (no MDR)
Let us consider a threedimensional irrotational and inviscid ﬂuid system with a stationary sink
type of ﬂow – a “draining bathtub” ﬂow – (see Figures 1 and 2). The details of the conﬁguration are
not important for the following discussion, only the fact that there is a sphericallysymmetric ﬂuid
ﬂow accelerating towards a central sink, that sink being surrounded by a sphere acting as a sonic
horizon. Then, as we have discussed in Section 2, linearizing the Euler and continuity equations
leads to a massless scalar ﬁeld theory over a blackhole–like spacetime. (We are assuming that
the hydrodynamic regime remains valid up to arbitrarilyshort length scales; for instance, we are
neglecting the existence of MDR.) To be speciﬁc, let us choose the geometry of the canonical
acoustic blackhole spacetime described in [624]:
ds
2
= −c
2
_
1 −
r
4
0
r
4
_
dτ
2
+
_
1 −
r
4
0
r
4
_
−1
dr
2
+r
2
_
dθ
2
+ sin
2
θ dϕ
2
_
. (304)
In this expression we have used the Schwarzschild time coordinate τ instead of the lab time t; c is
constant. If we expand the ﬁeld in spherical harmonics,
φ
lm
(τ, r, θ, ϕ) ≡ e
−iωτ
χ
lm
(r)
r
Y
lm
(θ, ϕ), (305)
we obtain the following equation for the radial part of the ﬁeld:
ω
2
c
2
χ =
_
−
d
2
dr
∗2
+V
l
(r)
_
χ; (306)
where
V
l
(r) =
_
1 −
r
4
0
r
4
__
l(l + 1)
r
2
+
4r
4
0
r
6
_
. (307)
Here
r
∗
≡ r −
r
0
4
_
ln
_
(r +r
0
)
(r −r
0
)
_
+ 2 arctan
_
r
r
0
__
(308)
is a “tortoise” coordinate.
In a normal mode analysis one requires boundary conditions such that the ﬁeld is regular
everywhere, even at inﬁnity. However, if one is analysing the solutions of the linear ﬁeld theory
as a way of probing the stability of the background conﬁguration, one can consider less restrictive
boundary conditions. For instance, one can consider the typical boundary conditions that lead
to quasinormal modes: These modes are deﬁned to be purely outgoing at inﬁnity and purely
ingoing at the horizon; but one does not require, for example, the modes to be normalizable. The
quasinormal modes associated with this sink conﬁguration have been analysed in [69]. The results
found are qualitatively similar to those in the classical linear stability analysis of the Schwarzschild
black hole in general relativity [619, 620, 521, 698, 447]. Of course, the gravitational ﬁeld in general
relativity has two dynamical degrees of freedom – those associated with gravitational waves – that
have to be analysed separately; these are the “axial” and “polar” perturbations. In contrast, in
86
the present situation we only have scalar perturbations. Nevertheless, the potentials associated
with “axial” and “polar” perturbations of Schwarzschild spacetime, and that associated with scalar
perturbations of the canonical acoustic black hole, produce qualitatively the same behaviour: There
is a series of damped quasinormal modes – proving the linear stability of the system – with higher
and higher damping rates.
An important point we have to highlight here is that, although in the linear regime the dynam
ical behaviour of the acoustic system is similar to general relativity, this is no longer true once one
enters the nonlinear regime. The underlying nonlinear equations in the two cases are very diﬀer
ent. The diﬀerences are so profound, that in the general case of acoustic geometries constructed
from compressible ﬂuids, there exist sets of perturbations that, independent of how small they are
initially, can lead to the development of shocks, a situation completely absent in vacuum general
relativity.
5.2.2 Semiclassical stability of the background (no MDR)
Now, given an approximately stationary, and at the very least metastable, classical blackholelike
conﬁguration, a standard quantum mode analysis leads to the existence of Hawking radiation in the
form of phonon emission. This shows, among other things, that quantum corrections to the classical
behaviour of the system must make the conﬁguration with a sonic horizon dynamically unstable
against Hawking emission. As a consequence, in any system (analogue or general relativistic)
with quantum ﬂuctuations that maintain strict adherence to the equivalence principle (no MDR),
it must then be impossible to create an isolated truly stationary horizon by merely setting up
external initial conditions and letting the system evolve by itself. However, in an analogue system
a truly stationary horizon can be set up by providing an external power source to stabilise it against
Hawking emission. Once one compensates, by manipulating external forces, for the backreaction
eﬀects that in a physical general relativity scenario cause the horizon to shrink or evaporate, one
would be able to produce, in principle, an analogue system exhibiting precisely a stationary horizon
and a stationary Hawking ﬂux.
Let us describe what happens when one takes into account the existence of MDR. Once again,
a wonderful physical system that has MDR explicitly incorporated in its description is the Bose–
Einstein condensate. The macroscopic wave function of the BEC behaves as a classical irrotational
ﬂuid but with some deviations when short length scales become involved. (For length scales on the
order of, or shorter than, the healing length.) What are the eﬀects of the MDR on the dynamical
stability of a blackholelike conﬁguration in a BEC? The stability of a sink conﬁguration in a BEC
has been analysed in [231, 232] but taking the ﬂow to be eﬀectively onedimensional. What these
authors found is that these conﬁgurations are dynamically unstable: There are modes satisfying
the appropriate boundary conditions such that the imaginary parts of their associated frequencies
are positive. These instabilities are associated basically with the bound states inside the black hole.
The dynamical tendency of the system to evolve is suggestively similar to that in the standard
evaporation process of a black hole in semiclassical general relativity.
5.2.3 Classical stability of the background (MDR in BECs)
Before continuing with the discussion of the instability of conﬁgurations with horizons, and in
order not to cause confusion between the diﬀerent wording used when talking about the physics of
BECs and the emergent gravitational notions on them, let us write down a quite loose but useful
translation dictionary:
• The “classical” or macroscopic wave function of the BEC represents the classical spacetime
of GR, but only when probed at longenough wavelengths such that it behaves as pure
hydrodynamics.
87
• The “classical” longwavelength perturbations to a background solution of the Gross–Pitaev
skii equation correspond to classical gravitational waves in GR. Of course, this analogy does
not imply that these are spin 2 waves; it only points out that the perturbations are made
from the same “substance” as the background conﬁguration itself.
• The macroscopic wave function of the BEC, without the restriction of being probed only at
long wavelengths, corresponds to some sort of semiclassical vacuum gravity. Its “classical”
behaviour (in the sense that does not involve any probability notion) is already taking into
account, in the form of MDR, its underlying quantum origin.
• The Bogoliubov quantum quasiparticles over the “classical” wave function correspond to a
further step away from semiclassical gravity in that they are analogous to the existence of
quantum gravitons over a (semiclassical) background spacetime.
At this point we would like to remark, once again, that the analysis based on the evolution of
a BEC has to be used with care. For example, they cannot directly serve to shed light on what
happens in the ﬁnal stages of the evaporation of a black hole, as the BEC does not fulﬁl, at any
regime, the Einstein equations. Summarizing:
• If the perturbations to the BEC background conﬁguration have “classical seeds” (that is, are
describable by the linearised Gross–Pitaevskii equation alone), then, one will have “classical”
instabilities.
• If the perturbations have “quantum seeds” (that is, are described by the Bogoliubov equa
tions), then, one will have “quantum” instabilities.
5.2.4 Black holes, white holes, and rings
In the light of the acoustic analogies it is natural to ask whether there are other geometric conﬁgu
rations with horizons of interest, besides the sink type of conﬁgurations (these are the most similar
to the standard description of black holes in general relativity, but probably not the simplest in
terms of realizability in a real laboratory; for an entire catalogue of them see [37]). Here, let us
mention four eﬀectively onedimensional conﬁgurations: a black hole with two asymptotic regions,
a white hole with two asymptotic regions, a blackhole–whitehole in a straight line and the same
in a ring (see Figures 17, 18, 19 and 20, respectively).
x
v
−c
v(x)
Figure 17: Onedimensional velocity proﬁle with a blackhole horizon.
There are several classical instability analyses of these types of conﬁgurations in the litera
ture [231, 232, 386, 29, 155, 199]. In these analyses one looks for the presence or absence of
88
x
v
−c
v(x)
Figure 18: Onedimensional velocity proﬁle with a whitehole horizon.
x
v
−c
v(x)
Figure 19: Onedimensional velocity proﬁle with a blackhole horizon and a whitehole horizon.
v
−c
v(x)
x
x=L/2 x=−L/2
Periodically Identified
Figure 20: Onedimensional velocity proﬁle in a ring; the ﬂuid ﬂow exhibits two sonic horizons,
one of black hole type and the other of whitehole type.
89
modes with a positiveimaginarypart eigenfrequency, under certain appropriate boundary con
ditions. The boundary condition in each asymptotic region can be described as outgoing, as in
quasinormal modes, or as convergent, meaning that at a particular instant of time the mode is
exponentially damped towards the asymptotic region. Let us mention that in Lorentz invariant
theory these two types of conditions are not independent: any unstable mode is at the same time
both convergent and outgoing. However, in general, in dispersive theories, once the frequency
is extended to the complex plane, these two types of conditions become, at least in principle,
independent.
Under outgoing and convergent boundary conditions in both asymptotic regions, in [29] it
was concluded that there are no instabilities in any of the straight line (nonring) conﬁgurations.
If one relaxed the convergence condition in the downstream asymptotic region, (the region that
substitutes the unknown internal region, and so the region that might require a diﬀerent treatment
for more realistic black hole conﬁgurations), then the black hole is still stable, while the white hole
acquires a continuous region of instability, and the blackhole–whitehole conﬁguration shows up as
a discrete set of unstable modes. The whitehole instability was previously identiﬁed in [386]. Let
us mention here that the stable blackhole conﬁguration has been also analyzed in terms of stable
or quasinormal modes in [30]. It was found that, although the particular conﬁgurations analyzed
(containing idealised steplike discontinuities in the ﬂow) did not posses quasinormal modes in the
acoustic approximation, the introduction of dispersion produced a continuous set of quasinormal
modes at transPlanckian frequencies.
Continuing with the analysis of instabilities, in contrast to [29], the more recent analysis in [155,
199] consider only convergent boundary conditions in both asymptotic regions. They argue that
the ingoing contributions that these modes sometimes have always correspond to waves that do
not carry energy, so that they have to be kept in the analysis, as their ingoing character should not
be interpreted as an externallyprovoked instability
25
. If this is conﬁrmed, then the appropriate
boundary condition for instability analysis under dispersion would be just the convergent condition,
as in nondispersive theories.
Under these convergent conditions, the authors of [155, 199] show that the previouslyconsidered
blackhole and whitehole conﬁgurations in BECs are stable. (Let us remark that this does not
mean that conﬁgurations with a more complicated internal region need be stable.) However, black
hole–whitehole conﬁgurations do show a discrete spectrum of instabilities. In these papers, one
can ﬁnd a detailed analysis of the strength of these instabilities, depending on the form and size of
the intermediate supersonic region. For instance, it is necessary that the supersonic region acquire
a minimum size so that the ﬁrst unstable mode appears. (This feature was also observed in [29].)
When the previous mode analysis is used in the context of a quantum ﬁeld theory, as we mention
in Section 5.1, one is led to the conclusion that blackhole–whitehole conﬁgurations emit particles
in a selfampliﬁed (or runaway) manner [150, 155, 199]. Although related to Hawking’s process,
this phenomenon has a quite diﬀerent nature. For example, there is no temperature associated
with it.
When the blackhole–whitehole conﬁguration is compactiﬁed in a ring, it is found that there
are regions of stability and instability, depending on the parameters characterizing the conﬁgura
tion [231, 232]. We suspect that the stability regions appear because of speciﬁc periodic arrange
ments of the modes around the ring. Among other reasons, these arrangements are interesting
because they could be easier to create in the laboratory with current technology, and their insta
bilities easier to detect than Hawking radiation itself.
To conclude this subsection, we would like to highlight that there is still much to be learned
by studying the diﬀerent levels of description of an analogue system, and how they inﬂuence the
stability or instability of conﬁgurations with horizons.
25
Personal communication by R. Parentani
90
5.3 Superradiance
Another phenomenon that has been (and is being) analysed from the analogue gravity perspective is
superradiance. The rotational kinetic energy accumulated in a rotating black hole can be extracted
from it by scattering into it waves of suﬃciently low frequency and high angular momentum. In
general, in order that the wave can extract rotational energy from the system, it has to satisfy the
condition
ω < m Ω, (309)
where Ω is the angular speed of the black hole at the event horizon and m is the harmonic azimuthal
number of the wave. This is a purely classical process ﬁrst considered by Penrose [499]. When
dealing with quantum ﬁelds, as opposed to classical ﬁelds, this process can proceed spontaneously.
Quantum mechanically, a rotating black hole will tend to radiate away all of its angular momentum,
eventually approaching a nonrotating Schwarzschild black hole [696, 697]. This process is known
as superradiance. (The term superradiance was already used in condensed matter to describe
processes in which there was some coherent emission of radiation from an otherwise disordered
system.)
Again, these processes have a purely kinematical origin, so they are perfectly suitable for being
reproduced in an analogue model. Regarding these processes, the simplest geometry that one
can reproduce, thinking of analogue models based on ﬂuid ﬂows, is that of the draining bathtub
of Section 2. Of course, this metric does not exactly correspond to Kerr geometry, nor even to
a section of it [641, 633]. However, it is qualitatively similar. It can be used to simulate both
Penrose’s classical process and quantum superradiance, as these eﬀects do not depend on the
speciﬁc multipole decomposition of Kerr’s geometry, but only on its rotating character. A speciﬁc
experimental setup has been put forward by Sch¨ utzhold and Unruh using gravity waves in a
shallow basin mimicking an ideal draining bathtub [560]. Equivalent to what happens with Kerr
black holes, this conﬁguration is classically stable in vacuum (in the linear regime) [69]. A word
of caution is in order here: Interactions of the gravity surface waves with bulk waves (neglected in
the analysis) could cause the system to become unstable [657]. This instability has no counterpart
in standard general relativity (though it might have one in braneworld theories). Superresonant
scattering of waves in this rotating sink conﬁguration, or in a simple purely rotating vortex, could
in principle be observed in this and other analogue models. There are already several articles
dealing with this problem [55, 57, 56, 112, 193, 392]. Most recently, see [524], where necessary and
suﬃcient conditions for superradiance were investigated.
A related phenomenon one can consider is the blackhole bomb mechanism [513]. One would
only have to surround the rotating conﬁguration by a mirror for it to become grossly unstable.
What causes the instability is that those ingoing waves that are ampliﬁed when reﬂected in the
ergosphere would then in turn be reﬂected back toward the ergoregion, due to the exterior mirror,
thus being ampliﬁed again, and so on.
An interesting phenomenon that appears in many condensed matter systems is the existence
of quantised vortices. The angular momentum of these vortices comes in multiples of some fun
damental unit (typically or something proportional to ). The extraction of rotational energy
by a Penrose process in these cases could only proceed via ﬁniteenergy transitions. This would
supply an additional speciﬁc signature to the process. In such a highly quantum conﬁguration, it
is also important to look for the eﬀect of having highenergy dispersion relations. For example,
in BECs, the radius of the ergoregion of a single quantised vortex is on the order of the healing
length, so one cannot directly associate an eﬀective Lorentzian geometry with this portion of the
conﬁguration. Any analysis that neglects the highenergy terms is not going to give any sensible
result in these cases.
91
5.4 Cosmological particle production
Analogue model techniques have also been applied to cosmology. Models considered to date focus
on variants of the BECinspired analogues:
• Fedichev and Fischer [195, 194] have investigated WKB estimates of the cosmological particle
production rate and (1+1) dimensional cosmologies, both in expanding BECs.
• Lidsey [403], and Fedichev and Fischer [196] have focussed on the behaviour of cigarlike
condensates in grosslyasymmetric traps.
• Barcel´ o et al. [46, 47] have focussed on BECs and tried to mimic FLRW behaviour as closely
as possible, both via free expansion, and via external control of the scattering length using a
Feshbach resonance.
• Fischer and Sch¨ utzhold [206] propose the use of twocomponent BECs to simulate cosmic
inﬂation.
• Weinfurtner [674, 675] has concentrated on the approximate simulation of de Sitter space
times.
• Weinfurtner, Jain, et al. have undertaken both numerical [328] and general theoretical [677,
683] analyses of cosmological particle production in a BECbased FLRW universe.
In all of these models the general expectations of the relativity community have been borne out –
the theory deﬁnitely predicts particle production, and the very interesting question is the extent
to which the formal predictions are going to be modiﬁed when working with real systems exper
imentally [47]. We expect that these analogue models provide us with new insights as to how
their inherent modiﬁeddispersion relations aﬀect cosmological processes such as the generation of
a primordial spectrum of perturbations (see, for example, [85, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 122, 179, 269,
296, 297, 343, 380, 381, 406, 426, 423, 424, 425, 458, 459, 460, 487, 566, 587, 588, 589, 600] where
analoguelike ideas are applied to cosmological inﬂation).
An interesting sideeﬀect of the original investigation, is that birefringence can now be used
to model “variable speed of light” (VSL) geometries [58, 181]. Since analogue models quite often
lead to two or more “excitation cones”, rather than one, it is quite easy to obtain a bimetric or
multimetric model. If one of these metrics is interpreted as the “gravitational” metric and the
other as the “photon” metric, then VSL cosmologies can be given a mathematically welldeﬁned
and precise meaning [58, 181].
5.5 Bose novae: an example of the reverse ﬂow of information?
As we have seen in the previous sections (5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4), analogue models have in the past
been very useful in providing new, condensedmatterphysics–inspired ideas about how to solve
longstanding problems of semiclassical gravity. In closing this section, it is interesting to brieﬂy
discuss what perhaps represents, so far, the only attempt to use analogue models in the reverse
direction; that is to import wellknown concepts of semiclassical gravity into condensed matter
frameworks.
The phenomenon we are referring to is the “Bose nova” [175]. This is an experiment dealing
with a gas of a few million
85
Rb atoms at a temperature of about 3 nK. The condensate is rendered
unstable by exploiting the possibility of tuning the interaction (more precisely the scattering length)
between the atoms via a magnetic ﬁeld. Reversing the sign of the interaction, making it attractive,
destabilises the condensate. After a brief waiting time (generally called t
collapse
), the condensate
implodes and loses a sizable fraction of its atoms in the form of a “nova burst”. If left to evolve
92
undisturbed, the number of atoms in the burst stabilises and a remnant condensate is left. However,
if the condensate interaction is again made repulsive after some time t
evolve
, before the condensate
has suﬃcient time to stabilise, then the formation of “jets” of atoms is observed, these jets being
characterised by lower kinetic energy and a distinct shape with respect to the burst emission.
Interestingly, an elegant explanation of such a phenomenology was proposed in [105, 106], based
on the wellknown semiclassical gravity analysis of particle creation in an expanding universe. In
fact, the dynamics of quantum excitations over the collapsing BEC were shown to closely mimic
that for quantum excitations in a timereversed (collapsing instead of expanding) scenario for
cosmological particle creation. This is not so surprising as the quantum excitations above the BEC
ground state feel a timevarying background during the collapse, and, as a consequence, one then
expects squeezing of the vacuum state and mode mixing, which are characteristic of quantum ﬁeld
theory in variable external ﬁelds.
However, the analogy is even deeper than this. In fact, in [105, 106] a key role in explaining the
observed burst and jets is played by the concepts of “frozen” versus “oscillating” modes – borrowed
from cosmology – (although with a reverse dynamics with respect to the standard (expanding)
cosmological case). In the case of Bose novae, the modes, which are ampliﬁed, are those for which
the physical frequency is smaller than the collapse rate, while modes with higher frequencies remain
basically unaﬀected and their amplitudes obey a harmonic oscillator equation. As the collapse
rate decreases, more and more modes stop growing and start oscillating, which is equivalent to
a creation of particles from the quantum vacuum. In the case of a sudden stop of the collapse
by a new reversal of the sign of the interaction, all of the previously growing modes are suddenly
converted into particles, explaining in this way the generation of jets and their lower energy (they
correspond to modes with lower frequencies with respect to those generating the bursts).
Although this simple model cannot explain all the details of the Bose novae phenomenology, we
think it is remarkable how far it can go in explaining several observed features by exploiting the
language and techniques so familiar to quantum cosmology. In this sense, the analysis presented
in [105, 106] primarily shows a possible new application of analogue models, where they could
be used to lend ideas and techniques developed in the context of gravitational physics to the
explanation of condensed matter phenomena.
5.6 Romulan cloaking devices
A wonderful application of analogue gravity techniques is the design of cloaking devices [385, 498,
387]. How to achieve invisibility, or more properly, low observability has been a matter of extensive
study for decades. With the appearance of a technology capable of producing and controlling meta
materials and plasmonic structures [3], cloaking is becoming a real possibility.
To achieve cloaking, one needs to ensure that light rays (beyond geometric optics it is impossible
to produce perfect invisibility [449, 690]) eﬀectively behave as if they were propagating in Minkowski
spacetime, although in reality they are bending around the invisible compact region. One way
of producing this is, precisely, to make rays propagate in Minkowski spacetime but using non
Cartesian coordinates. Take the Minkowski metric in some Cartesian coordinates x
′
, η
µν
, and apply
a diﬀeomorphism, which is diﬀerent from the identity only inside the compact region. One then
obtains a diﬀerent representation g
µν
(x) of the ﬂat geometry. Now take the x to be the Cartesian
coordinates of the real laboratory spacetime, and build this metric with the metamaterial. By
construction, the scattering process with the compact region will not change the directions of the
rays, making everything within the compact region invisible. Recent implementations of these ideas
have investigated the concept of a “spacetime cloak” or “history editor” that cloaks a particular
event, not a particular region [439].
To end this brief account we would like to highlight the broad scope of application of these ideas:
Essentially the cloaking techniques can be applied to any sort of wave, from acoustic cloaking [133]
93
to earthquake damage prevention [192]. More radically, and with enough civil engineering, one
might adapt the ideas of Berry [67, 68] to antitsunami cloaking.
5.7 Going further
For more details on the transPlanckian problem, some of the key papers are the relatively early
papers of Unruh [608] and Jacobson [307, 308]. For superradiance and cosmological issues (espe
cially particle production) there seems to be considerable ongoing interest, and one should carefully
check SPIRES (or the beta version of INSPIRE) for the most recent articles.
94
6 Experimental eﬀorts
In recent years several eﬀorts towards the detection of analogue Hawking radiation have been
carried out with diﬀerent physical systems. Here we report a brief list of the ongoing eﬀorts.
There is already deﬁnite evidence for mode conversion and negativenorm modes (group velocity
opposite to phase velocity) [532], and more recently for stimulated Hawking emission [682]. There
are very recent claims of photon detection from a phase velocity horizon in an optical ﬁbre [66],
and for whitehole–like behaviour in hydraulic jumps [334]. It seems that reliable and reproducible
experimental probes of spontaneous quantum Hawking radiation might be just a few years in the
future.
6.1 Wave tank experiments
As we have seen, waves in shallow water can be considered to be a particularly simple analogue
gravity system. (See Section 4.1.3.) Experimentally, water basins are relatively cheap and easy
to construct and handle. In particular, shallow water basins (more precisely, wave tanks or wave
ﬂumes) have acquired a prominent role in recent years. In particular, such technology underlay
the 1983 work of Badulin et al. [17], and such wave tanks are currently used by groups in Nice,
France [532] and Vancouver, Canada [682]. The Nice experiments have been carried out using a
large wavetank 30 m long, 1.8 m wide and 1.8 m deep. The simplest setup with such a device is to
send water waves (e.g., produced by a piston) against a ﬂuid ﬂow produced by a pump. To generate
a waterwave horizon, a ramp is placed in the water, with positive and negative slopes separated
by a ﬂat section. When a train of waves is sent against the reverse ﬂuid ﬂow there will be a place
where the ﬂow speed equals the group velocity of the waves – there a group velocity horizon will
be created. (Remember that in the shallowwater regime the low momentum comoving dispersion
relation for surface water waves is ω
2
= gk tanh(kh) where g denotes the gravitational acceleration
of the Earth at the water surface and h is the height of the channel.) For incident waves moving
against the ﬂow it would be impossible to cross such a horizon, and in the sense that the system is
the analogue of a whitehole horizon, the time reversal of a blackhole horizon. (In the engineering
and ﬂuid mechanics literature this eﬀect is typically referred to as “wave blocking”.)
Remarkably, in 2007 Rousseaux et al. [532] reported the ﬁrst direct observation of negative
frequency waves, converted from positivefrequency waves in a moving medium, albeit the degree of
mode conversion appears to be signiﬁcantly higher than that expected from theory. The same group
has now set up a more compact experiment based on the hydraulic jump, wherein measurements
of the “Froude cones” convincingly demonstrate the presence of a surfacewave white hole [334],
(as described in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 and possibly implicit in the results of Badulin et al. [17]).
A related experiment, with a smaller water basin, performed under the auspices of the gravita
tion theory group (Physics) and the ﬂuid mechanics group (Civil Engineering) at the University of
British Columbia, has recently (August 2010) reported the detection of stimulated Hawking emis
sion [682]. This stimulated Hawking emission is a classical eﬀect that (via the usual discussion in
terms of Einstein A and B coeﬃcients) is rather closely related to spontaneous quantum Hawking
emission. A central result of the Weinfurtner et al. group is that the relevant Bogoliubov coef
ﬁcients have been experimentally measured and are observed to satisfy the expected Boltzmann
relation
[β[
2
[α[
2
= exp
_
−
2πω
g
H
/c
H
_
. (310)
More details of the experimental setup can be found in [682], and additional details will soon be
available in planned followup articles.
95
6.2 Bose–Einstein condensate experiments
We have already extensively discussed the theoretical aspects of BoseEinsteincondensate–based
analogue models. Regarding the actual experimental possibility of generating BECbased acoustic
black holes, several options have been envisaged in the literature. In particular, commonly proposed
settings are long thin condensates in a linear or circular trap [231, 232] as well as Lavalnozzle–
shaped traps [48, 539, 228, 476]. However, it is only very recently that an experiment aimed at the
formation of a sonic black hole in a BEC has been set up, and the creation of a sonic horizon has
been convincingly argued for [369]. In this case, a sonic horizon was achieved by a counterintuitive
eﬀect of “density inversion”, in which a deep potential minimum creates a region of low density, as
would a potential maximum. This low density region corresponds to a slowerthannormal speed
of sound, and hence to the possibility for the ﬂow speed to exceed the speed of sound and generate
sonic horizons at the crossing points (where the speed of the ﬂow and that of sound coincide). The
density inversion is achieved by overlapping a lowfrequency (broad) harmonic potential and a high
frequency (narrow) Gaussian potential generated via an elongated laser. In this manner a sonic
black hole was generated, and kept stable for about 8 ms. The Hawking radiation predicted for the
system as realised has a temperature of about 0.20 – 0.35 nK; unfortunately, one order of magnitude
smaller than the lowest temperature allowed by the size of the system. (Lower temperatures for
the condensate permit longerwavelength characteristic Hawking quanta, which must still ﬁt into
the condensate. So there is a tradeoﬀ between Hawking temperature and physical size of the
condensate.) However, higher densities could allow one to increase the Hawking temperature, and
T
H
≈ a few nK seems within experimental reach. Given that 8 ms would correspond to one cycle of
6 nK Hawking radiation, it appears that increases in T
H
together with amelioration of the lifetime
of the sonic black hole might put the detection of the analogue spontaneous quantum Hawking
eﬀect within experimental reach (via correlation experiments) in the near future.
6.3 Diﬀerentiallyrotating ﬂows in superﬂuid helium
At the end of Section 4.2.2 we brieﬂy described an analogue model based on the ripplons in the
surface separating two diﬀerentiallymoving superﬂuids, in particular an ABinterphase in
3
He.
These interphases are being produced in Helsinki’s Low Temperature Lab [76, 77, 201, 202]. The
ABinterphase is prepared in a small quartz cylinder (3 mm radius times 11 cm long) inside a
rotating cryostat. The
3
HeA is rotating with the cryostat while the
3
HeB remains at rest with
respect to the lab. Among other things, in this setting the critical values at which instabilities
appear as functions of the temperature, and the nature of these instabilities, are being investigated.
These instabilities are related to the appearance of an ergoregion in the analogue metric for ripplons
and to the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability [657]. In particular, this has been the ﬁrst time that the
Kelvin–Helmholtz instability has been observed in superﬂuids [76]. The nature of the instability
in these experiments is controlled by the diﬀerence in velocities between the normal and superﬂuid
components of the ﬂow. It still remains to further lower the ambient temperature so as to probe
the nature of the instabilities in the absence of any normal ﬂuid component.
6.4 Fibreoptic models
A recent implementation of analogue models based on electrodynamics is that based on ﬁbreoptic
engineering [504, 505]. The basic idea in this case is to use long dispersive light pulses (solitons),
generated with a suitable laser, to create a propagating front at which the refractive index of the
ﬁbre changes suddenly (albeit by a small amount). Basically, the refractive index of the ﬁbre, n
0
,
acquires a time and positiondependent correction δn, which is proportional to the instantaneous
pulse intensity I at a give spacetime position, δn ∝ I(t, x). The wavefront at which this change
in the refractive index occurs will move naturally at a speed close to the speed of light (and ﬁbre
96
optic engineering allows one to control this feature). If one now sends a continuous wave of light,
what we might call a probe, along the ﬁbre in such a manner that the probe group velocity in
the ﬁbre is arranged to be slightly larger than the pulse group velocity, then it will be possible to
obtain horizonlike eﬀects. In fact, as the probe wave reaches the back of the pulse, the increase
in the refractive index will slow it down, until the probe group velocity will match the pulse one.
Eﬀectively, the rear end of the pulse will act as a white hole for the probe wave. Similarly, there
will be a point on the front side of the pulse where the two group velocities will match. This
will be the equivalent of a blackhole horizon for the probe wave. In [504, 505] the behaviour
of the probe waves at the pulse was investigated, and it was shown for the white hole case that
the expected classical behaviour is theoretically reproduced. Since this behaviour lies at the core
of the mechanism responsible for the mode conversion underlying the Hawking eﬀect, it is then
expected that the quantum counterpart should also be reproducible in this manner. Indeed, very
recently Belgiorno et al. have reported experimental detection of photons from a blackhole–white
hole conﬁguration possessing a “phase velocity horizon” [66]. The underlying theory behind their
speciﬁc experiment is considered in [63, 64].
6.5 Going further
There seems to be considerable ongoing interest in experimental probes of analogue spacetimes,
and quantum eﬀects in analogue spacetimes, and one should carefully check SPIRES (or the beta
version of INSPIRE) for the most recent articles.
97
7 Towards a Theory of Quantum Gravity?
The key question one should ask at this stage is this: “Where can we go from here?” Apart from
continuing with the analysis of the issues described in the previous two sections, it is natural to
explore whether the analogue gravity programme could be extended to the point of yielding a
theory of “Quantum Gravity”. In particular, the following topics come to mind as steps on a path
towards a possible theory of Quantum Gravity:
• Backreaction.
• Equivalence principle.
• Diﬀeomorphism invariance.
• Eﬀective spintwo excitations.
• Weinberg–Witten theorem.
• Emergent gravity.
• The cosmological constant problem.
• Quantum gravity phenomenology.
• Quantum gravity.
Some work has already been done dealing with these topics in the context of analogue gravity. Let
us now expand on these issues a little.
7.1 Backreaction
There are important phenomena in gravitational physics whose understanding needs analysis well
beyond classical general relativity and ﬁeld theory on (ﬁxed) curved background spacetimes. The
blackhole evaporation process can be considered as paradigmatic among these phenomena. Here,
we conﬁne our discussion to this case. Since we are currently unable to analyse the entire process
of blackhole evaporation within a complete quantum theory of gravity, a way of proceeding is to
analyse the simpler (but still extremely diﬃcult) problem of semiclassical backreaction (see, for
example, [166, 137, 75, 224, 95, 431]). One takes a background blackhole spacetime, calculates
the expectation value of the quantum energymomentum tensor of matter ﬁelds in the appropriate
quantum state (the Unruh vacuum state for a radiating black hole), and then takes this expectation
value as a source for the perturbed Einstein equations. This calculation gives us information about
the tendency of spacetime to evolve under vacuum polarization eﬀects.
A nice feature of analogue models of general relativity is that, although the underlying classical
equations of motion have nothing to do with Einstein equations, the tendency of the analogue
geometry to evolve due to quantum eﬀects is formally equivalent (approximately, of course) to
that in semiclassical general relativity. Therefore, the onset of the backreaction eﬀects (if not their
precise details) can be simulated within the class of analogue models. An example of the type
of backreaction calculations one can perform are those in [23, 25]. These authors started from
an eﬀectively onedimensional acoustic analogue model, conﬁgured to have an acoustic horizon by
using a Laval nozzle to control the ﬂow’s speed. They then considered the eﬀect of quantizing
the acoustic waves over the background ﬂow. To calculate the appropriate backreaction terms
they took advantage of the classical conformal invariance of the (1+1)dimensional reduction of
the system. In this case, we know explicitly the form of the expectation value of the energy
momentum tensor trace (via the trace anomaly). The other two independent components of the
98
energymomentum tensor were approximated by the Polyakov stress tensor. In this way, what they
found is that the tendency of a leftmoving ﬂow with one horizon is for it to evolve in such a manner
as to push the horizon downstream at the same time that its surface gravity is decreased. This is
a behaviour similar to what is found for nearextremal Reissner–Nordstr¨ om black holes. (However,
we should not conclude that acoustic black holes are, in general, closely related to nearextremal
Reissner–Nordstr¨ om black holes, rather than to Schwarzschild black holes. This result is quite
speciﬁc to the particular onedimensional conﬁguration analysed.)
Can we expect to learn something new about gravitational physics by analysing the problem of
backreaction in diﬀerent analogue models? As we have repeatedly commented, the analyses based
on analogue models force us to consider the eﬀects of modiﬁed highenergy dispersion relations. For
example, in BECs, they aﬀect the “classical” behaviour of the background geometry as much as the
behaviour of the quantum ﬁelds living on the background. In seeking a semiclassical description
for the evolution of the geometry, one would have to compare the eﬀects caused by the modiﬁed
dispersion relations to those caused by pure semiclassical backreaction (which incorporates devi
ations from standard general relativity as well). In other words, one would have to understand
the diﬀerences between the standard backreaction scheme in general relativity, and that based on
Equations (229) and (230).
To end this subsection, we would like to comment that one can go beyond the semiclassi
cal backreaction scheme by using the stochastic semiclassical gravity programme [298, 301, 302].
This programme aims to pave the way from semiclassical gravity toward a complete quantum
gravitational description of gravitational phenomena. This stochastic gravity approach not only
considers the expectation value of the energymomentum tensor but also its ﬂuctuations, encoded in
the semiclassical Einstein–Langevin equation. In a very interesting paper [490], Parentani showed
that the eﬀects of the ﬂuctuations of the metric (due to the ingoing ﬂux of energy at the hori
zon) on the outgoing radiation led to a description of Hawking radiation similar to that obtained
with analogue models. It would be interesting to develop the equivalent formalism for quantum
analogue models and to investigate the diﬀerent emerging approximate regimes.
7.2 Equivalence principle
Analogue models are of particular interest in that the analogue spacetimes that emerge often
violate, to some extent, the Einstein equivalence principle [45, 638]. This is the heart and soul of
any metric theory of gravity and is basically the requirement of the universality of free fall, plus
local Lorentz invariance and local position invariance of nongravitational experiments.
As such, the Einstein equivalence principle is a “principle of universality” for the geometrical
structure of spacetime. Whatever the spacetime geometrical structure is, if all excitations “see” the
same geometry, one is well on the way to satisfying the observational and experimental constraints.
In a metric theory, this amounts to the demand of monometricity: A single universal metric must
govern the propagation of all excitations.
Now it is this feature that is relatively diﬃcult to arrange in analogue models. If one is dealing
with a single degree of freedom, then monometricity is no great constraint. But with multiple
degrees of freedom, analogue spacetimes generally lead to refringence – that is the occurrence of
Fresnel equations that often imply multiple propagation speeds for distinct normal modes. To
even obtain a bimetric model (or, more generally, a multimetric model), requires an algebraic
constraint on the Fresnel equation that it completely factorises into a product of quadratics in
frequency and wavenumber. Only if this algebraic constraint is satisﬁed can one assign a “metric”
to each of the quadratic factors. If one further wishes to impose monometricity, then the Fresnel
equation must be some integer power of some single quadratic expression, an even stronger algebraic
statement [45, 638]. Faced with this situation, there are two ways in which the analogue gravity
community might proceed:
99
1. Try to ﬁnd a broad class of analogue models (either physically based or mathematically
idealised) that naturally lead to monometricity. Little work along these lines has yet been
done; at least partially because it is not clear what features such a model should have in
order to be “clean” and “compelling”.
2. Accept refringence as a common feature of the analogue models and attempt to use refrin
gence to ones beneﬁt in one or more ways:
• There are real physical phenomena in nongravitational settings that deﬁnitely do ex
hibit refringence and sometimes multimetricity. Though situations of this type are not
directly relevant to the gravity community, there is signiﬁcant hope that the mathe
matical and geometrical tools used by the general relativity community might in these
situations, shed light on other branches of physics.
• Use the refringence that occurs in many analogue models as a way of “breaking” the
Einstein equivalence principle, and indeed as a way of “breaking” even more fundamental
symmetries and features of standard general relativity, with a view to exploring possible
extensions of general relativity. While the analogue models are not themselves primary
physics, they can nevertheless be used as a way of providing hints as to how more
fundamental physics might work.
7.3 Nontrivial dispersion as Einsteinaether theory
There is a certain precise sense in which nontrivial dispersion relations can eﬀectively be viewed as
implicitly introducing an “aether ﬁeld”, in the sense of providing a kinematic (but not dynamic)
implementation of Einsteinaether theory [323, 180, 219, 314]. The point is that to deﬁne nontrivial
dispersion one needs to pick a rest frame V
a
, and then assert ω
2
= f(k
2
) in this rest frame. But
one can then rewrite this dispersion relation (in the eikonal approximation) as
_
−(V
a
∂
a
)
2
+f([g
ab
+V
a
V
b
]∂
a
∂
b
)
¸
Ψ(x) = 0. (311)
That is, using f(w) = j(w) +w,
_
g
ab
∂
a
∂
b
+j([g
ab
+V
a
V
b
]∂
a
∂
b
)
¸
Ψ(x) = 0. (312)
As long as the background is slowly varying, this can be rewritten as:
[∆
d+1
+ j(∆
d
)] Ψ(x) = 0, (313)
with ∆
d+1
= g
ab
∇
a
∇
b
and with the aether ﬁeld V
a
hiding in the deﬁnition of the spatial Laplacian
∆
d
= [g
ab
+V
a
V
b
]∇
a
∇
b
. This procedure allows us to take a quantity that is manifestly not Lorentz
invariant, the dispersion relation ω
2
= f(k
2
), and nevertheless “covariantise” it via the introduction
of new structure — a locally speciﬁed preferred frame deﬁned by the (possibly position and time
dependent) aether 4velocity V
a
.
Of course, in standard analogue models such an aether ﬁeld does not come with its own dynam
ics: It is a background structure which breaks the physicallyrelevant content of what is usually
called diﬀeomorphism invariance (see next section 7.4). However, in a gravitation theory context
one might still want to require background independence taking it as a fundamental property
of any gravity theory, even a Lorentz breaking one. In this case one has to provide the aether
ﬁeld with a suitable dynamics; we can then rephrase much of the analogue gravity discussion in
the presence of nontrivial dispersion relations in terms of a variant of the Einsteinaether mod
els [323, 180, 219, 314].
100
7.4 Diﬀeomorphism invariance
When looking at the analogue metrics one problem immediately comes to mind. The laboratory
in which the condensedmatter system is set up provides a privileged coordinate system. Thus,
one is not really reproducing a geometrical conﬁguration but only a speciﬁc metrical representa
tion of it. This naturally raises the question of whether or not diﬀeomorphism invariance is lost
in the analogue spacetime construction. Indeed, if all the degrees of freedom contained in the
metric had a physical role, as opposed to what happens in a general relativistic context in which
only the geometrical degrees of freedom (metric modulo diﬀeomorphism gauge) are physical, then
diﬀeomorphism invariance would be violated. Here we are thinking of “active” diﬀeomorphisms,
not “passive” diﬀeomorphisms (coordinate changes). As is well known, any theory can be made
invariant under passive diﬀeomorphisms (coordinate changes) by adding a suﬃcient number of
external/background/nondynamical ﬁelds (prior structure). See, for instance, [256]. Invariance
under active diﬀeomorphisms is equivalent to the assertion that there is no “prior geometry” (or
that the prior geometry is undetectable). Many readers may prefer to rephrase the current dis
cussion in terms of the undetectability of prior structure.
The answer to this question is that active diﬀeomorphism invariance is maintained but only
for (lowenergy) internal observers, i.e., those observers who can only perform (lowenergy) exper
iments involving the propagation of the relativistic collective ﬁelds. By revisiting classic Lorentz–
FitzGerald ideas on length contraction, and analyzing the Michelson–Morley experiment in this
context, it has been explicitly shown in [36] that (lowenergy) Lorentz invariance is not broken,
i.e., that an internal observer cannot detect his absolute state of motion. (For earlier suggestions
along these lines, see, for example, [400] and [660].)
The argument is the same for curved spacetimes; the internal observer would have no way to
detect the “absolute” or ﬁxed background. So the apparent background dependence provided by
the (nonrelativistic) condensedmatter system will not violate active diﬀeomorphism invariance,
at least not for these internal inhabitants. These internal observers will then have no way to collect
any metric information beyond what is coded into the intrinsic geometry (i.e., they only get metric
information up to a gauge or diﬀeomorphism equivalence factor). Internal observers would be
able to write down diﬀeomorphism invariant Lagrangians for relativistic matter ﬁelds in a curved
geometry. However, the dynamics of this geometry is a diﬀerent issue. It is a wellknown issue that
the expected relativistic dynamics, i.e., the Einstein equations, have to date not been reproduced
in any known condensedmatter system.
7.5 Eﬀective spintwo particles
Related to the previous point is the possibility of having quantum systems with no pregeometric
notions whatsoever (i.e., a condensedmatter–like system) that still exhibit in their lowenergy
spectrum eﬀective massless spintwo excitations. This precise question has been investigated
in [262, 263, 693, 694] for abstract quantum systems based on the underlying notion of qubits.
Although not fully conclusive, these works indicate the possible existence of systems exhibiting
purely helicity ±2 excitations. One crucial ingredient in these constructions is the existence of a
speciﬁc vacuum state with the characteristics of a stringnet condensate.
These authors also show that it is not easy to have just helicity ±2 excitations – typically one
would also generate helicity ±1 and massless scalar excitations. This is what would happen, for
instance, in the emergent gravity scenario inspired in the phenomenology of
3
He, which will be
described below.
101
7.6 Weinberg–Witten theorem
The Weinberg–Witten theorem [673] has often been interpreted as an insurmountable obstacle for
obtaining massless spintwo excitations as eﬀective degrees of freedom emerging from any reason
able underlying quantum ﬁeld theory. However, the status of the Weinberg–Witten theorem [673]
insofar as it applies to analogue models is rather subtle. First, note that whenever one’s main
concern is in developing an analogue spacetime at the purely kinematic level of an eﬀective metric,
then the Weinberg–Witten theorem has nothing to say. (This includes, for instance, all analogue
experiments probing the Hawking eﬀect or cosmological particle production; these are purely kine
matic experiments that do not probe the dynamics of the eﬀective spacetime.) When one turns to
the dynamics of the eﬀective spacetime, desiring, for instance, to investigate quantum ﬂuctuations
of the eﬀective geometry (gravitons), then one should bear in mind that the Weinberg–Witten
theorem is derived under speciﬁc technical assumptions (strict Lorentz invariance in ﬂat space
time) that are not applicable in the current context. Furthermore, even if the speciﬁc technical
assumptions are satisﬁed, then those authors state [673]:
Of course, there are acceptable theories that have massless charged particles with spin
j > 1/2 (such as the massless version of the original Yang–Mills theory), and also
theories that have massless particles with spin j > 1 (such as supersymmetry theories
or general relativity). Our theorem does not apply to these theories because they do not
have Lorentzcovariant conserved currents or energymomentum tensors, respectively.
Furthermore, when it comes to Sakharovstyle induced gravity those authors explicitly state [673]:
However, the theorem dearly does not apply to theories in which the gravitational ﬁeld
is a basic degree of freedom but the Einstein action is induced by quantum eﬀects.
That is: The Weinberg–Witten theorem has no direct application to analogue spacetimes – at the
kinematic level it has nothing to say, at the dynamic level its applicability is rather limited by the
stringent technical assumptions invoked – speciﬁcally exact Lorentz invariance at all scales – and
the fact that these technical assumptions are not applicable in the current context. For careful
discussions of the technical assumptions see [596, 366, 212, 404]. Note particularly the comment
by Kubo [366]
. . . the powerful second part of the theorem becomes empty in the presence of gravity. . .
Finally we mention that, though motivated by quite diﬀerent concerns, the review article [61] gives
a good overview of the Weinberg–Witten theorem, and the ways in which it may be evaded.
7.7 Emergent gravity
One of the more fascinating approaches to “quantum gravity” is the suggestion, typically attributed
to Sakharov [540, 628], that gravity itself may not be “fundamental physics”. Indeed it is now a
relatively common opinion, maybe not mainstream but deﬁnitely a strong minority opinion, that
gravity (and in particular the whole notion of spacetime and spacetime geometry) might be no more
“fundamental” than is ﬂuid dynamics. The word “fundamental” is here used in a rather technical
sense – ﬂuid mechanics is not fundamental because there is a known underlying microphysics,
that of molecular dynamics, of which ﬂuid mechanics is only the lowenergy lowmomentum limit.
Indeed, the very concepts of density and velocity ﬁeld, which are so central to the Euler and
continuity equations, make no sense at the microphysical level and emerge only as one averages
over timescales and distancescales larger than the mean free time and mean free path.
In the same way, it is plausible (even though no speciﬁc and compelling model of the relevant
microphysics has yet emerged) that the spacetime manifold and spacetime metric might arise only
once one averages over suitable microphysical degrees of freedom.
102
7.8 One speciﬁc route to the Einstein equations?
In fact, there is a speciﬁc route to reproduce Einstein equations within a Fermiliquidlike system
advocated by G. Volovik [660]. In a Fermi liquid like
3
HeA phase, there exist two important energy
scales. One is the energy scale E
B
at which bosonization in the system start to develop. This scale
marks the onset of the superﬂuid behaviour of helium three. At energies below E
B
, the diﬀerent
bosons appearing in the systems condense so that they can exhibit collective behaviour. The other
energy scale, E
L
, is the Lorentz scale at which the quasiparticles of the system start to behave
relativistically (as Weyl spinors). As we mention in section 4.2.2 discussing the “heliocentric
universe” this occurs in the
3
HeA phase because the vacuum has Fermi points. It is in the
immediate surroundings of these Fermi points where the relativistic behaviour shows up. There
are additional relevant scales in these systems, but in this section we are going to talk exclusively
of these two.
When one is below both energy scales, one can describe the system as a set of Weyl spinors
coupled to background electromagnetic and gravitational ﬁelds. For a particular Fermi point,
the electromagnetic and gravitational ﬁelds encode, respectively, its position and its “lightcone”
structure through space and time. Both electromagnetic and gravitational ﬁelds are built from
bosonic degrees of freedom, which have condensed. Apart from any predetermined dynamics,
these bosonic ﬁelds will acquire additional dynamical properties through the Sakharovinduced
gravity mechanism. Integrating out the eﬀect of quantum ﬂuctuations in the Fermionic ﬁelds `a
la Sakharov, one obtains a oneloop eﬀective action for the geometric ﬁeld, to be added to the
treelevel contribution (if any). This integration cannot be extended beyond E
B
, as at that energy
scale the geometrical picture based on the bosonic condensate disappears. Thus, E
B
will be the
cutoﬀ of the integration.
Now, in order that the geometrical degrees of freedom follows an Einstein dynamics, we need
three conditions (which we shall see immediately are really just two):
1. E
L
> E
B
: For the induction mechanics to give rise to an Einstein–Hilbert term,
√
−gR, in
the eﬀective Lagrangian we have to be sure that the ﬂuctuating Fermionic ﬁeld “feels” the
geometry (fulﬁlling a locallyLorentzinvariant equation) at all scales up to the cutoﬀ. The
term
√
−gR will appear multiplied by a constant proportional to E
2
B
. That is why from now
on we can called E
B
alternatively the Planck energy scale E
P
≡ E
B
.
2. Special relativity dominance or E
L
≫E
P
: The E
2
P
dependence of the gravitational coupling
constant tells us that the ﬂuctuations that are more relevant in producing the Einstein–
Hilbert term are those with energies close to the cutoﬀ, that is, around the Planck scale.
Therefore, to assure the induction of an Einstein–Hilbert term one needs the Fermionic
ﬂuctuation with energies close to the Planck scale to be perfectly Lorentzian to a high degree.
This can only be assured if E
L
≫E
B
.
3. Sakharov oneloop dominance: Finally, one also needs the induced dynamical term to domi
nate over the preexisting treelevel contribution (if any).
Unfortunately, what we have called specialrelativity dominance is not implemented in helium
three, nor in any known condensedmatter system. In helium three the opposite happens: E
B
≫
E
L
. Therefore, the dynamics of the gravitational degrees of freedom is nonrelativistic but of ﬂuid
mechanical type. That is, the dynamics of the gravitational degrees of freedom is not Einstein,
but of ﬂuidmechanical type. The possible emergence of gravitational dynamics in the context of a
condensedmatter system has also been investigated for BECs [252, 571]. It has been shown that,
for the simple gravitational dynamics in these systems, one obtains a modiﬁed Poisson equation,
and so it is completely nonrelativistic, giving place to a short range interaction (on the order of
the healing length). However, starting from abstract systems of PDFs with a priori no geometrical
103
information, the emergence of Nordstr¨ om spin0 gravity has been shown to be possible [253]; this
is relativistic though not Einstein.
In counterpoint, in Hoˇrava gravity the graviton appears to be fundamental, and need not be
emergent [287, 288, 289]. Additionally, the Lorentz breaking scale and the Planck scale are in this
class of models distinct and unconnected, with the possibility of driving the Lorentz breaking scale
arbitrarily high [585, 584, 635, 681]. In this sense the Hoˇrava models are a useful antidote to the
usual feeling that Lorentz violation is typically Planckscale.
7.9 The cosmological constant problem
The condensed matter analogies oﬀer us an important lesson concerning the cosmological constant
problem [660]. Sakharov’s induced gravity not only can give rise to an Einstein–Hilbert term under
certain conditions, it also gives rise to a cosmological term. This contribution would depend on
the cutoﬀ as E
4
P
, so if there were not additional contributions counterbalancing this term, emer
gent gravity in condensedmatterlike systems will always give place to an enormous cosmological
constant inducing a stronglyrepulsive force between quasiparticles.
However, we know that at low temperatures, depending on the microscopic characteristics of the
system we can have quite diﬀerent situations. Remarkably, liquid systems (as opposed to gases) can
remain stable on their own, without requiring any external pressure. Their total internal pressure
at equilibrium is (modulo ﬁnitesize eﬀects) always zero. This implies that, at zero temperature,
if gravity emerges from a liquidlike system, the total cosmological term Λ ∝ ρ
V
= −p
V
will be
automatically forced to be (relatively) small, and not a large number. The E
4
P
contribution coming
from quasiparticle ﬂuctuations will be exactly balanced by contributions from the microphysics or
“transPlanckian” contributions.
If the temperature is not zero there will be a pressure p
M
associated with the thermal distri
bution of quasiparticles, which constitute the matter ﬁeld of the system. Then, at equilibrium one
will have p
M
+ p
V
= 0, so that there will be a small vacuum energy Λ ∝ p
M
. This value is not
expected to match exactly the preferred value of Λ obtained in the standard cosmological model
(ΛCDM) as we are certain to be out of thermodynamic equilibrium. However, it is remarkable that
it matches its order of magnitude, (at least for the current epoch), albeit any dynamical model
implementing this idea will probably have to do so only at late times to avoid possible tension
with the observational data. Guided by these lessons, there are already a number of heuristic
investigations about how a vacuum energy could dynamically adapt to the evolution of the matter
content, and which implications it could have for the evolution of the universe [27, 350, 349, 351].
As ﬁnal cautionary remark let us add that consideration of an explicit toy model for emergent
gravity [252] shows that the quantity that actually gravitates cannot be so easily predicted without
an explicit derivation of the analogue gravitational equations. In particular in [198] it was shown
that the relevant quantity entering the analogue of the cosmological constant is a contribution
coming only from the excitations above the condensate.
7.10 Other pieces of the puzzle
Sakharov had in mind a speciﬁc model in which gravity could be viewed as an “elasticity” of the
spacetime medium, and where gravity was “induced” via oneloop physics in the matter sector [540,
628]. In this way, Sakharov had hoped to relate the observed value of Newton’s constant (and the
cosmological constant) to the spectrum of particle masses.
More generally, the phrase “emergent gravity” is now used to describe the whole class of
theories in which the spacetime metric arises as a lowenergy approximation, and in which the
microphysical degrees of freedom might be radically diﬀerent. Analogue models, and in particular
analogue models based on ﬂuid mechanics or the ﬂuid dynamic approximation to BECs, are speciﬁc
104
examples of “emergent physics” in which the microphysics is well understood. As such, they are
useful for providing hints as to how such a procedure might work in a more fundamental theory
of quantum gravity.
105
7.11 Quantum gravity – phenomenology
Over the last few years a widespread consensus has emerged that observational tests of quantum
gravity are for the foreseeable future likely to be limited to precision tests of dispersion relations and
their possible deviations from Lorentz invariance [435, 321]. The key point is that at low energies
(well below the Planck energy) one expects the locallyMinkowskian structure of the spacetime
manifold to guarantee that one sees only special relativistic eﬀects; general relativistic eﬀects are
negligible at short distances. However, as ultrahigh energies are approached (although still below
Planckscale energies) several quantumgravity models seem to predict that the locally Euclidean
geometry of the spacetime manifold will break down. There are several scenarios for the origin
of this breakdown ranging from string theory [360, 182] to brane worlds [99] and loop quantum
gravity [229]. Common to all such scenarios is that the microscopic structure of spacetime is likely
to show up in the form of a violation of Lorentz invariance leading to modiﬁed dispersion relations
for elementary particles. Such dispersion relations are characterised by extra terms (with respect
to the standard relativistic form), which are generally expected to be suppressed by powers of the
Planck energy. Remarkably, the last years have seen a large wealth of work in testing the eﬀects of
such dispersion relations and in particular strong constraints have been cast by making use of high
energy astrophysics observations (see, for example, [6, 141, 318, 317, 319, 320, 321, 435, 579, 396]
and references therein).
Several of the analogue models are known to exhibit similar behaviour, with a lowmomentum
eﬀective Lorentz invariance eventually breaking down at high momentum once the microphysics is
explored.
26
Thus, some of the analogue models provide controlled theoretical laboratories in which
at least some forms of subtle highmomentum breakdown of Lorentz invariance can be explored.
As such, the analogue models provide us with hints as to what sort of modiﬁed dispersion relation
might be natural to expect given some general characteristics of the microscopic physics. Hopefully,
an investigation of appropriate analogue models might be able to illuminate possible mechanisms
leading to this kind of quantum gravity phenomenology, and so might be able to provide us with new
ideas about other eﬀects of physical quantum gravity that might be observable at subPlanckian
energies.
7.12 Quantum gravity – fundamental models
When it comes to dealing with “fundamental” theories of quantum gravity, the analogue models
play an interesting role which is complementary to the more standard approaches. The search for
a quantum theory of gravity is fundamentally a search for an appropriate mathematical structure
in which to simultaneously phrase both quantum questions and gravitational questions. More
precisely, one is searching for a mathematical framework in which to develop an abstract quantum
theory which then itself encompasses classical Einstein gravity (the general relativity), and reduces
to it in an appropriate limit [113, 580, 221].
The three main approaches to quantum gravity currently in vogue, “string models” (also known
as “Mmodels”), “loop space” (and the related “spin foams”), and “lattice models” (Euclidean or
Lorentzian) all share one feature: They attempt to develop a “pregeometry” as a replacement for
classical diﬀerential geometry (which is the natural and very successful mathematical language used
to describe Einstein gravity) [113, 580, 221, 534, 533, 83, 507]. The basic idea is that the mooted
replacement for diﬀerential geometry would be relevant at extremely small distances (where the
quantum aspects of the theory would be expected to dominate), while at larger distances (where
the classical aspects dominate) one would hope to recover both ordinary diﬀerential geometry
and speciﬁcally Einstein gravity or possibly some generalization of it. The “string”, “loop”, and
26
However, it is important to keep in mind that not all the abovecited quantum gravity models violate the
Lorentz symmetry in the same manner. The discreteness of spacetime at short scales is not the only way of breaking
Lorentz invariance.
106
“lattice” approaches to quantum gravity diﬀer in detail in that they emphasise diﬀerent features
of the longdistance model, and so obtain rather diﬀerent shortdistance replacements for classical
diﬀerential geometry. Because the relevant mathematics is extremely diﬃcult, and by and large not
particularly well understood, it is far from clear which, if any, of these three standard approaches
will be preferable in the long run [580].
A recent (Jan. 2009) development is the appearance of Hoˇrava gravity [287, 288, 289]. This
model is partially motivated by condensed matter notions such as (deeply nonperturbative) anoma
lous scaling and the existence of a “Lifshitz point”, and additionally shares with most of the
analogue spacetimes the presence of modiﬁed dispersion relations and highenergy deviations from
Lorentz invariance [287, 288, 289, 634, 635, 585, 584, 681]. Though Hoˇrava gravity is not directly an
analogue model per se, there are deep connections – with some steps toward an explicit connection
being presented in [694].
We feel it likely that analogue models can shed new light on this very confusing ﬁeld by
providing a concrete speciﬁc situation in which the transition from the shortdistance “discrete”
or “quantum” theory to the longdistance “continuum” theory is both well understood and non
controversial. Here we are speciﬁcally referring to ﬂuid mechanics, where, at short distances, the
system must be treated using discrete atoms or molecules as the basic building blocks, while,
at large distances, there is a welldeﬁned continuum limit that leads to the Euler and continuity
equations. Furthermore, once one is in the continuum limit, there is a welldeﬁned manner in which
a notion of “Lorentzian diﬀerential geometry”, and in particular a “Lorentzian eﬀective spacetime
metric” can be assigned to any particular ﬂuid ﬂow [607, 624, 470]. Indeed, the “analogue gravity
programme” is extremely successful in this regard, providing a speciﬁc and explicit example of a
“discrete” → “continuum” → “diﬀerential geometry” chain of development. What the “analogue
gravity programme” does not seem to do as easily is to provide a natural direct route to the
Einstein equations of general relativity, but that merely indicates that current analogies have
their limits and therefore, one should not take them too literally [624, 470]. Fluid mechanics is
a guide to the mathematical possibilities, not an end in itself. The parts of the analogy that do
work well are precisely the steps where the standard approaches to quantum gravity have the most
diﬃculty, and so it would seem useful to develop an abstract mathematical theory of the “discrete”
→ “continuum” → “diﬀerential geometry” chain using this ﬂuid mechanical analogy (and related
analogies) as inspiration.
7.13 Going further
Beyond the various theoretical issues we have discussed above there is the important question of
“experimental analogue gravity” – to what extent can all these ideas be tested in direct laboratory
experiments? Currently several experimental groups are investigating analogue models – surface
wave experiments [17, 532, 682, 334], a BECbased experiment [369], and the ﬁbreoptic exper
iment [66]. Broadly speaking, for any experimental group interested in analogue spacetimes the
two key issues to address are:
• Identify a particular analogue model easily amenable to laboratory investigation, and double
check the extent to which the model provides a theoretically robust and clean analogue to
general relativistic curved spacetime.
• Identify the technical issues involved in actually setting up a laboratory experiment.
While the consensus in the theoretical community is that Bose–Einstein condensates are likely to
provide the best working model for analogue gravity, it is possible that we might still be surprised
by experimental developments. We leave this as an open challenge to the experimental community.
107
8 Conclusions
In this review article we have seen the interplay between standard general relativity and various
analogies that can be used to capture aspects of its behaviour. These analogies have ranged from
rather general but very physical analogue models based on ﬂuidacoustics, geometrical optics, and
wave optics, to highly speciﬁc models based on BECs, liquid helium, slow light, etc. Additionally,
we have seen several rather abstract mathematical toy models that bring us to such exotic structures
and ideas as birefringence, bimetricity, Finsler spaces, and Sakharov’s induced gravity.
The primary reason that these analogies were developed within the general relativity community
was to help in the understanding of general relativity by providing very downtoearth models of
otherwise subtle behaviour in general relativity. Secondary reasons include the rather speculative
suggestion that there may be more going on than just analogy – it is conceivable (though perhaps
unlikely) that one or more of these analogue models could suggest a relatively simple and useful
way of quantizing gravity that sidesteps much of the technical machinery currently employed in
such eﬀorts. A tertiary concern (at least as far as the general relativity community is concerned)
is the use of relativity and diﬀerential geometric techniques to improve understanding of various
aspects of condensed matter physics.
The authors expect interest in analogue models to continue unabated, and suspect that there
are several key but unexpected issues whose resolution would be greatly aided by the analysis of
appropriate analogue models.
8.1 Going further
Though every practicing scientist already knows this, for the sake of any student reading this we
mention the following resources:
• http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/ – the SPIRES bibliographic database for keeping
track of (almost all of) the general relativity and particle physics aspects of the relevant
literature.
• http://inspirebeta.net/ – the new INSPIRE bibliographic database (currently beta ver
sion) for keeping track of (almost all of) the general relativity and particle physics aspects
of the relevant literature.
• http://ads.harvard.edu/ – the SAO/NASA ADS bibliographic database for keeping track
of (almost all of) the astrophysical aspects of the relevant literature.
• http://www.arXiv.org – the electronicpreprint (eprint) database for accessing the text of
(almost all, post 1992) relevant articles.
• http://relativity.livingreviews.org/ – the Living Reviews in Relativity journal.
Those ﬁve access points should allow you to keep abreast of what is going on in the ﬁeld.
108
9 Acknowledgements
The work of Matt Visser was supported by the Marsden fund administered by the Royal Society
of New Zealand. MV also wishes to thank both SISSA (Trieste) and the IAA–CSIC (Granada) for
hospitality during various stages of this work. Carlos Barcel´ o has been supported by the Spanish
MICINN through the project FIS200806078C0301, and by the Junta de Andaluc´ıa through the
projects FQM2288 and FQM219.
The authors also wish to speciﬁcally thank Enrique Arilla for providing Figures 1 and 2, and
Silke Weinfurtner for providing Figure 6 of the artwork. Additionally, the authors wish to thank
Renaud Parentani for helpful comments, speciﬁcally with respect to the question of which notion
of surface gravity is the most important for Hawking radiation. Finally, the authors also wish to
thank Germain Rousseaux for bringing several historicallyimportant references to our attention.
109
References
[1] Abdalla, E., Konoplya, R.A. and Zhidenko, A., “Perturbations of Schwarzschild black holes
in laboratories”, Class. Quant. Grav., 24, 5901–5910, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0706.2489 [hepth]].
[2] Abraham, H., Bilic, N. and Das, T.K., “Acoustic horizons in axially symmetric relativistic
accretion”, Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 2371–2393, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0509057].
[3] Al` u, A. and Engheta, N., “Cloaking a Sensor”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 233901, (2009). [DOI].
[4] Amati, D. and Russo, J.G., “Black holes by analytic continuation”, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 974–
982, (1997). [DOI], [hepth/9602125].
[5] Ambrosetti, N., Charbonneau, J. and Weinfurtner, S., “The ﬂuid/gravity correspondence:
Lectures notes from the 2008 Summer School on Particles, Fields, and Strings”, arXiv eprint,
(2008). [arXiv:0810.2631 [grqc]].
[6] AmelinoCamelia, G., Ellis, J.R., Mavromatos, N.E., Nanopoulos, D.V. and Sarkar, S., “Po
tential Sensitivity of GammaRay Burster Observations to Wave Dispersion in Vacuo”, Na
ture, 393, 763–765, (1998). [astroph/9712103].
[7] Anderson, J.L. and Spiegel, E.A., “Radiative transfer through a ﬂowing refractive medium”,
Astrophys. J., 202, 454–464, (1975). [DOI], [ADS].
[8] Anderson, T.H., Mackay, T.G. and Lakhtakia, A., “Ray trajectories for a spinning cosmic
string and a manifestation of selfcloaking”, Phys. Lett. A, 374, 4637–4641, (2010). [DOI],
[arXiv:arXiv:1007.3113 [physics.optics]].
[9] Anglin, J.R., “Inﬂuence functionals and the accelerating detector”, Phys. Rev. D, 47, 4525–
4537, (1993). [DOI], [hepth/9210035].
[10] Antunes, N.D., “Numerical simulation of vacuum particle production: applications to cos
mology, dynamical Casimir eﬀect and timedependent nonhomogeneous dielectrics”, arXiv
eprint, (2003). [hepph/0310131].
[11] Arbona, A., “Is a classical Euclidean TOE reasonable?”, arXiv eprint, (2003).
[grqc/0310007].
[12] Arteaga, D., Parentani, R. and Verdaguer, E., “Propagation in a thermal graviton back
ground”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 044019, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0311065].
[13] Aspachs, M., Adesso, G. and Fuentes, I., “Optimal Quantum Estimation of the Unruh
Hawking Eﬀect”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 151301, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1007.0389 [quantph]].
[14] Babichev, E., Mukhanov, V. and Vikman, A., “Looking beyond the horizon”, in Kleinert, H.,
Jantzen, R.T. and Ruﬃni, R., eds., The Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting On Recent De
velopments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic
Field Theories, Proceedings of the MG11 Meeting on General Relativity, Berlin, Germany ,
23 – 29 July 2006, pp. 1471–1474, (World Scientiﬁc, River Edge, NJ; Singapore, 2007). [DOI],
[arXiv:0704.3301 [hepth]]. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011):
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812834300/9789812834300_0171.html.
[15] Babichev, E., Mukhanov, V. and Vikman, A., “‘Superluminal’ scalar ﬁelds and black holes”,
in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology, June 11 – 15 2007,
Trieste, Italy, Proceedings of Science, (SISSA, Trieste, 2007). URL (accessed 13 December
2010):
http://pos.sissa.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)006.
110
[16] Babichev, E., Mukhanov, V. and Vikman, A., “kEssence, superluminal propagation,
causality and emergent geometry”, J. High Energy Phys., 2008(02), 101, (2008). [DOI],
[arXiv:0708.0561 [hepth]].
[17] Badulin, S.I., Pokazayev, K.V. and Rozenberg, A.D., “A laboratory study of the transforma
tion of regular gravitycapillary waves in inhomogeneous ﬂows”, Izv. Atmos. Ocean. Phys.,
19(10), 782–787, (1983).
[18] Balazs, N.L., “Eﬀect of a gravitational ﬁeld, due to a rotating body, on the plane of polar
ization of an electromagnetic wave”, Phys. Rev., 110, 236–239, (1958). [DOI].
[19] Balbinot, R., Carusotto, I., Fabbri, A. and Recati, A., “Testing Hawking particle creation
by black holes through correlation measurements”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 19, 2371–2377,
(2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1005.4000 [grqc]].
[20] Balbinot, R., Fabbri, A., Fagnocchi, S. and Nagar, A., “Numerical analysis of backreaction
in acoustic black holes”, Nuovo Cim., B121, 201–212, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0601083].
[21] Balbinot, R., Fabbri, A., Fagnocchi, S. and Parentani, R., “Hawking radiation from acoustic
black holes, short distance and backreaction eﬀects”, Riv. Nuovo Cim., 28, 1–55, (2005).
[arXiv:grqc/0601079].
[22] Balbinot, R., Fabbri, A., Fagnocchi, S., Recati, A. and Carusotto, I., “Nonlocal density
correlations as signal of Hawking radiation in BEC acoustic black holes”, Phys. Rev. A, 78,
021603, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0711.4520 [condmat.other]].
[23] Balbinot, R., Fagnocchi, S. and Fabbri, A., “Quantum eﬀects in acoustic black holes: The
backreaction”, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 064019, 1–11, (2004). [grqc/0405098].
[24] Balbinot, R., Fagnocchi, S. and Fabbri, A., “The depletion in Bose Einstein condensates
using Quantum Field Theory in curved space”, Phys. Rev. A, 75, 043622, (2007). [DOI],
[arXiv:condmat/0610367].
[25] Balbinot, R., Fagnocchi, S., Fabbri, A. and Procopio, G.P., “Backreaction in Acoustic Black
Holes”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 161302, 1–4, (2004). [grqc/0405096].
[26] Baldovin, F., Novello, M., Perez Bergliaﬀa, S.E. and Salim, J.M., “A nongravitational worm
hole”, Class. Quantum Grav., 17, 3265–3276, (2000). [DOI], [grqc/0003075].
[27] Barcel´ o, C., “Cosmology as a search for overall equilibrium”, JETP Lett., 84, 635–639,
(2007). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0611090].
[28] Barcel´ o, C. and Campos, A., “Braneworld physics from the analoggravity perspective”,
Phys. Lett. B, 563, 217–223, (2003). [DOI], [hepth/0206217].
[29] Barcel´ o, C., Cano, A., Garay, L.J. and Jannes, G., “Stability analysis of sonic horizons in
BoseEinstein condensates”, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 024008, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0603089].
[30] Barcel´ o, C., Cano, A., Garay, L.J. and Jannes, G., “Quasinormal mode analysis in BEC
acoustic black holes”, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 084024, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0701173].
[31] Barcel´ o, C., Cano, A., Jannes, G. and Garay, L.J., “Probing eﬀects of modiﬁed dispersion
relations with Bose–Einstein condensates”, in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory
and Phenomenology, June 11 – 15 2007, Trieste, Italy, Proceedings of Science, (SISSA, Trieste,
2007). URL (accessed 13 December 2010):
http://pos.sissa.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)007.
111
[32] Barcel´ o, C., Finazzi, S. and Liberati, S., “On the impossibility of superluminal travel: the
warp drive lesson”, arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1001.4960 [grqc]].
[33] Barcel´ o, C., Garay, L.J. and Jannes, G., “Sensitivity of Hawking radiation to superluminal
dispersion relations”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 024016, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0807.4147 [grqc]].
[34] Barcel´ o, C., Garay, L.J. and Jannes, G., “Quantum NonGravity”, arXiv eprint, (2010).
[arXiv:1002.4651 [grqc]].
[35] Barcel´ o, C., Garay, L.J. and Jannes, G., “The two faces of quantum sound”, Phys. Rev. D,
82, 044042, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1006.0181 [grqc]].
[36] Barcel´ o, C. and Jannes, G., “A real LorentzFitzGerald contraction”, Found. Phys., 38,
191–199, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0705.4652 [grqc]].
[37] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S., Sonego, S. and Visser, M., “Causal structure of analogue space
times”, New J. Phys., 6, 186, (2004). [DOI]. URL (accessed 31 May 2005):
http://stacks.iop.org/NJP/6/186.
[38] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S., Sonego, S. and Visser, M., “Hawkinglike radiation does not require
a trapped region”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 97, 171301, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0607008].
[39] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S., Sonego, S. and Visser, M., “Quasiparticle creation by analogue
black holes”, Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 5341–5366, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0604058].
[40] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S., Sonego, S. and Visser, M., “Fate of gravitational collapse in semi
classical gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 044032, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0712.1130 [grqc]].
[41] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S., Sonego, S. and Visser, M., “Hawkinglike radiation from evolving
black holes and compact horizonless objects”, J. High Energy Phys., 2010(02), 003, (2010).
[DOI], [arXiv:1011.5911 [grqc]].
[42] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S., Sonego, S. and Visser, M., “Minimal conditions for the existence of
a Hawkinglike ﬂux”, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 041501(R), (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1011.5593 [grqc]].
[43] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Analog gravity from Bose–Einstein condensates”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 1137–1156, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0011026].
[44] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Analog gravity from ﬁeld theory normal modes?”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 3595–3610, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0104001].
[45] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Refringence, ﬁeld theory, and normal modes”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 19, 2961–2982, (2002). [grqc/0111059].
[46] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Analogue models for FRW cosmologies”, Int. J.
Mod. Phys. D, 12, 1641–1650, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0305061].
[47] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Probing semiclassical analogue gravity in Bose–
Einstein condensates with widely tunable interactions”, Phys. Rev. A, 68, 053613, (2003).
[DOI], [condmat/0307491].
[48] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Towards the Observation of Hawking Radia
tion in Bose–Einstein Condensates”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 18, 3735–1–11, (2003). [DOI],
[grqc/0110036].
112
[49] Barcel´ o, C., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Analogue Gravity”, Living Rev. Relativity, 8, lrr
200512, (2005). [arXiv:grqc/0505065]. URL (accessed 13 December 2010):
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr200512.
[50] Barcel´ o, C., Visser, M. and Liberati, S., “Einstein gravity as an emergent phenomenon?”,
Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 799–806, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0106002].
[51] Bardeen, J.M., Carter, B. and Hawking, S.W., “The four laws of black hole mechanics”,
Commun. Math. Phys., 31, 161–170, (1973). [DOI].
[52] Barrab`es, C., Frolov, V.P. and Parentani, R., “Metric ﬂuctuation corrections to Hawking
radiation”, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 124010, 1–14, (1999). [DOI], [grqc/9812076].
[53] Barrab`es, C., Frolov, V.P. and Parentani, R., “Stochastically ﬂuctuating blackhole geome
try, Hawking radiation and the transPlanckian problem”, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 044020, 1–19,
(2000). [DOI], [grqc/0001102].
[54] Basak, S., “Sound wave in vortex with sink”, arXiv eprint, (2003). [grqc/0310105].
[55] Basak, S., “Analog of Superradiance eﬀect in BEC”, arXiv eprint, (2005). [grqc/0501097].
[56] Basak, S. and Majumdar, P., “Reﬂection coeﬃcient for superresonant scattering”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 20, 2929–2936, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0303012].
[57] Basak, S. and Majumdar, P., “‘Superresonance’ from a rotating acoustic black hole”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 20, 3907–3913, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0203059].
[58] Bassett, B.A., Liberati, S., MolinaPar´ıs, C. and Visser, M., “Geometrodynamics of variable
speedoflight cosmologies”, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 103518, 1–18, (2000). [DOI], [astroph/0001441].
[59] BasteroGil, M., “What can we learn by probing transPlanckian physics”, in Khalil, S., Shaﬁ,
Q. and Tallat, H., eds., International Conference on High Energy Physics, January 9 – 14,
2001, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 283–288, (Rinton Press, Princeton, NJ, 2001). [hepph/0106133].
[60] Becar, R., Gonzalez, P., Pulgar, G. and Saavedra, J., “Hawking radiation via Anomaly and
Tunneling method from Unruh’s and Canonical acoustic black hole”, arXiv eprint, (2008).
[arXiv:0808.1735 [grqc]].
[61] Bekaert, X., Boulanger, N. and Sundell, P., “How higherspin gravity surpasses the spin
two barrier: nogo theorems versus yesgo examples”, arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1007.0435
[hepth]].
[62] Belgiorno, F., “Black Hole Thermodynamics in Carath´eodory’s Approach”, Phys. Lett. A,
312, 324–330, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0210020].
[63] Belgiorno, F., Cacciatori, S.L., Ortenzi, G., Rizzi, L., Gorini, V. and Faccio, D., “Dielectric
black holes induced by a refractive index perturbation and the Hawking eﬀect”, Phys. Rev.
D, 83, 024015, (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1003.4150 [quantph]].
[64] Belgiorno, F., Cacciatori, S.L., Ortenzi, G., Sala, V.G. and Faccio, D., “Quantum radiation
from superluminal refractive index perturbations”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 104, 140403, (2010).
[DOI], [arXiv:0910.3508 [quantph]].
[65] Belgiorno, F., Liberati, S., Visser, M. and Sciama, D.W., “Sonoluminescence: Two
photon correlations as a test of thermality”, Phys. Lett., A271, 308–313, (2000). [DOI],
[arXiv:quantph/9904018].
113
[66] Belgiorno, F. et al., “Hawking Radiation from Ultrashort Laser Pulse Filaments”, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 105, 203901, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1009.4634 [grqc]].
[67] Berry, M.V., “Tsunami asymptotics”, New J. Phys., 7, 129, (2005). [DOI]. URL (accessed 20
March 2011):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/7/i=1/a=129.
[68] Berry, M.V., “Focused tsunami waves”, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 463, 3055–3071,
(2007). [DOI].
[69] Berti, E., Cardoso, V. and Lemos, J.P.S., “Quasinormal modes and classical wave propagation
in analogue black holes”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 124006, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0408099].
[70] Berti, E., Cardoso, V. and Starinets, A.O., “Quasinormal modes of black holes and black
branes”, Class. Quant. Grav., 26, 163001, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.2975 [grqc]].
[71] Bhattacharyya, G., Mathews, P., Rao, K. and Sridhar, K., “Searching for signals of minimal
length in extra dimensional models using dilepton production at hadron colliders”, Phys.
Lett. B, 603, 46–50, (2004). [DOI], [hepph/0408295].
[72] Bilic, N., “Relativistic Acoustic Geometry”, Class. Quantum Grav., 16, 3953–3964, (1999).
[DOI], [grqc/9908002].
[73] Bini, D., Cherubini, C. and Filippi, S., “Eﬀective geometries in selfgravitating polytropes”,
Phys. Rev. D, 78, 064024, (2008). [DOI].
[74] Bini, D., Cherubini, C., Filippi, S. and Geralico, A., “Eﬀective geometry of the n = 1
uniformly rotating selfgravitating polytrope”, Phys. Rev. D, D82, 044005, (2010). [DOI].
[75] Birrell, N.D. and Davis, P.C.W., Quantum ﬁelds in curved space, Cambridge Monographs on
Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1982). [Google
Books].
[76] Blaauwgeers, R., Eltsov, V.B., Eska, G., Finne, A.P., Haley, R.P., Krusius, M., Skrbek, L.
and Volovik, G.E., “AB interface in rotating superﬂuid
3
He: the ﬁrst example of a superﬂuid
shearﬂow instability”, Physica B, 329333, 57–61, (2003). [DOI].
[77] Blaauwgeers, R. et al., “Shear Flow and KelvinHelmholtz Instability in Superﬂuids”, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 89, 155301, (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:condmat/0111343].
[78] B laut, A., KowalskiGlikman, J. and NowakSzczepaniak, D., “κPoincar´e dispersion rela
tions and the black hole radiation”, Phys. Lett. B, 521, 364–370, (2001). [grqc/0108069].
[79] Bogoliubov, N., “On the theory of superﬂuidity”, J. Phys. (Moscow), 11, 23, (1947).
[80] Bombelli, L. and Sonego, S., “Relationships between various characterizations of wave tails”,
J. Phys. A, 27, 7177–7199, (1994). [DOI].
[81] Boonserm, P., Cattoen, C., Faber, T., Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S., “Eﬀective refractive
index tensor for weak ﬁeld gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 1905–1915, (2005). [DOI],
[grqc/0411034].
[82] Born, M. and Wolf, E., Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Inter
ference and Diﬀraction of Light, (Pergamon, Oxford; New York, 1980), 6th edition.
[83] Bousso, R. and Polchinski, J., “The string theory landscape”, Sci. Am., 291, 60–69, (2004).
[DOI].
114
[84] Brandenberger, R.H., “Frontiers of inﬂationary cosmology”, Braz. J. Phys., 31, 131–146,
(2001). [DOI], [hepph/0102183].
[85] Brandenberger, R.H., “A Status Review of Inﬂationary Cosmology”, arXiv eprint, (2001).
[hepph/0101119].
[86] Brandenberger, R.H., “TransPlanckian Physics and Inﬂationary Cosmology”, in He, X.G.
and Ng, K.W., eds., Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics (CosPA 2002), Proceedings of the
2002 International Symposium, Taipei, Taiwan, 31 May – 2 June 2002, pp. 100–113, (World
Scientiﬁc, Singapore, River Edge, NJ, 2003). [DOI], [hepth/0210186], [Google Books]. Online
version (accessed 22 March 2011):
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812704900/9789812704900_0008.html.
[87] Brandenberger, R.H., “Lectures on the theory of cosmological perturbations”, in Bret´ on, N.,
CervantesCota, J. and Salgado, M., eds., The Early Universe and Observational Cosmology,
Proceedings of the 5th Mexican School on Gravitation and Mathematical Physics (DGFM
2002), Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo, Mexico, 24 – 29 November 2002, Lecture Notes in
Physics, 646, pp. 127–167, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2004). [hepth/0306071].
[88] Brandenberger, R.H., Joras, S.E. and Martin, J., “TransPlanckian physics and the spec
trum of ﬂuctuations in a bouncing universe”, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 083514, 1–9, (2002). [DOI],
[hepth/0112122].
[89] Brandenberger, R.H. and Martin, J., “The robustness of inﬂation to changes in superPlanck
scale physics”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 16, 999–1006, (2001). [DOI], [astroph/0005432].
[90] Brandenberger, R.H. and Martin, J., “On signatures of short distance physics in the cosmic
microwave background”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 17, 3663–3680, (2002). [DOI], [hepth/0202142].
[91] Brevik, I. and Halnes, G., “Light rays at optical black holes in moving media”, Phys. Rev.
D, 65, 024005, 1–12, (2002). [grqc/0106045].
[92] Brillouin, L., Wave propagation and group velocity, (Academic, Woodbury, NY, 1960).
[93] Brout, R., Gabriel, C., Lubo, M. and Spindel, P., “Minimal length uncertainty principle and
the transPlanckian problem of black hole physics”, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 044005, 1–6, (1999).
[DOI], [hepth/9807063].
[94] Brout, R., Massar, S., Parentani, R. and Spindel, P., “Hawking radiation without trans
Planckian frequencies”, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 4559–4568, (1995). [DOI], [hepth/9506121].
[95] Brout, R., Massar, S., Parentani, R. and Spindel, P., “A Primer for black hole quantum
physics”, Phys. Rept., 260, 329–454, (1995). [DOI], [arXiv:0710.4345 [grqc]].
[96] Budker, D., Kimball, D.F., Rochester, S.M. and Yashchuk, V.V., “Nonlinear Magnetooptics
and Reduced Group Velocity of Light in Atomic Vapor with Slow Ground State Relaxation”,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 1767–1770, (1999). [DOI].
[97] Bunkov, Y.M., “Spin superﬂuidity and magnons Bose–Einstein condensation”, Phys. Usp.,
53, 848–853, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1003.4889 [condmat.other]].
[98] Burgess, C.P., “Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Eﬀective Field
Theory”, Living Rev. Relativity, 7, lrr20045, (2004). URL (accessed 31 May 2005):
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20045.
115
[99] Burgess, C.P., Cline, J.M., Filotas, E., Matias, J. and Moore, G.D., “Loopgenerated bounds
on changes to the graviton dispersion relation”, J. High Energy Phys., 2002(03), 043, (2002).
[DOI], [hepph/0201082].
[100] Cacciatori, S.L., Belgiorno, F., Gorini, V., Ortenzi, G., Rizzi, L., Sala, V.G. and Faccio, D.,
“Spacetime geometries and light trapping in travelling refractive index perturbations”, New
J. Phys., 12, 095021, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1006.1097 [physics.optics]]. URL (accessed 25 March
2011):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095021.
[101] Cadoni, M., “Acoustic analogues of twodimensional black holes”, Class. Quantum Grav.,
22, 409–419, (2004). [grqc/0410138].
[102] Cadoni, M. and Mignemi, S., “Acoustic analogues of black hole singularities”, Phys. Rev. D,
72, 084012, (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0504143].
[103] Cadoni, M. and Pani, P., “Acoustic horizons for axially and spherically symmetric ﬂuid ﬂow”,
Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 2427–2434, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:physics/0510164].
[104] Calogeracos, A. and Volovik, G.E., “Rotational quantum friction in superﬂuids: Radiation
from object rotating in superﬂuid vacuum”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 69, 281–287, (1999).
[DOI], [condmat/9901163].
[105] Calzetta, E.A. and Hu, B.L., “BEC Collapse, Particle Production and Squeezing of the
Vacuum”, arXiv eprint, (2002). [condmat/0208569].
[106] Calzetta, E.A. and Hu, B.L., “Bose–Einstein condensate collapse and dynamical squeezing
of vacuum ﬂuctuations”, Phys. Rev. A, 68, 043625, (2003). [DOI], [condmat/0207289].
[107] Calzetta, E.A., Hu, B.L. and Mazzitelli, F.D., “Coarsegrained eﬀective action and renor
malization group theory in semiclassical gravity and cosmology”, Phys. Rep., 352, 459–520,
(2001). [DOI], [hepth/0102199].
[108] Canfora, F. and Vilasi, G., “Back Reaction from Trace Anomaly in RNblackholes Evapora
tion”, J. High Energy Phys., 2003(12), 055, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0402017].
[109] Canfora, F. and Vilasi, G., “Trace anomaly and black holes evaporation”, arXiv eprint,
(2003). [grqc/0302036].
[110] Caravelli, F. and Markopoulou, F., “Properties of Quantum Graphity at Low Temperature”,
arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1008.1340 [grqc]].
[111] Cardoso, V., “Acoustic Black Holes”, in Mour˜ ao, A.M., Pimenta, M., Potting, R. and S´ a,
P.M., eds., New Worlds in Astroparticle Physics, Proceedings of the Fifth International
Workshop, Faro, Portugal, 8 – 10 January 2005, pp. 245–251, (World Scientiﬁc, River Edge,
NJ; Singapore, 2006). [DOI], [physics/0503042]. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011):
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812774439/9789812774439_0026.html.
[112] Cardoso, V., Lemos, J.P.S. and Yoshida, S., “Quasinormal modes and stability of the rotating
acoustic black hole: Numerical analysis”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 124032, 1–7, (2004). [DOI],
[grqc/0410107].
[113] Carlip, S., “Quantum gravity: A progress report”, Rep. Prog. Phys., 64, 885–942, (2001).
[DOI], [grqc/0108040].
116
[114] Carlip, S., “Horizons, constraints, and black hole entropy”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 46, 2192–
2203, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0601041].
[115] Carlip, S., “Black Hole Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics”, in Papantonopoulos,
E., ed., Physics of Black Holes: A Guided Tour, Fourth Aegean School on Black Holes, held
in Mytilene, Greece, 17 – 22 September 2007, Lecture Notes in Physics, 769, pp. 89–123,
(Springer, Berlin; New York, 2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0807.4520 [grqc]].
[116] Carter, B., “Relativistic superﬂuid models for rotating neutron stars”, in Blaschke, D., Glen
denning, N.K. and Sedrakian, A., eds., Physics of Neutron Star Interiors, Lecture Notes in
Physics, 578, p. 54, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2001). [astroph/0101257], [Google Books].
[117] Carter, B. and Chamel, N., “Covariant Analysis of Newtonian MultiFluid Models for Neu
tron Stars I: MilneCartan Structure and Variational Formulation”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D,
13, 291–325, (2004). [DOI], [astroph/0305186].
[118] Carusotto, I., Balbinot, R., Fabbri, A. and Recati, A., “Density correlations and dynamical
Casimir emission of Bogoliubov phonons in modulated atomic BoseEinstein condensates”,
Eur. Phys. J., 56, 391–404, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0907.2314 [condmat.quantgas]].
[119] Carusotto, I., Fagnocchi, S., Recati, A., Balbinot, R. and Fabbri, A., “Numerical observation
of Hawking radiation from acoustic black holes in atomic Bose–Einstein condensates”, New J.
Phys., 10, 103001, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0803.0507 [condmat.other]]. URL (accessed 20 March
2011):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/10/i=10/a=103001.
[120] Casadio, R., “On dispersion relations and the statistical mechanics of Hawking radiation”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 19, 2453–2462, (2002). [DOI], [hepth/0111287].
[121] Casadio, R., “On braneworld black holes and short scale physics”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 307,
195–208, (2003). [DOI], [hepph/0304099].
[122] Casadio, R. and Mersini, L., “Short distance signatures in cosmology: Why not in black
holes?”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 19, 1395–1412, (2004). [DOI], [hepth/0208050].
[123] CasalderreySolana, J., Shuryak, E.V. and Teaney, D., “Hydrodynamic ﬂow from fast parti
cles”, arXiv eprint, (2006). [arXiv:hepph/0602183].
[124] Casher, A., Englert, F., Itzhaki, N., Massar, S. and Parentani, R., “Black hole horizon
ﬂuctuations”, Nucl. Phys. B, 484, 419–434, (1997). [DOI], [hepth/9606106].
[125] Cassidy, M.J. and Hawking, S.W., “Models for chronology selection”, Phys. Rev. D, 57,
2372–2380, (1998). [DOI], [hepth/9709066].
[126] Castin, Y. and Dum, R., “Bose–Einstein Condensates in Time Dependent Traps”, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 77, 5315–5319, (1996). [DOI].
[127] Castro Neto, A.H., Guinea, F., Peres, N.M.R., Novoselov, K.S. and Geim, A.K., “The elec
tronic properties of graphene”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 81, 109–162, (2009). [DOI].
[128] Chang, D., Chu, C.S. and Lin, F.L., “Transplanckian dispersion relation and entanglement
entropy of black hole”, Fortschr. Phys., 52, 477–482, (2004). [DOI], [hepth/0312136].
[129] Chang, D., Chu, C.S. and Lin, F.L., “Transplanckian entanglement entropy”, Phys. Lett.
B, 583, 192–198, (2004). [DOI], [hepth/0306055].
117
[130] ChangYoung, E., Eune, M., Kimm, K. and Lee, D., “Surface gravity and Hawking tem
perature from entropic force viewpoint”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 25, 2825–2830, (2010). [DOI],
[arXiv:1003.2049 [grqc]].
[131] Chapline, G., Hohlfeld, E., Laughlin, R.B. and Santiago, D.I., “Quantum phase transitions
and the breakdown of classical general relativity”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 18, 3587–3590,
(2003). [DOI], [grqc/0012094].
[132] Chapline, G. and Mazur, P.O., “Superﬂuid picture for rotating spacetimes”, arXiv eprint,
(2004). [grqc/0407033].
[133] Chen, H. and Chan, C.T., “Acoustic cloaking in three dimensions using acoustic metamate
rials”, Appl. Phys. Lett., 91, 183518, (2007). [DOI].
[134] Chen, S.B. and Jing, J.L., “Quasinormal modes of a coupled scalar ﬁeld in the acoustic
black hole spacetime”, Chin. Phys. Lett., 23, 21–24, (2006). [DOI].
[135] Cherubini, C., Federici, F., Succi, S. and Tosi, M.P., “Excised acoustic black holes: The
scattering problem in the time domain”, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 084016, 1–9, (2005). [DOI],
[grqc/0504048].
[136] Choy, K., Kruk, T., Carrington, M.E., Fugleberg, T., Zahn, J., Kobes, R., Kunstatter, G.
and Pickering, D., “Energy ﬂow in acoustic black holes”, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 104011, (2006).
[DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0505163].
[137] Christensen, S.M. and Fulling, S.A., “Trace anomalies and the Hawking eﬀect”, Phys. Rev.
D, 15, 2088–2104, (1977). [DOI].
[138] Chru´sciel, P.T., “Black holes”, in Frauendiener, J. and Friedrich, H., eds., The Confor
mal Structure of SpaceTime: Geometry, Analysis, Numerics, Proceedings of the interna
tionl workshop, T¨ ubingen, Germany, April 2001, Lecture Notes in Physics, 604, pp. 61–102,
(Springer, Berlin; New York, 2002). [grqc/0201053].
[139] Chrusciel, P.T., Galloway, G.J. and Pollack, D., “Mathematical general relativity: a sam
pler”, arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1004.1016 [grqc]].
[140] Chu, C.S., Greene, B.R. and Shiu, G., “Remarks on inﬂation and noncommutative geome
try”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 16, 2231–2240, (2001). [hepth/0011241].
[141] Coleman, S.R. and Glashow, S.L., “Highenergy tests of Lorentz invariance”, Phys. Rev. D,
59, 116008, 1–14, (1999). [DOI], [hepph/9812418].
[142] Collins, H. and Martin, M.R., “The enhancement of inﬂaton loops in an αvacuum”, Phys.
Rev. D, 70, 084021, 1–9, (2004). [DOI], [hepph/0309265].
[143] Comer, G.L., “Superﬂuid analog of the Davies–Unruh eﬀect”, arXiv eprint, (1992).
[grqc/0505005].
[144] Consoli, M., “Approximate Lorentz invariance of the vacuum: A physical solution of the
‘hierarchy problem’ ?”, arXiv eprint, (2003). [hepph/0306070].
[145] Corley, S., “Particle creation via high frequency dispersion”, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 6155–6161,
(1997). [DOI].
[146] Corley, S.R., The role of short distance physics in the Hawking eﬀect, Ph.D. Thesis, (Uni
versity of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1997).
118
[147] Corley, S., “Computing the spectrum of black hole radiation in the presence of high fre
quency dispersion: An analytical approach”, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 6280–6291, (1998). [DOI],
[hepth/9710075].
[148] Corley, S. and Jacobson, T.A., “Hawking Spectrum and High Frequency Dispersion”, Phys.
Rev. D, 54, 1568–1586, (1996). [DOI], [hepth/9601073].
[149] Corley, S. and Jacobson, T.A., “Lattice black holes”, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 6269–6279, (1998).
[DOI], [hepth/9709166].
[150] Corley, S. and Jacobson, T.A., “Black hole lasers”, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 124011, 1–12, (1999).
[DOI], [hepth/9806203].
[151] Cornish, S.L., Claussen, N.R., Roberts, J.L., Cornell, E.A. and Wieman, C.E., “Stable Rb85
BoseEinstein Condensates with Widely Tunable Interactions”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1795–
1798, (2000). [DOI].
[152] Cortijo, A. and Vozmediano, M.A.H., “Eﬀects of topological defects and local curvature on
the electronic properties of planar graphene”, Nucl. Phys., B763, 293–308, (2007). [DOI],
[arXiv:condmat/0612374].
[153] Cortijo, A. and Vozmediano, M.A.H., “Electronic properties of curved graphene sheets”,
Europhys. Lett., 77, 47002, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:condmat/0603717].
[154] Courant, R. and Hilbert, D., Methods of Mathematical Physics, Wiley Classics Library, 2,
(Interscience, New York, 1989).
[155] Coutant, A. and Parentani, R., “Black hole lasers, a mode analysis”, Phys. Rev. D, 81,
084042, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0912.2755 [hepth]].
[156] Crispino, L.C.B., Oliveira, E.S. and Matsas, G.E.A., “Absorption cross section of canonical
acoustic holes”, Phys. Rev. D, D76, 107502, (2007). [DOI].
[157] Czerniawski, J., “What is wrong with Schwarzschild’s coordinates?”, arXiv eprint, (2002).
[grqc/0201037].
[158] Damour, T., “The entropy of black holes: A primer”, in Dalibard, J., Duplantier, B. and
Rivasseau, V., eds., Poincar´e Seminar 2003: Bose–Einstein Condensation – Entropy, Pro
ceedings of the third and fourth Poincar´e Seminars, Progress in Mathematical Physics, 38,
(Birkh¨ auser, Basel; Boston, 2004). [hepth/0401160].
[159] Das, S., “Black hole thermodynamics: Entropy, information and beyond”, Pramana, 63,
797–816, (2004). [DOI], [hepth/0403202].
[160] Das, T.K., “Analogous Hawking Radiation from Astrophysical Black Hole Accretion”, arXiv
eprint, (2004). [astroph/0404482].
[161] Das, T.K., “Analogue Hawking radiation from astrophysical black hole accretion”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 21, 5253–5260, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0408081].
[162] Das, T.K., “Transonic Black Hole Accretion as Analogue System”, arXiv eprint, (2004).
[grqc/0411006].
[163] Das, T.K., “Astrophysical Accretion as an Analogue Gravity Phenomena”, arXiv eprint,
(2007). [arXiv:0704.3618 [astroph]].
119
[164] Das, T.K., Bilic, N. and Dasgupta, S., “BlackHole Accretion Disc as an Analogue Gravity
Model”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2007(06), 009, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:astroph/0604477].
[165] Dasgupta, S., Bilic, N. and Das, T.K., “PseudoSchwarzschild Spherical Accretion as
a Classical Black Hole Analogue”, Gen. Rel. Grav., 37, 1877–1890, (2005). [DOI],
[arXiv:astroph/0501410].
[166] Davies, P.C.W., Fulling, S.A. and Unruh, W.G., “Energy momentum tensor near an evapo
rating black hole”, Phys. Rev. D, 13, 2720–2723, (1976). [DOI].
[167] de A. Marques, G., “Analogue of superradiance eﬀect in acoustic black hole in the presence
of disclination”, arXiv eprint, (2007). [arXiv:0705.3916 [grqc]].
[168] de Felice, F., “On the gravitational ﬁeld acting as an optical medium”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.,
2, 347–357, (1971).
[169] De Lorenci, V.A. and Klippert, R., “Analogue gravity from electrodynamics in nonlinear
media”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 064027, 1–6, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0107008].
[170] De Lorenci, V.A., Klippert, R., Novello, M. and Salim, J.M., “Nonlinear electrodynamics
and FRW cosmology”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 063501, 1–5, (2002). [DOI].
[171] De Lorenci, V.A., Klippert, R. and Obukhov, Y.N., “On optical black holes in moving
dielectrics”, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 061502, 1–4, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0210104].
[172] de M Carvalho, A.M., Moraes, F. and Furtado, C., “The selfenergy of a charged particle
in the presence of a topological defect distribution”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 19, 2113–2122,
(2004). [DOI], [grqc/0401030].
[173] Dolan, S.R., Oliveira, E.S. and Crispino, L.C.B., “Scattering of Sound Waves by a Canonical
Acoustic Hole”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 064014, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0904.0010 [grqc]].
[174] Dolan, S.R. and Ottewill, A.C., “On an Expansion Method for Black Hole Quasinormal
Modes and Regge Poles”, Class. Quant. Grav., 26, 225003, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0908.0329
[grqc]].
[175] Donley, E.A., Claussen, N.R., Cornish, S.L., Roberts, J.L., Cornell, E.A. and Wieman, C.E.,
“Dynamics of collapsing and exploding BoseEinstein condensates”, Nature, 412, 295–299,
(2001). [DOI], [condmat/0105019].
[176] Doran, C., “A new form of the Kerr solution”, Phys. Rev. D, 61, 067503, (2000). [DOI],
[arXiv:grqc/9910099].
[177] Dumin, Y.V., “Topological Defect Density in OneDimensional FriedmannRobertsonWalker
Cosmological Model: Corrections Inferred from the MultiJosephsonJunctionLoop Experi
ment”, arXiv eprint, (2003). [hepph/0308184].
[178] Dziarmaga, J., “Analog electromagnetism in a symmetrized
3
HeA”, arXiv eprint, (2001).
[grqc/0112041].
[179] Easther, R., Greene, B.R., Kinney, W.H. and Shiu, G., “Inﬂation as a probe of short distance
physics”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 103502, 1–8, (2001). [DOI], [hepth/0104102].
120
[180] Eling, C., Jacobson, T. and Mattingly, D., “EinsteinAether Theory”, in Liu, J.T., Duﬀ,
M.J., Stelle, K.S. and Woodard, R.P., eds., DESERFEST: A Celebration of the Life and
Works of Stanley Deser, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA, 3 – 5 April 2004, pp. 163–
179, (World Scientiﬁc, River Edge, NJ; Singapore, 2004). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0410001 [grqc]].
URL (accessed 15 March 2011):
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812774804/9789812774804_0012.html.
[181] Ellis, G.F.R. and Uzan, J.P., “‘c’ is the speed of light, isn’t it?”, Am. J. Phys., 73, 240–247,
(2005). [DOI], [grqc/0305099].
[182] Ellis, J.R., Mavromatos, N.E., Nanopoulos, D.V. and Volkov, G., “Gravitationalrecoil eﬀects
on fermion propagation in spacetime foam”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 32, 1777–1798, (2000).
[grqc/9911055].
[183] Eltsov, V.B., Krusius, M. and Volovik, G.E., “Superﬂuid
3
He: A Laboratory model system
of quantum ﬁeld theory”, arXiv eprint, (1998). [condmat/9809125v1].
[184] Englert, F., “The Black hole history in tamed vacuum”, arXiv eprint, (1994). [grqc/9408005].
[185] Englert, F., Massar, S. and Parentani, R., “Source vacuum ﬂuctuations of black hole radi
ance”, Class. Quantum Grav., 11, 2919–2938, (1994). [DOI], [grqc/9404026].
[186] Fabbri, A. and Mayoral, C., “Steplike discontinuities in Bose–Einstein condensates and
Hawking radiation: the hydrodynamic limit”, arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1004.4876 [grqc]].
[187] Faccio, D., Cacciatori, S., Gorini, V., Sala, V.G., Averchi, A., Lotti, A., Kolesik, M. and
Moloney, J.V., “Analogue Gravity and Ultrashort Laser Pulse Filamentation”, Europhys.
Lett., 89, 34004, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.4426 [grqc]].
[188] Fagnocchi, S., “Analog models beyond kinematics”, arXiv eprint, (2006).
[arXiv:grqc/0611096].
[189] Fagnocchi, S., “Backreaction eﬀects in acoustic black holes”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 33, 445–
450, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0601084].
[190] Fagnocchi, S., “Correlations of Hawking radiation in acoustic black holes”, J. Phys. Conf.
Ser., 222, 012036, (2010). [DOI].
[191] Fagnocchi, S., Finazzi, S., Liberati, S., Kormos, M. and Trombettoni, A., “Relativistic Bose–
Einstein condensates: a new system for analogue models of gravity”, New J. Phys., 12,
095012, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1001.1044 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 20 March 2011):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095012.
[192] Farhat, M., Guenneau, S. and Enoch, S., “Ultrabroadband Elastic Cloaking in Thin Plates”,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, 024301, (2009). [DOI].
[193] Federici, F., Cherubini, C., Succi, S. and Tosi, M.P., “Superradiance from BEC vortices: a
numerical study”, Phys. Rev. A, 73, 033604, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0503089].
[194] Fedichev, P.O. and Fischer, U.R., “Gibbons–Hawking Eﬀect in the Sonic de Sitter Space
Time of an Expanding Bose–EinsteinCondensed Gas”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91, 240407, (2003).
[DOI], [condmat/0304342].
[195] Fedichev, P.O. and Fischer, U.R., “‘Cosmological’ quasiparticle production in harmonically
trapped superﬂuid gases”, Phys. Rev. A, 69, 033602, (2004). [condmat/0303063].
121
[196] Fedichev, P.O. and Fischer, U.R., “Observer dependence for the phonon content of the sound
ﬁeld living on the eﬀective curved spacetime background of a Bose–Einstein condensate”,
Phys. Rev. D, 69, 064021, (2004). [DOI], [condmat/0307200].
[197] Finazzi, S., Liberati, S. and Barcel´ o, C., “Semiclassical instability of dynamical warp drives”,
Phys.Rev., 79, 124017, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:arXiv:0904.0141 [grqc]].
[198] Finazzi, S., Liberati, S. and Sindoni, L., “The cosmological constant: a lesson from Bose
Einstein condensates”, (2011). [arXiv:1103.4841 [grqc]].
[199] Finazzi, S. and Parentani, R., “Black hole lasers in Bose–Einstein condensates”, New J.
Phys., 12, 095015, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1005.4024 [condmat.quantgas]]. URL (accessed 25
March 2011):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095015.
[200] Finazzi, S. and Parentani, R., “Spectral properties of acoustic black hole radiation: broad
ening the horizon”, arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1012.1556 [grqc]].
[201] Finne, A.P., Eltsov, V.B., Hanninen, R., Kopnin, N.B., Kopu, J., Krusius, M., Tsubota, M.
and Volovik, G.E., “Dynamics of vortices and interfaces in superﬂuid
3
He”, Rep. Prog. Phys.,
69, 3157–3230, (2006). [DOI].
[202] Finne, A.P., Eltsov, V.B., H¨ anninen, R., Kopnin, N.B., Kopu, J., Krusius, M., Tsubota, M.
and Volovik, G.E., “Dynamics of vortices and interfaces in superﬂuid
3
He”, Rep. Prog. Phys.,
69, 3157, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:condmat/0606619].
[203] Fischer, U.R., “Motion of quantized vortices as elementary objects”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.),
278, 62–85, (1999). [DOI], [condmat/9907457].
[204] Fischer, U.R., “Quasiparticle universes in Bose–Einstein condensates”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A,
19, 1789–1812, (2004). [DOI], [condmat/0406086].
[205] Fischer, U.R., “Dynamical Aspects of Analogue Gravity: The Backreaction of Quan
tum Fluctuations in Dilute BoseEinstein Condensates”, in Unruh, W.G. and Sch¨ utzhold,
R., eds., Quantum Analogues: From Phase Transitions to Black Holes and Cosmology,
Lecture Notes in Physics, 718, pp. 93–113, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2007). [DOI],
[arXiv:condmat/0512537].
[206] Fischer, U.R. and Sch¨ utzhold, R., “Quantum simulation of cosmic inﬂation in twocomponent
Bose–Einstein condensates”, Phys. Rev. A, 70, 063615, (2004). [DOI], [condmat/0406470].
[207] Fischer, U.R. and Visser, M., “Riemannian geometry of irrotational vortex acoustics”, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 88, 110201, 1–4, (2002). [DOI], [condmat/0110211].
[208] Fischer, U.R. and Visser, M., “On the spacetime curvature experienced by quasiparticle
excitations in the Painlev´e–Gullstrand eﬀective geometry”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 304, 22–39,
(2003). [DOI], [condmat/0205139].
[209] Fischer, U.R. and Visser, M., “Warped spacetime for phonons moving in a perfect nonrela
tivistic ﬂuid”, Europhys. Lett., 62, 1–7, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0211029].
[210] Fischer, U.R. and Volovik, G.E., “Thermal quasiequilibrium states across Landau horizons in
the eﬀective gravity of superﬂuids”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 57–88, (2001). [grqc/0003017].
[211] Fiur´ a˘sek, J., Leonhardt, U. and Parentani, R., “Slowlight pulses in moving media”, Phys.
Rev. A, 65, 011802, 1–4, (2002). [quantph/0011100].
122
[212] Flato, M., Sternheimer, D. and Fronsdal, C., “Diﬃculties with massless particles”, Commun.
Math. Phys., 90, 563, (1983). [DOI].
[213] Fock, V.A., The Theory of Space, Time, and Gravitation, (Pergamon, New York, 1964), 2nd
edition.
[214] FonsecaBarbatti, C., Novello, M., Salim, J.M. and Arcuri, R.C., “Creation of a wormhole
due to nonlinear electrodynamics”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 17, 1305–1314, (2002). [DOI].
[215] Ford, L.H., “Quantum ﬁeld theory in curved spacetime”, arXiv eprint, (1997).
[grqc/9707062].
[216] Ford, L.H. and Svaiter, N.F., “Cosmological and black hole horizon ﬂuctuations”, Phys. Rev.
D, 56, 2226–2235, (1997). [DOI], [grqc/9704050].
[217] Ford, L.H. and Svaiter, N.F., “A Fluid Analog Model for Boundary Eﬀects in Field Theory”,
Phys. Rev. D, 80, 065034, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0903.2694 [quantph]].
[218] Ford, L.H. and Svaiter, N.F., “Quantum Density Fluctuations in Classical Liquids”, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 102, 030602, (2009). [DOI].
[219] Foster, B.Z. and Jacobson, T., “PostNewtonian parameters and constraints on Einstein
aether theory”, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 064015, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0509083 [grqc]].
[220] Franchini, F. and Kravtsov, V.E., “Horizon in Random Matrix Theory, Hawking Radiation
and Flow of Cold Atoms”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, 166401, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.3533
[condmat.strel]].
[221] Friedan, D., “A tentative theory of large distance physics”, J. High Energy Phys., 2003(10),
063, (2003). [DOI], [hepth/0204131].
[222] Frolov, V.P., “Black Hole Entropy and Physics at Planckian Scales”, in S´ anchez, N. and
Zichichi, A., eds., String Gravity and Physics at the Planck Energy Scale, Proceedings of the
NATO Advanced Study Institute, Erice, Italy, September 18 – 19, 1995, NATO ASI Series
C, 476, (Kluwer, Dordrecht; Boston, 1996). [hepth/9510156].
[223] Frolov, V.P. and Larsen, A.L., “Stationary strings and 2D black holes”, Nucl. Phys. B, 449,
149–158, (1995). [DOI], [hepth/9503060].
[224] Fulling, S.A., Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved SpaceTime, (Cambridge Univer
sity Press, Cambridge; New York, 1989). [Google Books].
[225] Fursaev, D.V., “Entanglement and gravitational physics”, J. Phys. A, 39, 6385–6391, (2006).
[DOI].
[226] Fursaev, D.V., “Entanglement entropy in critical phenomena and analogue models of quan
tum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 124025, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:hepth/0602134].
[227] Furtado, C., de M Carvalho, A.M., Garcia de Andrade, L.C. and Moraes, F., “Holon
omy, Aharonov–Bohm eﬀect and phonon scattering in superﬂuids”, arXiv eprint, (2004).
[grqc/0401025].
[228] Furuhashi, H., Nambu, Y. and Saida, H., “Simulation of Acoustic Black Hole in a Laval
Nozzle”, Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 5417–5438, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0601066].
[229] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Nonstandard optics from quantum spacetime”, Phys. Rev. D,
59, 124021, (1999). [DOI], [grqc/9809038].
123
[230] Garay, L.J., “Quantum gravity and minimum length”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 10, 145–166,
(1995). [DOI], [grqc/9403008].
[231] Garay, L.J., Anglin, J.R., Cirac, J.I. and Zoller, P., “Sonic Analog of Gravitational
Black Holes in Bose–Einstein Condensates”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 4643–1–5, (2000). [DOI],
[grqc/0002015].
[232] Garay, L.J., Anglin, J.R., Cirac, J.I. and Zoller, P., “Sonic black holes in dilute Bose–Einstein
condensates”, Phys. Rev. A, 63, 023611, 1–13, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0005131].
[233] Garcia de Andrade, L.C., “Irrotational vortex geometry of torsion loops”, arXiv eprint,
(2004). [grqc/0409115].
[234] Garcia de Andrade, L.C., “NonRiemannian acoustic black holes: Hawking radiation and
Lorentz symmetry breaking”, arXiv eprint, (2004). [grqc/0411103].
[235] Garcia de Andrade, L.C., “NonRiemannian geometry of turbulent acoustic ﬂows and analog
gravity”, arXiv eprint, (2004). [grqc/0410036].
[236] Garcia de Andrade, L.C., “NonRiemannian geometry of vortex acoustics”, Phys. Rev. D,
70, 064004, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0405062].
[237] Garcia de Andrade, L.C., “NonRiemannian vortex geometry of rotational viscous ﬂuids and
breaking of the acoustic Lorentz invariance”, Phys. Lett. A, 339, 188–193, (2005). [DOI],
[grqc/0409116].
[238] Garcia de Andrade, L.C., “On the necessity of nonRiemannian acoustic spacetime in ﬂuids
with vorticity”, Phys. Lett. A, 346, 327–329, (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0502106].
[239] Garcia de Andrade, L.C., “Relativistic superﬂuid hydrodynamics”, arXiv eprint, (2005).
[grqc/0503088].
[240] Garcia de Andrade, L.C., de M Carvalho, A.M. and Furtado, C., “Geometric phase for
fermionic quasiparticles scattering by disgyration in superﬂuids”, Europhys. Lett., 67, 538–
544, (2004). [grqc/0406057].
[241] Ge, X.H. and Kim, S.W., “Black hole analogues in braneworld scenario”, arXiv eprint,
(2007). [arXiv:0705.1396 [hepth]].
[242] Ge, X.H. and Kim, S.W., “Probing extra dimensions with higher dimensional black hole
analogues?”, Phys. Lett. B, 652, 349–358, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0705.1404 [hepth]].
[243] Ge, X.H. and Shen, Y.G., “Quantum teleportation with sonic black holes”, Phys. Lett. B,
623, 141–146, (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:quantph/0507166].
[244] Ghafarnejad, H. and Salehi, H., “Hadamard renormalization, conformal anomaly and cos
mological event horizons”, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 4633–4639, (1997). [DOI], [hepth/9709158].
[245] Gibbons, G.W. and Hawking, S.W., “Action integrals and partition functions in quantum
gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 15, 2752–2756, (1977). [DOI].
[246] Gibbons, G.W., Herdeiro, C.A.R., Warnick, C.M. and Werner, M.C., “Stationary Metrics
and Optical ZermeloRandersFinsler Geometry”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 044022, (2009). [DOI],
[arXiv:0811.2877 [grqc]].
[247] Giovanazzi, S., “Hawking Radiation in Sonic Black Holes”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 94, 061302, 1–4,
(2005). [DOI], [physics/0411064].
124
[248] Giovanazzi, S., “The sonic analogue of black hole radiation”, J. Phys. B, 39, S109–S120,
(2006). [DOI], [arXiv:condmat/0604541].
[249] Giovanazzi, S., Farrell, C., Kiss, T. and Leonhardt, U., “Conditions for onedimensional su
personic ﬂow of quantum gases”, Phys. Rev. A, 70, 063602, (2004). [DOI], [condmat/0405007].
[250] Girelli, F., Liberati, S., Percacci, R. and Rahmede, C., “Modiﬁed dispersion relations from
the renormalization group of gravity”, Class. Quant. Grav., 24, 3995–4008, (2007). [DOI],
[arXiv:grqc/0607030].
[251] Girelli, F., Liberati, S. and Sindoni, L., “Phenomenology of quantum gravity and Finsler
geometry”, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 064015, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0611024].
[252] Girelli, F., Liberati, S. and Sindoni, L., “Gravitational dynamics in BoseEinstein conden
sates”, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 084013, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0807.4910 [grqc]].
[253] Girelli, F., Liberati, S. and Sindoni, L., “Emergence of Lorentzian signature and scalar
gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 044019, (2009). [DOI].
[254] Girelli, F., Liberati, S. and Sindoni, L., “Is the notion of time really fundamental?”, arXiv
eprint, (2009). [arXiv:0903.4876 [grqc]].
[255] Girelli, F., Liberati, S. and Sindoni, L., “On the emergence of time and gravity”, Phys. Rev.
D, 79, 044019, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0806.4239 [grqc]].
[256] Giulini, D., “Remarks on the Notions of General Covariance and Background Independence”,
in Stamatescu, I.O. and Seiler, E., eds., Approaches to Fundamental Physics: An Assessment
of Current Theoretical Ideas, Lecture Notes in Physics, 721, pp. 105–120, (Springer, Berlin;
New York, 2007). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0603087 [grqc]].
[257] Glass, E.N. and Krisch, J.P., “Schwarzschild atmospheric processes: A classical path to the
quantum”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 32, 735–741, (2000). [DOI], [grqc/9910080].
[258] Gordon, W., “Zur Lichtfortpﬂanzung nach der Relativit¨ atstheorie”, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig),
72, 421–456, (1923). [DOI].
[259] G´orski, A.Z. and Szmigielski, J., “On Pairs of Diﬀerence Operators Satisfying: [D,X]=Id”,
J. Math. Phys., 39, 545–568, (1998). [DOI], [hepth/9703015].
[260] Goulart de Oliveira Costa,
´
E. and Perez Bergliaﬀa, S.E., “A classiﬁcation of the eﬀec
tive metric in nonlinear electrodynamics”, Class. Quant. Grav., 26, 135015, (2009). [DOI],
[arXiv:0905.3673 [grqc]].
[261] Griﬃn, A., Excitations in a Bosecondensed Liquid, Cambridge Studies in Low Temperature
Physics, 4, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1993). [Google Books].
[262] Gu, ZhengCheng and Wen, XiaoGang, “A lattice bosonic model as a quantum theory of
gravity”, arXiv eprint, (2006). [arXiv:grqc/0606100].
[263] Gu, Z.C. and Wen, X.G., “Emergence of helicity +/ − 2 modes (gravitons) from qubit
models”, arXiv eprint, (2009). [arXiv:0907.1203 [grqc]].
[264] Gullstrand, A., “Allgemeine L¨ osung des statischen Eink¨orperproblems in der Einsteinschen
Gravitationstheorie”, Ark. Mat. Astron. Fys., 16(8), 1–15, (1922).
125
[265] Hadamard, J., Le¸cons sur la propagation des ondes et les ´equations de l’hydrodynamique
(Lectures on the propagation of waves and the equations of hydrodynamics), (Hermann, Paris,
1903).
[266] Hambli, N. and Burgess, C.P., “Hawking radiation and ultraviolet regulators”, Phys. Rev.
D, 53, 5717–5722, (1996). [DOI], [hepth/9510159].
[267] Hamilton, A.J.S. and Lisle, J.P., “The river model of black holes”, Am. J. Phys., 76, 519–532,
(2008). [DOI], [grqc/0411060].
[268] Hamma, A., Markopoulou, F., Lloyd, S., Caravelli, F., Severini, S. and Markstr¨om, K.,
“Quantum BoseHubbard model with an evolving graph as a toy model for emergent space
time”, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 104032, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0911.5075 [grqc]].
[269] Hassan, S.F. and Sloth, M.S., “TransPlanckian eﬀects in inﬂationary cosmology and the
modiﬁed uncertainty principle”, Nucl. Phys. B, 674, 434–458, (2003). [DOI], [hepth/0204110].
[270] Hawking, S.W., “Black hole explosions?”, Nature, 248, 30–31, (1974). [DOI].
[271] Hawking, S.W., “Particle creation by black holes”, Commun. Math. Phys., 43, 199–220,
(1975). [DOI]. Online version (accessed 23 March 2011):
http://projecteuclid.org/getRecord?id=euclid.cmp/1103899181.
[272] Hawking, S.W., “Chronology protection conjecture”, Phys. Rev. D, 46, 603–611, (1992).
[DOI].
[273] Hawking, S.W., “The Chronology Protection Conjecture”, in Sato, H. and Nakamura, T.,
eds., The Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: on recent developments in theoretical and ex
perimental general relativity, gravitation and relativistic ﬁeld theories, Proceedings of the
meeting held in Kyoto, Japan, 23 – 29 June 1991, pp. 3–16, (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore,
1992).
[274] Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R., The Large Scale Structure of SpaceTime, Cambridge
Monographs on Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973).
[Google Books].
[275] Hawking, S.W., Thorne, K.S., Novikov, I., Ferris, T. and Lightman, A., “Chronology protec
tion: Making the world safe for historians”, in The Future of Spacetime, pp. 87–108, (Norton,
New York, 2002).
[276] Hehl, F.W. and Obukhov, Y.N., “To consider the electromagnetic ﬁeld as fundamental, and
the metric only as a subsidiary ﬁeld”, Found. Phys., submitted, (2004). [physics/0404101].
[277] Hehl, F.W. and Obukhov, Y.N., “Linear media in classical electrodynamics and the Post
constraint”, Phys. Lett. A, 334, 249–259, (2005). [DOI], [physics/0411038].
[278] Helfer, A.D., “TransPlanckian modes, backreaction, and the Hawking process”, arXiv e
print, (2000). [grqc/0008016].
[279] Helfer, A.D., “Do black holes radiate?”, Rep. Prog. Phys., 66, 943–1008, (2003). [DOI],
[grqc/0304042].
[280] Helfer, A.D., “State reduction and energy extraction from black holes”, Phys. Lett. A, 329,
277–283, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0407055].
126
[281] Henson, J., “The causal set approach to quantum gravity”, arXiv eprint, (2006).
[arXiv:grqc/0601121].
[282] Heyl, J. S., “See a Black Hole on a Shoestring”, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 064029, (2006). [DOI],
[arXiv:grqc/0602065].
[283] Himemoto, Y. and Tanaka, T., “A generalization of the model of Hawking radiation with
modiﬁed high frequency dispersion relation”, Phys. Rev. D, 61, 064004, 1–18, (2000). [DOI],
[grqc/9904076].
[284] Ho, P.M., “Regularization of Newton constant, transPlanckian dispersion relation, and
symmetry of particle spectrum”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 2641–2650, (2004). [DOI],
[hepth/0308103].
[285] Hochberg, D., “Evaporating black holes and collapsing bubbles in ﬂuids”, unpublished,
(1997).
[286] Hochberg, D. and P´erezMercader, J., “A Liquid Model Analogue for Black Hole Thermo
dynamics”, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 4880–4888, (1997). [DOI], [grqc/9609043].
[287] Hoˇrava, P., “Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 084008, (2009). [DOI],
[arXiv:0901.3775 [hepth]].
[288] Hoˇrava, P., “Spectral Dimension of the Universe in Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point”,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 161301, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0902.3657 [hepth]].
[289] Hoˇrava, P. and MelbyThompson, C.M., “General Covariance in Quantum Gravity at a
Lifshitz Point”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 064027, (2010). [arXiv:1007.2410 [hepth]].
[290] Horstmann, B., Reznik, B., Fagnocchi, S. and Cirac, J.I., “Hawking Radiation from an Acous
tic Black Hole on an Ion Ring”, Phys. Rev. Lett, 104, 250403, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0904.4801
[quantph]].
[291] Horstmann, B., Sch¨ utzhold, R., Reznik, B., Fagnocchi, S. and Cirac, J.I., “Measure
ment of Hawking Radiation with Ions in the Quantum Regime”, arXiv eprint, (2010).
[arXiv:1008.3494 [quantph]].
[292] Horwitz, L.P. and Oron, O., “Classical Gravity as an Eikonal Approximation to a Mani
festly Lorentz Covariant Quantum Theory with Brownian Interpretation”, in Reimer, A.,
ed., Quantum Gravity Research Trends, Horizons in World Physics, 250, (Nova Science, New
York, 2005). [grqc/0407076].
[293] Hossenfelder, S., “The minimal length and large extra dimensions”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 19,
2727–2744, (2004). [DOI], [hepph/0410122].
[294] Hossenfelder, S., “Running coupling with minimal length”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 105003, (2004).
[DOI], [hepph/0405127].
[295] Hossenfelder, S., “Selfconsistency in theories with a minimal length”, Class. Quant. Grav.,
23, 1815–1821, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:hepth/0510245].
[296] Hu, B.L., “Dynamical ﬁnite size eﬀect, inﬂationary cosmology and thermal particle produc
tion”, in Lee, H.C., ed., CAP–NSERC Summer Institute in Theoretical Physics, Edmonton,
Alberta, July 10 – 25, 1987, (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore; Teaneck, NJ, 1988).
127
[297] Hu, B.L., “Nonequilibrium quantum ﬁelds in cosmology: Comments on selected current
topics”, in De Vega, H.J. and S´ anchez, N., eds., Second Paris Cosmology Colloquium, 2 – 4
June, 1994, Observatoire de Paris, France, p. 111, (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore; River Edge,
NJ, 1995). [grqc/9409053].
[298] Hu, B.L., “Stochastic gravity”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 38, 2987–3037, (1999). [grqc/9902064].
[299] Hu, B.L., “Can spacetime be a condensate?”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1785–1806, (2005).
[DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0503067].
[300] Hu, B.L., “Emergent/Quantum Gravity: Macro/Micro Structures of Spacetime”, J. Phys.
Conf. Ser., 174, 012015, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0903.0878 [grqc]].
[301] Hu, B.L. and Verdaguer, E., “Stochastic gravity: A primer with applications”, Class. Quan
tum Grav., 20, R1–R42, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0211090].
[302] Hu, B.L. and Verdaguer, E., “Stochastic Gravity: Theory and Applications”, Living Rev.
Relativity, 7, lrr20043, (2004). URL (accessed 31 May 2005):
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20043.
[303] Huhtala, P. and Volovik, G.E., “Fermionic Microstates within the Painlev´e–Gullstrand Black
Hole”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys., 94, 853–861, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0111055].
[304] Indurain, J. and Liberati, S., “The Theory of a Quantum Noncanonical Field in Curved
Spacetimes”, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 045008, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.4568 [hepth]].
[305] Israel, W., “Dark stars: the evolution of an idea”, in Hawking, S.W. and Israel, W., eds.,
Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, pp. 199–276, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge;
New York, 1987).
[306] Ito, K. and Ugakkai, N.S., eds., Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics, (MIT, Cambridge,
MA, 1987), 2nd edition.
[307] Jacobson, T.A., “Blackhole evaporation and ultrashort distances”, Phys. Rev. D, 44, 1731–
1739, (1991). [DOI].
[308] Jacobson, T.A., “Black hole radiation in the presence of a short distance cutoﬀ”, Phys. Rev.
D, 48, 728–741, (1993). [DOI], [hepth/9303103].
[309] Jacobson, T.A., “Introduction to Black Hole Microscopy”, in Mac´ıas, A., Quevedo, H.,
Obreg´on, O. and Matos, T., eds., Recent Developments in Gravitation and Mathematical
Physics, Proceedings of the First Mexican School on Gravitation and Mathematical Physics,
Guanajuato, Mexico, 12 – 16 December 1994, (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore; River Edge, NJ,
1996). [hepth/9510026].
[310] Jacobson, T.A., “On the origin of the outgoing black hole modes”, Phys. Rev. D, 53, 7082–
7088, (1996). [DOI], [hepth/9601064].
[311] Jacobson, T.A., “TransPlanckian redshifts and the substance of the spacetime river”, Prog.
Theor. Phys. Suppl., 136, 1–17, (1999). [DOI], [hepth/0001085].
[312] Jacobson, T.A., “Lorentz violation and Hawking radiation”, in Kosteleck´ y, V.A., ed., CPT
and Lorentz Symmetry, Proceedings of the Second Meeting, Bloomington, USA, 15 – 18
August 2001, pp. 316–320, (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 2002). [DOI],
[grqc/0110079]. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011):
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812778123/9789812778123_0039.html.
128
[313] Jacobson, T.A., “Introduction to quantum ﬁelds in curved spacetime and the Hawking ef
fect”, arXiv eprint, (2003). [grqc/0308048].
[314] Jacobson, T., “Einsteinaether gravity: a status report”, in From Quantum to Emergent
Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology, June 11 – 15 2007, Trieste, Italy, Proceedings of Sci
ence, (SISSA, Trieste, 2007). [arXiv:0801.1547 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 13 December 2010):
http://pos.sissa.it/cgibin/reader/conf.cgi?confid=43.
[315] Jacobson, T.A. and Kang, G., “Conformal invariance of black hole temperature”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 10, L201–L206, (1993). [DOI], [grqc/9307002].
[316] Jacobson, T.A. and Koike, T., “Black hole and baby universe in a thin ﬁlm of
3
HeA”, in
Novello, M., Visser, M. and Volovik, G., eds., Artiﬁcial Black Holes, pp. 87–108, (World
Scientiﬁc, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 2002). [condmat/0205174], [Google Books].
[317] Jacobson, T.A., Liberati, S. and Mattingly, D., “Lorentz violation and Crab synchrotron
emission: A new constraint far beyond the Planck scale”, Nature, 424, 1019–1021, (2003).
[astroph/0212190].
[318] Jacobson, T.A., Liberati, S. and Mattingly, D., “Threshold eﬀects and Planck scale Lorentz
violation: Combined constraints from high energy astrophysics”, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 124011,
1–26, (2003). [DOI], [hepph/0209264].
[319] Jacobson, T.A., Liberati, S. and Mattingly, D., “Astrophysical Bounds on Planck Suppressed
Lorentz Violation”, in AmelinoCamelia, G. and KowalskiGlikman, J., eds., Planck Scale
Eﬀects in Astrophysics and Cosmology, Lecture Notes in Physics, 669, pp. 101–130, (Springer,
Berlin; New York, 2005). [DOI], [hepph/0407370].
[320] Jacobson, T.A., Liberati, S. and Mattingly, D., “Quantum gravity phenomenology and
Lorentz violation”, in Trampeti´c, J. and Wess, J., eds., Particle Physics and the Universe,
Proceedings of the 9th Adriatic Meeting, September 2003, Dubrovnik, Springer Proceedings
in Physics, 98, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2005). [grqc/0404067].
[321] Jacobson, T., Liberati, S. and Mattingly, D., “Lorentz violation at high energy: con
cepts, phenomena and astrophysical constraints”, Annals Phys., 321, 150–196, (2006). [DOI],
[arXiv:astroph/0505267].
[322] Jacobson, T.A. and Mattingly, D., “Hawking radiation on a falling lattice”, Phys. Rev. D,
61, 024017, 1–10, (2000). [hepth/9908099].
[323] Jacobson, T. and Mattingly, D., “Einsteinaether waves”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 024003, (2004).
[DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0402005 [grqc]].
[324] Jacobson, T. and Parentani, R., “Black hole entanglement entropy regularized in a freely
falling frame”, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 024006, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:hepth/0703233].
[325] Jacobson, T. and Parentani, R., “Horizon surface gravity as 2d geodesic expansion”, Class.
Quant. Grav., 25, 195009, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0806.1677 [grqc]].
[326] Jacobson, T.A. and Volovik, G.E., “Eﬀective spacetime and Hawking radiation from moving
domain wall in thin ﬁlm of
3
HeA”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 68, 874–880, (1998). [DOI],
[grqc/9811014].
[327] Jacobson, T.A. and Volovik, G.E., “Event horizons and ergoregions in
3
He”, Phys. Rev. D,
58, 064021, 1–7, (1998). [DOI].
129
[328] Jain, P., Weinfurtner, S., Visser, M. and Gardiner, C.W., “Analog model of a Friedmann–
Robertson–Walker universe in Bose–Einstein condensates: Application of the classical ﬁeld
method”, Phys. Rev. A, 76, 033616, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0705.2077 [condmat.other]].
[329] Jannes, G., “On the condensed matter scheme for emergent gravity and interferometry”,
arXiv eprint, (2008). [arXiv:0810.0613 [grqc]].
[330] Jannes, G., “Condensed matter lessons about the origin of time”, arXiv eprint, (2009).
[arXiv:0904.3627 [grqc]].
[331] Jannes, G., Emergent gravity: the BEC paradigm, Ph.D. Thesis, (Universidad Complutense
de Madrid, Madrid, 2009). [arXiv:0907.2839 [grqc]].
[332] Jannes, G., “Some comments on ‘The Mathematical Universe”’, Found. Phys., 39, 397–406,
(2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0904.0867 [grqc]].
[333] Jannes, G., Barcel´ o, C., Cano, A. and Garay, L.J., “QNM spectrum in (1+1)dimensional
BEC black holes”, in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology, June
11 – 15 2007, Trieste, Italy, Proceedings of Science, (SISSA, Trieste, 2007). URL (accessed 13
December 2010):
http://pos.sissa.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)021.
[334] Jannes, G., Piquet, R., Maissa, P., Mathis, C. and Rousseaux, G., “The circular jump is a
white hole”, arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1010.1701 [physics.ﬂudyn]].
[335] Jevicki, A. and Thaler, J., “Dynamics of black hole formation in an exactly solvable model”,
Phys. Rev. D, 66, 024041, 1–6, (2002). [DOI], [hepth/0203172].
[336] Kagan, Y., Surkov, E.L. and Shlyapnikov, G.V., “Evolution of a Bosecondensed gas under
variations of the conﬁning potential”, Phys. Rev. A, 54, R1753–R1756, (1996). [DOI].
[337] Kagan, Y., Surkov, E.L. and Shlyapnikov, G.V., “Evolution and global collapse of trapped
Bose condensates under variations of the scattering length”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 2604–2607,
(1997). [DOI], [physics/9705005].
[338] Kash, M.M. et al., “Ultraslow Group Velocity and Enhanced Nonlinear Optical Eﬀects in a
Coherently Driven Hot Atomic Gas”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, 5229–5232, (1999). [DOI].
[339] Katsnelson, M.I. and Novoselov, K.S., “Graphene: New bridge between condensed matter
physics and quantum electrodynamics”, Solid State Commun., 143, 3–13, (2007). [DOI].
[340] Katti, R., Samuel, J. and Sinha, S., “The Universe in a Soap Film”, Class. Quant. Grav.,
26, 135018, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0904.1057 [grqc]].
[341] Kempf, A., “Mode generating mechanism in inﬂation with a cutoﬀ”, Phys. Rev. D, 63,
083514, 1–5, (2001). [DOI], [astroph/0009209].
[342] Kempf, A., “A covariant informationdensity cutoﬀ in curved spacetime”, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
92, 221301, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0310035].
[343] Kempf, A. and Niemeyer, J.C., “Perturbation spectrum in inﬂation with cutoﬀ”, Phys. Rev.
D, 64, 103501, 1–6, (2001). [DOI], [astroph/0103225].
[344] Kim, S.W., Kim, W.T. and Oh, J.J., “Decay rate and lowenergy nearhorizon dynamics of
acoustic black holes”, Phys. Lett. B, 608, 10–16, (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0409003].
130
[345] Kim, W. and Shin, H., “Anomaly Analysis of Hawking Radiation from Acoustic Black Hole”,
J. High Energy Phys., 2007(07), 070, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0706.3563 [hepth]].
[346] Kim, W., Son, E.J. and Yoon, M., “Thermodynamics of (2+1)dimensional acoustic black
hole based on the generalized uncertainty principle”, arXiv eprint, (2008). [arXiv:0801.1439
[grqc]].
[347] Kim, W.T., Son, E.J., Yoon, M.S. and Park, Y.J., “Statistical entropy and superradi
ance in 2+1 dimensional acoustic black holes”, J. Korean Phys. Soc., 49, 15–20, (2006).
[grqc/0504127].
[348] Kiss, T. and Leonhardt, U., “Towards a classiﬁcation of wave catastrophes”, J. Opt. A, 6,
S246–S247, (2004). [DOI], [physics/0309036].
[349] Klinkhamer, F.R. and Volovik, G.E., “Dynamic vacuum variable and equilibrium approach
in cosmology”, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 063528, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0806.2805 [grqc]].
[350] Klinkhamer, F.R. and Volovik, G.E., “Selftuning vacuum variable and cosmological con
stant”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 085015, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0711.3170 [grqc]].
[351] Klinkhamer, F.R. and Volovik, G.E., “Towards a solution of the cosmological constant prob
lem”, JETP Lett., 91, 259–265, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0907.4887 [hepth]].
[352] Kobes, R., “Superresonance eﬀect and energy ﬂow in acoustic black holes”, Can. J. Phys.,
84, 501–506, (2006). [DOI].
[353] Kocharovskaya, O., Rostovtsev, Y. and Scully, M.O., “Stopping Light via Hot Atoms”, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 86, 628–631, (2001). [DOI].
[354] Kokkotas, K.D. and Schmidt, B.G., “QuasiNormal Modes of Stars and Black Holes”, Living
Rev. Relativity, 2, lrr19992, (1999). URL (accessed 31 May 2005):
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr19992.
[355] Kolekar, S. and Padmanabhan, T., “Holography in Action”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 024036,
(2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1005.0619 [grqc]].
[356] Konopka, T., “Statistical Mechanics of Graphity Models”, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 044032, (2008).
[DOI], [arXiv:0805.2283 [hepth]].
[357] Konopka, T. and Markopoulou, F., “Constrained mechanics and noiseless subsystems”, arXiv
eprint, (2006). [arXiv:grqc/0601028].
[358] Konopka, T., Markopoulou, F. and Severini, S., “Quantum Graphity: a model of emergent
locality”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 104029, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0801.0861 [hepth]].
[359] Kopnin, N.B. and Volovik, G.E., “Critical velocity and event horizon in paircorrelated sys
tems with relativistic fermionic quasiparticles”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 67, 528–532,
(1998). [DOI], [condmat/9712187].
[360] Kosteleck´ y, V.A. and Samuel, S., “Spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry in string
theory”, Phys. Rev. D, 39, 683–685, (1989). [DOI].
[361] KowalskiGlikman, J., “Testing dispersion relations of quantum kappaPoincare algebra on
cosmological ground”, Phys. Lett. B, 499, 1–8, (2001). [DOI], [astroph/0006250].
[362] KowalskiGlikman, J., “De Sitter space as an arena for doubly special relativity”, Phys. Lett.
B, 547, 291–296, (2002). [DOI], [hepth/0207279].
131
[363] KowalskiGlikman, J., “Doubly special relativity: A kinematics of quantum gravity?”, in
Semikhatov, A.M., Vasiliev, M.V. and Zaikin, V., eds., 3rd International Sakharov Conference
on Physics, Proceedings of the conference, Moscow, Russia, June 24 – 29, 2002, (Scientiﬁc
World, Moscow, 2002). [hepth/0209264].
[364] Kraus, P. and Wilczek, F., “A Simple Stationary Line Element for the Schwarzschild Geom
etry, and Some Applications”, arXiv eprint, (June 1994). [grqc/9406042].
[365] Krein, G., Menezes, G. and Svaiter, N.F., “Analog model for quantum gravity eﬀects:
phonons in random ﬂuids”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 131301, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1006.3350
[hepth]].
[366] Kugo, T., “Limitations on the existence of massless composite states”, Phys. Lett. B, 109,
205–208, (1982). [DOI].
[367] Kurita, Y., Kobayashi, M., Ishihara, H. and Tsubota, M., “Particle creation in Bose–Einstein
condensates: Theoretical formulation based on conserving gapless meanﬁeld theory”, Phys.
Rev. A, 82, 053602, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1007.0073 [condmat.quantgas]].
[368] Kurita, Y., Kobayashi, M., Morinari, T., Tsubota, M. and Ishihara, H., “Spacetime analogue
of BoseEinstein condensates: Bogoliubovde Gennes formulation”, arXiv eprint, (2008).
[arXiv:0810.3088 [condmat.other]].
[369] Lahav, O., Itah, A., Blumkin, A., Gordon, C. and Steinhauer, J., “Realization of a Sonic
Black Hole Analog in a Bose–Einstein Condensate”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 240401, (2010).
[DOI], [arXiv:0906.1337].
[370] Lamb, H., Hydrodynamics, (Dover, Mineola, NY, 1932), 6th edition. Reissue of 1932 ed., ﬁrst
edition publ. 1879.
[371] L¨ ammerzahl, C. and Hehl, F.W., “Riemannian light cone from vanishing birefringence
in premetric vacuum electrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 105022, 1–10, (2004). [DOI],
[grqc/0409072].
[372] Landau, L.D. and Lifshitz, E.M., Fluid Mechanics, Course of Theoretical Physics, 6, (Perg
amon; AddisonWesley, London; Reading, MA, 1959).
[373] Landau, L.D. and Lifshitz, E.M., The classical theory of ﬁelds, (Pergamon Press, Oxford;
New York, 1971), 3rd edition.
[374] Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M. and Pitaevskii, L.P., Statistical Physics, Part 2, Course of
Theoretical Physics, 9, (Pergamon Press, Oxford; New York, 1980).
[375] Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M. and Pitaevskii, L.P., Electrodynamics of continuous media,
Course of Theoretical Physics, 8, (Pergamon Press, Oxford; New York, 1984), 2nd edition.
[376] Larsen, A.L., “Cosmic strings and black holes”, arXiv eprint, (1996). [hepth/9610063].
[377] Laschkarew, W., “Zur Theorie der Gravitation”, Z. Phys., 35, 473–476, (1926). [DOI].
[378] Laughlin, R.B., “Emergent relativity”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 18, 831–854, (2003). [DOI],
[grqc/0302028].
[379] Lemaˆıtre, G., “L’univers en expansion”, Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles, Ser. A, 53, 51–85, (1933).
[380] Lemoine, M., Lubo, M., Martin, J. and Uzan, J.P., “Stressenergy tensor for transPlanckian
cosmology”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 023510, 1–14, (2002). [hepth/0109128].
132
[381] Lemoine, M., Martin, J. and Uzan, J.P., “TransPlanckian dark energy?”, Phys. Rev. D,
67, 103520, 1–13, (2003). [DOI], [hepth/0212027].
[382] Leonhardt, U., “Spacetime geometry of quantum dielectrics”, Phys. Rev. A, 62, 012111,
1–8, (2000). [DOI], [physics/0001064].
[383] Leonhardt, U., “Slow Light”, in Novello, M., Visser, M. and Volovik, G., eds., Artiﬁcial
Black Holes, pp. 61–85, (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 2002). [grqc/0108085],
[Google Books].
[384] Leonhardt, U., “Quantum physics of simple optical instruments”, Rep. Prog. Phys., 66,
1207–1250, (2003). [DOI], [quantph/0305007].
[385] Leonhardt, U., “Optical Conformal Mapping”, Science, 312(5781), 1777–1780, (2006). [DOI].
[386] Leonhardt, U., Kiss, T. and
¨
Ohberg, P., “Intrinsic instability of sonic white holes”, arXiv
eprint, (2002). [grqc/0211069].
[387] Leonhardt, U. and Philbin, T.G., “Transformation Optics and the Geometry of Light”, Prog.
Opt., 53, 69–152, (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0805.4778].
[388] Leonhardt, U. and Philbin, T.G., “Black Hole Lasers Revisited”, in Sch¨ utzhold, R. and
Unruh, B., eds., Quantum Analogues: From Phase Transitions to Black Holes and Cosmology,
Lecture Notes in Physics, 718, pp. 229–246, (Springer, Berlin, Germany; New York, U.S.A.,
2010). [arXiv:0803.0669 [grqc]].
[389] Leonhardt, U. and Piwnicki, P., “Optics of nonuniformly moving media”, Phys. Rev. A, 60,
4301–4312, (1999). [DOI].
[390] Leonhardt, U. and Piwnicki, P., “Relativistic Eﬀects of Light in Moving Media
with Extremely Low Group Velocity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 822–825, (2000). [DOI],
[condmat/9906332].
[391] Leonhardt, U. and Piwnicki, P., “Reply to Comment on “Relativistic Eﬀects of Light in
Moving Media with Extremely Low Group Velocity” by M. Visser”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85,
5253, (2000). [DOI], [grqc/0003016].
[392] Lepe, S. and Saavedra, J., “Quasinormal modes, superradiance and area spectrum for 2+1
acoustic black holes”, Phys. Lett. B, 617, 174–181, (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0410074].
[393] Liberati, S., Quantum vacuum eﬀects in gravitational ﬁelds: Theory and detectability, Ph.D.
Thesis, (International School for Advanced Studies, Trieste, 2000). [grqc/0009050].
[394] Liberati, S., “Quantum gravity phenomenology via Lorentz violations”, in Bonora, L., Iengo,
R., Klabucar, D., Pallua, S. and Picek, I., eds., School on Particle Physics, Gravity and Cos
mology, 21 August – 2 September 2006, Dubrovnik, Croatia, Proceedings of Science, P2GC,
(SISSA, Trieste, 2007). [arXiv:0706.0142 [grqc]]URL:
http://pos.sissa.it/contribution?id=PoS(P2GC)018.
[395] Liberati, S., Girelli, F. and Sindoni, L., “Analogue Models for Emergent Gravity”, arXiv
eprint, (2009). [arXiv:0909.3834 [grqc]].
[396] Liberati, S. and Maccione, L., “Lorentz Violation: Motivation and new constraints”, Ann.
Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 59, 245–267, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0906.0681 [astroph.HE]].
133
[397] Liberati, S., Sindoni, L. and Sonego, S., “Linking the transPlanckian and the information
loss problems in black hole physics”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 42, 1139–1152, (2009). [DOI],
[arXiv:0904.0815 [grqc]].
[398] Liberati, S., Sonego, S. and Visser, M., “Unexpectedly large surface gravities for acoustic
horizons?”, Class. Quantum Grav., 17, 2903–2923, (2000). [DOI], [grqc/0003105].
[399] Liberati, S., Sonego, S. and Visser, M., “Scharnhorst eﬀect at oblique incidence”, Phys. Rev.
D, 63, 085003, 1–10, (2001). [DOI], [quantph/0010055].
[400] Liberati, S., Sonego, S. and Visser, M., “Fasterthanc signals, special relativity, and causal
ity”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 298, 167–185, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0107091].
[401] Liberati, S., Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S., “Analogue quantum gravity phenomenology
from a twocomponent BoseEinstein condensate”, Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 3129–3154,
(2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0510125].
[402] Liberati, S., Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S., “Naturalness in emergent spacetime”, Phys.
Rev. Lett., 96, 151301, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0512139].
[403] Lidsey, J.E., “Cosmic dynamics of Bose–Einstein condensates”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21,
777–786, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0307037].
[404] Loebbert, F., “The WeinbergWitten theorem on massless particles: An Essay”, Ann. Phys.
(Berlin), 17, 803–829, (2008). [DOI].
[405] Lubo, M., “Quantum minimal length and transPlanckian photons”, Phys. Rev. D, 61,
124009, 1–1, (2000). [DOI], [hepth/9911191].
[406] Lubo, M., “Ultraviolet cut oﬀ, black holeradiation equilibrium and big bang”, Phys. Rev.
D, 68, 125005, (2003). [DOI], [hepth/0306187].
[407] Lubo, M., “Ultraviolet cutoﬀ and bosonic dominance”, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 125004, 1–9, (2003).
[DOI], [hepth/0305216].
[408] Maccione, L. and Liberati, S., “GZK photon constraints on Planck scale Lorentz violation in
QED”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2008(08), 027, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0805.2548 [astroph]].
[409] Maccione, L., Liberati, S., Celotti, A. and Kirk, J.G., “New constraints on Planckscale
Lorentz Violation in QED from the Crab Nebula”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2007(10),
013, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0707.2673 [astroph]].
[410] Maccione, L., Liberati, S., Celotti, A., Kirk, J.G. and Ubertini, P., “Gammaray polarization
constraints on Planck scale violations of special relativity”, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 103003, (2008).
[DOI], [arXiv:0809.0220 [astroph]].
[411] Maccione, L., Taylor, A.M., Mattingly, D.M. and Liberati, S., “Planckscale Lorentz violation
constrained by UltraHighEnergy Cosmic Rays”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2009(04),
022, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0902.1756 [astroph.HE]].
[412] Macher, J. and Parentani, R., “Blackhole radiation in BoseEinstein condensates”, Phys.
Rev. A, 80, 043601, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.3634 [condmat.quantgas]].
[413] Macher, J. and Parentani, R., “Black/White hole radiation from dispersive theories”, Phys.
Rev. D, 79, 124008, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0903.2224 [hepth]].
134
[414] Maia, C. and Sch¨ utzhold, R., “Quantum toy model for blackhole backreaction”, Phys. Rev.
D, 76, 101502, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0706.4010 [grqc]].
[415] Mannarelli, M. and Manuel, C., “Transport theory for cold relativistic superﬂuids from an
analogue model of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 103014, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0802.0321 [hepph]].
[416] Mannarelli, M. and Manuel, C., “Dissipative superﬂuids, from cold atoms to quark matter”,
arXiv eprint, (2009). [arXiv:0910.4326 [hepph]].
[417] Mannarelli, M., Manuel, C. and Sa’d, Basil A., “Mutual friction in a cold colorﬂavorlocked
superﬂuid and rmode instabilities in compact stars”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, 241101, (2008).
[DOI], [arXiv:0807.3264 [hepph]].
[418] Manuel, C., “Hydrodynamics of the CFL superﬂuid”, in 8th Conference Quark Conﬁnement
and the Hadron Spectrum, Proceedings of Science, (SISSA, Trieste, 2008). [arXiv:0811.4512
[hepph]]. URL (accessed 13 December 2010):
http://pos.sissa.it/contribution?id=PoS(Confinement8)140.
[419] Manuel, C. and LlanesEstrada, F.J., “Bulk viscosity in a cold CFL superﬂuid”, J. Cosmol.
Astropart. Phys., 2007(08), 001, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0705.3909 [hepph]].
[420] Marino, F., “Acoustic black holes in a twodimensional ‘photonﬂuid”’, Phys. Rev. A, 78,
063804, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0808.1624 [grqc]].
[421] Markopoulou, F., “Towards gravity from the quantum”, arXiv eprint, (2006).
[arXiv:hepth/0604120].
[422] Martin, J., “Inﬂationary cosmological perturbations of quantummechanical origin”, in
AmelinoCamelia, G. and KowalskiGlikman, J., eds., Planck Scale Eﬀects in Astrophysics
and Cosmology, 40th Karpacz Winter School of Theoretical Physics, Ladek Zdr´oj, Poland,
4 – 14 February 2004, Lecture Notes in Physics, 669, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2004).
[hepth/0406011].
[423] Martin, J. and Brandenberger, R.H., “A Cosmological Window on TransPlanckian Physics”,
arXiv eprint, (2001). [astroph/0012031].
[424] Martin, J. and Brandenberger, R.H., “TransPlanckian problem of inﬂationary cosmology”,
Phys. Rev. D, 63, 123501, 1–16, (2001). [DOI], [hepth/0005209].
[425] Martin, J. and Brandenberger, R.H., “Corley–Jacobson dispersion relation and trans
Planckian inﬂation”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 103514, 1–5, (2002). [DOI], [hepth/0201189].
[426] Martin, J. and Brandenberger, R.H., “Dependence of the spectra of ﬂuctuations in inﬂation
ary cosmology on transPlanckian physics”, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 063513, 1–16, (2003). [DOI],
[hepth/0305161].
[427] Mart´ınMart´ıinez, E., Garay, L.J. and Le´on, J., “Quantum entanglement produced in the
formation of a black hole”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 064028, (2010). [arXiv:1007.2858 [quantph]].
[428] Massar, S., “The semiclassical back reaction to black hole evaporation”, Phys. Rev. D, 52,
5857–5864, (1995). [DOI], [grqc/9411039].
[429] Massar, S. and Parentani, R., “From vacuum ﬂuctuations to radiation: Accelerated detectors
and black holes”, Phys. Rev. D, 54, 7426–7443, (1996). [grqc/9502024].
135
[430] Massar, S. and Parentani, R., “From vacuum ﬂuctuations to radiation. II. Black holes”, Phys.
Rev. D, 54, 7444–7458, (1996). [DOI], [grqc/9502024].
[431] Massar, S. and Parentani, R., “How the change in horizon area drives black hole evaporation”,
Nucl. Phys. B, 575, 333–356, (2000). [DOI], [grqc/9903027].
[432] Matarrese, S., “On the classical and quantum irrotational motions of a relativistic perfect
ﬂuid: I. Classical Theory”, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 401, 53–66, (1985).
[433] Matarrese, S., “Perturbations of an irrotational perfect ﬂuid”, in Fabbri, R. and Modugno,
M., eds., Atti del VI Convegno Nazionale di Relativit`a Generale e Fisica della Gravitazione,
Proceedings of the 4th Italian Conference on General Relativity and the Physics of Gravita
tion, Florence, Italy, 10 – 13 October 1984, pp. 283–287, (Pitagora Editrice, Bologna, 1986).
[434] Matarrese, S., “Phonons in a relativistic perfect ﬂuid”, in Ruﬃni, R, ed., The Fourth Marcel
Grossmann Meeting on recent developments in theoretical and experimental general relativity,
gravitation and relativistic ﬁeld theories, Proceedings of the meeting held at the University
of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, 17 – 21 June, 1985, pp. 1591–1595, (NorthHolland; Elsevier, Ams
terdam; New York, 1986).
[435] Mattingly, D., “Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance”, Living Rev. Relativity, 8, lrr20055,
(2005). URL (accessed 31 May 2005):
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20055.
[436] Mattingly, D., “Causal sets and conservation laws in tests of Lorentz symmetry”, Phys. Rev.
D, 77, 125021, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0709.0539 [grqc]].
[437] Mattingly, D.M., Maccione, L., Galaverni, M., Liberati, S. and Sigl, G., “Possible cosmo
genic neutrino constraints on Planckscale Lorentz violation”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.,
2010(02), 007, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0911.0521 [hepph]].
[438] Mayoral, C., Fabbri, A. and Rinaldi, M., “Steplike discontinuities in BoseEinstein con
densates and Hawking radiation: dispersion eﬀects”, arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1008.2125
[grqc]].
[439] McCall, M.W., Favaro, A., Kinsler, P. and Boardman, A., “A spacetime cloak, or a history
editor”, J. Optics, 13, 024003, (2011).
[440] Mersini, L., “Dark energy from the transPlanckian regime”, in Khalil, S., Shaﬁ, Q. and
Tallat, H., eds., International Conference on High Energy Physics, January 9 – 14, 2001,
Cairo, Egypt, pp. 289–294, (Rinton Press, Princeton, NJ, 2001). [hepph/0106134].
[441] Mersini, L., BasteroGil, M. and Kanti, P., “Relic dark energy from transPlanckian regime”,
Phys. Rev. D, 64, 043508, 1–9, (2001). [DOI], [hepph/0101210].
[442] Milgrom, M., “Massive particles in acoustic spacetimes emergent inertia and passive grav
ity”, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 084005, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0601034].
[443] MilneThomson, L.M., Theoretical Hydrodynamics, (Macmillan, London, New York, 1968),
5th edition.
[444] Minic, D. and Heremans, J.J., “High Temperature Superconductivity and Eﬀective Gravity”,
Phys. Rev. B, 78, 214501, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0804.2880 [hepth]].
[445] Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S. and Wheeler, J.A., Gravitation, (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco,
1973).
136
[446] Møller, C., The Theory of Relativity, (Clarendon, Oxford, 1972), 2nd edition.
[447] Moncrief, V., “Gravitational perturbations of spherically symmetric systems. I. The exterior
problem”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 88, 323–342, (1974). [DOI], [ADS].
[448] Moncrief, V., “Stability of stationary, spherical accretion onto a Schwarzschild black hole”,
Astrophys. J., 235, 1038–1046, (1980). [DOI], [ADS].
[449] Nachman, A.I., “Reconstructions from boundary measurements”, Ann. Math., 128, 531–576,
(1988). [DOI].
[450] Naddeo, A. and Scelza, G., “Wave equation of the scalar ﬁeld and superﬂuids”, Mod. Phys.
Lett. A, 24, 3249–3256, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0910.0794 [condmat.other]].
[451] Naddeo, A. and Scelza, G., “A note on the analogy between superﬂuids and cosmology”,
Mod. Phys. Lett. B, 24, 513–520, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0910.0790 [condmat.other]].
[452] Nakano, H., Kurita, Y., Ogawa, K. and Yoo, C.M., “Quasinormal ringing for acoustic black
holes at low temperature”, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 084006, 1–7, (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0411041].
[453] Nandi, K.K. and Xu, D.H., “Unruh model for the Einstein–Rosen charge: Squealing worm
holes?”, arXiv eprint, (2004). [grqc/0410052].
[454] Nandi, K.K., Zhang, Y.Z., Alsing, P.M., Evans, J.C. and Bhadra, A., “Analogue of the
Fizeau eﬀect in an eﬀective optical medium”, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 025002, 1–11, (2003). [DOI],
[grqc/0208035].
[455] Nandi, K.K., Zhang, Y.Z. and Cai, R.G., “Acoustic Wormholes”, arXiv eprint, (2004).
[grqc/0409085].
[456] Nielsen, A.B. and Visser, M., “Production and decay of evolving horizons”, Class. Quant.
Grav., 23, 4637–4658, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0510083].
[457] Niemeyer, J.C., “Inﬂation with a Planckscale frequency cutoﬀ”, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 123502,
1–7, (2001). [DOI], [astroph/0005533].
[458] Niemeyer, J.C., “Cosmological consequences of short distance physics”, arXiv eprint, (2002).
[astroph/0201511].
[459] Niemeyer, J.C. and Parentani, R., “TransPlanckian dispersion and scale invariance of inﬂa
tionary perturbations”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 101301, 1–4, (2001). [DOI], [astroph/0101451].
[460] Niemeyer, J.C., Parentani, R. and Campo, D., “Minimal modiﬁcations of the primordial
power spectrum from an adiabatic short distance cutoﬀ”, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 083510, (2002).
[DOI], [arXiv:hepth/0206149].
[461] Nikoli´c, H., “Time in quantum gravity by weakening the Hamiltonian constraint”, arXiv
eprint, (2003). [grqc/0312063].
[462] Nikoli/’c, H., “Black holes radiate but do not evaporate”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 14, 2257–
2261, (2005). [DOI], [hepth/0402145].
[463] Nikoli´c, H., “Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?”, Am. J. Phys., 76,
143–146, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:physics/0702069].
[464] Novello, M., “Eﬀective geometry in nonlinear electrodynamics”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 17,
4187–4196, (2002). [DOI].
137
[465] Novello, M., De Lorenci, V.A., Salim, J.M. and Klippert, R., “Geometrical aspects of light
propagation in nonlinear electrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. D, 61, 045001, 1–10, (2000). [DOI],
[grqc/9911085].
[466] Novello, M. and Perez Bergliaﬀa, S.E., “Eﬀective Geometry”, in Novello Santiago, M. and
Perez Bergliaﬀa, E., eds., Cosmology and Gravitation, Xth Brazilian School of Cosmology
and Gravitation, 25th Anniversary (1977–2002), Mangaratiba, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 29
July – 9 August 2002, AIP Conference Proceedings, 668, pp. 288–300, (American Institute of
Physics, Melville, NY, 2003). [grqc/0302052].
[467] Novello, M., Perez Bergliaﬀa, S.E. and Salim, J.M., “Nonlinear electrodynamics and the
acceleration of the Universe”, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 127301, 1–4, (2004). [DOI], [astroph/0312093].
[468] Novello, M., Perez Bergliaﬀa, S.E., Salim, J.M., De Lorenci, V.A. and Klippert, R., “Ana
log black holes in ﬂowing dielectrics”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 859–871, (2003). [DOI],
[grqc/0201061].
[469] Novello, M. and Salim, J.M., “Eﬀective electromagnetic geometry”, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 083511,
1–4, (2001). [DOI].
[470] Novello, M., Visser, M. and Volovik, G., eds., Artiﬁcial Black Holes, (World Scientiﬁc, Sin
gapore; River Edge, NJ, 2002).
[471] Obadia, N. and Parentani, R., “Notes on moving mirrors”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 044019, 1–17,
(2001). [DOI], [grqc/0103061].
[472] Obadia, N. and Parentani, R., “Uniformly accelerated mirrors. II: Quantum correlations”,
Phys. Rev. D, 67, 024022, 1–18, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0209057].
[473] Obukhov, Y.N., “Black hole hydrodynamics”, arXiv eprint, (2003). [grqc/0309114].
[474] Obukhov, Y.N. and Hehl, F.W., “Spacetime metric from linear electrodynamics”, Phys. Lett.
B, 458, 466–470, (1999). [DOI], [grqc/9904067].
[475] Okninski, A., “Towards a selfconsistent model of analogue gravity”, arXiv eprint, (2005).
[arXiv:grqc/0509045].
[476] Okuzumi, S. and Sakagami, Masaaki, “Quasinormal ringing of acoustic black holes
in Laval nozzles: Numerical simulations”, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 084027, (2007). [DOI],
[arXiv:grqc/0703070].
[477] Oliveira, E.S., Dolan, S.R. and Crispino, L.C.B., “Absorption of planar waves in a draining
bathtub”, Phys. Rev. D, D81, 124013, (2010). [DOI].
[478] Oppenheim, J., “Thermodynamics with longrange interactions: From Ising models to black
holes”, Phys. Rev. E, 68, 016108, 1–17, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0212066].
[479] Oron, O. and Horwitz, L.P., “Eikonal approximation to 5D wave equations as geodesic
motion in a curved 4D spacetime”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 37, 491–506, (2005). [DOI],
[hepph/0205018].
[480] Padmanabhan, T., “Gravity and the thermodynamics of horizons”, Phys. Rep., 406, 49–125,
(2003). [grqc/0311036].
[481] Padmanabhan, T., “Entropy of Horizons, Complex Paths and Quantum Tunneling”, Mod.
Phys. Lett. A, 19, 2637–2643, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0405072].
138
[482] Padmanabhan, T., “Surface Density of Spacetime Degrees of Freedom from Equipartition
Law in theories of Gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 124040, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1003.5665 [grqc]].
[483] Padmanabhan, T., “Thermodynamical Aspects of Gravity: New insights”, Rept. Prog. Phys.,
73, 046901, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0911.5004 [grqc]].
[484] Painlev´e, P., “La m´ecanique classique et la theorie de la relativit´e”, C. R. Acad. Sci., 173,
677–680, (1921).
[485] Parentani, R., “The Recoils of the accelerated detector and the decoherence of its ﬂuxes”,
Nucl. Phys. B, 454, 227–249, (1995). [DOI], [grqc/9502030].
[486] Parentani, R., “The Recoils of a Dynamical Mirror and the Decoherence of its Fluxes”, Nucl.
Phys. B, 465, 175–214, (1996). [DOI], [hepth/9509104].
[487] Parentani, R., “Time dependent perturbation theory in quantum cosmology”, Nucl. Phys.
B, 492, 501–525, (1997). [grqc/9610045].
[488] Parentani, R., “The validity of the background ﬁeld approximation”, in Burko, L.M. and Ori,
A., eds., Internal Structure of Black Holes and Space Time Singularities, June 29 – July 3,
1997, Haifa, Israel, Annals of the Israel Physical Society, 13, (Institute of Physics Publishing,
Bristol; Philadelphia, 1997). [grqc/9710059].
[489] Parentani, R., “Hawking radiation from Feynman diagrams”, Phys. Rev. D, 61, 027501, 1–4,
(2000). [grqc/9904024].
[490] Parentani, R., “Quantum metric ﬂuctuations and Hawking radiation”, Phys. Rev. D, 63,
041503, 1–4, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0009011].
[491] Parentani, R., “Beyond the semiclassical description of black hole evaporation”, Int. J.
Theor. Phys., 41, 2175–2200, (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:0704.2563 [hepth]].
[492] Parentani, R., “What did we learn from studying acoustic black holes?”, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
A, 17, 2721–2726, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0204079].
[493] Parentani, R., “The inﬂationary paradigm: predictions for CMB”, C. R. Physique, 4, 935–
943, (2003). [astroph/0404022].
[494] Parentani, R., “Constructing QFT’s wherein Lorentz Invariance is broken by dissipative
eﬀects in the UV”, in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology, June
11 – 15 2007, Trieste, Italy, Proceedings of Science, (SISSA, Trieste, 2007). [arXiv:0709.3943
[hepth]]. URL (accessed 13 December 2010):
http://pos.sissa.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)039.
[495] Parentani, R., “Confronting the transPlanckian question of inﬂationary cosmology with
dissipative eﬀects”, Class. Quant. Grav., 25, 154015, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0710.4664 [hepth]].
[496] Parentani, R., “From vacuum ﬂuctuations across an event horizon to long distance correla
tions”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 025008, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1003.3625 [grqc]].
[497] Pashaev, O.K. and Lee, J.H., “Resonance Solitons as Black Holes in Madelung Fluid”, Mod.
Phys. Lett. A, 17, 1601–1619, (2002). [DOI], [hepth/9810139].
[498] Pendry, J.B., Schurig, D. and Smith, D.R., “Controlling Electromagnetic Fields”, Science,
312(5781), 1780–1782, (2006). [DOI].
139
[499] Penrose, R., “Gravitational Collapse: The Role of General Relativity”, Riv. Nuovo Cimento,
1, 252–276, (1969). [ADS].
[500] Pereira, E.R. and Moraees, F., “Flowing Liquid Crystal Simulating the Schwarzschild Met
ric”, arXiv eprint, (2009). [arXiv:0910.1314 [grqc]].
[501] Perez Bergliaﬀa, S.E., “Eﬀective geometry in Astrophysics”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 13, 1469–
1476, (2004). [DOI], [astroph/0401577].
[502] Perez Bergliaﬀa, S.E., Hibberd, K., Stone, M. and Visser, M., “Wave Equation for Sound in
Fluids with Vorticity”, Physica D, 191, 121–136, (2001). [condmat/0106255].
[503] Pham, Q.M., “Sur les ´equations de l’electromagn´e dans la materie”, C. R. Hebd. Seanc.
Acad. Sci., 242, 465–467, (1956).
[504] Philbin, T.G., Kuklewicz, C., Robertson, S., Hill, S., Konig, F. and Leonhardt, U., “Fiber
optical analogue of the event horizon: Appendices”, arXiv eprint, (2007). [arXiv:0711.4797
[grqc]].
[505] Philbin, T.G., Kuklewicz, C., Robertson, S., Hill, S., K¨onig, F. and Leonhardt, U.,
“Fiberoptical analogue of the event horizon”, Science, 319, 1367–1370, (2008). [DOI],
[arXiv:0711.4796 [grqc]].
[506] Philips, D.F., Fleischhauer, A., Mair, A. and Walsworth, R.L., “Storage of Light in Atomic
Vapor”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 783–786, (2001). [DOI].
[507] Piazza, F., “Glimmers of a pregeometric perspective”, Found. Phys., 40, 239–266, (2010).
[DOI], [arXiv:hepth/0506124].
[508] Pines, D., The ManyBody Problem: A Lecture Note and Reprint Volume, Frontiers in
Physics, 6, (W.A. Benjamin, New York, 1962), 2nd edition.
[509] Piwnicki, P., “Geometrical approach to light in inhomogeneous media”, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
A, 17, 1543–1558, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0201007].
[510] Pleba´ nski, J., “Electromagnetic waves in gravitational ﬁelds”, Phys. Rev., 118, 1396–1408,
(1960). [DOI].
[511] Pleba´ nski, J., Lectures on Nonlinear Electrodynamics, (Nordita, Copenhagen, 1970).
[512] Prain, A., Fagnocchi, S. and Liberati, S., “Analogue Cosmological Particle Creation: Quan
tum Correlations in Expanding Bose Einstein Condensates”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 105018,
(2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1009.0647 [grqc]].
[513] Press, W.H. and Teukolsky, S.A., “Floating Orbits, Superradiant Scattering and the Black
Hole Bomb”, Nature, 238, 211–212, (1972). [DOI].
[514] Radu, E., “On the Euclidean approach to quantum ﬁeld theory in G¨odel spacetime”, Phys.
Lett. A, 247, 207–210, (1998). [DOI].
[515] Raval, A., Hu, B.L. and Koks, D., “Nearthermal radiation in detectors, mirrors and black
holes: A stochastic approach”, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 4795–4812, (1997). [DOI], [grqc/9606074].
[516] Ray, A.K., “Linearized perturbation on stationary inﬂow solutions in an inviscid and thin
accretion disc”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 344, 83–88, (2003). [DOI], [astroph/0212515].
140
[517] Ray, A.K. and Bhattacharjee, J.K., “A Dynamical Systems Approach to an Inviscid and
Thin Accretion Disc”, arXiv eprint, (2003). [astroph/0307447].
[518] Ray, A.K. and Bhattacharjee, J.K., “Evolution of transonicity in an accretion disc”, Class.
Quant. Grav., 24, 1479, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:astroph/0703251].
[519] Ray, A.K. and Bhattacharjee, J.K., “Standing and travelling waves in the shallow
water circular hydraulic jump”, Phys. Lett. A, 371, 241–248, (2007). [DOI], [ADS],
[arXiv:condmat/0409315].
[520] Recati, A., Pavloﬀ, N. and Carusotto, I., “Bogoliubov theory of acoustic Hawking radiation
in Bose–Einstein condensates”, Phys. Rev. A, 80, 043603, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0907.4305
[condmat.quantgas]].
[521] Regge, T. and Wheeler, J.A., “Stability of a Schwarzschild Singularity”, Phys. Rev., 108,
1063–1069, (1957). [DOI], [ADS].
[522] Reznik, B., “TransPlanckian tail in a theory with a cutoﬀ”, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 2152–2158,
(1997). [DOI], [grqc/9606083].
[523] Reznik, B., “Origin of the thermal radiation in a solidstate analogue of a black hole”, Phys.
Rev. D, 62, 044044, 1–7, (2000). [DOI], [grqc/9703076].
[524] Richartz, M., Weinfurtner, S., Penner, A.J. and Unruh, W.G., “Generalized superradiant
scattering”, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 124016, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0909.2317 [grqc]].
[525] Rosquist, K., “Letter: A Moving Medium Simulation of Schwarzschild Black Hole Optics”,
Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 36, 1977–1982, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0309104].
[526] Rosu, H., “Towards measuring Hawking like eﬀects in the laboratory. I”, unpublished, (1989).
Online version (accessed 31 May 2005):
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?key=2056828.
[527] Rosu, H.C., “On the circular vacuum noise in electron storage rings”, Nuovo Cimento B,
109, 423–430, (1994). [DOI], [physics/9711015].
[528] Rosu, H., “Superoscillations and transPlanckian frequencies”, Nuovo Cimento B, 112, 131–
132, (1997). [grqc/9606070].
[529] Rosu, H.C., “Classical and quantum inertia: A matter of principles”, Grav. and Cosmol., 5,
81–91, (1999). [grqc/9412012].
[530] Rosu, H.C., “Relativistic quantum ﬁeld inertia and vacuum ﬁeld noise spectra: By quest of
the lost universality to high energy radiometric standards”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 39, 285–295,
(2000). [grqc/9905049].
[531] Rousseaux, G., Ma¨ıssa, P., Mathis, C., Coullet, P., Philbin, T.G. and Leonhardt, U., “Hori
zon eﬀects with surface waves on moving water”, New J. Phys., 12, 095018, (2010). [DOI],
[arXiv:1004.5546 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 24 March 2011):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095018.
[532] Rousseaux, G., Mathis, C., Maissa, P., Philbin, T.G. and Leonhardt, U., “Observation of
negativefrequency waves in a water tank: a classical analogue to the Hawking eﬀect?”, New
J. Phys., 10, 053015, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0711.4767 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 20 March 2011):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/10/i=5/a=053015.
141
[533] Rovelli, C., “Loop quantum gravity”, Phys. World, 16, 37–41, (November 2003).
[534] Rovelli, C., Quantum Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge; New York, 2004). [Google Books].
[535] Rovelli, C. and Smolin, L., “Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity”, Nucl.
Phys. B, 442, 593–619, (1995). [DOI], [grqc/9411005].
[536] Russo, J.G., “Model of black hole evolution”, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 871–877, (1997). [DOI],
[hepth/9602124].
[537] Saavedra, J., “Quasinormal modes of Unruh’s acoustic black hole”, Mod. Phys. Lett., A21,
1601–1608, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0508040].
[538] Saida, H. and Sakagami, M., “Black hole radiation with high frequency dispersion”, Phys.
Rev. D, 61, 084023, 1–8, (2000). [DOI], [grqc/9905034].
[539] Sakagami, M. and Ohashi, A., “Hawking Radiation in Laboratories”, Prog. Theor. Phys.,
107, 1267–1272, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0108072].
[540] Sakharov, A.D., “Vacuum quantum ﬂuctuations in curved space and the theory of gravita
tion”, Sov. Phys. Dokl., 12, 1040–1041, (1968).
[541] Salehi, H., “Evaporating Black Holes And An Entropic ScaleHierarchy”, arXiv eprint,
(1994). [grqc/9409023].
[542] Salehi, H., “Evaporating black holes and long range scaling”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 35,
1679–1690, (2003). [DOI], [hepth/0302178].
[543] Samuel, J. and Sinha, S., “Surface tension and the cosmological constant”, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
97, 161302, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:condmat/0603804].
[544] Saul, L.A., “The Dynamic Space of General Relativity in Second Atomization”, in Reimer,
A., ed., General Relativity Research Trends, Horizons in World Physics, 249, pp. 153–172,
(Nova Science, New York, 2005). [grqc/0405132].
[545] Schmelzer, I., “General Ether Theory”, arXiv eprint, (2000). [grqc/0001101].
[546] Schmelzer, I., “A metric theory of gravity with condensed matter interpretation”, arXiv
eprint, (2000). [grqc/0001096].
[547] Schmelzer, I., “Derivation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle in a Class of Condensed
Matter Theories”, arXiv eprint, (2001). [grqc/0104013].
[548] Schmelzer, I., “A generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity with generalrelativistic limit”,
arXiv eprint, (2002). [grqc/0205035].
[549] Sch¨ utzhold, R., “On the Hawking eﬀect”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 024029, 1–14, (2001). [DOI],
[grqc/0011047].
[550] Sch¨ utzhold, R., “Particle deﬁnition in the presence of black holes”, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 024014,
(2001). [grqc/0003020].
[551] Sch¨ utzhold, R., “Dynamical zerotemperature phase transitions and cosmic inﬂation / deﬂa
tion”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 135703, (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:quantph/0505196].
142
[552] Sch¨ utzhold, R., “Emergent horizons in the laboratory”, Class. Quant. Grav., 25, 114011,
(2008). [DOI], [arXiv:1004.2586 [grqc]].
[553] Sch¨ utzhold, R., “‘Exotic’ quantum eﬀects in the laboratory?”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond.,
A36, 2895, (2008). [arXiv:1004.2590 [quantph]].
[554] Sch¨ utzhold, R., “Recreating Fundamental Eﬀects in the Laboratory?”, Adv. Sci. Lett., 2,
121, (2009). [arXiv:1004.2394 [grqc]].
[555] Sch¨ utzhold, R., “Fundamental Quantum Eﬀects from a QuantumOptics Perspective”, arXiv
eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1004.2397 [quantph]].
[556] Sch¨ utzhold, R. and Maia, C., “Blackhole backreaction – a toy model”, J. Phys. A, 41,
164065, (2008). [DOI].
[557] Sch¨ utzhold, R., Plunien, G. and Soﬀ, G., “Dielectric Black Hole Analogs”, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
88, 061101, 1–4, (2002). [DOI], [quantph/0104121].
[558] Sch¨ utzhold, R., Uhlmann, M., Petersen, L., Schmitz, H., Friedenauer, A. and Sch¨ atz, T.,
“Analogue of Cosmological Particle Creation in an Ion Trap”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 201301,
(2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0705.3755 [quantph]].
[559] Sch¨ utzhold, R., Uhlmann, M., Xu, Y. and Fischer, U.R., “Quantum backreaction
in dilute Bose–Einstein condensates”, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 105005, 1–8, (2005). [DOI],
[condmat/0503581].
[560] Sch¨ utzhold, R. and Unruh, W.G., “Gravity wave analogues of black holes”, Phys. Rev. D,
66, 044019, 1–13, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0205099].
[561] Sch¨ utzhold, R. and Unruh, W.G., “Problems of doubly special relativity with variable speed
of light”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 78, 431, (2003). [grqc/0308049].
[562] Sch¨ utzhold, R. and Unruh, W.G., “Hawking Radiation in an Electromagnetic Waveguide?”,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 031301, 1–4, (2005). [DOI], [quantph/0408145].
[563] Sch¨ utzhold, R. and Unruh, W.G., “On the origin of the particles in black hole evaporation”,
Phys. Rev. D, 78, 041504, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0804.1686 [grqc]].
[564] Sch¨ utzhold, R. and Unruh, W.G., “On Quantum Correlations across the Black Hole Horizon”,
Phys. Rev. D, 81, 124033, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1002.1844 [grqc]].
[565] Scully, M.O. and Zubairy, M.S., Quantum Optics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge;
New York, 1997). [Google Books].
[566] Shankaranarayanan, S., “Is there an imprint of Planckscale physics on inﬂationary cosmol
ogy?”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 75–83, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0203060].
[567] Shankaranarayanan, S., Padmanabhan, T. and Srinivasan, K., “Hawking radiation in diﬀer
ent coordinate settings: complex paths approach”, Class. Quantum Grav., 19, 2671–2687,
(2002). [DOI], [grqc/0010042].
[568] SiemieniecOzieblo, G. and Woszczyna, A., “Acoustic instabilities at the transition from the
radiationdominated to the matterdominated universe”, Astron. Astrophys., 419, 801–810,
(2004). [DOI], [astroph/0106562].
[569] Sindoni, L., “The Higgs mechanism in Finsler spacetimes”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 124009, (2008).
[DOI], [arXiv:0712.3518 [grqc]].
143
[570] Sindoni, L., “A note on particle kinematics in Hoˇrava–Lifshitz scenarios”, arXiv eprint,
(2009). [arXiv:0910.1329 [grqc]].
[571] Sindoni, L., Girelli, F. and Liberati, S., “Emergent Gravitational Dynamics in Bose–Einstein
Condensates”, in KowalskiGlikman, J., Durka, R. and Szczachor, M., eds., The Planck Scale,
Proceedings of the XXV Max Born Symposium, Wroclaw, Poland, 29 June – 03 July 2009,
AIP Conference Proceedings, 1196, pp. 258–265, (American Institute of Physics, Melville,
U.S.A., 2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0909.5391 [grqc]].
[572] Singha, S.B., Bhattacharjee, J.K. and Ray, A.K., “Hydraulic jump in onedimensional ﬂow”,
Eur. Phys. J. B, 48, 417–426, (2005). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:condmat/0508388].
[573] Sk´akala, J. and Visser, M., “Birefringence in pseudoFinsler spacetimes”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.,
189, 012037, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0810.4376 [grqc]].
[574] Sk´akala, J. and Visser, M., “Bimetric pseudoFinslerian spacetimes”, J. Geom. Phys., ac
cepted, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1008.0689 [grqc]].
[575] Sk´akala, J. and Visser, M., “PseudoFinslerian SpaceTimes and Multirefringence”, Int. J.
Mod. Phys. D, 19, 1119–1146, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0806.0950 [grqc]].
[576] Skrotskii, G.V., “The inﬂuence of gravitation on the propagation of light”, Sov. Phys. Dokl.,
2, 226–229, (1957).
[577] Skudrzyk, E., The Foundations of Acoustics, (Springer, New York, 1971).
[578] Slatyer, T.R. and Savage, C.M., “Superradiant scattering from a hydrodynamic vortex”,
Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 3833–3839, (2005). [DOI], [condmat/0501182].
[579] Smolin, L., “Experimental signatures of quantum gravity”, arXiv eprint, (1995).
[grqc/9503027].
[580] Smolin, L., “How far are we from the quantum theory of gravity?”, arXiv eprint, (2003).
[hepth/0303185].
[581] Smolyaninov, I.I., “Linear and nonlinear optics of surface plasmon toymodels of black holes
and wormholes”, arXiv eprint, (2003). [grqc/0311062].
[582] Smolyaninov, I.I. and Davis, C.C., “Surface plasmon toymodels of black holes and worm
holes”, arXiv eprint, (2003). [grqc/0306089].
[583] Sorkin, R.D., “Causal sets: Discrete gravity (Notes for the Valdivia Summer School)”, arXiv
eprint, (2003). [grqc/0309009].
[584] Sotiriou, T.P., Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S., “Phenomenologically viable Lorentzviolating
quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 251601, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0904.4464 [hepth]].
[585] Sotiriou, T.P., Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S., “Quantum gravity without Lorentz invari
ance”, J. High Energy Phys., 2009(10), 033, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.2798 [hepth]].
[586] Srinivasan, K. and Padmanabhan, T., “Particle production and complex path analysis”,
Phys. Rev. D, 60, 24007, (1999). [DOI], [grqc/9812028].
[587] Sriramkumar, L. and Padmanabhan, T., “Initial state of matter ﬁelds and transPlanckian
physics: Can CMB observations disentangle the two?”, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 103512, 1–11,
(2005). [DOI], [grqc/0408034].
144
[588] Starobinsky, A.A., “Robustness of the inﬂationary perturbation spectrum to transPlanckian
physics”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 73, 415–418, (2001). [DOI], [astroph/0104043].
[589] Starobinsky, A.A. and Tkachev, I.I., “TransPlanckian Particle Creation in Cosmology and
Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 76, 235–239, (2002). [DOI],
[astroph/0207572].
[590] Steinacker, H., “Emergent Geometry and Gravity from Matrix Models: an Introduction”,
Class. Quant. Grav., 27, 133001, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1003.4134 [hepth]].
[591] Stephens, G.J. and Hu, B.L., “Notes on black hole phase transitions”, Int. J. Theor. Phys.,
40, 2183–2200, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0102052].
[592] Stone, M., “Magnus and other forces on vortices in superﬂuids and superconductors”, arXiv
eprint, (1997). [condmat/9708017].
[593] Stone, M., “Acoustic energy and momentum in a moving medium”, Phys. Rev. E, 62, 1341–
1350, (2000). [DOI], [condmat/9909315].
[594] Stone, M., “Iordanskii force and the gravitational Aharonov–Bohm eﬀect for a moving vor
tex”, Phys. Rev. B, 61, 11780–11786, (2000). [DOI], [condmat/9909313].
[595] Stone, M., “Phonons and Forces: Momentum versus Pseudomomentum in Moving Fluids”,
arXiv eprint, (2000). [condmat/0012316].
[596] Sudarshan, E.C.G., “Massless particles of high spin”, Phys. Rev. D, 24, 1591–1594, (1981).
[DOI].
[597] Synge, J.L., Relativity: The General Theory, (NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1960).
[598] Takeuchi, H., Tsubota, M. and Volovik, G.E., “Zel’dovichStarobinsky Eﬀect in Atomic
BoseEinstein Condensates: Analogy to Kerr Black Hole”, J. Low Temp. Phys., 150, 624–
629, (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0710.2178 [condmat.other]].
[599] Tamaki, T., Harada, T., Miyamoto, U. and Torii, T., “Particle velocity in noncommutative
spacetime”, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 105003, 1–6, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0208002].
[600] Tanaka, T., “A comment on transPlanckian physics in inﬂationary universe”, arXiv eprint,
(2001). [astroph/0012431].
[601] Thorne, K.S., Price, R.H. and Macdonald, D.A., eds., Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm,
(Yale University Press, New Haven, CT; London, 1986).
[602] Trautman, A., “Comparison of Newtonian and relativistic theories of spacetime”, in Hoﬀ
man, B., ed., Perspectives in Geometry and Relativity: Essays in honor of V´ aclav Hlavat´y,
pp. 413–425, (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1966).
[603] Turukhin, A.V., Sudarshanam, V.S., Shahriar, M.S., Musser, J.A., Ham, B.S. and Hemmer,
P.R., “Observation of Ultraslow and Stored Light Pulses in a Solid”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88,
023602, 1–4, (2002).
[604] Uhlmann, M., “Timeresolved density correlations as probe of squeezing in toroidal
Bose–Einstein condensates”, New J. Phys., 12, 095016, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1005.2645
[condmat.quantgas]]. URL (accessed 13 December 2010):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095016.
145
[605] Uhlmann, M., Xu, Y. and Sch¨ utzhold, R., “Aspects of cosmic inﬂation in expanding Bose–
Einstein condensates”, New J. Phys., 7, 248, (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:quantph/0509063]. URL
(accessed 20 March 2011):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/7/i=1/a=248.
[606] Unruh, W.G., “Notes on blackhole evaporation”, Phys. Rev. D, 14, 870–892, (1976). [DOI].
[607] Unruh, W.G., “Experimental black hole evaporation”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 46, 1351–1353,
(1981). [DOI].
[608] Unruh, W.G., “Sonic analog of black holes and the eﬀects of high frequencies on black hole
evaporation”, Phys. Rev. D, 51, 2827–2838, (1995). [DOI], [grqc/9409008].
[609] Unruh, W.G., “The Analogue Between Rimfall and Black Holes”, in Unruh, W.G. and
Sch¨ utzhold, R., eds., Quantum Analogues: From Phase Transitions to Black Holes and Cos
mology, Selected lectures from the international workshop on ‘Quantum Simulations via
Analogues’, held in Dresden, Germany, July 25 – 28, 2005, Lecture Notes in Physics, 718, pp.
1–4, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2007). [DOI].
[610] Unruh, W.G., “Where are the particles created in black hole evaporation?”, in From Quan
tum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology, June 11 – 15 2007, Trieste, Italy,
Proceedings of Science, (SISSA, Trieste, 2007). URL (accessed 13 December 2010):
http://pos.sissa.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)039.
[611] Unruh, W.G., “Dumb holes: Analogues for black holes”, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser.
A, 366, 2905–2913, (2008). [DOI].
[612] Unruh, W.G. and Sch¨ utzhold, R., “On slow light as a black hole analogue”, Phys. Rev. D,
68, 024008, 1–14, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0303028].
[613] Unruh, W.G. and Sch¨ utzhold, R., “Universality of the Hawking eﬀect”, Phys. Rev. D, 71,
024028, 1–11, (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0408009].
[614] Unruh, W.G. and Sch¨ utzhold, R., eds., Quantum Analogues: From Phase Transitions to
Black Holes and Cosmology, Selected lectures from the international workshop on ‘Quantum
Simulations via Analogues’, held in Dresden, Germany, July 25 – 28, 2005, Lecture Notes in
Physics, 718, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2007). [DOI].
[615] Vachaspati, T., “Propagating phase boundaries as sonic horizons”, arXiv eprint, (2003).
[grqc/0312069].
[616] Vachaspati, T., “Cosmic Problems for Condensed Matter Experiment”, J. Low Temp. Phys.,
136, 361–377, (2004). [DOI], [condmat/0404480].
[617] Vestergaard Hau, L., Harris, S.E., Dutton, Z. and Behroozi, C.H., “Light speed reduction to
17 metres per second in ultracold atomic gas”, Nature, 397, 594–598, (1999).
[618] Vikman, A., Kessence: cosmology, causality and emergent geometry, Ph.D. Thesis, (LMU,
Munich, 2007). URL (accessed 17 March 2011):
http://edoc.ub.unimuenchen.de/7761/.
[619] Vishveshwara, C.V., “Scattering of gravitational radiation by a Schwarzschild blackhole”,
Nature, 227, 936–938, (1970). [DOI].
[620] Vishveshwara, C.V., “Stability of the Schwarzschild metric”, Phys. Rev. D, 1, 2870–2879,
(1970). [DOI].
146
[621] Visser, M., “Dirty black holes: Thermodynamics and horizon structure”, Phys. Rev. D, 46,
2445–2451, (1992). [DOI], [hepth/9203057].
[622] Visser, M., “Acoustic propagation in ﬂuids: An unexpected example of Lorentzian geometry”,
arXiv eprint, (1993). [grqc/9311028].
[623] Visser, M., Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking, AIP Series in Computational
and Applied Mathematical Physics, (American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, NY, 1995).
[624] Visser, M., “Acoustic black holes: Horizons, ergospheres, and Hawking radiation”, Class.
Quantum Grav., 15, 1767–1791, (1998). [DOI], [grqc/9712010].
[625] Visser, M., “Hawking radiation without black hole entropy”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 3436–3439,
(1998). [DOI], [grqc/9712016].
[626] Visser, M., “Acoustic black holes”, arXiv eprint, (1999). [grqc/9901047].
[627] Visser, M., “Comment on “Relativistic Eﬀects of Light in Moving Media with Extremely
Low Group Velocity””, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 5252, (2000). [DOI], [grqc/0002011].
[628] Visser, M., “Sakharov’s induced gravity: A modern perspective”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 17,
977–992, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0204062].
[629] Visser, M., “Essential and inessential features of Hawking radiation”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D,
12, 649–661, (2003). [DOI], [hepth/0106111].
[630] Visser, M., “The quantum physics of chronology protection”, in Gibbons, G.W., Shellard,
E.P.S. and Rankin, S.J., eds., The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology: Celebrating
Stephen Hawking’s 60th Birthday, pp. 161–175, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge;
New York, 2003). [grqc/0204022], [Google Books].
[631] Visser, M., “Heuristic approach to the Schwarzschild geometry”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 14,
2051–2067, (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0309072].
[632] Visser, M., “Emergent rainbow spacetimes: Two pedagogical examples”, arXiv eprint,
(2007). [arXiv:0712.0810 [grqc]].
[633] Visser, M., “The Kerr spacetime: A brief introduction”, arXiv eprint, (2007).
[arXiv:0706.0622 [grqc]].
[634] Visser, M., “Lorentz symmetry breaking as a quantum ﬁeld theory regulator”, Phys. Rev.
D, 80, 025011, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0902.0590 [hepth]].
[635] Visser, M., “Powercounting renormalizability of generalized Hoˇrava gravity”, arXiv eprint,
(2009). [arXiv:0912.4757 [hepth]].
[636] Visser, M., Barcel´ o, C. and Liberati, S., “Acoustics in Bose–Einstein Condensates as an Ex
ample of Broken Lorentz Symmetry”, in Kosteleck´ y, V.A., ed., CPT and Lorentz Symmetry,
Proceedings of the Second Meeting, Bloomington, USA, 15 – 18 August 2001, pp. 336–340,
(World Scientiﬁc, Singapore; River Edge, NJ, 2002). [DOI], [hepth/0109033]. Online version
(accessed 22 March 2011):
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812778123/9789812778123_0043.html.
[637] Visser, M., Barcel´ o, C. and Liberati, S., “Analogue models of and for gravity”, Gen. Relativ.
Gravit., 34, 1719–1734, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0111111].
147
[638] Visser, M., Barcel´ o, C. and Liberati, S., “Birefringence versus bimetricity”, arXiv eprint,
(2002). [grqc/0204017].
[639] Visser, M. and MolinaPar´ıs, Carmen, “Acoustic geometry for general relativistic barotropic
irrotational ﬂuid ﬂow”, New J. Phys., 12, 095014, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1001.1310 [grqc]].
URL (accessed 20 March 2011):
http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095014.
[640] Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S., “Massive phonon modes from a BECbased analog model”,
arXiv eprint, (2004). [condmat/0409639].
[641] Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S., “Vortex analogue for the equatorial geometry of the Kerr
black hole”, Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 2493–2510, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0409014].
[642] Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S., “Massive KleinGordon equation from a BECbased analogue
spacetime”, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 044020, (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0506029].
[643] Visser, M. and Weinfurtner, S., “Analogue spacetimes: Toy models for ‘quantum gravity”’,
in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology, Proceedings of Science,
(SISSA, Trieste, 2007). [arXiv:0712.0427 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 13 December 2010):
http://pos.sissa.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)042.
[644] Volovik, G.E., “Is there analogy between quantized vortex and black hole?”, arXiv eprint,
(1995). [grqc/9510001].
[645] Volovik, G.E., “AB interface in superﬂuid
3
He and Casimir eﬀect”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.
Lett., 63, 483–489, (1996). [DOI], [condmat/9602129].
[646] Volovik, G.E., “Cosmology, particle physics and superﬂuid
3
He”, Czech. J. Phys., 46, 3048,
(1996). [DOI], [condmat/9607212].
[647] Volovik, G.E., “Induced gravity in superﬂuid
3
He”, J. Low Temp. Phys., 113, 667–680,
(1997). [condmat/9806010].
[648] Volovik, G.E., “Energymomentum tensor of quasiparticles in the eﬀective gravity in super
ﬂuids”, arXiv eprint, (1998). [grqc/9809081].
[649] Volovik, G.E., “Gravity of monopole and string and gravitational constant in
3
HeA”, J.
Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 67, 698–704, (1998). [DOI], [condmat/9804078].
[650] Volovik, G.E., “Vortex vs. spinning string: Iordanskii force and gravitational Aharonov–
Bohm eﬀect”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 67, 841–846, (1998). [condmat/9804308].
[651] Volovik, G.E., “Simulation of Painlev´e–Gullstrand black hole in thin
3
HeA ﬁlm”, J. Exp.
Theor. Phys. Lett., 69, 662–668, (1999). [DOI], [grqc/9901077].
[652] Volovik, G.E., “
3
He and Universe parallelism”, in Bunkov, Y.M. and Godfrin, H., eds., Topo
logical defects and the nonequilibrium dynamics of symmetry breaking phase transitions, pp.
353–387, (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; Boston, 2000). [condmat/9902171], [Google Books].
[653] Volovik, G.E., “Links between gravity and dynamics of quantum liquids”, Grav. and Cosmol.,
6, 187–203, (2000). [grqc/0004049].
[654] Volovik, G.E., “Fermion Zero Modes in Painlev´e–Gullstrand Black Hole”, J. Exp. Theor.
Phys. Lett., 73, 721–725, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0104088].
148
[655] Volovik, G.E., “Superﬂuid analogies of cosmological phenomena”, Phys. Rep., 351, 195–348,
(2001). [DOI], [grqc/0005091].
[656] Volovik, G.E., “Vacuum Energy and Cosmological Constant: View from Condensed Matter”,
J. Low Temp. Phys., 124, 25–39, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0101111].
[657] Volovik, G.E., “Blackhole horizon and metric singularity at the brane separating two sliding
superﬂuids”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 76, 296–300, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0208020].
[658] Volovik, G.E., “Eﬀective gravity and quantum vacuum in superﬂuids”, in Novello, M., Visser,
M. and Volovik, G., eds., Artiﬁcial Black Holes, pp. 127–177, (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore;
River Edge, NJ, 2002). [grqc/0104046], [Google Books].
[659] Volovik, G.E., “Momentum space topology of fermion zero modes on brane”, J. Exp. Theor.
Phys. Lett., 75, 63–66, (2002). [DOI], [grqc/0112016].
[660] Volovik, G.E., The Universe in a Helium Droplet, International Series of Monographs on
Physics, 117, (Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, 2003). [Google
Books].
[661] Volovik, G.E., “What can the quantum liquid say on the brane black hole, the entropy of
extremal black hole and the vacuum energy?”, Found. Phys., 33, 349–368, (2003). [DOI],
[grqc/0301043].
[662] Volovik, G.E., “The hydraulic jump as a white hole”, JETP Lett., 82, 624–627, (2005). [DOI],
[arXiv:physics/0508215].
[663] Volovik, G.E., “Blackhole and whitehole horizons in superﬂuids”, J. Low Temp. Phys., 145,
337–356, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0603093].
[664] Volovik, G.E., “From quantum hydrodynamics to quantum gravity”, in Kleinert, H., Jantzen,
R.T. and Ruﬃni, R., eds., The Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting On Recent Develop
ments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field
Theories, Proceedings of the MG11 Meeting on General Relativity, Berlin, Germany , 23 –
29 July 2006, pp. 1451–1470, (World Scientiﬁc, River Edge, NJ; Singapore, 2007). [DOI],
[arXiv:grqc/0612134]. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011):
http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812834300/9789812834300_0170.html.
[665] Volovik, G.E., “Twenty years of magnon Bose condensation and spin current superﬂuidity
in
3
HeB”, J. Low. Temp. Phys., 153, 266–284, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:condmat/0701180].
[666] Volovik, G.E., “z = 3 LifshitzHoˇrava model and Fermipoint scenario of emergent gravity”,
JETP Lett., 89, 525–528, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0904.4113 [grqc]].
[667] Volovik, G.E. and Vachaspati, T., “Aspects of
3
He and the Standard Electroweak Model”,
Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, 10, 471–521, (1996). [DOI], [condmat/9510065].
[668] Volovik, G.E. and Zelnikov, A.I., “On temperature corrections to Einstein equations”, J.
Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett., 78, 751–756, (2003). [grqc/0309066].
[669] Vozmediano, M.A.H., de Juan, F. and Cortijo, A., “Gauge ﬁelds and curvature in graphene”,
J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 129, 012001, (2008). [DOI].
[670] Wald, R.M., General Relativity, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984). [Google Books].
149
[671] Wald, R.M., “The Thermodynamics of Black Holes”, Living Rev. Relativity, 4, lrr20016,
(2001). URL (accessed 31 May 2005):
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20016.
[672] Wallace, P.R., “The Band Theory of Graphite”, Phys. Rev., 71, 622–634, (1947). [DOI].
[673] Weinberg, S. and Witten, E., “Limits on Massless Particles”, Phys. Lett., B96, 59, (1980).
[DOI].
[674] Weinfurtner, S., Simulation of gravitational objects in Bose–Einstein condensates, Diploma
Thesis, (Technical University of Munich and Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics,
Garching, Munich, 2004). [grqc/0404022]. in German.
[675] Weinfurtner, S., “Analog model for an expanding universe”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 37, 1549–
1554, (2005). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0404063].
[676] Weinfurtner, S., “Emergent spacetimes”, arXiv eprint, (2007). [arXiv:0711.4416 [grqc]].
[677] Weinfurtner, S., Jain, P., Visser, M. and Gardiner, C.W., “Cosmological particle produc
tion in emergent rainbow spacetimes”, Class. Quant. Grav., 26, 065012, (2009). [DOI],
[arXiv:0801.2673 [grqc]].
[678] Weinfurtner, S., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Analogue model for quantum gravity phe
nomenology”, J. Phys., A39, 6807–6814, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0511105].
[679] Weinfurtner, S., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Modelling Planckscale Lorentz violation via
analogue models”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 33, 373–385, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0512127].
[680] Weinfurtner, S., Liberati, S. and Visser, M., “Analogue Spacetime Based on 2Component
Bose–Einstein Condensates”, in Unruh, W.G. and Sch¨ utzhold, R., eds., Quantum Analogues:
From Phase Transitions to Black Holes and Cosmology, Selected lectures from the interna
tional workshop on ‘Quantum Simulations via Analogues’, held in Dresden, Germany, July
25 – 28, 2005, Lecture Notes in Physics, 718, pp. 115–163, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2007).
[DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0605121].
[681] Weinfurtner, S., Sotiriou, T.P. and Visser, M., “Projectable Hoˇrava–Lifshitz gravity in a
nutshell”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 222, 012054, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1002.0308 [grqc]].
[682] Weinfurtner, S., Tedford, E.W., Penrice, M.C.J., Unruh, W.G. and Lawrence, G.A., “Mea
surement of stimulated Hawking emission in an analogue system”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106,
021302, (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:1008.1911 [grqc]].
[683] Weinfurtner, S., Visser, M., Jain, P. and Gardiner, C.W., “On the phenomenon of emergent
spacetimes: An instruction guide for experimental cosmology”, in From Quantum to Emer
gent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology, June 11 – 15 2007, Trieste, Italy, Proceedings of
Science, (SISSA, Trieste, 2007). [arXiv:0804.1346 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 13 December 2010):
http://pos.sissa.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)044.
[684] Weinfurtner, S., White, A. and Visser, M., “TransPlanckian physics and signature
change events in Bose gas hydrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 124008, (2007). [DOI],
[arXiv:grqc/0703117].
[685] Weinfurtner, S., White, A. and Visser, M., “Signaturechange events in emergent spacetimes
with anisotropic scaling”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 189, 012046, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.4530
[grqc]].
150
[686] White, A., Weinfurtner, S. and Visser, M., “Signature change events: A challenge for quan
tum gravity?”, Class. Quant. Grav., 27, 045007, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0812.3744 [grqc]].
[687] White, R.W., “Acoustic ray tracing in moving inhomogeneous ﬂuids”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
53, 1700–1704, (1973). [DOI].
[688] Winicour, J., “A New Way to Make Waves”, arXiv eprint, (2000). [grqc/0003029].
[689] Winterberg, F., “Detection of gravitational waves by stellar scintillation in space”, Nuovo
Cimento, 53B, 264–279, (1968).
[690] Wolf, E. and Habashy, T., “Invisible bodies and uniqueness of the inverse scattering problem”,
J. Mod. Opt., 40, 785–792, (1993). [DOI].
[691] Wu, X.N., Huang, C.G. and Sun, J.R., “On Gravitational anomaly and Hawking radiation
near weakly isolated horizon”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 124023, (2008). [DOI], [arXiv:0801.1347
[grqc]].
[692] Xi, P. and Li, X.Z., “Quasinormal Modes and LateTime Tails of Canonical Acoustic Black
Holes”, Int. J. Mod. Phys., 16, 1211–1218, (2007). [DOI], [arXiv:0709.3714 [grqc]].
[693] Xu, C., “Novel Algebraic Boson Liquid phase with soft Graviton excitations”, arXiv eprint,
(2006). [arXiv:condmat/0602443].
[694] Xu, C. and Hoˇrava, P., “Emergent Gravity at a Lifshitz Point from a Bose Liquid on the
Lattice”, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 104033, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1003.0009 [hepth]].
[695] Zaslavsky, O.B., “Geometry and thermodynamics of quantumcorrected acceleration hori
zons”, Class. Quantum Grav., 17, 497–512, (2000). [DOI], [grqc/9812052].
[696] Zeldovich, Y.B., “The Generation of Waves by a Rotating Body”, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett.,
14, 180, (1971).
[697] Zeldovich, Y.B., “Ampliﬁcation of cylindrical electromagnetic waves reﬂected from a rotating
body”, Sov. Phys. JETP, 35, 1085, (1972).
[698] Zerilli, F.J., “Eﬀective potential for even parity Regge–Wheeler gravitational perturbation
equations”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 24, 737–738, (1970). [DOI].
[699] Zhang, P.M., Cao, L.M., Duan, Y.S. and Zhong, C.K., “Transverse force on a moving
vortex with the acoustic geometry”, Phys. Lett. A, 326, 375, (2004). [DOI], [hepth/0501073].
[700] Zhidenko, A., Linear perturbations of black holes: stability, quasinormal modes and tails,
Ph.D. Thesis, (Universidade de S˜ ao Paolo, S˜ ao Paolo, 2009). [arXiv:0903.3555 [grqc]].
[701] Zloshchastiev, K.G., “Acoustic phase lenses in superﬂuid He as models of composite space
times in general relativity: Classical and quantum properties with provision for spatial topol
ogy”, Acta Phys. Pol. B, 30, 897–905, (1999). [grqc/9802060].
[702] Zloshchastiev, K.G., “Nonlinear phenomena in electrical circuits: Simulation of nonlinear
relativistic ﬁeld theory and possible applications”, arXiv eprint, (1999). [condmat/9912149].
151
Update (10 May 2011) Completely revised and updated previous version. Signiﬁcantly extended Sections 2.4, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5, and 7. Introduced new Section 6. Eight new ﬁgures have been added. The number of references increased from 434 to 702.
2
1
Introduction
And I cherish more than anything else the Analogies, my most trustworthy masters. They know all the secrets of Nature, and they ought to be least neglected in Geometry. – Johannes Kepler
Figure 1: Artistic impression of cascading sound cones (in the geometrical acoustics limit) forming an acoustic black hole when supersonic ﬂow tips the sound cones past the vertical.
Figure 2: Artistic impression of trapped waves (in the physical acoustics limit) forming an acoustic black hole when supersonic ﬂow forces the waves to move downstream. Analogies have played a very important role in physics and mathematics – they provide new ways of looking at problems that permit crossfertilization of ideas among diﬀerent branches of science. A carefully chosen analogy can be extremely useful in focusing attention on a speciﬁc problem, and in suggesting unexpected routes to a possible solution. In this review article we
3
and to obtain lessons of potential relevance on the road towards a theory of quantum gravity. analogy is not identity. • Outline some of the many possible directions for future research. bidirectional and sometimes insights developed within the context of general relativity can be used to understand aspects of the analogue model. 1. 4 . By that stage the interested reader will have had a quite thorough introduction to the ideas. • Discuss the main physics results obtained to date. In modern language.1 Overview In the following sections we shall: • Discuss the ﬂowing ﬂuid analogy in some detail. techniques. The information ﬂow is.will focus on “analogue gravity”.2 Motivations The motivation for these investigations (both historical and current) is rather mixed. There are many other “analogue models” that may be useful for this or other reasons – some of the analogue models are interesting for experimental reasons. Supersonic ﬂuid ﬂow can then generate a “dumb hole”. • Summarise the history and motivation for various analogue models. The most wellknown of these analogies is the use of sound waves in a moving ﬂuid as an analogue for light waves in a curved spacetime. • Provide a representative catalogue of extant models. • Discuss the many physics issues various researchers have addressed. The list of analogue models is extensive. the reasons to investigate analogue models are: • Partly to use condensed matter to gain insight into classical general relativity. • Summarise the current state of aﬀairs. in principle. 1. and the analogy can be extended all the way to mathematically demonstrating the presence of phononic Hawking radiation from the acoustic horizon. This particular example provides (at least in principle) a concrete laboratory model for curvedspace quantum ﬁeld theory in a realm that is technologically accessible to experiment. others are useful for the way they provide new light on perplexing theoretical questions. the development of analogies (typically but not always based on condensed matter physics) to probe aspects of the physics of curved spacetime – and in particular to probe aspects of curved space quantum ﬁeld theory. and to the key features of those models. • Partly to use condensed matter to gain insight into curvedspace quantum ﬁeld theory. and hopes of the analogue gravity programme. Of course. and we are in no way claiming that the analogue models we consider are completely equivalent to general relativity – merely that the analogue model (in order to be interesting) should capture and accurately reﬂect a suﬃcient number of important features of general relativity (or sometimes special relativity). and in this review we will seek to do justice both to the key models. the acoustic analogue of a “black hole”. • Partly to develop an observational window on curvedspace quantum ﬁeld theory. both on the theoretical and experimental sides.
• The Physics Reports article. • Partly to gain insight into new and radicallydiﬀerent ways of dealing with “quantum/emergent gravity”.victoria. 5 . Fabbri. “Superﬂuid analogies of cosmological phenomena”. 1.• Partly to use classical general relativity to gain insight into condensed matter physics.ac.msor. and Parentani [21] (focussing largely on backreaction and shortdistance eﬀects). • The archival website for the “Analogue models” workshop: – http://www. edited by Novello. by Volovik [660].3 Going further Apart from this present review article. • The review article by Balbinot. there are several key items that stand out as starting points for any deeper investigation: • The book “Artiﬁcial Black Holes”. and Volovik [470]. Visser. and the references contained herein. • The Lecture Notes in Physics volume on “Quantum Analogies” edited by Unruh and Sch¨ tzu hold [614].nz/~visser/Analog/ • The book “The Universe in a Helium Droplet”. Fagnocchi. by Volovik [655].
and speciﬁc computations are often simple (whenever. The basic physics is simple. 624]. and if the speed of the ﬂuid ever becomes supersonic. The advantage of geometrical acoustics is that the derivation of the precise mathematical form of the analogy is so simple as to be almost trivial.1 Background The basic physics is this: A moving ﬂuid will drag sound waves along with it.org/millennium/ for details. which ultimately is the reason that analogue models are of physical interest. The real question is whether this verbal analogy can be turned into a precise mathematical and physical statement – it is only after we have a precise mathematical and physical connection between (in this example) the physics of acoustics in a ﬂuid ﬂow and at least some signiﬁcant features of general relativity that we can claim to have an “analogue model of (some aspects of) gravity”. the conceptual framework is simple. 6 .2 Of course this sounds very similar. the verbal description above (and its generalizations in other physical frameworks) can be converted into a precise mathematical and physical statement. The analogy works at two levels: • Geometrical acoustics. as in “unable to speak”. Now the features of general relativity that one typically captures in an “analogue model” are the kinematic features that have to do with how ﬁelds (classical or quantum) are deﬁned on curved spacetime. 622. they are not impossibly hard). See http://www. a region from which sound can not escape. then in the supersonic region sound waves will never be able to ﬁght their way back upstream [607.000 Millennium Prize for signiﬁcant progress on the question of existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Navier–Stokes equation. 622. This implies the existence of a “dumb hole”. • Physical acoustics.) Indeed. though even many native English speakers get this wrong. 624]. The word “dumb” does not mean “stupid”.000. (At the very least.2 The Simplest Example of an Analogue Spacetime Acoustics in a moving ﬂuid is the simplest and cleanest example of an analogue model [607. that is. The 1 The need for a certain degree of caution regarding the allegedly straightforward physics of simple ﬂuids might be inferred from the fact that the Clay Mathematics Institute is currently oﬀering a US$ 1. and that the derivation is extremely general.1 2.claymath. to the notion of a “black hole” in general relativity. Figure 3: A moving ﬂuid will drag sound pulses along with it. the word “dumb” means “mute”. 2 In correct English. 626. at the level of a nonmathematical verbal analogy. and the sine qua non of any analogue model is the existence of some “eﬀective metric” that captures the notion of the curved spacetimes that arise in general relativity. one might wish to capture the notion of the Minkowski geometry of special relativity. 626.
− c2 dt2 + (dx − v dt) = 0 . This is associated with a conformal class of Lorentzian metrics [607.e. relative to the laboratory. (4) −v I 7 . the velocity of a sound ray propagating. Supersonic ﬂow will tip the sound cones past the vertical. Solving this quadratic equation for dx as a function of dt provides a double cone associated with each point in space and time. relative to the laboratory. the analogy can do more for you in that it can now uniquely determine a speciﬁc eﬀective metric and accommodate a wave equation for the sound waves. is well deﬁned. is dx = c n + v. dt This deﬁnes a sound cone in spacetime given by the condition n2 = 1. 624. • The velocity of the ﬂuid v. 470] −(c2 − v 2 ) −v T g = Ω2 . while the derivation of the analogy holds in a more restricted regime. is well deﬁned. 2. Then.. relative to the ﬂuid. The advantage of physical acoustics is that. (3) 2 (1) (2) t Subsonic Sonic Supersonic x Figure 4: A moving ﬂuid will tip the “sound cones” as it moves. with respect to the ﬂuid. 622. and does not obtain a unique eﬀective metric.disadvantage is that in the geometrical acoustics limit one can deduce only the causal structure of the spacetime. 626. along the direction deﬁned by the unit vector n.2 Geometrical acoustics At the level of geometrical acoustics we need only assume that: • The speed of sound c. That is − [c2 − v 2 ] dt2 − 2v · dx dt + dx · dx = 0 . i.
then it is an exact nonperturbative result that the matrix of coeﬃcients for the ﬁrstderivative terms can be used to construct a conformal class of metrics that encodes the causal structure of the system of PDEs. the ﬂuctuations (sound waves) are governed by a curved (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian (pseudoRiemannian) spacetime geometry.3 2. 8 . ∆φ ≡ √ ∂µ −g (6) Under these conditions. when the ﬂuid is nonhomogeneous and ﬂowing. Speciﬁcally . . The metric depends algebraically on the density. I (Here I is the 3 × 3 identity matrix. 443. and local speed of sound in the ﬂuid. To derive a wave equation in this more general situation we shall start by adopting a few simplifying assumptions to allow us to derive the following theorem.where Ω is an unspeciﬁed but nonvanishing function. the propagation of sound is governed by an acoustic metric – gµν (t. or to a ﬂuid that is in motion.3 Physical acoustics It is well known that for a static homogeneous inviscid ﬂuid the propagation of sound waves is governed by the simple wave equation [370. −v . and the ﬂow is irrotational (though possibly time dependent) then the equation of motion for the velocity potential describing an acoustic disturbance is identical to the d’Alembertian equation of motion for a minimallycoupled massless scalar ﬁeld propagating in a (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian geometry √ 1 −g g µν ∂ν φ = 0. velocity of ﬂow. c . . 372. x). It is quite remarkable that even though the underlying ﬂuid dynamics is Newtonian. (5) Generalizing this result to a ﬂuid that is nonhomogeneous. the acoustic Riemann tensor associated with this Lorentzian metric will be nonzero. On the other hand. Moreover. For barotropic hydrodynamics this is brieﬂy discussed in [138]. this logic rapidly (and relatively easily) generalises to more complicated physical situations. possibly even in nonsteady motion. x) ≡ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · . is more subtle than it at ﬁrst would appear. and takes place in ﬂat spaceplustime. Comment. The virtues of the geometric approach are its extreme simplicity and the fact that the basic structure is dimensionindependent. 577] 2 ∂t φ = c2 ∇2 φ. If a ﬂuid is barotropic and inviscid. whenever one has a system of PDEs that can be written in ﬁrstorder quasilinear symmetric hyperbolic form. this discussion is also potentially of interest to practitioners of continuum mechanics and ﬂuid dynamics in that it provides a simple concrete introduction to Lorentzian diﬀerential geometric techniques. 3 For instance. including (as we shall later see) black holes. and ultimately can be linked back to the Fresnel equation that appears in the eikonal limit. Theorem. nonrelativistic. This analysis is related to the behaviour of characteristics of the PDEs. For practitioners of general relativity this observation describes a very simple and concrete physical model for certain classes of Lorentzian spacetimes. This acoustic metric describes a (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian (pseudo–Riemannian) geometry. −vT ρ (7) gµν (t.) In general. −(c2 − v 2 ) .
ǫφ1 ). p. ρ (12) Thus. 2 (13) This is a version of Bernoulli’s equation. Higherfrequency. Note that this is the standard deﬁnition of (linear) sound and more generally of acoustical disturbances. φ). a ﬂuid mechanic might really be interested in solving the complete equations of motion for the ﬂuid variables (ρ. locally irrotational. for the force density. with the only forces present being those due to pressure. [370. Euler’s equation now reduces to 1 − ∂t φ + h + (∇φ)2 = 0. shorterwavelength disturbances are conventionally described as acoustic disturbances. φ0 ). we can introduce a highpass ﬁlter function to deﬁne the bulk motion by suitably averaging the exact 4 It is straightforward to add external forces.4 Then. let us be even more explicit by asking the rhetorical question: “How can we tell the diﬀerence between a wind gust and a sound wave?” The answer is that the diﬀerence is to some extent a matter of convention – suﬃciently lowfrequency longwavelength disturbances (wind gusts) are conventionally lumped in with the average bulk motion. at least conservative body forces such as Newtonian gravity. φ0 ). p0 . it becomes possible to deﬁne p h(p) = 0 dp′ . plus low amplitude acoustic disturbances. into some average bulk motion. 372. (ρ. h(p). the speciﬁc enthalpy. φ). p.Proof. If you wish to be hypertechnical. 2 (14) (15) (16) p = φ = Sound is deﬁned to be these linearised ﬂuctuations in the dynamical quantities. ρ(p′ ) so that ∇h = 1 ∇p. Set ρ = ρ0 + ǫρ1 + O(ǫ2 ). In practice. dt (9) Start the analysis by assuming the ﬂuid to be inviscid (zero viscosity). Now linearise these equations of motion around some assumed background (ρ0 . of course. at least locally. is a function of p only. described by the exact variables. (ρ0 . 2 (11) (10) Now take the ﬂow to be vorticity free. p0 . it is both traditional and extremely useful to separate the exact motion. for example. 9 . In principle. 443. See. that is. (8) and Euler’s equation (equivalent to F = ma applied to small lumps of ﬂuid) ρ dv ≡ ρ [∂t v + (v · ∇)v] = f . 372. we have f = −∇p. Introduce the velocity potential φ such that v = −∇φ. Since this is a subtle issue that we have seen cause considerable confusion in the past. ǫp1 . If one further takes the ﬂuid to be barotropic (this means that ρ is a function of p only). p0 + ǫp1 + O(ǫ ). The fundamental equations of ﬂuid dynamics [370. φ0 + ǫφ1 + O(ǫ2 ). 577] are the equation of continuity ∂t ρ + ∇ · (ρ v) = 0. (ǫρ1 . 443. 577]. Via standard manipulations the Euler equation can be rewritten as ∂t v = v × (∇ × v) − 1 ∇p − ∇ ρ 1 2 v .
∂p . observe that the local speed of sound is deﬁned by c−2 ≡ Now construct the symmetric 4 × 4 matrix ∂ρ . The background ﬁelds p0 . −v0 · ············ . To simplify things algebraically. We ﬁnally obtain. 2 p1 − v0 · ∇φ1 = 0. the wave equation: − ∂t ∂ρ ∂ρ ρ0 (∂t φ1 + v0 · ∇φ1 ) + ∇ · ρ0 ∇φ1 − ρ0 v0 (∂t φ1 + v0 · ∇φ1 ) ∂p ∂p = 0. Thus this wave equation completely determines the propagation of acoustic disturbances. and irrotational ﬂow. (c2 δ ij − v i v j ) . the barotropic condition implies h(p) = h p0 + ǫp1 + O(ǫ2 ) = h0 + ǫ p1 + O(ǫ2 ). . Once φ1 is determined. This is the assumption underlying the linearization programme. We obtain the pair 1 −∂t φ0 + h0 + (∇φ0 )2 = 0. the physical import of this wave equation is somewhat less than pellucid. Linearizing the continuity equation results in the pair of equations ∂t ρ0 + ∇ · (ρ0 v0 ) = 0. Now. 0 0 (25) −1 ρ0 f µν (t. . which appear as timedependent and positiondependent coeﬃcients in this wave equation. written in this form. ∂p ∂p (23) (22) (20) (21) Now substitute this consequence of the linearised Euler equation into the linearised equation of continuity. x) ≡ 2 · · · · · · c i −v0 10 (26) . Use the barotropic assumption to relate ρ1 = ∂ρ ∂ρ p1 = ρ0 (∂t φ1 + v0 · ∇φ1 ).ﬂuid motion. j . are constrained to solve the equations of ﬂuid motion for a barotropic. ρ0 and v0 = −∇φ0 . and this is why suﬃciently highamplitude sound waves must be treated by direct solution of the full equations of ﬂuid dynamics. −∂t φ1 + ρ0 This last equation may be rearranged to yield p1 = ρ0 (∂t φ1 + v0 · ∇φ1 ) . The place where we are making a speciﬁc physical assumption that restricts the validity of our analysis is in the requirement that the amplitude of the highfrequency shortwavelength disturbances be small. There are no deep physical principles at stake here – merely an issue of convention. . they are otherwise permitted to have arbitrary temporal and spatial dependencies. Now. up to an overall sign. Use this result in linearizing the Euler equation. and Equation (23) then determines ρ1 . Apart from these constraints. inviscid. Equation (22) determines p1 . (24) This wave equation describes the propagation of the linearised scalar potential φ1 . ρ0 (19) (17) (18) ∂t ρ1 + ∇ · (ρ1 v0 + ρ0 v1 ) = 0.
445. c2 c Therefore. 670]. j 2 −(c2 − v0 ) . while Roman indices run from 1 – 3. (See. is pointwise the matrix inverse of gµν (t. on the one hand. 505–508]. √ det(f µν ) = ( −g)4 g −1 = g. [213. (29) This implies. more commonly used in discussing initial value data in general relativity. g µν (t. for general relativists it is even easier to recognise that one has in front of one a speciﬁc example of the Arnowitt–Deser–Misner split of a (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian spacetime metric into space + time.) The (covariant) acoustic metric is then read oﬀ by inspection . x) ≡ ρ0 c . 11 . introducing (3+1)dimensional spacetime coordinates. (27) This remarkably compact formulation is completely equivalent to Equation (24) and is a much more promising steppingstone for further manipulations. 446. . −1 . the above wave Equation (24) is easily rewritten as ∂µ (f µν ∂ν φ1 ) = 0. pp. 2 · (−1) · (c2 − v0 ) − (−v0 )2 · c2 · c2 = − ρ4 0 . from the explicit expression (26). δ 0 ij ρ0 j i −c2 dt2 + (dxi − v0 dt) δij (dxj − v0 dt) . ρ0 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · . [445. On the other hand. expanding the determinant in minors yields det(f µν ) = Thus.) Then. the acoustic interval (acoustic lineelement) can be expressed as ds2 ≡ gµν dxµ dxν = We could now determine the metric itself simply by inverting this 4 × 4 matrix (and if the reader is not a general relativist.e. proceeding in this direct manner is deﬁnitely the preferred option). we can pick oﬀ the coeﬃcients of the inverse (contravariant) acoustic metric . j . g µν (t.) The inverse metric. x) by √ 1 −g g µν ∂ν φ . xi ) . which we write as xµ ≡ (t. −v0 . while g ≡ det(gµν ).. for example. Now in any Lorentzian (i. −v i .(Greek indices run from 0 – 3. 0 0 g=− (32) (33) Equivalently. −g = 0 . 597. ∆φ ≡ √ ∂µ −g (28) (See. for example. (c2 δ ij − v i v j ) i −v0 . Thus one can rewrite the physically derived wave Equation (24) in terms of the d’Alembertian provided one identiﬁes √ −g g µν = f µν . The remaining steps are a straightforward application of the techniques of curved space (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian geometry. −v0 1 · · · · · · · ············ . ρ0 c2 4 (30) On the other hand. x). . c (35) This completes the proof of the theorem. pseudo–Riemannian) manifold the curved space scalar d’Alembertian is given in terms of the metric gµν (t. c2 (31) √ ρ2 ρ4 0 . 274. x). (34) gµν ≡ c .
• Furthermore.) The ﬂuid particles couple only to the physical metric ηµν .) • It should be emphasised that there are two distinct metrics relevant to the current discussion: – The physical spacetime metric is. do not “see” the physical metric at all. 1. (37) light (Here clight is the speed of light in vacuum. 670]. for example.1. +. • Observe that in physical acoustics it is the inverse metric density. In systems constrained to have eﬀectively less than 3 spacelike dimensions one can reproduce more complicated topologies (consider. as it should be to be regarded as Lorentzian. an eﬀectively onedimensional ﬂow in a tubular ring). Moncrief was working in the more general case of a curved background “physical” metric. the geometry determined by the acoustic metric does inherit some key properties from the existence of the underlying ﬂat physical metric. For instance. We shall come back to this work later on. • It is quite remarkable that (to the best of our knowledge) a version of this acoustic metric was ﬁrst derived and used in Moncrief’s studies of the relativistic hydrodynamics of accretion ﬂows surrounding black holes [448]. (See also Section 4. which closely follows the discussion in [624].4 General features of the acoustic metric A few brief comments should be made before proceeding further: • Observe that the signature of this eﬀective metric is indeed (−. +. in considerable detail because it is a standard template that can be readily generalised in many ways.We have presented the theorem and proof. Acoustic perturbations couple only to the eﬀective acoustic metric gµν . Note that g µν (∇µ t) (∇ν t) = − 1 < 0. and it is quite suﬃcient to consider Galilean relativity for the underlying ﬂuid mechanics. – Sound waves on the other hand. in our historical section. +). √ f µν = −g g µν (36) that is of more fundamental signiﬁcance for deriving the wave equation than is the metric gµν itself. 1. This discussion can then be used as a starting point to initiate the analysis of numerous and diverse physical models. 2. just the usual ﬂat metric of Minkowski space: ηµν ≡ (diag[−c2 . 1])µν . in this case. the topology of the manifold does not depend on the particular metric considered.) • However. The acoustic geometry inherits the underlying topology of the physical metric – ordinary ℜ4 – with possibly a few regions excised (due to whatever hardwall boundary conditions one might wish to impose on the ﬂuid). Indeed. so that v0  ≪ clight . In fact the ﬂuid motion is completely nonrelativistic.2. the acoustic geometry automatically inherits from the underlying Newtonian time parameter. the important property of “stable causality” [274. ρ0 c (38) 12 . (This observation continues to hold in more general situations where it is often signiﬁcantly easier to calculate the tensor density f µν than it is to calculate the eﬀective metric gµν . in addition to a curved “eﬀective” metric.
This fourvelocity is related to the gradient of the natural time parameter by ∇µ t = (1. “apparent horizon”. the acoustic metric has. Thus. for example. 0. x). and “event horizon”. “trapped surface”. x). • Other concepts that translate immediately are those of “ergoregion”. we should emphasise that in Einstein gravity the spacetime metric is related to the distribution of matter by the nonlinear Einstein–Hilbert diﬀerential equations. v i ) Vµ = √ 0 . The equation of continuity actually reduces this to 2 degrees of freedom. (4 × 4 symmetric matrix ⇒ 10 independent components. The acoustic proper time along the ﬂuid ﬂow lines (streamlines) is √ ρ0 c dt. • A point of notation: Where the general relativist uses the word “stationary” the ﬂuid dynamicist uses the phrase “steady ﬂow”. Being speciﬁed completely by the three scalars φ0 (t. • The properly normalised fourvelocity of the ﬂuid is (1. In contrast. ∇µ t = − i Vµ (1. V ) = −1. 273. the acoustic metric is more constrained. • Observe that in a completely general (3+1)dimensional Lorentzian geometry the metric has 6 degrees of freedom per point in spacetime. [274. in the present context. • Finally. and c(t.This precludes some of the more entertaining causalityrelated pathologies that sometimes arise in general relativity. the acoustic metric is related to the distribution of matter in a simple algebraic fashion. 272. x) and c(t. 275. 125. ρ0 c ρ0 c (39) (40) (41) Thus the integral curves of the ﬂuid velocity ﬁeld are orthogonal (in the Lorentzian metric) to the constant time surfaces. 13 . These notions will be developed more fully in the following subsection. (For a general discussion of causal pathologies in general relativity. which can be taken to be φ0 (t. In contrast. x). see. then subtract 4 coordinate conditions). 0). the simple acoustic metric of this section can. reproduce some subset of the generic metrics of interest in general relativity. ρ0 (t. x). at most. ρ0 c so that gµν V µ V ν = g(V. at best. v0 ) = −√ . 0. The generalrelativistic word “static” translates to a rather messy constraint on the ﬂuid ﬂow (to be discussed more fully below). 630]). (42) τ= and the integral curves are geodesics of the acoustic metric if and only if ρ0 c is position independent. 3 degrees of freedom per point in spacetime.
ergoregions and “surface gravity” are important features of standard general relativity. The same “geometry” written in diﬀerent coordinates would give rise to a diﬀerent ﬂuid ﬂow (if at all possible. then no matter what direction a sound wave propagates. A particular ﬂuid ﬂow reproduces a speciﬁc “metric”. the acoustic apparent horizon is the twosurface for which the normal component of the ﬂuid velocity is everywhere equal to the local speed of sound. 14 . not a “geometry”). and analogies are useful only insofar as they adequately preserve these notions. a speciﬁc foliation of spacetime. we shall drop the explicit subscript 0 on background ﬁeld quantities unless there is speciﬁc risk of confusion. and. In ordinary general relativity we need to develop considerable additional technical machinery. 0)µ . The acoustic trapped region is now deﬁned as the region containing outer trapped surfaces. 262–263]. 670]. (We can also deﬁne antitrapped regions and past apparent horizons but these notions are of limited utility in general relativity. in the interests of notational simplicity. see the discussion in Section 7.2.4. 310–311]. in particular. (a matrix of coeﬃcients in a speciﬁc coordinate system. then this is the time translation Killing vector.)6 The fact that the apparent horizon seems to be ﬁxed in a foliationindependent manner is only an illusion due to the way in which the analogies work. (43) If the ﬂow is steady. by demanding that it be the boundary of the region from which null geodesics (phonons) cannot escape.) The analogue of this behaviour in general relativity is the ergosphere surrounding any spinning black hole – it is a region where space “moves” with superluminal velocity relative to the ﬁxed stars [445. Concepts and quantities such as horizons. That is. to a diﬀerent apparent horizon. any region of supersonic ﬂow is an ergoregion. Even if the ﬂow is not steady the background Minkowski metric provides us with a natural deﬁnition of “at rest”. and the acoustic (future) apparent horizon as the boundary of the trapped region. (44) This quantity changes sign when v > c. 6 This discussion naturally leads us to what is perhaps the central question of analogue models – just how much of the standard “laws of black hole mechanics” [51.1 Horizons and ergoregions In the next two subsections we shall undertake to more fully explain some of the technical details underlying the acoustic analogy. pp.4). 0. A trapped surface in acoustics is deﬁned as follows: Take any closed twosurface. The event horizon (absolute horizon) is deﬁned.) Innertrapped surfaces (antitrapped surfaces) can be deﬁned by demanding that the ﬂuid ﬂow is everywhere outwardpointing with supersonic normal component. That the above deﬁnition for acoustic geometries is a specialization of the usual one can be seen from the discussion in [274. as in general relativity. it will be swept inward by the ﬂuid ﬂow and be trapped inside the surface. 319–323] or [670. before deﬁning trapped surfaces. Then5 gµν (∂/∂t)µ (∂/∂t)ν = gtt = −[c2 − v 2 ]. A past event horizon can be deﬁned in terms of the boundary of the region 5 Henceforth. If the ﬂuid velocity is everywhere inwardpointing and the normal component of the ﬂuid velocity is everywhere greater than the local speed of sound. (And the boundary of the ergoregion may be deemed to be the ergosurface. 671] carry over into these analogue models? Quite a lot but not everything – that is our main topic for the rest of the review. pp. It is only because of the fact that the background Minkowski metric provides a natural deﬁnition of “at rest” that we can adopt such a simple and straightforward deﬁnition. (Only “internal” observers see a “geometry”. This is actually the future event horizon. (For comparison with the usual situation in general relativity see [274. 274. Let us start with the notion of an ergoregion: Consider integral curves of the vector K µ ≡ (∂/∂t)µ = (1. The surface is then said to be outertrapped. as not all coordinate representations of a ﬁxed geometry give rise to acoustic metrics) and. therefore. Thus. pp. 0. such as the notion of the “expansion” of bundles of ingoing and outgoing null geodesics.
t x Figure 5: A moving ﬂuid can form “trapped surfaces” when supersonic ﬂow tips the sound cones past the vertical. 15 .
plane symmetry). 2. both in stationary and timedependent situations. (This part of the construction fails in general relativity where there is no universal natural timecoordinate unless there is a timelike Killing vector – this is why extending the notion of surface gravity to nonstationary geometries in general relativity is so diﬃcult. It is also useful to take cognizance of the fact that the situation simpliﬁes considerably for static (as opposed to merely stationary) acoustic metrics. the ergosphere may coincide with the acoustic apparent horizon. or even the acoustic event horizon. by calculating the extent to which this natural time parameter fails to be an aﬃne parameter for the null generators of the horizon. This has the added bonus that for stationary geometries the notion of “acoustic surface gravity” in acoustics is unambiguously equivalent to the general relativity deﬁnition. there is one particular parameterization of these null geodesics that is “most natural”. For many more details. 16 . When computing the surface gravity. we shall restrict attention to stationary geometries (steady ﬂow). and the generators of the event horizon are automatically null geodesics. In all stationary geometries the apparent and event horizons coincide. including appropriate null coordinates and Carter–Penrose diagrams. In ﬂuid ﬂows of high symmetry (spherical symmetry. it is nevertheless very useful to limit attention to situations of steady ﬂow (so that the acoustic metric is stationary).2 Surface gravity Because of the deﬁnition of event horizon in terms of phonons (null geodesics) that cannot escape the acoustic black hole.Figure 6: A moving ﬂuid can form an “acoustic horizon” when supersonic ﬂow prevents upstream motion of sound waves. and the distinction is immaterial. This allows us to unambiguously deﬁne a “surface gravity” even for nonstationary (timedependent) acoustic event horizons. see [37]. the event horizon is automatically a null surface. the generators of which are null geodesics.) When it comes to explicitly calculating the surface gravity in terms of suitable gradients of the ﬂuid ﬂow. In particular.4. In timedependent geometries the distinction is often important. This is the analogue of the result in general relativity that for static (as opposed to stationary) black holes the ergosphere and event horizon coincide. but we will simply take all relevant incantations as understood. the event horizon is a null surface. In the case of acoustics. that cannot be reached by incoming phonons – strictly speaking this requires us to deﬁne notions of past and future null inﬁnities. which is the parameterization in terms of the Newtonian time coordinate of the underlying physical metric.
is thus seen to be v ∇× = 0. c2 − v 2 dxi dxj . ∂ρ ∂p ∂ρ2 ∂p ∂ 2 p ∂ρ ρ − 2 a. then we can deﬁne a new time coordinate by dτ = dt + v · dx . (48) Substituting this back into the acoustic line element gives ds2 = vi vj ρ −(c2 − v 2 ) dτ 2 + δij + 2 c c − v2 (49) That is. or by having the very speciﬁc (55) 17 . a. (54) ∂ρ2 ∂p This condition can be satisﬁed in two ways. (50) (c2 − v 2 ) (53) So (given that the geometry is already stationary) the condition for a static acoustic geometry reduces to ∂ 2 p ∂ρ ρ − 2 v × a = 0. ∂ρ2 ∂p (52) In this coordinate system the absence of the timespace crossterms makes manifest that the acoustic geometry is in fact static (there exists a family of spacelike hypersurfaces orthogonal to the timelike Killing vector). (51) This requires the ﬂuid ﬂow to be parallel to another vector that is not quite the acceleration but 1 is closely related to it. c The metric can also be written as ρ −(c2 − v 2 ) dt2 − 2v · dx dt + (dx )2 . v × ∇(c2 − v 2 ) = 0. because of the vorticity free assumption. (since in deriving the existence of the eﬀective metric we have already assumed the ﬂuid to be irrotational).To set up the appropriate framework. write the general stationary acoustic metric in the form ds2 = ρ −c2 dt2 + (dx − v dt)2 . (Note that. The condition that an acoustic geometry be static. ds2 = c (46) (47) Static acoustic spacetimes: Now suppose that the vector v/(c2 −v 2 ) is integrable. rather than merely stationary. with ρ K 2 ≡ gµν K µ K ν ≡ −K2 = − [c2 − v 2 ]. 2 ∇v 2 is just the threeacceleration of the ﬂuid. 3 c2 = kρ2 . it is the occurrence of a possibly position dependent speed of sound that complicates the above. 0 ). either by having v (and not particularly realistic) equation of state p= 1 3 kρ + C. (the gradient of some scalar).) Note that because of the barotropic assumption we have ∇c2 = That is ∇(c2 − v 2 ) = ∂c2 ∂ρ ∂ 2 p ∂ρ ∇p = ρ a. c (45) The time translation Killing vector is simply K µ = (1.
H (61) This is not quite Unruh’s result [607. and gH = a. 2 ∂ρ2 ∂p (62) demonstrating that (in a static acoustic spacetime) the surface gravity is (up to a dimensionless factor depending on the equation of state) directly related to the acceleration of the ﬂuid as it crosses the horizon. Though derived in a totally diﬀerent manner. it may be computed in the standard manner AFIDO = + That is AFIDO = 1 ∇K2 .) The fact that prefactor ρ/c drops out of the ﬁnal result for the surface gravity can be justiﬁed by appeal to the known conformal invariance of the surface gravity [315].Note that for this particular barotropic equation of state the conformal factor drops out. and using the fact that K is a Killing vector. The net result is AFIDO  K = 1 n · ∇(c2 − v 2 ) + O(c2 − v 2 ). multiplying by the lapse function. We set up a system of ﬁducial observers (FIDOS) by properly normalizing the timetranslation Killing vector VFIDO ≡ K = K K (ρ/c) [c2 − v 2 ] . which was the working ﬂuid he was considering. For water p = kρ + C. for a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) we shall later on see that p = 1 kρ2 + C. (56) The fouracceleration of the FIDOS is deﬁned as AFIDO ≡ (VFIDO · ∇)VFIDO . and taking the limit as one approaches the horizon: v → c (remember that we are currently dealing with the static case). note that we can also write the expression for surface gravity as gH = 1 − 1 ∂ 2 p ∂ρ ρ a. we can of course directly apply all of the standard tricks [601] for calculating the surface gravity developed in general relativity. (This is of course a completely appropriate approximation for water. As a further consistency check. c2 = k. implying c2 = kρ. K = (ρ/c) [c2 − v 2 ]. one can go to the spherically symmetric case and check that this reproduces the results for “dirty black holes” enunciated in [621]. Once we have a static geometry. 2 K2 (58) (57) The surface gravity is now deﬁned by taking the norm AFIDO . + 2 (c2 − v 2 ) (ρ/c) (59) so that the surface gravity is given in terms of a normal derivative by7 gH = 1 ∂(c2 − v 2 ) 2 ∂n = cH H ∂c − v ∂n . Finally. which then leads to the simple 2 1 result gH = 2 a. Because of the background Minkowski metric there can be no possible confusion as to the deﬁnition of this normal derivative. 7 18 . this result is also compatible with the expression for “surfacegravity” obtained in the solidstate black holes of Reznik [523]. 608] since he implicitly took the speed of sound to be a positionindependent constant. wherein a position dependent (and singular) refractive index plays a role analogous to the acoustic metric. 2 (60) 1 ∇(c2 − v 2 ) ∇(ρ/c) .
in general. From the ﬂuid dynamics point of view this coordinate transformation is correct but perverse. Stationary (nonstatic) acoustic spacetimes: If the ﬂuid ﬂow does not satisfy the integrability condition. where ˆ v⊥ = v⊥ n. glossing over. Speciﬁcally kTH = gH .Since this is a static geometry. If you choose units to measure the surface gravity as a physical acceleration. this is a rather bizarre way of deliberately desynchronizing your clocks to take a perfectly reasonable region – the boundary of the region of supersonic ﬂow – and push it out to “time” plus inﬁnity. and even in these analogue models it is common to adopt units such that cH → 1. deﬁned to be a twosurface for which the normal component of the ﬂuid velocity is everywhere equal to the local speed of sound. for the time being. In addition n is 8 There are a few potential subtleties in the derivation of the existence of Hawking radiation. In the stationary case these notions coincide. from the point of view of the underlying Newtonian physics of the ﬂuid. whereas the acoustic event horizon (absolute horizon) is characterised by the boundary of those null geodesics (phonons) that do not escape to inﬁnity. Purely on dimensional grounds it is a spatial derivative of velocity (which has the same engineering dimension as frequency) that is the determining factor in specifying the physicallynormalised Hawking temperature. Suppose we have somehow isolated the location of the acoustic horizon. (Since there is a strong tendency in classical general relativity to adopt units such that c → 1. then deﬁning the surface gravity is a little trickier. this has the potential to lead to some confusion. (65) Here (and for the rest of this particular section) it is essential that we use the natural Newtonian ˆ time coordinate inherited from the background Newtonian physics of the ﬂuid.1 for details.8 We should emphasize that the formula for the Hawking temperature contains both the surface gravity gH and the speed of sound cH at the horizon [624]. H (64) which is closer to the original form provided by Unruh [607] (which corresponds to c being constant). then. and it is easier to keep a good grasp on the physics by staying with the original Newtonian time coordinate. this can also be written as kTH = ∂c − v 2π ∂n . and from the general relativity point of view is even a simpliﬁcation. and that the horizon can be ruled by an appropriate set of null curves. then it is the quantity gH /cH . see Section 5. 271]. which allows us to introduce an explicitly static coordinate system. in the vicinity of the horizon. If you don’t like Euclidean signature techniques (which are in any case only applicable to equilibrium situations) you should go back to the original Hawking derivations [270. 2πcH (63) In view of the explicit formula for gH above. which we are. and it is still true that the horizon is a null surface. Recall that by construction the acoustic apparent horizon is. the relationship between the Hawking temperature and surface gravity may be veriﬁed in the usual fasttrack manner – using the Wick rotation trick to analytically continue to Euclidean space [245].) One ﬁnal comment to wrap up this section: The coordinate transform we used to put the acoustic metric into the explicitly static form is perfectly good mathematics. 19 . which has the dimensions of frequency that governs the Hawking ﬂux [624]. However. we can split up the ﬂuid ﬂow into normal and tangential components v = v⊥ + v .
Now consider the vector ﬁeld Lµ = ( 1. nj ) . i c ⊥ . (71) On the horizon. We shall now verify that these generators are geodesics. (66) Since the spatial components of this vector ﬁeld are by deﬁnition tangent to the horizon. where c = v⊥ . this simpliﬁes tremendously (Lα L[β. ∇j (c2 − v⊥ ) = + 2 ρ ∂(c2 − v⊥ ) (0. for the second term we have ∇β (L2 ) = 0. take the geodesic distance to the horizon and consider its gradient. Consider the quantity (L · ∇)L and calculate 1 Lα ∇α Lµ = Lα (∇α Lβ − ∇β Lα )g βµ + ∇β (L2 )g βµ . Furthermore.j] .a unit vector ﬁeld that. v i ). c ρ ⊥ v ˆ n c [j. v⊥ ). v [i. the integral curves of which are generators for the acoustic horizon. though the vector ﬁeld L is not normalised with an aﬃne parameter. nj ) . · ······ . the norm of this vector (in the acoustic metric) is L2 = − ρ − (c2 − v 2 ) − 2v · v + v · v c = ρ 2 2 (c − v⊥ ). nj ) . c .α] )horizon = − ρ c 2 0.β] = − Lα L[β. Furthermore. ∇j (c2 − v⊥ ) + v i c c . by deﬁnition we know that v⊥ = c at the horizon. ˆ c ∂n ρ 2 2 (c − v⊥ ) c . ˆ c ∂n (72) Similarly. ˆ 2 c ∂n (75) 20 .i] (68) (69) And so: L[α.α] = v ·∇ 0 ············ ρ 2 c (c (70) +∇j − 2 v⊥ ) ρ 2 ρ 2 2 (c − v⊥ ) . (73) (74) There is partial cancellation between the two terms. and away from the horizon is some suitable smooth extension. on the acoustic horizon Lµ deﬁnes a null vector ﬁeld. c (67) In particular. and additionally assuming v · ∇ρ = 0 so that the density is constant over the horizon. 2 To calculate the ﬁrst term note that Lµ = Thus. and in this way shall calculate the surface gravity.) We only need this decomposition to hold in some open set encompassing the horizon and do not need to have a global decomposition of this type available. the integral curves of this vector ﬁeld will be generators for the horizon. at the horizon. and so (Lα ∇α Lµ )horizon = + 2 1 ρ ∂(c2 − v⊥ ) (0. ∇j (c2 − v⊥ ) = − 2 ρ ∂(c2 − v⊥ ) (0. . is perpendicular to it. ρ ⊥ . ∇j On the horizon this again simpliﬁes ∇β (L2 )horizon = + ρ c 2 0. −∇ ρ (c2 − v 2 ) . (For example. ρ 2 (−[c2 − v⊥ ].
Let us start with the simplifying assumption that the background density ρ is a positionindependent constant throughout the ﬂow (which automatically implies that the background pressure p and speed of sound c are also constant throughout the ﬂuid ﬂow).) 10 There are situations in which this surface gravity is a lot larger than one might naively expect [398]. that vt ∝ ˆ 1 . c (76) Comparing this with the standard deﬁnition of surface gravity [670]9 (Lα ∇α Lµ )horizon = + we ﬁnally have (77) 2 ∂(c − v⊥ ) 1 ∂(c2 − v⊥ ) =c . (Note that in an acoustic setting. (81) Note that. The equation of continuity then implies that for the radial component of the ﬂuid velocity we must have 1 ˆ (79) vr ∝ . and insofar as there is overlap. gH = 2. the requirement that the ﬂow be vorticity free (apart from a possible deltafunction contribution at the vortex core) implies. we would like the surface gravity to really have the dimensions of an acceleration. The convention adopted here. (78) 2 ∂n ∂n This is in agreement with the previous calculation for static acoustic black holes. 21 . From the construction it is clear that the surface gravity is a measure of the extent to which the Newtonian time parameter inherited from the underlying ﬂuid dynamics fails to be an aﬃne parameter for the null geodesics on the horizon. where the speed of sound is not necessarily a constant. r In the tangential direction.while (Lµ )horizon = ρ (0. via Stokes’ theorem. with one explicit factor of c. Reznik [523]. the velocity potential is not a true function (because it has a discontinuity on going through 2π radians). the justiﬁcation for going into so much detail on this speciﬁc model is that this style of argument can be viewed as a template – it will (with suitable modiﬁcations) easily generalise to more complicated analogue models. c nj ) . 608]. On the other hand.4. We shall model a draining bathtub by a (3+1) dimensional ﬂow with a linear sink along the zaxis. is also consistent with results of Unruh [607. ˆ c gH (Lµ )horizon . and the results for “dirty black holes” [621]. Fortunately it is easy to see that this external force aﬀects only the background ﬂow and does not inﬂuence the linearised ﬂuctuations we are interested in. The velocity potential must be interpreted as 9 There is an issue of normalization here. r (80) (If these ﬂow velocities are nonzero. is the best compromise we have come up with.3 Example: vortex geometry As an example of a ﬂuid ﬂow where the distinction between ergosphere and acoustic event horizon is critical. θ) = −A ln(r/a) − B θ. consider the “draining bathtub” ﬂuid ﬂow.10 Again.) For the background velocity potential we must then have φ(r. we cannot simply set c → 1 by a choice of units. then following the discussion of [641] there must be some external force present to set up and maintain the background ﬂow. On the one hand we want to be as close as possible to general relativistic conventions. as we have previously hinted.
which would instead take the form [623] ˜ ˜ ds2 = −c2 (dt − A dθ)2 + dr2 + (1 − B)r2 dθ2 + dz 2 . and generalised to an anisotropic speed of sound. the vortex ﬂuid ﬂow is seen to possess an acoustic metric that is stably causal and which does not involve closed timelike curves.2 and references therein. For issues speciﬁcally connected to the Standard Electroweak Model see [667]. (85) Figure 7: A collapsing vortex geometry (draining bathtub): The green spirals denote streamlines of the ﬂuid ﬂow. Trying to force the existence 22 .2. The velocity of the ﬂuid ﬂow is ˆ (A r + B θ) ˆ . At large distances it is possible to approximate the vortex geometry by a spinning cosmic string [646]. restricted to A = 0 (no radial ﬂow). that metric being a model for the acoustic geometry surrounding physical vortices in superﬂuid 3 He.being deﬁned patchwise on overlapping regions surrounding the vortex core at r = 0. has been exhibited by Volovik [646]. (For a survey of the many analogies and similarities between the physics of superﬂuid 3 He. In conformity with previous comments. the acoustic metric for a draining bathtub is explicitly given by 2 2 B A (83) ds2 = −c2 dt2 + dr − dt + r dθ − dt + dz 2 . The outer circle represents the ergosurface (ergocircle) while the inner circle represents the [outer] event horizon. see Section 4. but this approximation becomes progressively worse as the core is approached. r (84) A similar metric.) Note that the metric given above is not identical to the metric of a spinning cosmic string. (82) v = −∇φ = r Dropping a positionindependent prefactor. r r Equivalently ds2 = − c2 − A2 + B 2 r2 dt2 − 2 A dr dt − 2B dθ dt + dr2 + r2 dθ2 + dz 2 .
Jacobson [310.4.4. at A . and the acoustic metric becomes ds2 ∝ That is ds2 ∝ 1 2 −c(z)2 dt2 + {dz − v(z) dt} + dx2 + dy 2 . Since the conformal factor is regular at the event horizon. interesting for analyzing the black hole laser eﬀect [150] or aspects of the physics of warpdrives [197]. In this situation one must again invoke an external force to set up and maintain the ﬂuid ﬂow. (87) rhorizon = c The sign of A now makes a diﬀerence. and therefore to the breakdown of the analogue model description [8]. v(z) c(z) (89) If we set c = 1 and ignore the x. we know that the surface gravity and Hawking temperature are independent of this conformal factor [315]. 2828. p. 2. Equation (4)]. 2. The ergosphere (ergocircle) forms at √ A2 + B 2 . while for A > 0 we are dealing with a past event horizon (acoustic white hole). (86) rergosphere = c Note that the sign of A is irrelevant in deﬁning the ergosphere and ergoregion: It does not matter if the vortex core is a source or a sink. white holes or black holewhite hole pairs. Corley and Jacobson [148].5 Example: Painlev´–Gullstrand geometry e To see how close the acoustic metric can get to reproducing the Schwarzschild geometry it is ﬁrst useful to introduce one of the more exotic representations of the Schwarzschild geometry: the Painlev´–Gullstrand line element. In the general case it is important to realise that the ﬂow can go supersonic for either of two reasons: The ﬂuid could speed up. 23 . or the speed of sound could decrease. which is simply an unusual choice of coordinates on the e Schwarzschild spacetime. v(z) c(z) (88) 1 − c(z)2 − v(z)2 dt2 − 2v(z) dz dt + dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 .4 Example: slab geometry A popular model for the investigation of event horizons in the acoustic analogy is the onedimensional slab geometry where the velocity is always along the z direction and the velocity proﬁle depends only on z. y coordinates and conformal factor.) Depending on the velocity proﬁle one can simulate black holes. For A < 0 we are dealing with a future acoustic horizon (acoustic black hole). and Corley [145]. (See for instance the early papers by Unruh [608. When it comes to calculating the “surface gravity” both of these eﬀects will have to be taken into account.11 In modern notation the Schwarzschild geometry in outgoing (+) and 11 The Painlev´–Gullstrand line element is sometimes called the Lemaˆ e ıtre line element. p. 7085. Equation (8)]. we have the toy model acoustic geometry discussed in many papers. The continuity equation then implies that ρ(z) v(z) is a constant. The acoustic event horizon forms once the radial component of the ﬂuid velocity exceeds the speed of sound. that is.of closed timelike curves leads to the existence of evanescent waves in what would be the achronal region.
As emphasised by Kraus and Wilczek. The best we can actually do is this: Pick the speed of sound c to be a positionindependent constant. That is. the paper by Kraus and Wilczek [364]. it might seem trivial to force the acoustic metric e into this form: Simply take ρ and c to be constants. and all the spacetime curvature of the Schwarzschild geometry has been pushed into the time–time and time–space components of the metric. Painlev´ [484]. and it has been independently rediscovered several times during the 20th century. (92) With these explicit forms in hand. We have an event 24 . (94) ds2 ∝ r−3/2 −dt2 + dr ± r So we see that the net result is conformal to the Painlev´–Gullstrand form of the Schwarzschild e geometry but not identical to it. the acoustic metric is now 2 2GM dt + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θ dφ2 . it becomes an easy exercise to check the equivalence between the Painlev´–Gullstrand line element and the more usual Schwarzschild form of the line element. and set v = 2GM/r. While this certainly forces the acoustic metric into the Painlev´–Gullstrand form. For many purposes this is good enough. Thus. we can integrate the relation c2 = dp/dρ to deduce that the equation of state must be p = p∞ +c2 ρ and that the background pressure satisﬁes p−p∞ ∝ c2 r−3/2 . It e should be noted that the + sign corresponds to a coordinate patch that covers the usual asymptotic region plus the region containing the future singularity of the maximallyextended Schwarzschild spacetime. which we normalise to unity (c = 1). the problem with this is that this e assignment is incompatible with the continuity equation ∇ · (ρv) = 0 that was used in deriving the acoustic equations. the Painlev´–Gullstrand line element exhibits a number e of features of pedagogical interest. See. and more recently. Lemaˆ [379]. In particular the constanttime spatial slices are completely ﬂat. Given the Painlev´–Gullstrand line element. the curvature of space is zero.ingoing (–) Painlev´–Gullstrand coordinates may be written as: e ds = −dt + Equivalently ds2 = − 1 − 2GM r dt2 ± 2GM dr dt + dr2 + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θ dφ2 . (90) This representation of the Schwarzschild geometry was not (until the advent of the analogue models) particularly wellknown. the related e ıtre discussion by Israel [305]. 1 − 2GM/r (93) 2GM r −2 √ 2GM r . Since the speed of sound is taken to be constant. for instance. and use the continuity equation ∇ · (ρv) = 0 plus spherical symmetry to deduce ρv ∝ 1/r2 so that ρ ∝ r−3/2 . r (91) 2 2 dr ± 2GM dt r 2 + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θ dφ2 . it covers the future horizon and the black hole singularity. Overall. Thus it covers the past horizon and the white hole singularity. On the other hand the − sign corresponds to a coordinate patch that covers the usual asymptotic region plus the region containing the past singularity. Gullstrand [264]. The Painlev´– e Gullstrand coordinates are related to the more usual Schwarzschild coordinates by tPG = tS ± 4M arctanh Or equivalently dtPG = dtS ± 2GM/r dr. Now set v = 2GM/r.
633] to avoid closed timelike curves. they can then properly be drawn on a sheet of paper.6 Causal structure We can now turn to another aspect of acoustic black holes. Acoustic black hole: For the case of a single isolated blackhole horizon we ﬁnd the Carter– Penrose diagram of Figure 8.horizon.) As a ﬁnal remark. not conformallycoupled scalars. so there will in general be eﬀects on the frequencydependent greybody factors. A systematic study in this sense was performed in [37] for 1+1 geometries (viewed either as a dimensional reduction of a physical 3+1 system. In all our ﬁgures we have used subscripts “right” and “left” to label the diﬀerent null and spacelike inﬁnities. We redirect the reader to [37] for other geometries and technical details. we have denoted the diﬀerent sonicpoint boundaries with ℑ± or ℑ± depending on right left whether they are the starting point (– sign) or the ending point (+ sign) of the null geodesics in the right or left parts of the diagram. this feature of the conformal diagram should be obvious. “right” and “left”. In addition. H = J − (ℑ+ ). we can analyse Hawking radiation. For further details see Section 2. one has to introduce appropriate null coordinates (analogous to the Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates) (u. 274]. something that is sometimes very useful in capturing the essential features of the geometry at hand. The basic idea underlying the conformal diagram of any noncompact 1+1 manifold is that its metric can always be conformally mapped to the metric of a compact geometry. not one formed via astrophysical stellar collapse) there is no singularity. ˙ that is. (With c = 1 one needs r > Q2 /(2m) to avoid an imaginary ﬂuid velocity. 25 .e. in order to make the various regions of interest graphically more clear. which we shall illustrate making use of the Carter–Penrose conformal diagrams [445. we can deﬁne surface gravity. right Acoustic blackhole–whitehole pair: The acoustic geometry for a blackhole–whitehole combination again has no singularities in the ﬂuid ﬂow.) If we focus attention on the region near the event horizon. i.. their global causal structure. (The phonons are minimallycoupled scalars. Note that the event horizon H is the boundary of the causal past of future right null inﬁnity. W) involving a suitable function mapping an inﬁnite range to a ﬁnite one (typically the arctan function). and we can ignore all these complications. there are two clearlydiﬀerentiated notions of asymptotia. Since compact spacetimes are in some sense “ﬁnite”. W ). with a boundary added to represent events at inﬁnity. v). let us note that de Sitter space corresponds to v ∝ r and ρ ∝ 1/r 3 . as these particular spacetimes will be of some relevance in what follows.5. certain aspects of the Kerr geometry can be emulated in this way [641]. (One needs r > 0 in the Doran coordinates [176. The only way in which the conformal factor can inﬂuence the Hawking radiation is through backscattering oﬀ the acoustic metric. since the ﬂuid ﬂow underlying the acoustic geometry is nowhere singular. and ﬁnally compactify by means of a new coordinate pair (U.) As we have already commented. On reﬂection. by exponentiation.12 Since surface gravity and Hawking temperature are conformal invariants [315] this is suﬃcient for analysing basic features of the Hawking radiation process. null Kruskallike coordinates (U. the conformal factor can simply be taken to be a constant. in the acoustic spacetimes.4. In contradistinction to the Carter–Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole (which in the current context would have to be an eternal black hole. or directly as geometrical acoustic metrics). 2. The basic steps in the acoustic case are the same as in standard general relativity: Starting from the coordinates (t. and no singularities in the spacetime 12 Similar constructions work for the Reissner–Nordstr¨m geometry [398]. then. with no periodic identiﬁcations. (In the ﬁgure we have introduced an aspect ratio diﬀerent from unity for the coordinates U and W. and a black holewhite hole pair. We shall explicitly present only the conformal diagrams for an acoustic black hole. with standard notations [445]. x) as in Equation (35).) Likewise. as long as one does not get too close to o the singularity.
47. s cs (95) to reproduce cosmological spacetimes. 676]. we note the complete absence of singularities. or through a cigarlike conﬁguration. 337]. 677] with a speciﬁc view to enhancing our understanding of “cosmological particle production” driven by the expansion of the universe. 106. 328.Figure 8: Conformal diagram of an acoustic black hole. Essentially there are two ways to use the acoustic metric.5. cs (t) and a radial proﬁle for the velocity v = (b/b)r. 675.5 Cosmological metrics In a cosmological framework the key items of interest are the Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) geometries. from Figure 9. 675.1 Explosion We can either let the explosion take place more or less spherically symmetrically. 195. 403. 195. more properly called the Friedmann–Lemaˆ ıtre–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) geometries. 2. where 26 . 47. 105. (This is actually very similar to the situation in models for Newtonian cosmology. 105. Threedimensional explosion: Following the cosmological ideas of [46. and the BEC technologies described in [126. 196. 2. the other on rapid variations in the “eﬀective speed of light”. The simulation of such geometries has been considered in various works such as [46. In particular. 674. 106. 683. or through a pancakelike conﬁguration. 194. One is based on physical explosion. 336. 674. one can take a homogeneous ˙ system ρ(t). 676. written as ds2 = ρ −(c2 − v 2 ) dt2 − 2v · dx dt + dx2 . with b a scale factor depending only on t. curvature.
by τ= T (t) dt.Figure 9: Conformal diagram of an acoustic blackhole–whitehole pair. we arrive at the metric of a spatiallyﬂat FLRW geometry 2 2 ds2 = −T 2(t) dt2 + a2 (t) (drb + rb dΩ2 ). Finally. s 2 cs ˙ b(t) . Hb (t) = the equation of continuity can be written as ρ + 3Hb (t) ρ = 0. b(t) ρ0 . Note the complete absence of singularities. ˙ (97) ⇒ ρ(t) = (98) with ρ0 constant. position is simply related to velocity via “time of ﬂight”. t. (101) 27 .) Then. τ . is related to the laboratory time. cs (100) The proper Friedmann time. as (t) ≡ ρ b. s 2 (99) with T (t) ≡ √ ρ cs . deﬁning a new radial coordinate as rb = r/b the metric can be expressed as ds2 = ρ 2 2 −c2 dt2 + b2 (drb + rb dΩ2 ) . b3 (t) (96) Introducing a Hubblelike parameter.
so the conformal factor multiplying the acoustic metric is that appropriate to 3+1 dimensions.2.7. (Note that the true physics is 3+1 dimensional. t)2 } dt2 − 2v(x. τ . is again related to the laboratory time. t) (106) The virtue of this situation is that one is keeping the condensate under much better control and has a simpler dimensionallyreduced problem to analyze.g. by √ τ= ρ cs dt.5. we have 2 2 ds2 = −dτ 2 + a2 (τ ) (drb + rb dΩ2 ). t) (105) Onedimensional explosion: An alternative “explosive” route to FLRW cosmology is to take a long thin cigarshaped BEC and let it expand along its axis. The relevant acoustic metric is now ds2 = ρ(x. (108) Then. cs (x. t) − v(r. while keeping it trapped in the transverse directions [196. t) −{c2 (x. as dτ (103) If one now wishes to speciﬁcally mimic de Sitter expansion. albeit squeezed along two directions.2 Varying the eﬀective speed of light The other avenue starts from a ﬂuid at rest v = 0 with respect to the laboratory at all times: ds2 = −ρ cs dt2 + ρ dx2 . 2 2 2 ds2 = −dτ 2 + as (τ ) (drb + rb dΩ2 ). 683. and allowing the BEC to expand in a pancake in the x and y directions (now best relabeled as r and φ) one can in principle arrange ds2 = ρ(x.Then. Twodimensional explosion: By holding the trap constant in the z direction. in a suﬃciently large region of space. This again reproduces an expanding spatiallyﬂat FLRW Universe. while the speed of sound decreases with time (e. t)2 } dt2 − 2v(r. t)dx dt + dx2 + {dy 2 + dz 2 } .. s cs (x.) 2. t)dr dt + dr2 + r2 dφ2 + dz 2 . See also Section 2. t. s 2 (109) 28 . deﬁning as (t) ≡ ρ/cs . 677]). (104) Whether or not this can be arranged (in this explosive model with comoving coordinates) depends on the speciﬁc equation of state (which is implicitly hidden in cs (t)) and the dynamics of the explosion (encoded in b(t)). 194]. cs (107) Now it is not diﬃcult to imagine a situation in which ρ remains spatially and temporally constant. we shall see that this can be made in analogue models based on Bose–Einstein condensates by changing with time the value of the scattering length [46. then we would make as (τ ) = a0 exp(H0 τ ). 328. t) − v(x. 47. The proper Friedmann time. t) 2 −{cs (x. 2 (102) The “physical” Hubble parameter is H= 1 das . 676.
Since null geodesics are insensitive to any overall conformal factor in the metric [445. in terms of an amplitude. in the geometric acoustics limit. 29 . −v i . sound propagation is insensitive to the density of the ﬂuid. This has the obvious interpretation that the ray travels at the speed of sound. ϕ. light rays (photons) follow null geodesics of the physical spacetime metric. if the geometry is stationary (steady ﬂow) one can do slightly better. Then the null condition implies hµν dxµ dxν =0 dt dt dxi dxi dxi + =0 dt dt dt (113) 2 i ⇐⇒ −(c2 − v0 ) − 2v0 ⇐⇒ dx − v0 = c.e. (111) . It is only for speciﬁcally waverelated properties that the density of the medium becomes important. the wave equation reduces to the eikonal equation hµν ∂µ ϕ ∂ν ϕ = 0. Let xµ (s) ≡ (t(s). x(t)). Then. For example. (112) This eikonal equation is blatantly insensitive to any overall multiplicative prefactor (conformal factor). . by φ1 ∼ aeiϕ . Compare this to general relativity. hµν ≡ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · . 670].. 2. neglecting variations in the amplitude a. where in the geometrical optics approximation. it is useful to rederive some standard results. a. or to using the techniques of Lorentzian geometry to teach us more about ﬂuid mechanics. 274. As a sanity check on the formalism. Sound rays (phonons) follow the null geodesics of the acoustic metric. δ ij 0 This immediately implies that. Furthermore. φ1 .If one now speciﬁcally wishes to speciﬁcally mimic de Sitter expansion then we would wish as (τ ) = a0 exp(H0 τ ). −v0 . given the machinery developed so far. relative to the moving medium. In this limit. parameterised in terms of physical arc length (i.6 Regaining geometric acoustics Up to now. x(s)) be some null path from x1 to x2 . acoustic propagation depends only on the local speed of sound and the velocity of the ﬂuid. and phase. (110) Whether or not this can be arranged (now in this nonexplosive model with tunable speed of sound) depends on the speciﬁc manner in which one tunes the speed of sound as a function of laboratory time. j 2 −(c2 − v0 ) . For example. This can be justiﬁed either with a view to using ﬂuid mechanics to teach us more about general relativity. dt Here the norm is taken in the ﬂat physical metric. Express the linearised velocity potential. let the null geodesic be parameterised by xµ (t) ≡ (t. one might as well simplify life by considering a modiﬁed conformallyrelated metric . taking the short wavelength/high frequency limit to obtain geometrical acoustics is now easy. c. we have been developing general machinery to force acoustics into Lorentzian form. We can rephrase this in a language more familiar to the acoustics community by invoking the eikonal approximation.
p. Obvious issues within the current physical framework are: • Adding external forces.7 Generalizing the physical model There are a large number of ways in which the present particularlysimple analogue model can be generalised. 2. • Adding vorticity. (118) If we now recall that extremising the total time taken is Fermat’s principle for sound rays. 262]. to go beyond the irrotational constraint. • Working in truly (1+1) or (2+1) dimensional systems.7. Then the tangent vector to the path is dxµ = ds dt dxi . See [246]. this can be expanded to show 2 − (c2 − v0 ) dt ds 2 i − 2v0 dxi ds dt ds + 1 = 0. 13 Mathematically. (116) Solving this quadratic dt ds i −v0 dxi ds + = 2 i c2 − v0 + v0 2 c2 − v0 dxi ds 2 .1 External forces Adding external forces is (relatively) easy. the distance function associated with a Randers metric. the total time taken to traverse the path is x2 T [γ] = x1 (dt/ds) ds = γ c2 1 2 − v0 i 2 i (c2 − v0 )ds2 + (v0 dxi )2 − v0 dxi . Beyond these immediate questions. However. one can view the time taken to traverse such a path as a particular instance of Finsler distance – it is. (117) Therefore. an early discussion can be found in [624] and more details are available in [641]. ds ds (115) Using the explicit algebraic form for the metric. the ﬂuctuations are insensitive to any external force.dx/ds ≡ 1). 30 . The key point is that with an external force one can to some extent shape the background ﬂow (see for example the discussion in [249]). ds ds . upon linearization. and brief discussion in Section 3. (114) The condition for the path to be null (though not yet necessarily a null geodesic) is gµν dxµ dxν = 0.2. we see that we have checked the formalism for stationary geometries (steady ﬂow) by reproducing the discussion of Landau and Lifshitz [372. in fact.10.13 2. we could also seek similar eﬀects in other physical or mathematical frameworks.
(120) i 2 −ρ v /c ρ {δ ij − v i v j /c2 } holds independent of the dimensionality of spacetime. d = 1: The naive form of the acoustic metric in (1+1) dimensions is illdeﬁned. Introducing the inverse acoustic metric g µν . (122) where d is the dimension of space (not spacetime). The covariant acoustic metric is then gµν = − c2 − v 2 −v − c2 − v 2 −v 2 . This is important because there is a real physical distinction. for instance. A threedimensional system with plane symmetry. it is only the step from f µν to the eﬀective metric that breaks down. Acoustics in intrinsically (1+1) dimensional systems does not reproduce the conformallyinvariant wave equation in (1+1) dimensions. This is a side eﬀect of the wellknown conformal invariance of the Laplacian in 2 dimensions. (123) d = 3: The acoustic line element for three space and one time dimension reads gµν = ρ c . (119) µ ∂x ∂x where −ρ v j /c2 −ρ/c2 f µν = . (125) This situation would be appropriate. The wave equation in terms of the densitised inverse metric f µν continues to make good sense. when dealing with surface waves or excitations conﬁned to a particular substrate. or a twodimensional system with line symmetry. 31 . deﬁned by √ 1 . as in the cases d = 3 and d = 2 above. a barotropic equation of state.2. there is a real physical distinction between a truly (1+1)dimensional system and a (3+1)dimensional system with transverse (cigarlike) symmetry. Similarly. between truly (2+1)dimensional systems and eﬀectively (2+1)dimensional systems in the form of (3+1)dimensional systems with cylindrical (pancakelike) symmetry. for instance.7. Note that this issue only presents a diﬃculty for physical systems that are intrinsically onedimensional. (121) g= f µν = −g g µν . the continuity equation. det(g µν ) the wave Equation (119) corresponds to the d’Alembertian wave equation in a curved spacetime with contravariant metric tensor: g µν = ρ c −2/(d−1) − v/c ρ c 2/(d−1) −1/c2 2 Id×d − v ⊗ v T /c2 −v T Id×d −v T I3×3 −v T /c2 . 624]. because the conformal factor is raised to a formally inﬁnite power. and the assumption of irrotational ﬂow [607. (124) d = 2: The acoustic line element for two space and one time dimension reads gµν = ρ c − c2 − v 2 −v −v T I2×2 .2 The role of dimension The role of spacetime dimension in these acoustic geometries is sometimes a bit surprising and potentially confusing. 622. It depends only on the Euler equation. We emphasise that in Cartesian coordinates the wave equation ∂ ∂ f µν ν φ = 0. 626. provides a perfectly wellbehaved model for (1+1) dimensions.
Note that the irrotational condition is automatically satisﬁed for the superﬂuid component of physical superﬂuids.) Even for normal ﬂuids. for instance. can be found in [502]. adding torsion to the connexion is not suﬃcient to capture the relevant physics. (This point has been emphasised by Comer [143]. it has been argued in [559] that quantum backreaction can also act as a source for vorticity.)15 2. This seems to take us outside the realm of models of direct interest to the general relativity community. x) + O(ǫ3 ). We want to consider linearised ﬂuctuations around some background solution φ0 (t. Furthermore. x) = φ0 (t. We disagree. x) + ǫ2 φ2 (t. the dynamics of the scalar ﬁeld φ is now much more general. when ∇ρ × ∇p = 0. 235. vorticityfree ﬂows are common. the vorticity becomes a source for the d’Alembertian. 238. and ask if we can extend the notion of an acoustic metric to all (or at least some wide class of) Lagrangian systems? Indeed. ∇ × v = 0. Though physically important. the previous condition enables us to handle vortex ﬁlaments. x) + ǫφ1 (t. in particular.8 Simple Lagrangian metamodel As a ﬁrst (and rather broad) example of the very abstract ways in which the notion of an acoustic metric can be generalised. It is not necessary for the velocity potential φ to be globally deﬁned. while the vorticity evolves in response to gradients in a generalised scalar potential. 32 . but in the realm of physical acoustics the wave equation is considerably more complicated than a simple d’Alembertian. 240] the author has attempted to argue that vorticity can be related to the concept of torsion in a general aﬃne connexion. 237.7. 2 (126) 14 Vorticity is automatically generated. 15 In [233. Although deriving a wave equation in the presence of vorticity very deﬁnitely moves one beyond the realm of a simple Riemannian spacetime. which is some arbitrary function of the ﬁeld and its ﬁrst derivatives (here we will follow the notation and ideas of [44]). dealing with situations of distributed vorticity is much more diﬃcult. especially in situations of high symmetry. so that velocity potentials exist on an atlas of open patches. it is necessary and suﬃcient that the ﬂow locally be vorticity free. In the general analysis that follows the previous irrotational and inviscid ﬂuid system is included as a particular case. provided we do not attempt to probe the vortex core itself. 239. φ). Furthermore. but in terms of Clebsch potentials. and the relevant wave equation is more complicated in that the velocity scalar is now insuﬃcient to completely characterise the ﬂuid ﬂow. where the vorticity is concentrated into a thin vortex core. (Roughly speaking. x) of the equations of motion.2.14 An approach similar to the spirit of the present discussion. 236. and to this end we write φ(t. and. who has also pointed out that in superﬂuids there will be multiple acoustic metrics – and multiple acoustic horizons – corresponding to ﬁrst and second sound.3 Adding vorticity For the preceding analysis to hold. The eikonal approximation (geometrical acoustics) leads to the same conformal class of metrics previously discussed. suppose we have a single scalar ﬁeld φ whose dynamics is governed by some generic Lagrangian L(∂µ φ. 234. we start from the simple observation that irrotational barotropic ﬂuid mechanics can be described by a Lagrangian. whenever the background ﬂuid is nonbarotropic.
Now use this to expand the Lagrangian around the classical solution φ0 (t. (130) ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂φ Having set things up this way. d space dimensions plus 1 time dimension] (−g)(d−1)/2 = − det ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) . φ) = L(∂µ φ0 . not a true scalar. (131) This is a secondorder diﬀerential equation with positiondependent coeﬃcients (these coeﬃcients all being implicit functions of the background ﬁeld φ0 ). (133) 33 . ∂φ (129) to discard the linear terms (remember we are linearizing around a solution of the equations of motion) and so we get S[φ] = S[φ0 ] + ǫ2 2 dd+1 x + ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) ∂2L − ∂µ ∂φ ∂φ ∂µ φ1 ∂ν φ1 φ1 φ1 + O(ǫ3 ). This can be given a nice clean geometrical interpretation in terms of a d’Alembertian wave equation – provided we deﬁne the eﬀective spacetime metric by √ −g g µν ≡ f µν ≡ ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) . this implies [in (d+1) dimensions. x): L(∂µ φ.) We can now use the Euler–Lagrange equations for the background ﬁeld ∂µ ∂L ∂(∂µ φ) − ∂L = 0. the equation of motion for the linearised ﬂuctuation is now easily read oﬀ as ∂µ ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) ∂ν φ1 − ∂2L − ∂µ ∂φ ∂φ ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂φ φ1 = 0. φ0 (132) Note that this is another example of a situation in which calculating the inverse metric density is easier than calculating the metric itself. φ0 ) + ǫ + + ∂L ∂L ∂µ φ1 + φ1 ∂(∂µ φ) ∂φ ǫ2 ∂L ∂L ∂µ φ2 + φ2 2 ∂(∂µ φ) ∂φ ∂2L ∂2L ∂2L ǫ2 ∂µ φ1 ∂ν φ1 + 2 ∂µ φ1 φ1 + φ1 φ1 + O(ǫ3 ). 2 ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) ∂(∂µ φ) ∂φ ∂φ ∂φ (127) It is particularly useful to consider the action S[φ] = dd+1 x L(∂µ φ. (128) since doing so allows us to integrate by parts. φ). (Note that the Lagrangian L is taken to be a scalar density. Suppressing the φ0 except when necessary for clarity.
taking the inverse. φ0 (134) φ0 ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) −1 . +d]. Finally. Since the ﬂow is irrotational v = −∇φ is a function only of the velocity potential. As a speciﬁc example of the appearance of eﬀective metrics due to Lagrangian dynamics we reiterate the fact that inviscid irrotational barotropic hydrodynamics naturally falls into this scheme (which is why. with hindsight. which a priori could depend on several ﬁelds. g µν (φ0 ) = And. in general. It is important to realise just how general the result is (and where the limitations are): It works for any Lagrangian depending only on a single scalar ﬁeld and its ﬁrst derivatives. gµν (φ0 ) = − det ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) 1/(d−1) − det ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) −1/(d−1) φ0 ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) . (138) Thus. φ0 (135) We can now write the equation of motion for the linearised ﬂuctuations in the geometrical form [∆(g(φ0 )) − V (φ0 )] φ1 = 0. In inviscid irrotational barotropic hydrodynamics the lack of viscosity (dissipation) guarantees the existence of a Lagrangian. Note that the diﬀerential Equation (136) is automat√ ically formally selfadjoint (with respect to the measure −g dd+1 x). 34 . the equation of state can be used to eliminate the density leading to a Lagrangian that is a function only of the single ﬁeld φ and its derivatives [44]. the derivation of the acoustic metric presented earlier in this review was so relatively straightforward). V (φ0 ) is a true scalar (not a density). Observe that if the Lagrangian contains nontrivial second derivatives you should not be too surprised to see terms beyond the d’Alembertian showing up in the linearised equations of motion. and the Lagrangian is a function only of this potential and the density. positiondependent) “mass term”: 1 V (φ0 ) = √ −g That is. The linearised PDE will be hyperbolic (and so the linearised equations will have wavelike solutions) if and only if the eﬀective metric gµν has Lorentzian signature ±[−. and V (φ0 ) is the backgroundﬁelddependent (and so. (136) where ∆ is the d’Alembertian operator associated with the eﬀective metric g(φ0 ). V (φ0 ) = − det ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂(∂ν φ) −1/(d−1) ∂2L − ∂µ ∂φ ∂φ ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂φ (137) × ∂2L − ∂µ ∂φ ∂φ ∂2L ∂(∂µ φ) ∂φ .Therefore.
– Bose–Einstein condensates.2. – Superﬂuids. We next turn to a brief historical discussion. 35 . Most of the relevant detailed discussion will be deferred until subsequent sections. so for the time being we shall just mention reasonably immediate generalizations such as: • Working with speciﬁc ﬂuids. – Normal modes in generic systems.9 Going further The class of analogue models based on ﬂuid mechanics is now quite large and the literature is extensive. – Multiple signal speeds. • Abstract generalizations. seeking to place the work of the last two decades into its proper historical perspective.
There have been several analogue models investigated over the years.1 focus more precisely on the early history of analogue models. Balazs [18]. The trajectories of the electromagnetic rays are interpreted in this case as geodesics of null length of this new eﬀective metric. An historicallyimportant contribution was one of the problems in the wellknown book “The Classical Theory of Fields” by Landau and Lifshitz [373]. ǫ and µ are the permeability and permittivity. The general formalism was more fully developed in articles such as those by Pleba´ski [511. the division into pre1981 and post1981 articles is at a deeper level somewhat deceptive. Of course. Note that in contrast to Gordon. diﬀerent levels of sophistication. (139) where ηµν is the ﬂat Minkowski metric. analogue models played a key role in the development of electromagnetism – Maxwell’s derivation of his equations for the electromagnetic ﬁeld was guided by a rather complicated “analogue model” in terms of spinning vortices of aether. Three articles that directly used the dielectric analogy to analyse speciﬁc physics problems are those of Skrotskii [576]. We shall in the next subsection 3. and ultimately diﬀerent levels of development. Armed with a good library and some hindsight it is possible to ﬁnd interesting analogues in a number of places. there was sporadic interest in eﬀective metric techniques. n is the positiondependent refractive index. historically. and Vµ is the 4velocity of the medium. and the problem immediately thereafter: “Equations of electrodynamics in the presence of a gravitational ﬁeld”. In summary and with the beneﬁt of hindsight: 16 Indeed. and speciﬁcally those that seem to us to have had a direct historical connection with the sustained burst of work carried out in the last 20 years. In France the idea was taken up by Pham Mau Quan [503]. who showed that (under certain conditions) Maxwell’s equations can be expressed directly in terms of the eﬀective metric speciﬁed by the coeﬃcients 1 Vµ Vν . with diﬀerent aims. After that.1. 36 . and Winterberg [689].16 3. Note that Gordon seemed largely interested in trying to describe dielectric media by an “eﬀective metric”. here the interest is in using dielectric media to mimic a gravitational ﬁeld.1 Optics – the Gordon metric Perhaps the ﬁrst paper to seriously discuss analogue models and eﬀective metric techniques was that of Gordon (yes. he of the Klein–Gordon equation) [258]. See the end of Chapter 10. Paragraph 90.1 Historical period Of course. though not of direct relevance to general relativity. once you have the equations in hand you can treat them in their own right and forget the model that guided you – which is exactly what happened in this particular case.3 History From the point of view of the general relativity community the history of analogue models can reasonably neatly (but superﬁcially) be divided into an “historical” period (essentially pre1981) and a “modern” period (essentially post1981). and a good summary of this classical n period can be found in the article by de Felice [168]. That is: Gordon wanted to use a gravitational ﬁeld to mimic a dielectric medium. 510]. What is now often referred to as the Gordon metric is the expression [geﬀective ]µν = ηµν + 1 − n−2 Vµ Vν . and Vµ is the (constant) 4velocity of the medium. (140) [geﬀective ]µν = gµν + 1 − ǫµ where gµν is the ordinary spacetime metric. 3.
because one only has the light cones to work with. In hindsight. Anderson and Spiegel [7] extended and modiﬁed the notion of the Gordon metric to allow the medium to be a ﬂowing ﬂuid – so the 4vector V a is no longer assumed to be a constant. 0) and one is now in Gaussian normal coordinates comoving with the ﬂuid. the light rays. (141) If an optical medium does not satisfy this constraint (with a position independent proportionality constant) then it is not completely equivalent to a gravitational ﬁeld. the results of Moncrief [448] are. transforming back to arbitrary coordinates: 1 1 V V + {gµν + Vµ Vν } ∝ gµν + 1 − 2 2 µ ν n n (144) Note that in the ray optics limit. In this sense [448] can be seen as a precursor to the later works on acoustic geometries and acoustic horizons. but subject to the somewhat unphysical restriction that [magnetic permitivity] ∝ [electric permeability]. In this coordinate patch. Indeed the main motivation for such works was the study of perfect ﬂuid 37 . so that V a → (1. Subsequently. Pick a point in the manifold and adopt Gaussian normal coordinates around that point so that gab → ηab . we consider these papers to be part of the “historical period” for the main reason that such works are philosophically orthogonal to modern developments in analogue gravity. n2 of an optical metric 0 0 0 1 0 0 . in some sense. 0 1 0 0 0 1 Vµ Vν . In particular. most notably those of Moncrief [448] and Matarrese [433. 3. the Gordon metric can be justiﬁed as follows: Consider an arbitrary curved spacetime with physical metric gab containing a ﬂuid of 4velocity V a and refractive index n. because they additionally permit a general relativistic Schwarzschild background. 432]. In spite of these impressive results.1.An arbitrary gravitational ﬁeld can always be represented as an equivalent optical medium. Now perform a Lorentz transformation to go to to a local inertial frame comoving with the ﬂuid. which studied acoustic ray tracing in nonrelativistic moving ﬂuids. by deﬁnition of the refractive index. in Moncrief’s work [448] the linear perturbations of a relativistic perfect ﬂuid on a Schwarzschild background were studied. Indeed. one can neither derive nor is it even meaningful to specify the overall conformal factor. and it was shown that the wave equation for such perturbations can be expressed as a relativistic wave equation on some eﬀective (acoustic) metric (which can admit acoustic horizons). there were several papers in the 1980s using an acoustic analogy to investigate the propagation of shockwaves in astrophysical situations. using modern notation and working in full generality. locally propagate along the light cones − 1 dt2 + dx2 = 0. but for wave optics the equivalence is not complete.2 Acoustics After the pioneering hydrodynamical paper by White in 1973 [687]. For a position dependent proportionality constant complete equivalence can be established in the geometric optics limit. 434. more general than those considered in the mainstream acoustic gravity papers that followed. (142) implying in these special coordinates the existence −1/n2 0 Gµν ∝ 0 0 Gµν ∝ − (143) That is.
there seems to have not been any crossconnection.) The later 1990s then saw continued work by Jacobson and his group [309. This is probably why. 645. 3. Some 10 years later Jacobson’s article “Blackhole evaporation and ultrashort distances” [307] used Unruh’s analogy to build a physical model for the “transPlanckian modes” believed to be relevant to the Hawking radiation process. analogue spacetimes based on special relativistic acoustics were considered in [72]. which implemented an analogue model based on ﬂuid ﬂow. 183. and in this context the description via an acoustic eﬀective background was just a tool in order to derive results concerning conservation laws and stability. 522]. 322].1 Modern period The years 1981–1999 The key event in the “modern” period (though largely unrecognised at the time) was the 1981 publication of Unruh’s paper “Experimental black hole evaporation” [607]. 531] and the modern experimental work reported in [532. ergosphere. and surface gravity in analogue models [624. [448] predates Unruh’s 1981 paper by one year. [285] is an attempt at connecting Hawking evaporation with the physics of collapsing bubbles. 38 . articles on one or another aspect of analogue gravity were appearing at the rate of over 20 per year. even if temporally. 310.2 3. 434. but that Hawking radiation is instead a fundamental curvedspace quantum ﬁeld theory phenomenon that occurs whenever a horizon is present in an eﬀective geometry. 17 We emphasise: To get Hawking radiation you need an eﬀective geometry. [17]. 626].3 Surface waves Somewhat ironically. and then used the power of that analogy to probe fundamental issues regarding Hawking radiation from “real” generalrelativistic black holes. 146. and are seen to be precursors of the theoretical work reported in [560.2. 648. 148. Optical models were considered in [389]. 3. Progress then sped up with the relatively rapid appearance of [308] and [608]. and discussions of the implications of analogue models regarding Bekenstein–Hawking entropy [625. with new and rather diﬀerent contributions coming in the form of the solidstate models considered by Reznik [523. This was part of a more general programme aimed at connecting blackhole thermodynamics with perfectﬂuid thermodynamics [286]. 1983 marked the appearance of some purely experimental results on surface waves in water obtained by Badulin et al. By the year 2000. a horizon. This period also saw the introduction of the more general class of superﬂuid models considered by Volovik and his collaborators [644. 649.dynamics in accretion ﬂows around black holes. and it becomes impractical to summarise more than a selection of them. (This period also saw the independent rediscovery of the ﬂuid analogue model by one of the present authors [622]. We believe that Unruh’s 1981 article represents the ﬁrst observation of the now widely established fact that Hawking radiation has nothing to do with general relativity per se. or in cosmological expansion. Finally. At the time these results passed unremarked by the relativity community. 150. and the ﬁrst explicit consideration of superﬂuids in this regard [143]. 432] postdate Unruh’s 1981 paper by a few years. 359. and a suitable quantum ﬁeld theory on that geometry.17 Though Unruh’s 1981 paper was seminal in this regard. 626]. but they are now of increasing interest.1. 652]. 651. 647. 326. more precise formulations of the notions of horizon. and while [433. 682]. it lay largely unnoticed for many years.
while the propagation of phonons and quasiparticles was discussed in [209. were investigated in [654. 214]. held at CBPF (Rio de Janeiro) gathered some 20 international participants and greatly stimulated the ﬁeld. while Sch¨tzhold and Unruh developed a rather diﬀerent ﬂuidbased analogy u based on gravity waves in shallow water [560. 3. and “slow light” models in quantum dielectrics were considered in [390. 637]. Experimental proposals were considered in [48. 3 HeA based models were reconsidered in [316. speculations regarding the possibly emergent nature of Einstein gravity [50. 317].3. Applications to inﬂationary cosmology were developed in [460]. the development of dielectric analogues in [557]. by Garay and collaborators. while further developments regarding analogue models based on nonlinear electrodynamics were presented by Novello and collaborators in [170. 509]. 653]. 171.2 The year 2000 Key developments in 2000 were the introduction. Superradiance was investigated in [57]. 45. Analogue models based on nonlinear electrodynamics were discussed in [169]. Additionally. 343.4 The year 2002 “What did we learn from studying acoustic black holes?” was the title and theme of Parentani’s article in 2002 [492]. while analogue spacetimes relevant to braneworld cosmologies were considered in [28]. Though analogue models lead naturally to the idea of highenergy violations of Lorentz invariance. 303].2. Acoustics in an irrotational vortex were investigated in [207]. 441. Closer to the heart of the analogue programme were the development of a “normal mode” analysis in [44. there are rather strong constraints on how strong any possible Lorentz violating eﬀect might be [318. leading ultimately to the publication of a book [470] in 2002. where they can be used as the basis for a precise deﬁnition of what is meant by a VSL (“variable speed of light”) cosmology [58]. The excitation spectrum in superﬂuids. 440. 468.2. 464. 208]. and analogue model ideas previously applied to Hawking radiation were reused in that context [341. The most radical proposal to appear in 2000 was that of Laughlin et al. More work on “slow light” appeared in [91]. 382]. 658]. 637. Models based on nonlinear electrodynamics were investigated in [26]. Based on taking a superﬂuid analogy rather literally. 637]. it must be stressed that deﬁnite observational evidence for violations of Lorentz invariance is lacking – in fact. [131]. and further developments regarding the use of 3 HeA [178] as an analogue for electromagnetism.3 The year 2001 This year saw more applications of analogueinspired ideas to cosmological inﬂation [179. speciﬁcally the fermion zero modes. 459]. 3. The possible role of Lorentz violations at ultrahigh energy was emphasised in [312]. to neutron star cores [116]. 539]. 232]. and the use of BECs as a model for the breakdown of Lorentz invariance in [636]. and the extension of those ideas by the present authors [43]. and the transference of the idea of analogueinspired “multiple metric” theories into cosmology. 457]. the transPlanckian problem also reared its head in the context of cosmological inﬂation. while the relationship between rotational friction in superﬂuids and superradiance in rotating spacetimes was discussed in [104]. Vorticity was discussed in [502].2. More work on “slow light” appeared in [211. more work on “nearhorizon” physics [210]. 391. they mooted an actual physical breakdown of general relativity at the horizon of a black hole [131]. Further aﬁeld. That year also marked the appearance of a review article on superﬂuid analogues [655]. The stability of an acoustic white hole was investigated in [386]. and to the cosmological constant [656. 560]. of the use of Bose– Einstein condensates as a working ﬂuid [231. 39 . the workshop on “Analogue models of general relativity”.
Emergent relativity was again addressed in [378]. 402. The lecture notes by Jacobson [313] give a nice introduction to Hawking radiation and its connection to analogue spacetimes.2. and analogue applications to “quantum teleportation” were considered in [243]. More studies of the superresonance phenomenon appeared [55. 344].2. and a minisurvey was presented in [111]. Superradiance was further investigated in [56. while analogue spacetimes in superﬂuid neutron stars were further investigated in [117]. a proposal for using analogue models to generate massive phonon modes in BECs [640. while quasinormal modes attracted attention in [69. 161. 165]. increased. we mention the development of yet more strong observational bounds on possible ultrahighenergy Lorentz violation [319. 678. 679. while additional work on superradiance [136].5 The year 2003 This year saw further discussion of analogueinspired models for blackhole entropy and the cosmological constant [661. BECbased horizons were again considered in [249. Quasinormal modes again received attention in [135]. 196]. 3. A “spacetime condensate” point of view was advocated in [299]. More issues relating to the simulation of FRW cosmologies were raised in [204. 247]. while backreaction eﬀects were the focus of attention in [25. 3. while backreaction has received more attention in [559]. while a speciﬁcally astrophysical use of the acoustic analogy was invoked in [160. 54]. Finally. The review article by Burgess [98] emphasised the role of general relativity as an eﬀective ﬁeld theory – the sine qua non for any attempt at interpreting general relativity as an emergent theory. 642]. and a new proposal u for possibly detecting Hawking radiation in an electromagnetic wave guide [562]. 25]). There were attempts at modeling the Kerr geometry [641]. Unruh and Sch¨tzhold discussed the universality of the Hawking eﬀect [613]. 616]. we mention the appearance in 2005 of 40 . 403]. 23. 112. and astrophysical applications to accretion ﬂow in [2. if anything. Eﬀective geometries in astrophysics were discussed by Perez Bergliaﬀa [501].7 The year 2005 The year 2005 saw continued and vigorous activity on the analogue model front. and an extension of the usual formalism for representing weakﬁeld gravitational lensing in terms of an analogue refractive index [81]. The original version of this Living Review appeared in May of 2005 [49].2. while the physical realizability of acoustic Hawking radiation was addressed in [159. 642. Dynamical phase transitions were considered in [551]. There were several further developments regarding the foundations of BECbased models in [47. 605. 668]. A nice survey of analogue ideas and backreaction eﬀects was presented in [21] (and related articles [23. Singularities in the acoustic geometry are considered in [102]. The causal structure of analogue spacetimes was considered in [37]. and since then activity has. and generic “rotating” spacetimes [132]. and quasinormal modes [537] also appeared. More cosmological issues were raised in [616. Eﬀective geometry was the theme in [466]. 193. Two dimensional analogue models were considered in [101]. Vachaspati argued for an analogy between phase boundaries and acoustic horizons in [615].6 The year 2004 The year 2004 saw the appearance of some 30 articles on (or closely related to) analogue models. The connection between white hole horizon and the classical notion of a “hydraulic jump” was explored in [662] and in [572]. 578].3. 452]. 162]. 392. while applications of nonlinear electrodynamics (and its eﬀective metric) to cosmology were presented in [467]. the background ﬂuid ﬂow [103]. 177. 347. 206]. 194. 320]. and the development of analogue models for FRW geometries [195. Work on BECrelated models included [401. 675]. Finally. while the Magnus force was reanalysed in terms of the acoustic geometry in [699]. 46. 205]. while the limitations of the “slow light” analogue were explained in [612].
14.8 The year 2006 A key article. one that summarises and systematises the very stringent bounds that have been developed on possible ultrahighenergy Lorentz violation [435]. 30. 3. The use of analogue spacetimes as “toy models” for quantum gravity was emphasized in [643. Further aﬁeld. Applications to the cosmological constant were considered in [543]. Using analogue ideas as backdrop. which appeared in 2006. and BECbased models continued to attract attention [676. Analogues based on ion traps were considered by Sch¨tzhold in [558]. While analyzing quark matter. More analogueinspired work on blackhole accretion appeared in [164]. Dissipationinduced breakdown of Lorentz invariance was considered by Parentani in [494. 29. Backreaction eﬀects were again considered in [20]. The relationship between modiﬁed dispersion relations and Finsler spacetimes was discussed in [251]. 632]. 38. as were eﬀorts at moving beyond the semiclassical description [491]. Volovik extended and explained his views on quantum hydrodynamics as a model for quantum gravity in [664]. 15. 3. Acoustic crosssections were considered in [156]. 333]. Additionally. BECbased analogue models were adapted to investigating “signature change events” in [684]. Quantum ﬁeld theoretic anomalies were considered in [345]. In a similar vein analogue models were used to motivate a counterfactual counterhistorical approach to the Bohm versus Copenhagen interpretations of quantum physics [463]. 504]. who demonstrated the presence of negative phasevelocity waves. Analogueinspired ideas were adapted to the study of gravitational collapse in [40]. “Rimfall” was discussed in [609]. An analogue model based on a suspended “shoestring” was explored in [282]. wavetank experiments were initiated [532] by Rousseaux and coworkers. Superresonance was again discussed in [352]. 39]. The speciﬁc shape of the de Laval nozzle needed to acoustically reproduce linearised perturbations of the Schwarzschild geometry was discussed in [1]. while a toy model for u backreaction was explored in [414].2. Within the optics community Philbin. Superradiance and disclinations were considered in [167]. 225]. acoustic metrics were found to be useful in [419] (see also [418]). analogue models were used to motivate a “Abraham–Lorentz” interpretation of relativity in terms of a physicallyreal aether and physicallyreal Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction [36]. Within the ﬂuid dynamics community. we emphasise particularly the realization that the occurrence of Hawkinglike radiation does not require the presence of an event horizon or even a trapped region [38. 39. 24. More BECrelated developments appeared in [680.another Living Review. involved the “inverse” use of the acoustic metric to help understand hydrodynamic ﬂuid ﬂow in quarkgluon plasma [123]. Modiﬁed dispersion relations again attracted attention [250]. and analogue inspired ideas concerning constrained systems were explored in [357]. while the importance of nonlocal correlations in the Hawking ﬂux was emphasized in [22]. 31. Analogueinspired ideas regarding the possible “localization” of the origin of the Hawking ﬂux were investigated by Unruh in [610]. Leonhardt. 188. Quasinormal frequencies were considered in [134]. and coworkers initiated the study of “ﬁbreoptic black holes” [505. while “ripplons” (quantised surface capillary waves) were discussed in [663]. and quasinormal frequencies were investigated in [692]. Finally. A microscopic analysis of the microtheory underlying acoustic Hawking radiation in a “piston” geometry appeared in [248].2. an analogue inspired analysis 41 . 618] was an important theme in 2007.9 The year 2007 Emergent geometry [16. 495]. while entanglement entropy was investigated in [324]. 189]. Markopoulou developed a pregeometric model for quantum gravity in [421]. Theoretical aspects of the circular hydraulic jump were investigated in [519]. Analogue implications visavis entanglement entropy were discussed in [226.
while analogueinspired lessons regarding the fundamental nature of time were investigated in [330] and [254]. Astrophysical constraints on modiﬁed dispersion relations were again considered in [408. In [73] analogue ideas were applied to polytrope models of Newtonian stars. Gibbons and coworkers used analoguebased ideas in their analysis of general stationary spacetimes. Blackhole lasers were considered in [388]. That the transPlanckian and information loss problems are linked is argued in [397]. Quasinormal modes were considered in [174. Applications to quark matter were again investigated in [416].2. while (2+1) acoustic blackhole thermodynamics were investigated in [346]. 218] analogue ideas are implemented in an unusual direction: ﬂuid dynamics is used to model aspects of quantum ﬁeld theory. 666.2 and 7. The theme of emergent gravity continues to play a role [300. 329]. Localization of the Hawking radiation was again addressed in [563].) 42 . and to the manner in which Hoˇava’s distinguished spacetime foliation interleaves with the preferred use of Painlev´– r e Gullstrandlike coordinates. These connections seem primarily related to the way Hoˇava’s r projectability condition interleaves with the ADM decomposition of the metric. A minireview appeared in [553]. Acoustic scattering was considered in [173]. Signature change. Nonlinear electrodynamics was again considered in [260]. 417]. Quantum ﬁeld theoretic anomalies in an acoustic geometry were considered in [60. A model based on liquid crystals appeared in [500]. 585. an analogueinspired model for quantum gravity.2. A variant of quantum graphity was further developed in [268]. while applications to quark matter were investigated in [415. 412. (See Sections 6. 356]. a BECbased black hole analogue was experimentally realised in [369]. 683]. The theme of “emergence” was also represented in articles such as [255. as does the theme of nontrivial dispersion relations [413. while ultrashort laser pulses are considered in [187].of accretion appeared in [163]. 3. 691]. The BEC theme continued to generate attention [368]. while the analogue physics of a “photon ﬂuid” was considered in [420]. 252. 634. while superradiance was considered in [598]. 396. in particular regarding cosmological particle production [677. 700]. 3. and Hawking radiation [119]. Randers spaces [246]. with a survey appearing in [70]. 570]. while sensitivity of the Hawking ﬂux to the presence of superluminal dispersion was considered in [33]. Backreaction of the Hawking ﬂux was again considered in [556]. now not in a BEC context. was again addressed in [686]. 575]. and the ﬂuidgravity correspondence in [5]. Attempts at developing a generally useful notion of Finsler spacetime were discussed in [573. and a matrix model implementation of analogue spacetime was developed in [220]. 394]. with Finslerian applications to the Higgs mechanism being investigated in [569]. 410]. 411. 437].10 The year 2008 This year saw the introduction of “quantum graphity” [358. Noncanonical quantum ﬁelds were considered in [304]. the universe was interpreted as a “soap ﬁlm”. Possible applications to hightemperature superconductivity were reported in [444]. Gravitational collapse was again discussed in [40]. Signature change events were again considered in [685].11 The year 2009 This year saw intriguing and unexpected relations develop between analogue spacetimes and Hoˇava r gravity [584. The BEC paradigm for acoustic geometry is again discussed in [331] and [520]. 571]. In [340]. Possible experimental implementations of acoustic black holes using circulating ion rings are discussed in [290].13. 450]. In [217. in particular. demonstrating that the spatial slices of stationary spacetimes are best thought of as a special class of Finsler spaces. while universal aspects of superradiant scattering are considered in [524]. Most remarkably. Attempts at including backreaction in a cosmological ﬂuid context were investigated in [451. while astrophysical constraints on modiﬁed dispersion relations were improved and extended in [409. 395.
even if the speciﬁc connection may sometimes be somewhat tenuous. 592. we mention the stunning experimental veriﬁcation by Weinfurtner et al. Relativistic ﬂuids have been revisited in [639]. The acoustic geometry of polytrope rotating Newtonian stars was considered in [74].) Black holes induced by dielectric eﬀects. and the acoustic Aharanov–Bohm eﬀect [227. Finsler spacetime geometries were again considered in [574]. Among such articles. we ﬁrst mention work related to “entropic” attempts at understanding the “emergence” of general relativity and the spacetime “degrees of freedom” from the quantum regime [483. and their associated Hawking radiation. 3. and BECbased black hole lasers in [199]. 554. 594. Quantum graphity was again considered in [110]. [66]. with speciﬁc applications to relativistic BECs being reported in [191].3 Going further To further complicate the history. while an analysis of optimality conditions for the detection of Hawking–Unruh radiation appeared in [13]. 595. BECbased particle creation in [367]. 2+1 dimensional drainingbathtub geometries were probed in [477]. 631]. and the experimental detection of photons associated with a phase velocity horizon by Belgiorno et al. and analogue gravity is intense and shows no signs of abating. we mention: • Analoguebased “geometrical” interpretations of pseudomomentum. Quantum sound in BECs was again investigated in [35]. were considered in [63]. 43 .12 The year 2010 This current year has already (September) seen some 50 articles appear that can legitimately claim to have either direct or tangential relationships to the analogue spacetime programme. 685. and there is signiﬁcant promise for direct laboratorybased experimental input. analogue spacetimes.2. 3. We particularly wish to encourage the reader to keep an eye out for future developments regarding the possible experimental veriﬁcation of the existence of Hawking radiation or the closely related Unruh radiation. Being necessarily very selective. Further aﬁeld. there is large body of work for which analogue spacetime ideas provide part of the background gestalt. 482. Stepfunction discontinuities in BECs were considered in [186. Random ﬂuids were investigated in [365]. (Signature change can be viewed as an extreme case of stepfunction discontinuity [684.2. More work on “emergent horizons” has appeared in [552. 686]. of the existence of classical stimulated Hawking radiation in a wave ﬂume [682]. 130. 496.3. Magnus forces. • The use of analogies to clarify the Newtonian limit of general relativity [602]. 564. Optical eﬀective geometries in Kerr media were discussed in [100]. while the relationship between analogue spacetimes and foundational mathematical relativity was discussed in [139]. 190. Finally.13 The future? Interest in analogue models. 650]. In [34] analogue spacetimes were used to carefully separate the notion of “emergent manifold” from that of “emergent curvature”. 438]. 555]. Entanglement issues were explored in [427]. analogue spacetimes were used as an aid to understanding “warp drive” spacetimes [32]. Interest in these ideas now extends far beyond the general relativity community. • An analogueinspired interpretation of the Kerr spacetime [267]. Possible measurement protocols for Hawking radiation in ionic systems were discussed in [291]. 590. Iordanskii forces. 118. 604]. 512. Theoretical and historical analyses of surface waves in a wave tank were presented in [531]. and to discuss a simple interpretation of the notion of a horizon [473]. 593. The use of correlations as a potential experimental probe has been theoretically investigated in [19. to provide heuristics for motivating interest in speciﬁc spacetimes [525. 355].
a possible reassessment of fundamental features of quantum physics and general relativity [11. 544]. 665]. 545. 281. • Standard general relativity supplemented with analogue viewpoints and insights [354. 488. 363. 600]. • Attempts at deriving inertia and passive gravity. 376. 518]. 517. 599]. 493. 548]. 514. 582. 422. 115]. 436] and noncommutative [140] spacetimes partially inﬂuenced and ﬂavoured by analogue ideas. 362. • Analoguebased hints on how to implement “doubly special relativity” (DSR) [361. 535. • Discussions of unusual topology. • Analogue models based on plasmon physics [581. • Standard quantum ﬁeld theory physics reformulated in the light of analogue models [9. • Cosmological structure formation viewed as noise ampliﬁcation [568]. 377. 93. • Modiﬁed inﬂationary scenarios [140. 528. 400. “acoustic wormholes”. 581. 144. 479. 393. presented with an analogue ﬂavour. and argument for. 362. and unusual temporal structure [453. 44 .• Discrete [583. and the Fizeau eﬀect [454]. • Cosmological horizons from an analogue spacetime perspective [244]. 527. 129. • Applications of analogue ideas in braneworld [241] and Kaluza–Klein [242] settings. • Analogueinspired insights into renormalization group ﬂow [107]. 142]. 203. 471. from analogue ideas [442]. 405. • Numerous suggestions regarding a minimum length in quantum gravity [71. 472. • Numerous suggestions regarding possible transPlanckian physics [12. 582]. 398. 10. • Nonstandard viewpoints on quantum physics and general relativity [157. 230. 702]. 293. 363. 456. 361. defect physics [172]. 422. 529. and a cautionary analysis of why this might be diﬃcult [561]. • Possible blackhole phase transitions placed in an analogue context [591]. 78. 284. • The interpretation of blackhole entropy in terms of universal “near horizon” behaviour of quantum ﬁelds living on spacetime [114. 215. 121. 292. 695]. 487. 294. 475]. 399. 295. 128. 547. 325. 406. • Magnon contributions to BEC physics [97. • Soliton physics [497]. • Analogueinspired models of blackhole accretion [516. 407. • The discussion of. 485. • Analogue inspired views on the “mathematical universe” [332]. • Abstract quantum ﬁeld theoretic considerations of the Unruh eﬀect [695]. 259. 546. 579]. 342. 515. 486. 400. 440. 59. 701. 455. (though not active gravity).
analogue spacetime models. 45 .• An analysis of “wave catastrophes” inspired by analogue models [348]. We have doubtless missed some articles of historical importance. and wide applicability of. and analytic techniques for handling wave tails [80]. partially based on analogue ideas. but with a good library or a fast Internet connection the reader will be in as good a position as we are to ﬁnd any additional historical articles. There is not much more that we can usefully say here. • Improved numerical techniques for handling wave equations [688]. From the above the reader can easily appreciate the broad interest in.
– Classical refractive index. and we will not repeat such discussion here. In this limit we are interested only in the “sound cones”. 4. Now (in complete direct conformity with our discussion of the generalised optical Gordon metric) adopt Gaussian normal coordinates so that gµν → ηµν . key historical papers are those of Moncrief [448] and Bilic [72]. and go to the local rest frame of the ﬂuid.1. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 46 .4 A Catalogue of Models In this section. 161. sound in a solid exhibits its own distinct and interesting features. – Sound in relativistic hydrodynamics. 4. Let us pick a curved manifold with physical spacetime metric gµν .1 Classical models Classical sound Sound in a nonrelativistic moving ﬂuid has already been extensively discussed in Section 2. Perhaps the most basic subdivision is into classical models and quantum models. It is convenient to ﬁrst quickly motivate the result by working in the limit of relativistic ray acoustics where we can safely ignore the wave properties of sound. This may be viewed as an example of an analogue model which breaks the “light cone” into two at the classical level.) – Slow light. as such this model is not particularly useful if one is trying to simulate special relativistic kinematics with its universal speed of light. We will now provide a few words on each of these topics. and with a more recent pedagogical followup in [639]. and a point in spacetime where the background ﬂuid 4velocity is V µ while the speed of sound is cs . 0) and 0 0 0 0 −1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 (145) hµν = gµν + Vµ Vν → gµν → 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 160]. In contrast. (Helium as an exemplar for just about anything. – The Heliocentric universe. Consider for instance the following list: • Classical models: – Classical sound.1. but even then many other levels of reﬁnement are possible. – Water waves (gravity waves). we will attempt to categorise the very many analogue models researchers have investigated. so that V µ → (1.1 4. – Normal modes. though it may be used to gain insight into yet another way of “breaking” Lorentz invariance (and the equivalence principle). notably in the existence of a generalization of the normal notion of birefringence – longitudinal modes travel at a diﬀerent speed (typically faster) than do transverse modes. with astrophysical applications being more fully explored in [162.2 Sound in relativistic hydrodynamics When dealing with relativistic sound. • Quantum models: – Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs).
because one only has the sound cones to work with. transforming back to arbitrary coordinates: implying in these special coordinates the existence of −c2 0 s 0 1 Gµν ∝ 0 0 0 0 an acoustic metric 0 0 0 0 . ̺ + p(̺) (151) After linearization around some suitable background [448. 72. and assuming a relativistic irrotational ﬂow of the form [639] Vµ = g µν ∇ν Θ . (152) which leads to the identiﬁcation of the relativistic acoustic metric as √ −G G µν = n2 0 ̺0 + p 0 − 1 µ ν V V + hµν . s s (148) Note again that in the ray acoustics limit. (146) That is. When going beyond the ray acoustics limit. (154) 47 . ∇Θ p (149) In this situation the relativistic Bernoulli equation can be shown to be ln ∇Θ = + dp .In the rest frame of the ﬂuid the sound cones are (locally) given by 2 − cs dt2 + dx2 = 0. c2 0 0 s (153) The dimensiondependence now comes from solving this equation for G µν . all the “fuss” is simply over how to determine the overall conformal factor (and to verify that one truly does obtain a d’Alembertian equation using the conformallyﬁxed acoustic metric). the perturbations in the scalar velocity potential Θ can be shown to satisfy a dimensionindependent d’Alembertian equation ∇µ n2 0 ̺0 + p 0 − 1 µ ν V V + hµν c2 0 0 s ∇ν Θ1 = 0. we ﬁnally have the (contravariant) acoustic metric G µν = n2 c−1 0 s ̺0 + p 0 −2/(d−1) − 1 µ ν V V + hµν c2 0 0 s . Therefore. seeking to obtain a relativistic wave equation suitable for describing physical acoustics. the relativistic energy equation. an assumed barotropic equation of state. 1 0 0 1 (147) Gµν ∝ −c2 Vµ Vν + {gµν + Vµ Vν } ∝ gµν + 1 − c2 Vµ Vν . 639]. one can neither derive (nor is it even meaningful to specify) the overall conformal factor. and the total particle number density can be shown to be ̺(p) n(p) = n(p=0) exp ̺(p=0) d̺ . One proceeds by combining the relativistic Euler equation. ̺(p) + p (150) 0 where we emphasize that ̺ is now the energy density (not the mass density).
and (covariant) acoustic metric Gµν = n2 c−1 0 s ̺0 + p 0
2/(d−1)
−c2 [V0 ]µ [V0 ]ν + hµν . s
(155)
In the nonrelativistic limit p0 ≪ ̺0 and ̺0 ≈ m n0 , where m is the average mass of the particles ¯ ¯ making up the ﬂuid (which by the barotropic assumption is a timeindependent and positionindependent constant). So in the nonrelativistic limit we recover the standard result for the conformal factor [639] n2 c−1 n0 1 ρ0 ρ0 0 s → = 2 ∝ . (156) ̺0 + p 0 mcs ¯ m cs ¯ cs Under what conditions is the fully general relativistic discussion of this section necessary? (The nonrelativistic analysis is, after all, the basis of the bulk of the work in “analogue spacetimes”, and is perfectly adequate for many purposes.) The current analysis will be needed in three separate situations: • when working in a nontrivial curved general relativistic background; • whenever the ﬂuid is ﬂowing at relativistic speeds; • less obviously, when the internal degrees of freedom of the ﬂuid are relativistic, even if the overall ﬂuid ﬂow is nonrelativistic. (That is, in situations where it is necessary to distinguish the energy density ̺ from the mass density ρ; this typically happens in situations where the ﬂuid is strongly selfcoupled – for example in neutron star cores or in relativistic BECs [191]. See Section 4.2.) 4.1.3 Shallow water waves (gravity waves)
A wonderful example of the occurrence of an eﬀective metric in nature is that provided by gravity waves in a shallow basin ﬁlled with liquid [560]. (See Figure 10.)18 If one neglects the viscosity and considers an irrotational ﬂow, v = ∇φ, one can write Bernoulli’s equation in the presence of Earth’s gravity as p 1 ∂t φ + (∇φ)2 = − − gz − V . 2 ρ (157)
Here ρ is the density of the ﬂuid, p its pressure, g the gravitational acceleration and V a potential associated with some external force necessary to establish an horizontal ﬂow in the ﬂuid. We denote that ﬂow by vB . We must also impose the boundary conditions that the pressure at the surface, and the vertical velocity at the bottom, both vanish. That is, p(z = hB ) = 0, and v⊥ (z = 0) = 0. Once a horizontal background ﬂow is established, one can see that the perturbations of the velocity potential satisfy ∂t δφ + vB · ∇ δφ = −
∞
δp . ρ
(158)
If we now expand this perturbation potential in a Taylor series δφ = zn δφn (x, y), n! n=0 (159)
18 Of course, we now mean “gravity wave” in the traditional ﬂuid mechanics sense of a water wave whose restoring force is given by ordinary Newtonian gravity. Waves in the fabric of spacetime are more properly called “gravitational waves”, though this usage seems to be in decline within the general relativity community. Be very careful in any situation where there is even a possibility of confusing the two concepts.
48
it is not diﬃcult to prove [560] that surface waves with long wavelengths (long compared with the depth of the basin, λ ≫ hB ), can be described to a good approximation by δφ0 (x, y) and that this ﬁeld “sees” an eﬀective metric of the form ds2 = 1 2 −(c2 − vB ) dt2 − 2vB · dx dt + dx · dx , c2 (160)
√ where c ≡ ghB . The link between small variations of the potential ﬁeld and small variations of the position of the surface is provided by the following equation δv⊥ = −hB ∇2 δφ0 = ∂t δh + vB · ∇ δh = d δh. dt (161)
The entire previous analysis can be generalised to the case in which the bottom of the basin is not ﬂat, and the background ﬂow not purely horizontal [560]. Therefore, one can create diﬀerent eﬀective metrics for gravity waves in a shallow ﬂuid basin by changing (from point to point) the background ﬂow velocity and the depth, hB (x, y).
z δh v (x,y) B hB x,y
Figure 10: Gravity waves in a shallow ﬂuid basin with a background horizontal ﬂow. The main advantage of this model is that the velocity of the surface waves can very easily be modiﬁed by changing the depth of the basin. This velocity can be made very slow, and consequently, the creation of ergoregions should be relatively easier than in other models. As described here, this model is completely classical given that the analogy requires long wavelengths and slow propagation speeds for the gravity waves. Although the latter feature is convenient for the practical realization of analogue horizons, it is a disadvantage in trying to detect analogue Hawking radiation as the relative temperature will necessarily be very low. (This is why, in order to have a possibility of experimentally observing (spontaneous) Hawking evaporation and other quantum phenomena, one would need to use ultracold quantum ﬂuids.) However, the gravity wave analogue can certainly serve to investigate the classical phenomena of mode mixing that underlies the quantum processes. It is this particular analogue model (and its extensions to ﬁnite depth and surface tension) that underlies the experimental [532] and theoretical [531] work of Rousseaux et al., the historicallyimportant experimental work of Badulin et al. [17], and the very recent experimental veriﬁcation by Weinfurtner et al. of the existence of classical stimulated Hawking radiation [682].
49
4.1.4
More general water waves
If one moves beyond shallowwater surface waves the physics becomes more complicated. In the shallowwater regime (wavelength λ much greater than water depth d) the comoving dispersion relation is a simple linear one ω = cs k, where the speed of sound can depend on both position and time. Once one moves to ﬁnitedepth (λ ∼ d) or deep (λ ≪ d) water, it is a standard result that the comoving dispersion relation becomes ω= gk tanh(kd) = cs k tanh(kd) . kd (162)
See, for instance, Lamb [370] §228, p. 354, Equation (5). A more modern discussion in an analogue spacetime context is available in [643]. Adding surface tension requires a brief computation based on Lamb [370] §267 p. 459, details can be found in [643]. The net result is ω = cs k 1 + k 2 /K 2 tanh(kd) . kd (163)
Here K 2 = gρ/σ is a constant depending on the acceleration due to gravity, the density, and the surface tension [643]. Once one adds the eﬀects of ﬂuid motion, one obtains ω = v · k + cs k 1 + k 2 /K 2 tanh(kd) . kd (164)
and the inverse
All of these features, ﬂuid motion, ﬁnite depth, and surface tension (capillarity), seem to be present in the 1983 experimental investigations by Badulin et al. [17]. All of these features should be kept in mind when interpreting the experimental [532] and theoretical [531] work of Rousseaux et al., and the very recent experimental work by Weinfurtner et al. [682]. A feature that is sometimes not remarked on is that the careful derivation we have previously presented of the acoustic metric, or in this particular situation the derivation of the shallowwaterwave eﬀective metric [560], makes technical assumptions tantamount to asserting that one is in the regime where the comoving dispersion relation takes the linear form ω ≈ cs k. Once the comoving dispersion relation becomes nonlinear, the situation is more subtle, and based on a geometric acoustics approximation to the propagation of signal waves one can introduce several notions of conformal “rainbow” metric (momentumdependent metric). Consider +vj − c2 (k 2 ) − δij v i v j , (165) gab (k 2 ) ∝ + vi +hij g ab (k 2 ) ∝ −1 +v j c2 (k 2 ) hij − v i v j . (166)
+ vi
At a minimum we could think of using the following notions of propagation speed 2 cphase (k ); c group (k 2 ); 2 2 c(k 2 ) → lim lim csound = k→0 cphase (k ) provided this equals k→0 cgroup (k ); csignal = lim cphase (k 2 ).
k→∞
(167)
Brillouin, in his classic paper [92], identiﬁed at least six useful notions of propagation speed, and many would argue that the list can be further reﬁned. Each one of these choices for the rainbow
50
5 Classical refractive index The macroscopic Maxwell equations inside a dielectric take the wellknown form ∇ · B = 0. F0i = −Fi0 = −Ei . ǫ is the 3 × 3 permittivity tensor and µ the 3 × 3 permeability tensor of the medium. (168) (169) with the constitutive relations H = µ−1 · B and D = ǫ · E. though this appears to merely be accidental.1. These equations can be written in a condensed way as ∂α Z µανβ Fνβ = 0 (170) where Fνβ = A[ν. ∇ · D = 0. Fij = εijk B k . and is useful for diﬀerent purposes. It is still somewhat unclear as to which of these rainbow metrics is “best” for interpreting the experimental results reported in [17. In contrast the LeviCivita tensor ε is fully antisymmetric on all three of its indices. √ −g g ij . 532. Thus. 682]. and not fundamental in any way. (177) (178) (176) The fact that Z is independent of the conformal factor Ω is simply the reﬂection of the wellknown fact that the Maxwell equations are conformally invariant in (3+1) dimensions. ∇ × H − ∂t D = 0. 4. 2 (172) (173) supplemented by the conditions that Z is both antisymmetric on its ﬁrst pair of indices and also antisymmetric on its second pair of indices.β] is the electromagnetic tensor. If we compare this to the Lagrangian for electromagnetism in curved spacetime √ L = −g g µα g νβ Fµν Fαβ (174) we see that in curved spacetime we can also write the electromagnetic equations of motion in the form (170) where now (for some constant K): √ Z µναβ = K −g g µα g νβ − g µβ g να . if we 51 . ∇ × E + ∂t B = 0. 2 1 ijm kln −1 ijkl Z = ε ε µmn .metric encodes diﬀerent physics. Here. (171) and (assuming the medium is at rest) the nonvanishing components of the 4thrank tensor Z are given by 1 Z 0i0j = −Z 0ij0 = Z i0j0 = −Z i00j = − ǫij . (175) If we consider a static gravitational ﬁeld we can always rewrite it as a conformal factor multiplying an ultrastatic metric gµν = Ω2 {−1 ⊕ gij } then Z 0i0j = −Z 0ij0 = Z i0j0 = −Z i00j = −K √ Z ijkl = K −g g ik g jl − g il g jk . Without signiﬁcant loss of generality we can ask that Z also be symmetric under pairwise interchange of the ﬁrst pair of indices with the second pair – thus Z exhibits most of the algebraic symmetries of the Riemann tensor.
mn 2 (179) (180) The second of these constraints can be written as √ K −g εijm εkln g ik g jl = µ−1 . then it is only for that subclass of media that satisfy ǫ ∝ µ that one can perfectly mimic all of the electromagnetic eﬀects by an equivalent gravitational ﬁeld. ij −g 1 √ −g g ij = µij . In contrast. which always exists because µ is real positive deﬁnite and symmetric. gij ) you can always solve it to ﬁnd an equivalent analogue in terms of permittivity/permeability (albeit an analogue that satisﬁes the mildly unphysical constraint ǫ ∝ µ). In this respect it is interesting to note that the behaviour of the refractive medium at high frequencies has been used to introduce an eﬀective cutoﬀ for the modes involved in Hawking radiation [523]. Then g ij = µ1/2 ǫ µ1/2 det(µ ǫ) 1/2 ij . 52 . if you are given permeability and permittivity tensors ǫ and µ. other segments of the literature seem blithely unaware of this important restriction on just when permittivity and permeability are truly equivalent to an eﬀective metric. We shall encounter this model (which is also known in the literature as a solid state analogue model) later on when we consider the transPlanckian problem for Hawking radiation. Let us stress that if one were able to directly probe the quantum eﬀective photons over a dielectric medium. = 2 det µ det ǫ 4K (186) (187) To rearrange this. (184) (185) we now have: ǫij g ij = 4 K 2 µij . then one would be dealing with a quantum analogue model instead of a classical one. introduce the matrix square root [µ1/2 ]ij . 2 √ 1 ik jl K −g g g − g il g jk = εijm εkln µ−1 . (188) Note that if you are given the static gravitational ﬁeld (in the form Ω. 19 The existence of this constraint has been independently rederived several times in the literature. (181) (182) (183) this now implies whence Comparing this with gij 2K √ = µ−1 . Of course. mn In view of the standard formula for 3 × 3 determinants −1 εijm εkln X ik X jl = 2 det X Xmn . 1 4 K 2 ij ǫ = µij .19 On the other hand.wish to have the analogy (between a static gravitational ﬁeld and a dielectric medium at rest) hold at the level of the wave equation (physical optics) we must satisfy the two stringent constraints K √ 1 −g g ij = ǫij . this can be done provided one only considers wavelengths that are suﬃciently long for the macroscopic description of the medium to be valid. 2K 2K √ −g g ij = ǫij .
(189) The dispersion relations for the propagation of photons (and therefore the sought for geometrical properties) can be obtained from the reduced determinant of C (notice that the [full] determinant of C is identically zero as C µν kν = 0. Then deﬁne ˜ k i = [µ1/2 ]ij kj and [˜]ij = det(µ) [µ−1/2 ǫ µ−1/2 ]ij ǫ so that ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ det(C ij ) ∝ det −ω 2 [˜]ij + δ ij [δmn k m k n ] − k i k j . in which case there is no longer any restriction on the permeability and permittivity tensors. In this case we now easily evaluate ǫ= while det(C ij ) ∝ ω 2 That is det(C ij ) ∝ ω 2 ω 2 − [g ij ki kj ] with g ij = ˜ ˜ ω 2 − [˜−1 δmn k m k n ] ǫ 2 tr(ǫ) µ tr(µ) and ǫ = det µ ˜ tr(ǫ) . implying ǫ ∝ µ but ˜ ˜ now with the possibility of a positiondependent proportionality factor (in the case of physical optics the proportionality factor was constrained to be a positionindependent constant). tr(µ) 2 (195) .Eikonal approximation: With a bit more work this discussion can be extended to a medium in motion. (196) (197) (198) . To see this. leading to an extension of the Gordon metric. det(C ij ) = 1 det −ω 2 ǫij + (det µ)−1 (µij µkl kk kl − µim km µjl kl ) . 8 (191) To simplify this. By choosing the gauge A0 = 0 one can see that this reduced determinant can be obtained from the determinant of the 3 × 3 submatrix C ij . one can agree to ask more limited questions by working at the level of geometrical optics (adopting the eikonal approximation). ǫ (194) (193) (192) The behaviour of this dispersion relation now depends critically on the way that the eigenvalues of ǫ are distributed. the reduced determinant is that associated with the three directions orthogonal to kν = 0). tr(µ) [µ]ij tr(ǫ) [ǫ]ij 1 [µ]ij = = . ǫ ˜ tr(ǫ) det µ tr(µ) det ǫ 53 . Alternatively. after making some manipulations. which always exist because the relevant matrices are real positive deﬁnite and symmetric. ˜ 3 degenerate eigenvalues: If all eigenvalues are degenerate then ǫ = ǫ I. again introduce the matrix square roots [µ1/2 ]ij and [µ−1/2 ]ij . construct the matrix C µν = Z µανβ kα kβ . This determinant is det(C ij ) = 1 det −ω 2 ǫij + εikm εjln µ−1 kk kl mn 8 (190) or.
This last result is compatible with but more general than the result obtained under the more restrictive conditions of physical optics. and therefore geometries with ergoregions. 574]. one can make the stronger statement (187) which holds true at the level of physical optics. But note some of the negative results obtained in [573.1. 466. one takes a ﬂuid dielectric. 277]. If. If the proportionality constant relating ǫ ∝ µ is position independent. (ǫij = ǫ δ ij and µij = µ δ ij ) this reduces to the perhaps more expected result g ij = δ ij . 638]. 371. 467. 464. and it seems that no meaningful notion of the eﬀective Riemannian metric can be assigned to this case. the permittivity and permeability tensors can be modiﬁed by applying strong electromagnetic ﬁelds (this produces an eﬀectively nonlinear electrodynamics). (The use of Finsler geometries in this situation is an avenue that may be worth pursuing [306]. in addition. provided one only considers wavelengths that are suﬃciently long for the macroscopic description of the medium to be valid. 469. 575. by controlling its ﬂow one can generalise the Gordon metric and again reproduce metrics of the Painlev´–Gullstrand e type. where the ordinary and extraordinary rays each obey distinct quadratic dispersion relations [82]. and µij (F bg ). and then treating the spacetime metric (even for ﬂat space) as a derived concept. 4. This is the physical situation encountered in biaxial crystals [82. Each quadratic corresponds to a distinct eﬀective metric. The entire previous discussion still applies if one considers the photon as the linear perturbation of the electromagnetic ﬁeld over a background conﬁguration bg ph Fµν = Fµν + fµν . 3 distinct eigenvalues: If ǫ has three distinct eigenvalues then the determinant det(C ij ) is ˜ the product of a trivial factor of ω 2 and a nonfactorizable quartic. This approach has been extensively investigated by Novello and coworkers [465.6 Normal mode metamodels We have already seen how linearizing the Euler–Lagrange equations for a single scalar ﬁeld naturally leads to the notion of an eﬀective spacetime metric. From the point of view of analogue models this corresponds to a twometric theory. 276. Equation (170) then becomes an ph equation for fµν . This is the physical situation encountered in uniaxial crystals. (200) bg The background ﬁeld Fµν sets the value of ǫij (F bg ). If more than one ﬁeld is involved the situation 54 . Recently this topic has been revitalised by the increasing interest in (classical) metamaterials. 214]. See [474. ǫµ (199) 2 distinct eigenvalues: If ǫ has two distinct eigenvalues then the determinant det(C ij ) factorises ˜ into a trivial factor of ω 2 and two quadratics.) Abstract linear electrodynamics: Hehl and coworkers have championed the idea of using the linear constitutive relations of electrodynamics as the primary quantities. 468. Summary: The propagation of photons in a dielectric medium characterised by 3×3 permeability and permittivity tensors constrained by ǫ ∝ µ is equivalent (at the level of geometric optics) to the propagation of photons in a curved spacetime manifold characterised by the ultrastatic metric (198). Nonlinear electrodynamics: In general. 170. In the situation where both permittivity and permeability are isotropic.
Consider the action S[φA ] = (203) Doing so allows us to integrate by parts. not be too surprising since electromagnetism. is deﬁnitely a Lagrangian system and deﬁnitely involves more than one single scalar ﬁeld. (201) φA (t. (This should. φA ). dd+1 x ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂2L ∂(∂ν φB ) ∂µ φA φB + 1 1 ∂µ φA ∂ν φB 1 1 ∂2L ∂φA ∂φB φA φB 1 1 (204) ∂2L ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂φB Because the ﬁelds now carry indices (AB) we cannot cast the action into quite as simple a form as was possible in the singleﬁeld case. x) + ǫ φA (t. The equation of motion for the linearised ﬂuctuations are now read oﬀ as ∂µ ∂2L ∂2L ∂ν φB + ∂µ φB 1 ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂(∂ν φB ) ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂φB 1 ∂2L ∂2L −∂µ φB φB = 0.) A normal mode analysis based on a general Lagrangian (many ﬁelds but still ﬁrst order in derivatives of those ﬁelds) leads to a concept of refringence.becomes more complicated. x) = φA (t. φA ) + ǫ 0 0 + + ǫ2 2 ∂L A ∂L φ ∂µ φA + 1 ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂φA 1 ∂L ∂L A φ ∂µ φA + 2 ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂φA 2 ǫ2 ∂2L ∂ φA ∂ν φB 1 A ) ∂(∂ φB ) µ 1 2 ∂(∂µ φ ν +2 ∂2L ∂2L ∂µ φA φB + φA φB 1 1 ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂φB ∂φA ∂φB 1 1 (202) dd+1 x L(∂µ φA . φA ) = L(∂µ φA . x) + 0 1 2 2 Now use this to expand the Lagrangian L(∂µ φA . in a manner similar to that of geometrical optics in uniaxial and biaxial crystals. or more speciﬁcally multirefringence. As in the singleﬁeld case we can use the Euler–Lagrange equations to discard the linear terms (since we are linearizing around a solution of the equations of motion) and so get S[φA ] = + S[φA ] 0 ǫ2 2 +2 + O(ǫ3 ). a generalization of the birefringence of geometrical optics. +O(ǫ3 ). − 1 1 ∂(∂µ φB ) ∂φA ∂φA ∂φB (205) 55 . We want to consider linearised ﬂuctuations around some background solution of the equations of motion. As in the singleﬁeld case we write (here we will follow the notation and conventions of [45]) ǫ2 A φ (t. consider a straightforward generalization of the oneﬁeld case. with hindsight. x) + O(ǫ3 ). To see how this comes about. even in the presence of a medium.
Following the analogy with the situation in electrodynamics (either nonlinear electrodynamics. (210) with ǫA (x) a slowly varying amplitude. 1 1 AB 1 2 AB (209) Now it is more transparent that this is a formally selfadjoint secondorder linear system of PDEs. Similar considerations can be applied to the linearization of any hyperbolic system of secondorder PDEs. but the interpretation is not as straightforward as for the singleﬁeld case. 375]. Next. In this eikonal approximation (where we neglect gradients in the amplitude. One might want to interpret this as some sort of “spin connection”. Consider an eikonal approximation for an arbitrary direction in ﬁeld space. (208) This quantity is by construction symmetric in (AB). First f µν AB ≡ 1 2 ∂2L ∂2L + ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂(∂ν φB ) ∂(∂ν φA ) ∂(∂µ φB ) . or more prosaically 56 . Then the crucial point for the following discussion is to realise that Equation (205) can be written in the compact form ∂µ f µν AB ∂ν φB + 1 1 µ Γ ∂µ φB + ∂µ (Γµ φB ) + KAB φB = 0. B. We will want to interpret this as some sort of “potential” or “mass matrix”. and ϕ(x) a rapidly varying phase. k) ≡ det {f µν AB kµ kν + Γµ AB kµ + KAB } = 0. (206) This quantity is independently symmetric under interchange of µ. To simplify the notation we introduce a number of deﬁnitions. ν and A.This is a linear secondorder system of partial diﬀerential equations with positiondependent coeﬃcients. Now. (207) 1 + ∂ν 2 This quantity is antisymmetric in A. where kµ = ∂µ ϕ(x). take φA (x) = ǫA (x) exp[−iϕ(x)]. This has a nontrivial solution if and only if ǫA (x) is a null eigenvector of the matrix f µν AB kµ kν + Γµ AB kµ + KAB . f µν . This system of PDEs is automatically selfadjoint (with respect to the trivial “ﬂat” measure dd+1 x). or possibly as some generalization of the notion of “Dirac matrices”. B. that is. deﬁne KAB = − ∂ 2L 1 + ∂µ ∂φA ∂φB 2 ∂2L ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂φB 1 + ∂µ 2 ∂2L ∂(∂µ φB ) ∂φA . Finally. We will want to interpret this as a generalization of the “densitised metric”. retaining only the gradients of the phase) the linearised system of PDEs (209) becomes {f µν AB ∂µ ϕ(x) ∂ν ϕ(x) + Γµ AB ∂µ ϕ(x) + KAB } ǫB (x) = 0. and gradients in the coeﬃcients of the PDEs. This is the natural generalization to the current situation of the Fresnel equation of birefringent optics [82. (213) (212) (211) with the determinant to be taken on the ﬁeld space indices AB. the condition for such a null eigenvector to exist is that F (x. deﬁne Γµ AB ≡ + ∂2L ∂2L − ∂(∂µ φA ) ∂φB ∂(∂µ φB ) ∂φA ∂(∂ν φA ) ∂2L ∂2L − B) A ) ∂(∂ φB ) ∂(∂µ φ ∂(∂µ φ ν .
a tensor density) with 2N indices Q(x. We will see how to extract from the the highfrequency highmomentum regime described by the eikonal approximation all the information concerning the causal structure of the theory. by carefully considering the notion of characteristics and characteristic surfaces. and it is for this reason that we now focus on characteristics as a way of encoding causal structure. and it is the light cone that is more useful in determining causal structure. when extracting the characteristic surfaces we neglect subdominant terms in the generalised Fresnel equation and focus only on the leading term in the symbol (f µν AB ). (Note that for the determinant equation to be useful it should be nonvacuous. k) one can recover part (not all) of the information encoded in the matrices f µν AB . In the language of particle physics.propagation in a birefringent crystal). it is useful to deﬁne the mass shell as a subset of the cotangent space by F (x) ≡ kµ F (x. If there are N ﬁelds in total then this “normal cone” will generally consist of N nested sheets each with the topology (not necessarily the geometry) of a cone. k) deﬁnes a completelysymmetric spacetime tensor (actually. or equivalently in the “generalised Fresnel equation” (213). This suggests that it may be proﬁtable to try to work backwards from the causal structure to determine a Lorentzian metric. k) on the cotangent bundle Q(x. k) ≡ det (f µν AB (x) kµ kµ ) . is deﬁned by N (x) ≡ kµ det (f µν AB kµ kµ ) = 0 . but unfortunately it is also common for some of these cones to be degenerate. and KAB . going to the inﬁnitemomentum limit puts us on the light cone instead of the mass shell. the null eigenvector ǫA (x) would correspond to a speciﬁc “polarization”. the determinant is to be taken on the ﬁeld indices AB. (Remember to eliminate spurious and gauge degrees of freedom so that this determinant is not identically zero. in particular one should carefully eliminate all gauge and spurious degrees of freedom before constructing this “generalised Fresnel equation”. and as a surrogate for some notion of a Lorentzian metric. this determinant condition F (x. One of the key structures that a Lorentzian spacetime metric provides is the notion of causal relationships. (217) 57 . That is. consisting of the locus of normals to the characteristic surfaces. In the language of particle physics. k) = 0 is the natural generalization of the “mass shell” constraint. Often several of these cones will coincide. (214) In more mathematical language we are looking at the null space of the determinant of the “symbol” of the system of PDEs. via the Hadamard theory of surfaces of discontinuity. Γµ AB . the characteristics can be identiﬁed with the inﬁnitemomentum limit of the eikonal approximation [265]. which is more problematic. The “normal cone” at some speciﬁed point x. which is not particularly troublesome. k) = Qµ1 ν1 µ2 ν2 ···µN νN (x) kµ1 kν1 kµ2 kν2 · · · kµN kνN . It is convenient to deﬁne a function Q(x. Note that.) We now want to make this analogy with optics more precise. Indeed. The Fresnel equation then describes how diﬀerent polarizations can propagate at diﬀerent velocities (or in more geometrical language. since otherwise the determinant will be identically zero.) We emphasise that the algebraic equation deﬁning the normal cone is the leading term in the Fresnel equation encountered in discussing the eikonal approximation. can see diﬀerent metric structures). By investigating F (x. k) = 0 . (216) The function Q(x. (215) As was the case for the Fresnel Equation (213). Now the causal structure implicit in the system of secondorder PDEs given in Equation (209) is described in terms of the characteristic surfaces.
(Remember that f µν AB is symmetric in both µν and AB independently. then Q(x. and mathematically it corresponds to a strict algebraic condition on the f µν AB . that is [ f µν . a polynomial of degree 2N in the wave vector kµ . k) function. (222) The Monge cones and normal cones are then true geometrical cones (with the N sheets lying directly on top of one another). 575. . The normal modes all see the same spacetime metric. fN } and then Q(x. (219) In contrast. This is the natural generalization of the situation in biaxial crystals. it corresponds to a singlemetric theory. where up to an unspeciﬁed conformal factor µν ¯µν gA ∝ fA . But note some of the negative results obtained in [573. This situation is the most interesting from the point of view of general relativity. k) kµ ∈ N (x) . k) = A=1 N f µν AB = hAB f µν . in general. . (And for any deeper analysis of this situation one will almost certainly need to adopt pseudoFinsler techniques [306]. . Physically. k) = det(hAB ) [f µν kµ kν ]N . the “Monge cone” (aka “ray cone”. 2. k) does not factorise and is.) 58 . f αβ ] = 0. f2 . using the expansion of the determinant in terms of completely antisymmetric ﬁeldspace Levi–Civita tensors Qµ1 ν1 µ2 ν2 ···µN νN = 1 A1 A2 ···AN B1 B2 ···BN µ1 ν1 µ2 ν2 µN νN f ǫ ǫ A1 B1 f A2 B2 · · · f AN BN . then for all spacetime indices µν and αβ the f µν AB can be simultaneously diagonalised in ﬁeld space leading to ¯ ¯µν ¯µν ¯µν ¯µν f µν AB = diag{f1 . aka “characteristic cone”. Thus the “Monge cone” is dual to the “normal cone”. the normal cone is N (x) ≡ kµ Q(x. 574]. satisfying no special algebraic condition. vol.) Explicitly. (225) This case corresponds to an N metric theory. . 583]): M(x) = tµ = ∂Q(x. from the experimentally favoured singlemetric theory compatible with the Einstein equivalence principle to the most complicated case of pseudoFinsler geometries [306]. k) = 0 . • Suppose that f µν AB factorises Then Q(x. (221) (224) ¯µν [fA kµ kν ]. ∂kµ (220) The structure of the normal and Monge cones encode all the information related with the causal propagation of signals associated with the system of PDEs. p. • If f µν AB is completely general. We will now see how to relate this causal structure with the existence of eﬀective spacetime metrics. deﬁned up to an unspeciﬁed conformal factor by g µν ∝ f µν . aka “null cone”) is the envelope of the set of characteristic surfaces through the point x. (223) If this algebraic condition is satisﬁed. • The next most useful situation corresponds to the commutativity condition: f µν AB f αβ BC = f αβ AB f µν BC . This is the natural generalization of the twometric situation in biaxial crystals. f3 . N! (218) In terms of this Q(x. its explicit construction is given by (Courant and Hilbert [154.
x). 194]. (226) Here κ parameterises the strength of the interactions between the diﬀerent bosons in the gas. Then. such as the Hawking radiation eﬀect or cosmological particle production. and show that the equations for the phonons of the condensate closely mimic the dynamics of a scalar ﬁeld in a curved spacetime. and 2. one can arrive at the set of coupled equations: i ∂ ψ(t. 1.The message to be extracted from this rather formal discussion is that eﬀective metrics are rather general and mathematically robust objects that can arise in quite abstract settings – in the abstract setting discussed here it is the algebraic properties of the object f µν AB that eventually leads to monometricity. It can be reexpressed in terms of the scattering length a as κ(a) = 4πa 2 . one can describe a Bose gas by a quantum ﬁeld Ψ satisfying i ∂ Ψ= ∂t 2 − 2m ∇2 + Vext (x) + κ(a) Ψ† Ψ Ψ. very cold temperatures. 59 . x) + mψ ∗ (t. The current abstract discussion also serves to illustrate. 45. x) ∂t = − ∇2 + Vext (x) + κ nc ψ(t. Let us start by very brieﬂy reviewing the derivation of the acoustic metric for a BEC system. multimetricity. 232. with Ψ = ψ. 47. x) (230) +κ mT ϕ† (t. yet again.2 4. x)} .2. n ˜ 2 2 (228) (229) i ∂ ϕ(t. x) 2m +κ {2˜ ψ(t. [261]) ϕ† ϕϕ ≃ 2 ϕ† ϕ ϕ + ϕϕ ϕ† . In the dilute gas approximation. x) ∂t = − 2m ∇2 + Vext (x) + κ 2nT ϕ(t.1 Quantum models Bose–Einstein condensates We have seen that one of the main aims of research in analogue models of gravity is the possibility of simulating semiclassical gravity phenomena. for example. 4. In this sense systems characterised by a high degree of quantum coherence. and low speeds of sound oﬀer the best test ﬁeld. and geometrical normal modes (dispersion relations). Hence it is not surprising that in recent years Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs) have become the subject of extensive study as possible analogue models of general relativity [231. m (227) As usual. that there is a signiﬁcant diﬀerence between the levels of physical normal modes (wave equations). the quantum ﬁeld can be separated into a macroscopic (classical) condensate and a ﬂuctuation: Ψ = ψ + ϕ. or worse. 48. that the densitised inverse metric is in many ways more fundamental than the metric itself. 195. One could reasonably hope to manipulate these systems to have Hawking temperatures on the order of the environment temperature (∼ 100 nK) [48]. by adopting the selfconsistent meanﬁeld approximation (see.
In general. x) + κnc − m θ+ √ ∂t 2m 2m nc 60 . nc ∇i Vquantum ≡ nc ∇i − √ 2m nc 4m which justiﬁes the introduction of the quantum stress tensor quantum σij =− 2 (238) 4m nc ∇i ∇j ln nc . (237) Vquantum = − √ 2m nc which has the dimensions of an energy. Adopting the Madelung representation for the wave function of the condensate ψ(t. the Gross–Pitaevskii equation can be rewritten as a continuity equation plus an Euler equation: ∂ nc + ∇ · (nc v) = 0. x). x)/ ]. x) = nc (t. x) + κnc − √ ∂t 2 2m nc (235) = 0. (231) (232) (233) m ≡ ϕϕ . Note that 2 2 ∇2 √n c = ∇j − nc ∇i ∇j ln nc . and use the fact that the ﬂow is irrotational. If we write the mass density of the Madelung ﬂuid as ρ = m nc . ∂t 2 ∇2 √n ∂ mv 2 c m v+∇ + Vext (t. one will ˜ have to solve both equations simultaneously. v + (v · ∇)v + ρ ∇ ∂t m 2m2 (240) Note that the term Vext /m has the dimensions of speciﬁc enthalpy. x) exp[−iθ(t. the Euler equation is often more conveniently written in Hamilton–Jacobi form: 2 ∇2 √n [∇θ]2 ∂ c = 0. x)2 .) This is the approximation contemplated by the Gross–Pitaevskii equation. ˜ mT = mc + m. while κρ2 /(2m) represents a bulk pressure. ˜ nT = nc + n. (236) These equations are completely equivalent to those of an irrotational and inviscid ﬂuid apart from the existence of the quantum potential 2 ∇2 √n c . ˜ The equation for the classical wave function of the condensate is closed only when the backreaction eﬀect due to the ﬂuctuations is neglected. ˜ mc ≡ ψ 2 (t. and may be viewed as an intrinsically quantum anisotropic pressure contributing to the Euler equation. When the gradients in the density of the condensate are small one can neglect the quantum stress term leading to the standard hydrodynamic approximation. † n≡ ϕ ϕ .Here nc ≡ ψ(t. (234) and deﬁning an irrotational “velocity ﬁeld” by v ≡ ∇θ/m. (239) This tensor has the dimensions of pressure. (241) + Vext (t. x) +∇ + ∇ · σ quantum = 0. (This backreaction is hiding in the parameters m and ˜ n. then the Euler equation takes the form ρ ∂ κρ2 Vext (t. Because the ﬂow is irrotational.
0j 00 f . From the previous equations for the linearised perturbations it is possible to derive a wave equation for θ1 (or alternatively. θ1 are real quantum ﬁelds. xi ) (247) the wave equation for θ1 is easily rewritten as Where the f µν ∂µ (f µν ∂ν θ1 ) = 0. x) = e−iθ/ √ 2 nc where n1 . introducing (3+1)dimensional spacetime coordinates.Apart from the wave function of the condensate itself. Equation (230) can be rewritten as 1 ∂t n1 + ∇ · n1 ∇θ + nc ∇θ1 = 0. φ → φ + φ1 . the scattering length directly inﬂuences both the perturbation and background equations.) Then. These quantum perturbations can be described in several diﬀerent ways. We also see in Equations (243) and (244) that time variations of Vext and time variations of the scattering length a appear to act in very diﬀerent ways. for n1 ). (243) m 2 1 D2 n1 = 0. ij i0 . This leads to a PDE that is secondorder in time derivatives but inﬁniteorder in space derivatives – to simplify things we can construct the symmetric 4 × 4 matrix . x) ≡ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · . Whereas the external potential only inﬂuences the background Equation (241) (and hence the acoustic metric in the analogue description). here we are interested in the “quantum acoustic representation” √ nc 1 (242) n1 − i θ1 . . It is important to realise that in those equations the backreaction of the quantum ﬂuctuations on the background solution has been assumed negligible. . xµ ≡ (t. . while Roman indices run from 1 – 3. All we need is to substitute in Equation (243) the n1 obtained from Equation (244). (244) ∂t θ1 + ∇θ · ∇θ1 + κ(a) n1 − m 2m Here D2 represents a secondorder diﬀerential operator obtained by linearizing the quantum potential. ϕ(t. m (252) 61 . (245) 2 2 The equations we have just written can be obtained easily by linearizing the Gross–Pitaevskii equation around a classical solution: nc → nc + n1 . we also have to account for the (typically small) quantum perturbations of the system (230). are diﬀerential operators acting on space only: f 00 f 0j f i0 f ij 2 −1 (248) = − κ(a) − = − κ(a) − = − = ∇i θ0 m 2m 2 D2 −1 (249) ∇j θ0 m −1 2m D2 2 (250) (251) κ(a) − 2m D2 2 −1 ∇i θ0 nc δ ij − m m κ(a) − 2m D2 ∇j θ0 . By using this representation. f f (Greek indices run from 0 – 3. f (246) f µν (t. Explicitly: 1 −3/2 2 +1/2 1 −1/2 2 −1/2 D 2 n1 ≡ − nc [∇ (nc )] n1 + nc ∇ (nc n1 ).
if we make a spectral decomposition of the ﬁeld θ1 we can see that for wavelengths larger than /mcs (this corresponds to the “healing length”. and one is now in a position to start asking more speciﬁc physics questions. in the sense that it is not applied directly on the ﬂuctuations of the ﬁeld ψ(t. (This is the heart of the acoustic approximation. nc )2 = Lorentz breaking in BEC models – the eikonal approximation: It is interesting to consider the case in which the above “hydrodynamical” approximation for BECs does not hold. and gradients of the background ﬁelds. . x) = n1 (t. are systematically ignored relative to gradients of φ. ∂µ −g 2 2 −{cs (a. a highmomentum approximation where the phase ﬂuctuation θ1 is itself treated as a slowlyvarying amplitude times a rapidly varying phase. by identifying √ (253) −g g µν = f µν . nc ) (255) Here.) We adopt the notation ∂φ . 2 c (260) (261) (262) 62 . the analogy is fully established. as we will explain below). ki = ∇i φ. This phase will be taken to be the same for both n1 and θ1 ﬂuctuations. (Warning: What we are doing here is not quite a “standard” eikonal approximation. cs (a. x) = Re {Aρ exp(−iφ)} . −v . j · · · · · · · . (256) m With this eﬀective metric now in hand. in which case the f µν can be approximated by (momentum independent) numbers. In fact. . δij (254) with an eﬀective metric of the form gµν (t. any timeconstant diﬀerence can be safely reabsorbed in the deﬁnition of the (complex) amplitudes. the magnitude cs (nc .) Then. In order to explore a regime where the contribution of the quantum potential cannot be neglected we can use the eikonal approximation. . we shall write θ1 (t. the equation for the ﬁeld θ1 becomes that of a (massless minimally coupled) quantum scalar ﬁeld over a curved background √ 1 ∆θ1 ≡ √ −g g µν ∂ν θ1 = 0. (259) ω= ∂t Then the operator D2 can be approximated as D 2 n1 1 −3/2 1 −1/2 +1/2 −1/2 ≡ − nc [∆(nc )] n1 + nc ∆(nc n1 ) 2 2 1 ≈ + n−1 [∆n1 ] 2 c 1 = − n−1 k 2 n1 . Speciﬁcally. Re {Aθ exp(−iφ)} . gradients of the amplitude.Now. if one discards the unphysical possibility that the respective phases diﬀer by a timevarying quantity. x) ≡ nc m cs (a. a) represents the speed of the phonons in the medium: κ(a) nc . instead of diﬀerential operators. nc ) − v } ············ −vi . (257) (258) As a consequence of our starting assumptions. x) but separately on their amplitudes and phases ρ1 and φ1 . . the terms coming from the linearization of the quantum potential (the D2 ) can be neglected in the previous expressions.
4. under the eikonal approximation we eﬀectively replace the operator D2 by the function 1 D2 → − n−1 k 2 . m 4mnc 2 nc k 2 κ(a) + k2 . m 4mnc (269) That is: i ω − v0 ki 2 = (270) Introducing the speed of sound cs . once one goes to high momentum the associated eﬀective metric should be thought of as one of many possible “rainbow metrics” as in Section 4.) 63 . (271) At this stage some observations are in order: 1. The physical wave equation (248) now becomes a nonlinear dispersion relation f 00 ω 2 + (f 0i + f i0 ) ω ki + f ij ki kj = 0. not operators. (At low momentum one.1. In his derivation Bogoliubov applied a diagonalization procedure for the Hamiltonian describing the system of bosons. this takes the form: 2 i ω = v0 ki ± c2 k 2 + s 2m k2 . Coincidentally this is the same dispersion relation that one encounters for shallowwater surface waves in the presence of surface tension. m (267) As desired.4. of course. See also [643]. we see (remember: k 2 = k2 = δ ij ki kj ) i − ω 2 + 2 v0 ωki + 2 nc k 2 i κ(a) + k 2 − (v0 ki )2 = 0. See Section 4. (268) After substituting the approximate D2 into this dispersion relation and rearranging. see also [374]) for the collective excitations of a homogeneous Bose gas in the limit T → 0 (almost complete condensation).1. this has the net eﬀect of making f µν a matrix of (explicitly momentum dependent) numbers. recovers the hydrodynamic limit with its uniquely speciﬁed standard metric. 2 c (263) For the matrix f µν this eﬀectively results in the (explicitly momentum dependent) replacement f 00 f 0j f i0 f ij → − κ(a) + → − κ(a) + → − → ∇i θ0 m k2 4m nc k2 4m nc 2 2 −1 (264) −1 ∇j θ0 m −1 (265) (266) κ(a) + k2 4m nc κ(a) + 2 ∇i θ0 nc δ ij − m m k2 4m nc 2 −1 ∇j θ0 .A similar result holds for D2 acting on θ1 . Because of the explicit momentum dependence of the comoving phase velocity and comoving group velocity. That is. 2. It is interesting to recognize that the dispersion relation (271) is exactly in agreement with that found in 1947 by Bogoliubov [79] (reprinted in [508]. 3.
the approximation by which one neglects the quartic terms in the dispersion relation gets worse as one moves closer to a horizon where v0 = −cs . if we assume v0 = 0 (no background velocity). for large wavelengths λ ≫ λc . The group velocity is (1 − v0 /cs ) −1 ≃ 2 λc 1 . The main diﬀerences between the thermodynamical properties of these condensates at ﬁnite temperature are due both to the diﬀerent energy spectra and also to the presence. (Remember that cs is the speed of sound.) In particular. t) may be written as ˆ ˆ 1 ∂ φ† ∂ φ ˆ ˆ ˆ − ∇φ† · ∇φ − L= 2 c ∂t ∂t m2 c2 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ + V (t. plus a quartic dispersion at high momenta. (1 − v0 /cs ) 8λ2 (272) ∂ω i i vg = = v0 ± ∂ki c2 + c2 k 2 2m2 k 2m 2 2 2 k2 ki .2. x) 64 . U is an interaction term and the coupling constant λi (t. at high frequency and momentum we should recover the characteristic curves of the system we started with. It is easy to see that Equation (271) actually interpolates between two diﬀerent regimes depending on the value of the wavelength λ = 2π/k with respect to the “acoustic Compton wavelength” λc = h/(mcs ). in fact. If we then approximate o this generalised nonlinear Schr¨dinger equation in any manner.. (273) + Indeed. of antibosons. more importantly for our purposes. in two spatial dimensions for a homogeneous relativistic Bose gas. which is possible. (274) where V (t. but not for its nonrelativistic counterpart – and also. we started from the generalised nonlinear Schr¨dinger equation. what we certainly do see in this analysis is a suitably large region of momentum space for which the concept of the eﬀective metric both makes sense. in the diﬀerent structure of their excitation spectra. However. ω ≈ 2 k 2 /(2m). Relativistic BEC extension: Bose–Einstein condensation can occur not only for nonrelativistic bosons but for relativistic ones as well.4. this is the reason why sonic horizons in a BEC can exhibit diﬀerent features from those in standard general relativity. then. For wavelengths λ ≪ λc the quasiparticle energy tends to the kinetic energy of an individual gas particle and. e. i 5. x) φ† φ − U (φ† φ. o we cannot change the characteristic curves: For any wellbehaved approximation technique. one gets a standard phonon dispersion relation ω ≈ ck. x) is an external potential depending both on time t and position x. The Lagrangian density for an interacting relativistic scalar Bose ﬁeld φ(x. The nondimensional parameter that provides this information is deﬁned by δ≡ 1+ λ2 c 4λ2 As we will discuss in Section 5. The dispersion relation (271) exhibits a contribution due to the background ﬂow v0 ki . These diﬀerences result in diﬀerent conditions for the occurrence of Bose–Einstein condensation. and we o know what its characteristic curves are. with hindsight. In [191] an analogue model based on a relativistic BEC was studied. We would also like to highlight that in relative terms.g. m is the mass of the bosons and c is the light velocity. the fact that the group velocity goes to inﬁnity for large k was preordained: After all. λi ) . for instance by linearization. for relativistic bosons. Like the diﬀusion equation the characteristic curves of the Schr¨dinger equation (linear or nonlinear) move at inﬁnite speed. this is not a standard particle physics Compton wavelength. We summarise here the ˆ main results. and leads to ﬁnite propagation speed for mediumfrequency oscillations.
we have deﬁned the following quantities as uµ ≡ c2 ≡ 0 2 m η µν ∂ν θ . λi )ρ . (282) where b encodes the relativistic nature of the condensate (the larger b the more the condensate is relativistic). by noting that ˆ ˆ ρ1 ˆ ψ + ψ† = . (276) It is worth noticing now that the expansion in Equation (276) can be linked straightforwardly to ˆ ˆ the previously discussed expansion in phase and density perturbations θ1 . 65 . ˆ while the second term represents the threeparticle interaction and so on. ˆ The ﬁeld φ can be written as a classical ﬁeld (the condensate) plus perturbation: ˆ ˆ φ = φ(1 + ψ) . This can be summarised. by changing the scattering length via a Feshbach resonance [151. ρ1 . q ≡ mu/ . for convenience. 2i Setting ψ ∝ exp[i (k · x − ωt)] one then gets from the equation of motion [191] − m q·k+ u0 u0 ω2 + ω2 + ω− k2 q·k− ω− k2 2 c 2mc 2m m c 2mc2 2m c0 2 2 − ω + c2 k 2 = 0 .can depend on time and position too (this is possible. for example. respectively for the ω− and ω+ branches of (281). For example. it should be evident that diﬀerent regimes are determined by the relative strength of the the ﬁrst two terms on the righthand side of Equation (281) (note that the same terms enter in the square root). Nonetheless. (278) (279) (280) 2m2 U ′′ (ρ. It is much richer than the nonrelativistic case. 175]). it allows for both a massless/gapless (phononic) and massive/gapped mode. Here q is the speed of the condensate ﬂow and c is the speed of light. U can be expanded as ˆ ˆ U (φ† φ. in low and high momentum limits respectively. For a condensate at rest (q = 0) one then obtains the following dispersion relation 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 mu c0 c0 mu mu 2 k2 + 1+ 1+ ±2 ω ± = c2 k 2 + 2 . The usual twoparticle λ2 φ4 interaction corresponds to the ﬁrst term (λ2 /2)ˆ2 . λi ) = λ2 2 λ3 3 ρ + ρ + ··· ˆ ˆ 2 6 (275) ˆ ˆ ˆ ρ where ρ = φ† φ. for k much less or much greater than mu0 1+ c0 u0 2 ≡ mu0 (1 + b). 0 c (277) where. (281) u0 u0 The dispersion relation (281) is suﬃciently complicated to prevent any obvious understanding of the regimes allowed for the excitation of the system. ρ 2 ˆ ˆ ψ − ψ† ˆ θ1 = .
The results are summarised in Table 1. so. s s. it is just a version of the acoustic geometry for a relativistic ﬂuid previously discussed.gap k k ≫ mu0 (1+b) ω 2 = c2 k2 A detailed discussion of the diﬀerent regimes would be inappropriately long for this review. diﬀerent aspects of quantum ﬁeld theory over curved backgrounds.2 The Heliocentric universe Helium is one of the most fascinating elements provided by nature. In this way one can reproduce. into the quantum domain. The propagation of classical acoustic waves (scalar waves) over a background ﬂuid ﬂow can be described in terms of an eﬀective Lorentzian geometry: the acoustic geometry. However.Table 1: Dispersion relation of gapless and gapped modes in diﬀerent regimes. it should not be too diﬃcult to establish conﬁgurations with supersonic ﬂows and their associated ergoregions. while meﬀ = 2(µ/c )(1 + b) Gapless b≪1 k ≪ mu0 (1+b) Gapped b≫1 k ≪ 2mc0 2mc0 mu0 ω 2 = c2 k2 s ω= ( ck)2 2µ ω 2 = c2 k2 s ≪ k ≪ ω2 = m2 c4 eff s. Its structural richness confers on helium a paradigmatic character regarding the emergence of many and varied macroscopic properties from the microscopic world (see [660] and references therein).5 milliK).2. 4. The reason behind this rather diﬀerent behaviour is the pairing 66 . This superﬂuid behaviour is associated with condensation in the vacuum state of a macroscopically large number of atoms. Finally. For long wavelengths.gap 2 2 + c2 s. and c2 /(2 + b). one at low energy and a diﬀerent Lorentz symmetry at high energy. The speed of sound in the superﬂuid phase is typically on the order of cm/sec. A superﬂuid is automatically an irrotational and inviscid ﬂuid. at least in principle. and in fact can be cast in the form of Equation (155) by suitable variable redeﬁnitions [191]. Note that µ ≡ mcu0 plays the role of the chemical potential for the relativistic BEC.17 K at vapour pressure). Here. we are interested in the emergence of eﬀective geometries in helium. in contrast. a bosonic system. becomes superﬂuid at much lower temperatures (below 2. and their potential use in testing aspects of semiclassical gravity. one can apply to it the ideas worked out in Section 2. Therefore. Helium three. it can be found in [191]. Note that we have 2 2 3/2 c2 = c2 b/(1 + b). the fermionic isotope of helium. One can separate the classical behaviour of a background ﬂow (the eﬀective geometry) from the behaviour of the quantum phonons over this background. Helium four. (283) As should be expected. in laboratory settings. it is also possible to recover an acoustic metric for the massless (phononic) perturbations of the condensate in the low momentum limit (k ≪ mu0 (1 + b)/ ): gµν = ρ 1− uσ uσ /c2 o ηµν 1− uσ uσ c2 0 + uµ uν c2 0 . One of the most remarkable features of this model is that it is a condensed matter system that interpolates between two diﬀerent Lorentz symmetries. the quasiparticles in this system are quantum phonons. in this system one can naturally go considerably further.gap = c (2 + b)/(1 + b). becomes superﬂuid at low temperatures (2. in particular.
in the equilibrium case. 659]. In particular. for propagation perpendicular to the symmetry axis. Close to either Fermi point the spectrum of quasiparticles becomes equivalent to that of Weyl fermions. This particular arrangement could be used to reproduce a blackhole–whitehole conﬁguration only if the soliton is set up to move with a certain velocity along the xaxis. if we have a thin layer of 3 HeA in contact with another thin layer of 3 HeB. the structure of the fermionic vacuum is such that it possesses two Fermi points. Additionally. we are reproducing the behaviour of Weyl fermions over Minkowski spacetime. The control of the form of this geometry provides the sought for gravitational analogy. and a diﬀerent speed. For example. it is axisymmetric. even when some supersonic regions are created. However. py = 0. c ≃ cm/sec. Apart from the standard way to provide a curved geometry based on producing nontrivial ﬂows. it is possible to create a domainwall conﬁguration [327. the vacuum can suﬀer collective excitations. instead of the more typical Fermi surface. These collective excitations will be experienced by the Weyl quasiparticles as the introduction of an eﬀective electromagnetic ﬁeld and a curved Lorentzian geometry. but can be made to disappear by an appropriate rescaling of the coordinates. There is a speed for the propagation of quasiparticles along the zaxis.of fermions to form eﬀective bosons (Cooper pairing). 326] (the wall contains the zaxis) such that the transverse velocity c⊥ acquires a proﬁle in the perpendicular direction (say along the xaxis) with c⊥ passing through zero at the wall (see Figure 11). for topological reasons. In an equilibrium conﬁguration one can choose the two Fermi points to be located at {px = 0. which are then able to condense. pz = ±pF } (in this way. the system is not isotropic. This conﬁguration has the advantage that it is dynamically stable. c⊥ ≃ 10−5 c . the zaxis signals the direction of the angular momentum of the pairs). (1 − αA αB U 2 ) (284) 67 . z c (x) x y Figure 11: Domain wall conﬁguration in 3 He. In the 3 HeA phase. the oscillations of the contact surface “see” an eﬀective metric of the form [657. A third way in which superﬂuid helium can be used to create analogues of gravitational conﬁgurations is the study of surface waves (or ripplons) on the interface between two diﬀerent phases of 3 He [657. 659] ds2 = 1 − 1 − W 2 − αA αB U 2 dt2 − 2W · dx dt + dx · dx . there is also the possibility of creating topologically nontrivial conﬁgurations with a builtin nontrivial geometry. from an internal observer’s point of view this anisotropy is not “real”. Therefore. From the point of view of the laboratory.
Unfortunately. This could alleviate the appearance of dynamical instabilities in the system. these types of geometry require ﬂow speeds comparable to the group velocity of the light.) z y x A−phase B−phase hA v (x. and αA ≡ h B ρA .3 Slow light in ﬂuids The geometrical interpretation of the motion of light in dielectric media leads naturally to conjecture that the use of ﬂowing dielectrics might be useful for simulating general relativity metrics with ergoregions and black holes. The coupling of the excited states induced by the laser light can aﬀect the transition from a lower energy state to the higher one. plus a higher energy state that has some decay channels into these two lower states. However recent technological advances have radically changed this state of aﬀairs. In particular one generally chooses an atom with two longlived metastable (or stable) states. (285) (All of this provided that we are looking at wavelengths larger than the layer thickness. In particular the achievement of controlled slowdown of light.2. 565]. centered around 68 . In this way the higherenergy level has null averaged occupation number. 659]. h A ρB + h B ρA (286) U ≡ vA − vB .y) A Figure 12: Ripplons in the interface between two sliding superﬂuids. 353. it is then clear that it is practically impossible to use them to simulate such general relativistic phenomena. But how can light be slowed down to these “snaillike” velocities? The key eﬀect used to achieve this takes the name of Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT). EIT is characterised by a transparency window.y) B hB v (x. 506. The advantage of using surface waves instead of bulk waves in superﬂuids is that one could create horizons without reaching supersonic speeds in the bulk ﬂuid. This state is hence called a “dark state”. 338. A laser beam is coupled to the excited levels of some atom and used to strongly modify its optical properties. has opened a whole new set of possibilities regarding the simulation of curvedspace metrics via ﬂowing dielectrics. 4.where W ≡ αA vA + αB vB . h A ρB + h B ρA αB ≡ h A ρB . k hA ≪ 1 and k hB ≪ 1. down to velocities of a few meters per second (or even down to complete rest) [617. at some speciﬁc resonant frequency. due to quantum interference. 603. that in this case are controlled by the strength of the interaction of the ripplons with bulk degrees of freedom [657. Since typical refractive indexes in nondispersive media are quite close to unity. 96. and hence the capability of the atom to absorb light with the required transition energy. The system can then be driven into a state where the transitions between each of the lower energy states and the higher energy state exactly cancel out.
However this is just an artiﬁcial feature due to the extension of the EIT regime beyond its range of applicability. where the medium is both almost transparent and extremely dispersive (strong dependence on frequency of the refractive index). This in turn implies that the group velocity of any light probe would be characterised by very low real group velocities (with almost vanishing imaginary part) in proximity to the resonant frequency. related to the refractive index n via the simple relation √ n = 1 + χ. This might appear paradoxical because it seems to suggest that for a dimmer control light the probe light would be further slowed down. k (290) We can now generalise the above discussion to the case in which our highly dispersive medium ﬂows with a characteristic velocity proﬁle u(x. At resonance we have vg = c c ∂ω → ≈ . ∂k 1+α α vph = ω → c. one can neglect the polarization and can hence describe the propagation of the latter with a simple scalar dispersion relation [390. and in spite of the fact that the phase velocity remains very near to c. (291) 69 . This probe beam is usually chosen to be weak with respect to the control beam. In the case in which the optical properties of the medium do not vary signiﬁcantly over several wavelengths of the probe light. due to the large dispersion in the transparency window. The parameter α depends on the dipole moments for the transition from the metastable states to the high energy one. 211] k2 = ω2 [1 + χ(ω)] . so that it does not modify the optical properties of the medium.the resonance frequency. Let us consider for simplicity a monochromatic probe light (more realistically a pulse with a very narrow range of frequencies ω near ω0 ). In order to ﬁnd the dispersion relation of the probe light in this case we just need to transform the dispersion relation (287) from the comoving frame of the medium to the laboratory frame. In an ideal EIT regime the probe light experiences a vanishing susceptibility χ near the the critical frequency ω0 . c2 (287) where χ is the susceptibility of the medium. this allows us to express the susceptibility near the critical frequency via the expansion χ(ω) = 2α (ω − ω0 ) + O (ω − ω0 )3 . One can start by considering a medium in which an EIT window is opened via some control laser beam which is oriented perpendicular to the direction of the ﬂow. (The phase velocity is exactly c at the resonance frequency ω0 ). The motion of the dielectric medium creates a local Doppler shift of the frequency ω → γ (ω0 − u · k) . One then illuminates this medium. with some probe light (which is hence perpendicular to the control beam). ω0 . and the controllight energy per atom [383]. t). ω0 (289) where α is sometimes called the “group refractive index”. ω ∂χ ∂k 1 + χ + 2n ∂ω vph = c ω = √ . now along the ﬂow direction. k 1+χ (288) So even for small refractive indexes one can get very low group velocities. Let us review the most common setup envisaged for this kind of analogue model. and most importantly depends on the ratio between the probelight energy per photon. A more detailed analysis can be found in [383]. In particular in order to be eﬀective the EIT requires the control beam energy to dominate all processes and hence it cannot be dimmed at will. It is easy to see that in this case the group and phase velocities diﬀer vg = ∂ω c = √ .
The realization that ergoregions and event horizons can be simulated via slow light may lead one to the (erroneous) conclusion that this is an optimal system for simulating particle creation by gravitational ﬁelds. First of all. as pointed out by Unruh in [470. However. such a conclusion would 70 . 1+ − 3α)u2 /c2 − 4α2 u4 /c4 1 . it is clear that. 1 + (α2 − 3α)u2 /c2 − 4α2 u4 /c4 (α2 (296) (297) (298) −A −BuT . In this sense the probe light will propagate as in a curved background. (292) where kν = and g µν = −(1 + αu2 /c2 ) − αu/c2 ω0 . Explicitly one ﬁnds the covariant metric to be gµν = where A B C = = = 1 − 4αu2 /c2 . Given further that in any realistic case one would deal with nonrelativistic ﬂuid velocities u ≪ c we can then perform an expansion of the dispersion relation up to second order in u/c. Given that k 2 − ω 2 /c2 is a Lorentz invariant. (295) − Bu I3×3 − Cu ⊗ uT Several comments are in order concerning the metric (295). In any case. where α can be extremely large due to the huge dispersion in the transparency window around the resonance frequency ω0 ). In the slow light setup so far considered such a velocity turns out to be u = c/(2 α). Expressing the susceptibility via Equation (289) we can then rewrite the dispersion relation in the form [390] g µν kµ kν = 0. However. whose rays would then be null geodesics of the line element ds2 = gµν dxµ dxν . it is then easy to see that this Doppler detuning aﬀects the dispersion relation (287) only via the susceptibility dependent term. although more complicated than an acoustic metric. c −αuT /c2 . −k . 612]. (293) I3×3 − 4αu ⊗ uT /c2 (294) (Note that most of the original articles on this topic adopt the opposite signature (+ − −−). it will still be possible to cast it into the Arnowitt– Deser–Misnerlike form [627] gµν = −[c2 − gab ua ub ] eﬀ eﬀ eﬀ [ueﬀ ]j [ueﬀ ]i [geﬀ ]ij . the existence of this ADM form already tells us that an ergoregion will always appear once the norm of the eﬀective velocity exceeds the eﬀective speed of light (which for slow light is approximately c/α. 2 − 3α)u2 /c2 − 4α2 u4 /c4 1 + (α 1 − (4/α + 4u2 /c2 ) .) The inverse of this tensor will be the covariant eﬀective metric experienced by the probe light. a trapped surface (and hence an optical black hole) will form only if the inward normal component of the eﬀective ﬂow velocity exceeds the group √ velocity of light.where γ is the usual relativistic factor. (299) where the eﬀective speed ueﬀ is proportional to the ﬂuid ﬂow speed u and the threespace eﬀective metric geﬀ is (rather diﬀerently from the acoustic case) nontrivial.
Hence. 504. (mixing between the positive and negative norm modes of the incoming and outgoing states).4 Slow light in ﬁbre optics In addition to the studies of slow light in ﬂuids. which is the phase velocity of the probe light. which is equivalent to saying that it does not have a proper vacuum state (i. In the setup suggested by these authors there are two strongbackground counterpropagating control beams illuminating the atoms. not very much hope is left for realizing analogue particle creation in this particular laboratory setting. in principle. and both can be made small. This is because that eﬀect also requires the commutation relations of the ﬁeld to generate the appropriate zeropoint energy ﬂuctuations (the vacuum structure) according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Nonetheless.2. A similar argument indicates the necessity for a speciﬁc form of “group velocity horizon”. so that the previously discussed obstruction to mode mixing is removed. superradiance in the presence of ergoregions. not its group velocity.g. However.5 Lattice models The quantum analogue models described above all have an underlying discrete structure: namely the atoms they are made of. 149.. Since the phase velocity in the slow light setup we are considering is very close to c. This causes the lattice spacing at the horizon to grow approximately linearly with time. with a view to analyzing the origin of Hawking particles in blackhole evaporation. one has to conclude that any simulation of quantum particle production is precluded. culminating in recent experimental detection of photons apparently associated with a phasevelocity horizon [66]. If the relative velocities of the “carrier” pulse and “probe” are suitably arranged then the arrangement can be made to mimic a blackhole–whitehole pair. but this also tells us that the negative norm mode must satisfy the condition ω0 − u · k < 0. e.2. By deﬁnition. one that lies on the negative norm branch. so that a “carrier” pulse of light traveling down the ﬁbre carries with it a region of high refractive index. This is not the case for the eﬀective ﬁeld describing the beat ﬂuctuations of the system we have just described. In abstract terms one can also build an analogue model by considering a quantum ﬁeld on speciﬁc lattice structures representing diﬀerent spacetimes.e. 64. there has now been a lot of work done on slow light in a ﬁbreoptics setting [505..g. it was also noticed by Unruh and Sch¨tzhold [612] that a diﬀerent setup for slow light u might deal with this and other issues (see [612] for a detailed summary). analogue to any physical ﬁeld). 322] a fallinglattice blackhole analogue was put forward. the same wave equation as that on a curved background. 63]. 4. In a ﬂowing medium this can. In order to obtain particle creation through “mode mixing”. the physical speed of light in vacuum. which acts as a barrier to “probe” photons (typically at a diﬀerent frequency). an inescapable requirement is that there must be regions where the frequency of the quanta as seen by a local comoving observer becomes negative. The key issue here is that the Kerr eﬀect of nonlinear optics can be used to change the refractive index of an optical ﬁbre. occur thanks to the tilting of the dispersion relation due to the Doppler eﬀect caused by the velocity of the ﬂow Equation (291). 4. the same authors showed that this does not open the possibility for a simulation of quantum particle production (e. but this can be satisﬁed only if the velocity of the medium exceeds ω0 /k. then for long 71 . once the dielectric medium is in motion. In this particular situation the phase velocity and the group velocity are approximately the same. if there were no horizons. The ﬁeld describing the beat ﬂuctuations of this electromagnetic background can be shown to satisfy. The positions of the lattice points in this model change with time as they follow freely falling trajectories..turn out to be overenthusiastic.4. This system is described more fully in Section 6. In [310. This observation suggests that the existence of a “phase velocity horizon” is an essential ingredient (but not the only essential ingredient) in obtaining Hawking radiation. So in this new setup it is concretely possible to simulate classical particle creation such as. Hawking radiation).
2. 2 represent two types of massless spinors (one for each Fermi point). only recently has it been speciﬁcally proposed as a system with which to probe gravitational physics [153. 4. imposing a curved substrate. Although graphene and some of its peculiar electronic properties have been known since the 1940s [672]. it becomes necessary to recall the fundamental lattice nature of the model.g. the sheet curvature promotes the Dirac equation to its curved space counterpart.2 σ k ∂xk ψj . does not include blackhole spacetimes. However. 152]. as the curvatures mentioned above are purely spatial and do not aﬀect the temporal components of the metric. and cs = 3ta/2. (300) Here ψj with j = 1. The lowenergy excitations around these points can be described as massless Dirac ﬁelds in which the light speed is substituted by a “sound” speed cs about 300 times smaller: ∂t ψj = cs k=1. or by introducing topological defects (e. some pentagons within the hexagonal structure) [669].4 ˚ being the interatomic distance. From the perspective of this review. graphene sheets can also acquire curvature. Each is associated with one Fermi point. these reviews [127. From this perspective graphene can be used to investigate ultrarelativistic phenomena such as the Klein paradox [339]. A nonzero curvature can be produced by adding strain ﬁelds to the sheet.2 on helium). On the other hand.wavelengths compared with the lattice spacing one would recover a relativistic quantum ﬁeld theory over a classical background. 152]. it will make graphene a good analogue model for a diverse set of spacetimes. however. with a = 1. the presence of horizons makes it impossible to analyze the ﬁeld theory only in the continuum limit. If this proves to be experimentally correct.. regarding the electronic properties of graphene. Figure 13: The graphene hexagonal lattice is made of two interpenetrating triangular lattices. and A t = 2. 339]). Graphene (or monolayer graphite) is a twodimensional lattice of carbon atoms forming a hexagonal structure (see Figure 13).6 Graphene A very interesting addition to the catalogue of analogue systems is the graphene (see. its most important property is that its Fermi surface has two independent Fermi points (see Section 4. for example.8 eV the hopping energy for an electron between two nearestneighboring atoms.2. It has been suggested that. at least on the average [153. the σ k are the Pauli sigma matrices. 72 . This set.
check this review’s bibliography. For additional background on many of these topics.4.3 Going further We feel that the catalogue we have just presented is reasonably complete and covers the key items. 73 . and use SPIRES (or the beta version of INSPIRE) to check for recent developments. we would suggest sources such as the books “Artiﬁcial Black Holes” [470] and “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” [660]. For more speciﬁc detail.
One could start studying analogue models with the idea of seeing whether it is possible (either theoretically or in practice) to reproduce in the laboratory various gravitational phenomena whose real existence in nature cannot be currently checked. the study of analogue models of general relativity is giving us insights as to how the standard theoretical picture of diﬀerent gravitational phenomena could change when taking into account additional physical knowledge coming from the existence of an underlying microphysical structure. one immediately realises that these features only appear in the lowenergy regime of the analogue systems. in 1974 Stephen Hawking announced that quantum mechanically black holes should emit radiation with a spectrum approximately that of a black body [270. This scenario is quite similar to what one expects to happen with our geometrical description of the Universe. Quite robustly.) The collapse of a distribution of matter will end up forming an evaporating black hole emitting particles from its horizon toward future null inﬁnity. The analogue models are being used to shed light on these general questions through a number of speciﬁc routes. Let us now turn to discussing several speciﬁc physics issues that are being analysed from this perspective. to be able to reproduce Hawking radiation in a laboratory one would have to fulﬁll at least two requirements: 1. When these systems are probed at high energies (short length scales) the eﬀective geometrical description of the analogue models break down. it has to be a quantum analogue model (see Section 4) such that its description could be separated into a classical eﬀective background spacetime plus some standard relativistic quantum ﬁelds living on it (it can happen that 74 . [95] or [309]. and to analyse whether similar deviations are likely to appear in real gravitational systems. for instance. as one starts to be aware that the systems are actually composed of discrete pieces (atoms and molecules). To choose an adequate analogue system.1 5.5 Phenomenology of Analogue Models Of course. So. but will instead assume a certain familiarity with at least the basics of the phenomenon. 5. when explored with microscopic detail at the Planck scale.1 Hawking radiation Basics As is well known. the entire motivation for looking at analogue models is to be able to learn more physics. Beyond these ﬁrst deviations. When one thinks about emergent gravitational features in condensedmatter systems. Hawking radiation is a quantumﬁeldincurvedspace eﬀect: The existence of radiation emission is a kinematic eﬀect that does not rely on Einstein’s equations. in principle. However. one can aim to reproduce it in a condensedmatter system. the interest of this approach is not merely to reproduce these gravitational phenomena in some formal analogue model. These are phenomena that surpass our present (and foreseeable) observational capabilities. Therefore. We shall not rederive the existence of Hawking radiation from scratch. (See. but yet. we believe in their existence because it follows from seemingly strong theoretical arguments within the standard frameworks of general relativity and ﬁeld theory in curved space. a minimal requirement for having Hawking radiation is the existence in the background conﬁguration of an apparent horizon [629]. the analogue models of general relativity provide wellunderstood examples (the underlying physics is well known) in which a description in terms of ﬁelds in curved spacetimes shows up as a lowenergyregime emergent phenomena. Within standard ﬁeld theory. but to see which departures from the ideal case show up in real analogue models.1. 271]. That is. these studies are telling us already that the ﬁrst deviations from the standard general relativity picture can be encoded in the form of highenergy violations of Lorentz invariance in particle dispersion relations.
the quantum ﬁelds do not satisfy the appropriate commutation or anticommutation relations [612]). 2. To conﬁgure the analogue geometry such that it includes some sort of horizon. That is, within an appropriate quantum analogue model, the formation of an apparent horizon for the propagation of the quantum ﬁelds should excite the ﬁelds such as to result in the emission of a thermal distribution of ﬁeld particles.20 This is a straightforward and quite naive translation of the standard Hawking eﬀect derivation to the condensed matter realm. However, in reality, this translation process has to take into account additional issues that, as we are trying to convey, instead of problems, are where the interesting physics lies. 1. The eﬀective description of the quantum analogue systems as ﬁelds over a background geometry breaks down when probed at suﬃciently short length scales. This could badly inﬂuence the main features of Hawking radiation. In fact, immediately after the inception of the idea that black holes radiate, it was realised that there was a potential problem with the calculation [606]. It strongly relies on the validity of quantum ﬁeld theory on curved backgrounds up to arbitrary high energies. Following a wave packet with a certain frequency at future inﬁnity backwards in time, we can see that it had to contain arbitrarily large frequency components with respect to a local free fall observer (well beyond the Planck scale) when it was close to the horizon. In principle, any unknown physics at the Planck scale could strongly inﬂuence the Hawking process so that one should view it with caution. This is the transPlanckian problem of Hawking radiation. To create an analogue model exhibiting Hawking radiation will be, therefore, equivalent to giving a solution to the transPlanckian problem. 2. In order to clearly observe Hawking radiation, one should ﬁrst be sure that there is no other source of instabilities in the system that could mask the eﬀect. In analogue models such as liquid helium or BECs the interaction of a radial ﬂow (with speed on the order of the critical Landau speed, which in these cases coincides with the sound speed [359]) with the surface of the container (an electromagnetic potential in the BECs case) might cause the production of rotons and quantised vortices, respectively. Thus, in order to produce an analogue model of Hawking radiation, one has to be somewhat ingenious. For example, in the liquid helium case, instead of taking acoustic waves in a supersonic ﬂow stream as the analogue model, it is preferable to use as analogue model ripplons in the interface between two diﬀerent phases, A and B phases, of helium three [657]. Another option is to start from a moving domain wall conﬁguration. Then, the topological stability of the conﬁguration prevents its destruction when creating a horizon [326, 327]. In the case of BECs, a way to suppress the formation of quantised vortices is to take eﬀectively onedimensional conﬁgurations. If the transverse dimension of the ﬂow is smaller than the healing length, then there is no space for the existence of a vortex [48]. In either liquid helium or BECs, there is also the possibility of creating an apparent horizon by rapidly approaching a critical velocity proﬁle (see Figure 14), but without actually crossing into the supersonic regime [37], softening in this way the appearance of dynamical instabilities.
20 One could also imagine systems in which the eﬀective metric fails to exist on one side of the horizon (or even more radically, on both sides). The existence of particle production in this kind of system will then depend on the speciﬁc interactions between the subsystems characterizing each side of the horizon. For example, in stationary conﬁgurations it will be necessary that these interactions allow negative energy modes to disappear beyond the horizon, propagating forward in time (as happens in an ergoregion). Whether these systems will provide adequate analogue models of Hawking radiation or not is an interesting question that deserves future analysis. Certainly systems of this type lie well outside the class of usual analogue models.
75
v x
v(t,x) t=t 1 t=t 2 t=t −c
Figure 14: Velocity proﬁle for a left going ﬂow; the proﬁle is dynamically modiﬁed with time so that it reaches the proﬁle with a sonic point at the asymptotic future. 3. Real analogue models cannot, strictly speaking, reproduce eternal blackhole conﬁgurations. An analogue model of a black hole has always to be created at some ﬁnite laboratory time. Therefore, one is forced to carefully analyse the creation process, as it can greatly inﬂuence the Hawking eﬀect. Depending on the procedure of creation, one could end up in quite diﬀerent quantum states for the ﬁeld and only some of them might exhibit Hawking radiation. This becomes more important when considering that the analogue models incorporate modiﬁed dispersion relations. An inappropriate preparation, together with modiﬁed dispersion relation eﬀects, could completely eliminate Hawking radiation [613, 35]. 4. Another important issue is the need to characterise “how quantum” a speciﬁc analogue model is. Even though, strictly speaking, one could say that any system undergoes quantum ﬂuctuations, the point is how important they are in its description. In trying to build an analogue model of Hawking’s quantum eﬀect, the relative value of Hawking temperature with respect to the environment is going to tell us whether the system can be really thought of as a quantum analogue model or as eﬀectively classical. For example, in our standard cosmological scenario, for a black hole to radiate at temperatures higher than that of the Cosmic Microwave Background, ≈ 3 K, the black hole should have a diameter on the order of micrometers or less. We would have to say that such black holes are no longer classical, but semiclassical. The black holes for which we have some observational evidence are of much higher mass and size, so their behaviour can be thought of as completely classical. Estimates of the Hawking temperature reachable in BECs yield T ∼ 100 nK [48]. This has the same order of magnitude of the temperature as the BECs themselves. This is telling us that, regarding the Hawking process, BECs can be considered to be highlyquantum analogue models. 5. There is also the very real question of whether one should trust semiclassical calculations at all when it comes to dealing with backreaction in the Hawking eﬀect. See, for instance, the arguments presented by Helfer ([278, 279, 280], and references therein). Because of its importance, let us now review what we know about the eﬀects of highenergy dispersion relations on the Hawking process. 5.1.2 UV robustness
We saw in the introduction to this section that the transPlanckian problem of Hawking radiation was one of the strongest motivations for the modern research into analogue models of gravity. In
76
fact, it was soon realised that such models could provide a physical framework within which a viable solution of the problem could be found. Let us explain why and how. As we have said, the requirement of a reservoir of ultrahigh frequency modes near the horizon seems to indicate a possible (and worrisome) sensitivity of the blackhole radiation to the microscopic structure of spacetime. Actually, by assuming exact Lorentz invariance, one could, in principle, always locally transform the problematic ultrahigh frequency modes to low energy ones via some appropriate Lorentz transformation [307]. However there are (at least) two problems in doing so: 1. One has to rely on the physics of reference frames moving ultra fast with respect to us, as the reference frame needed would move arbitrarily close to the speed of light. Hence, we would have to apply Lorentz invariance in a regime of arbitrarily large boosts that is as yet untested, and in principle never completely testable given the noncompactness of the boost subgroup. The assumption of an exact boost symmetry is linked to the scalefree nature of spacetime given that unbounded boosts expose ultrashort distances. Hence, the assumption of exact Lorentz invariance needs, in the end, to rely on some ideas regarding the nature of spacetime at ultrashort distances. 2. Worse, even given these assumptions, “one cannot boost away an swave”. That is, given the expected isotropy of Hawking radiation, a boost in any given direction could, at most, tame the transPlanckian problem only in that speciﬁc direction. Indeed, the problem is then not ameliorated in directions orthogonal to the boost, and would become even worse on the opposite side of the black hole. It was this type of reasoning that led in the nineties to a careful reconsideration of the crucial ingredients required for the derivation of Hawking radiation [307, 308, 608]. In particular investigators explored the possibility that spacetime microphysics could provide a shortdistance, Lorentzbreaking cutoﬀ, but at the same time leave Hawking’s results unaﬀected at energy scales well below that set by the cutoﬀ. Of course, ideas about a possible cutoﬀ imposed by the discreteness of spacetime at the Planck scale had already been discussed in the literature well before Unruh’s seminal paper [607]. However, such ideas were running into serious diﬃculties given that a naive shortdistance cutoﬀ posed on the available modes of a free ﬁeld theory results in a complete removal of the evaporation process (see, e.g., Jacobson’s article [307] and references therein, and the comments in [278, 279, 280]). Indeed there are alternative ways through which the eﬀect of the shortscale physics could be taken into account, and analogue models provide a physical framework where these ideas could be put to the test. In fact, analogue models provide explicit examples of emergent spacetime symmetries; they can be used to simulate blackhole backgrounds; they may be endowed with quantizable perturbations and, in most of the cases, they have a wellknown microscopic structure. Given that Hawking radiation can be, at least in principle, simulated in such systems, one might ask how and if the transPlanckian problem is resolved in these cases. Modiﬁed dispersion relations: The general feature that most of the work on this subject has focused on is that in analogue models the quasiparticles propagating on the eﬀective geometry are actually collective excitations of atoms. This generically implies that their dispersion relation will be a relativistic one only at low energies (large scales),21 and in each case there will be some short length scale (e.g., intermolecular distance for a ﬂuid, coherence length for a superﬂuid, healing
21 Actually, even relativistic behaviour at low energy can be nongeneric, but we assume in this discussion that an analogue model by deﬁnition is a system for which all the linearised perturbations do propagate on the same Lorentzian background at low energies.
77
22 In all the aforementioned works. obtaining an inﬁnite power series (of which it will be safe to retain only the lowestorder terms). These cases are usually referred to in the literature as “superluminal” and “subluminal” dispersion relations.. ω = K (tanh(k/K)n )1/n . Hawking radiation can be recovered under some suitable assumptions. The picture that emerged from these analyses concerning the origin of the outgoing Hawking modes at inﬁnity is quite surprising. although in some special models (like BEC) the series is automatically ﬁnite due to intrinsic properties of the system. 608. (301) where K is the scale that describes the transition to the full microscopic system (what we might call – within this section – the “analogue Planck scale”). and by Corley and Jacobson [148] ω 2 = k 2 − k 4 /K 2 . (In any case. which could be the speed of sound. 148. For values of k beyond the turning point the group velocity decreases to zero (for Equation (302)) or becomes imaginary (for Equation (303)).. the outgoing mode will appear as a combination of ingoing modes dragged into the black hole by the ﬂow. [94.) Depending on the sign in front of the modiﬁcation. if one traces back in time an outgoing mode. the group velocity at high energy can be larger (+) or smaller (−) than the low energy speed of light c. as it approaches the horizon. and the question of whether such phenomenology could be applied to the case of real black holes (see e. 310. We concisely summarise here the main results (but see. and tend to have very high wave numbers far away 22 However.length for a BEC) beyond which deviations will be nonnegligible. [613] for further details). such microphysicsinduced corrections to the dispersion relation take the form E 2 = c2 m2 c2 + k 2 + ∆(k. In general. see also [522. At some point before reaching the horizon. this can be interpreted as signifying the breakdown of the regime where the dispersion relation (303) can be trusted. In fact. However.g. K) . See Figure 15 for a schematic representation of this eﬀect (for Equation (302)). (302) 78 . the best one can do is to expand ∆(k. as long as neither the blackhole temperature nor the frequency at which the spectrum is considered are too close to the scale of microphysics K.g. the applicability of these assumptions to the real case of black hole evaporation is an open question. The key feature is that in the presence of a subluminal modiﬁcation the group velocity of the modes increases with k only up to some turning point (which is equivalent to saying that the group velocity does not asymptote to c. it decreases its group velocity below the speed of sound. 148]. but instead is upper bounded). 528] for a radically diﬀerent alternative approach based on the idea of “superoscillations” where ultrahigh frequency modes near the horizon can be mimicked (to arbitrary accuracy) by the exponential tail of an exponentiallylarge amplitude mostly hidden behind the horizon. In general. one can see that most of the analogue models so far considered lead to modiﬁcations of the form ±k 3 /K or ±k 4 /K 2 . 308. In the latter case. 490]). (303) where both dispersion relations are given in the comoving frame. Most of the work on the transPlanckian problem in the 1990s focused on studying the eﬀect on Hawking radiation due to such modiﬁcations of the dispersion relations at high energies in the case of acoustic analogues [307. Stepping further back in time it is seen that such modes are located at larger and larger distances from the horizon. It is also important to stress that the mechanism by which the Hawking radiation is recovered is conceptually rather diﬀerent depending on the type of dispersion relation considered. Subluminal dispersion relations: This was the case originally considered by Unruh [608]. K) around k = 0. e.
147. 413. which have “bounced oﬀ” the horizon without reaching transPlanckian frequencies in its vicinities. (That is. the condition to recover a Planckian spectrum is a bit more subtle. Several detailed analytical and numerical calculations have shown that such a conversion indeed happens [608.ckΓk ω − vk v > c v < c ω k Figure 15: The picture shows a subsonic dispersion relation as a relation ω − vk = ±ckΓk . for example. 199]).1) that the classical counterpart of the abovedescribed modeconversion mechanism has recently been observed for the ﬁrst time in a wave tank experiment [682]. In particular we plot a dispersion of the type Γk = K tanh(k 2 /K 2 ) originally employed by Unruh. 412] and that the Hawking result. For subsonic velocities and ω greater than a critical frequency ωc . We will have to wait for the repetition of the same sort of experiment in a more explicitly quantum system to observe the spontaneous production of particles with a Planckian spectrum. the analysis in [413. having a diﬀerent surface gravity (a rainbow geometry). 412. we would like to point out another subtlety of these analogue blackhole conﬁgurations: It is necessary that the constant ﬂow velocity reached at the asymptotic region is diﬀerent from zero. the dispersion relation has four real roots. In addition. For the particular dispersion relation in Equation (303). For supersonic velocities the dispersion relation has two real roots. 148. can be recovered for K ≫ κ where κ is the blackhole surface gravity. This condition seems to be easily realizable. 94. at early times.) In this way one ﬁnds what might be called a “mode conversion”. Let us mention here (more details in Section 6. 613. The important point is that one of the modes has “negative norm”. v ≥ κ/K so that the Planckian form is not cut down at frequencies around κ. 538. It is remarkable that the exponential factor associated with a black body spectrum is clearly observed even with the inherent noise of the experiment. To have an approximately Planckian spectrum one would need this frequencydependent surface gravity to stay almost constant for frequencies below and around κ (see. In the mode conversion process every frequency experiences the horizon as located at a diﬀerent position. 283. and so. where the origin of the outgoing Hawking quanta seems to originate from ingoing modes. the norm is negative in the appropriate Klein–Gordonlike inner product [35]. In fact. speciﬁcally the presence of a Planckian spectrum of particles at a temperature T ≃ κ/(2π) moving outwards toward the asymptotic region. 79 .
In all cases.ω.i. when the ﬂow is only 80 . has some experimental interest. For supersonic velocities and ω less than a critical frequency ωc . for ω > ωc the Bogoliubov coeﬃcients are exactly zero.ij . For supersonic velocities the dispersion relation has two real roots. BECs). This implies that these modes somehow originate from the singularity (which can be a region of high turbulence in acoustic blackhole analogues). this analysis considers a Klein–Gordon ﬁeld equation in this geometry. For this setup it has been shown that the relevant Bogoliubov coeﬃcients have the form βω′ . as we have seen. the value of the ﬂow velocity at the internal (or supersonic) asymptotic region [413]. To recover from these coeﬃcients a Planckian spectrum of particles at the external asymptotic region. given that this is the kind of dispersion relation that arises in some promising analogue models (e. modiﬁed 4 by a ∂x term that gives rise to the quartic dispersion relation ω 2 = k 2 + k 4 /K 2 . the dispersion relation has four real roots. then it is still possible to recover the Hawking result. with βω. that is. When vint−asym is just above c = 1.j = δ(ω − ω ′ )βω. However.. Figure 16: The picture shows a supersonic dispersion relation as a relation ω − vk = ±ckΓk .. i. see [386]). and hence it would seem that not much can be said in this case. Once the appropriate acoustic geometry is deﬁned. we plot a dispersion of the type Γk = 1 + k 2 /K 2 . it is possible to show that if one imposes vacuum boundary conditions on these modes near the singularity. In particular. In this situation. the other asymptotic region is supersonic and replaces the internal singularity. the outgoing modes are actually seen as originating from behind the horizon (see Figure 16).e.g.ij a 3 × 3 matrix. the relevant condition happens to be not κ ≪ K but κ ≪ ωc where ωc = Kf (vint−asym ) and with f (·) a speciﬁc function of vint−asym . One of the asymptotic regions corresponds to the asymptotic region of a blackhole spacetime and is subsonic. thermal radiation outside the black hole [147].Superluminal dispersion relations: The case of a superluminal dispersion relation is quite diﬀerent and. The understanding of the physics behind the presence of Hawking radiation in superluminal dispersive theories has greatly improve recently through the detailed analysis of 1+1 stationary conﬁgurations possessing one black or white horizon connecting two asymptotic regions [413] (for previous work dealing with mode conversion through a horizon.
on the entire form of the internal velocity proﬁle.1. the resulting spectrum is completely changed. which has thermal properties. In the case in which the internal region contains an additional white horizon. 199] it has been shown that the complete set of modes to be taken into account in these conﬁgurations is composed of a continuous sector with real frequencies. produce a selfampliﬁed particle emission. in a more or less obvious fashion. However. Apart from the more formal treatments of BECs. the quantum ﬁeld was always assumed to be in the invacuum state. 81 . If κ0 ≪ ωc . interpolates between its low energy. perfectly regular state. reported [119. Another important result of the analysis in [413] is that stationary white holes do also Hawking radiate and in a very similar way to black holes.“slightly supersonic”. These simulations strongly suggest that any nonquasistatic formation of a horizon would give place to Hawking radiation. This state can be interpreted as the regular generalization to a dispersive theory of the Boulware state for a ﬁeld in a stationary black hole (let us recall that this state is not regular at the horizons). In the recent analyses in [155. 232. These analyses have been repeated for the speciﬁc case of the ﬂuctuations of a BEC [412] with identical qualitative results. it is interesting to realise that the dispersive character of the theory allows one to select for these systems a diﬀerent. in terms of out observers? However. from this feature arises their name “blackhole lasers”. to recover a Planckian spectrum of particles at the external asymptotic region one needs to have a noticeable supersonic region. although the Bogoliubov–de Gennes system of equations is diﬀerent from the modiﬁed scalar ﬁeld equation analyzed in previous papers. The observation of the eﬀect has been through the calculation of twopoint correlation functions (see Section 5. they share the same quartic dispersion relation. the existence of a notion of rainbow geometry makes modes of diﬀerent frequency experience diﬀerent surface gravities. If this happens at frequencies comparable with κ the whole Planckian spectrum will be truncated and distorted. The existence of superluminal modes makes it possible to obtain information from inside the (low energy) horizon. These conﬁgurations. One can think of the distortion of the Planckian spectrum as having a running κ(ω) that. As with subsonic dispersion. 118] the numerical observation of the Hawking eﬀect in simulations in which a blackhole horizon has been created dynamically from an initially homogeneous ﬂow. It is particularly interesting to note that this recovery of the standard result is not always guaranteed in the presence of superluminal dispersion relations. Carusotto et al. As we have already mentioned. The net result of the investigation carried out in [150] is that the compact ergoregion characterizing such conﬁgurations is unstable to selfamplifying Hawking radiation. or geometric value. Corley and Jacobson [150] in fact discovered a very peculiar type of instability due to such superluminal dispersion in the presence of black holes with inner horizons. and are generated as resonant modes inside the supersonic cavity encompassed between the two horizons. plus a discrete sector with complex frequencies of positive imaginary part. 29] where Bose–Einstein condensate analogue black holes were considered. and thus also the critical frequency ωc at which particle production is cut oﬀ. for these conﬁgurations. This transition is remarkably sudden for the smooth proﬁles analyzed. These discrete frequencies encode the unstable behaviour of these conﬁgurations. The presence of such an instability was also identiﬁed in the dynamical analysis carried on in [231. Therefore. in addition to a steady Hawking ﬂux. Is this vacuum state. in principle. The reasons for this is that. the function f (·) can become very small f (vint−asym ) ∝ (vint−asym − 1)3/2 . This implies that. one could set up a semiclassically stable acoustic black hole geometry. in general terms one can say that the spectrum takes into account the characteristic of the proﬁle deep inside the supersonic region (the analogue of the black hole interior). In these analyses based on stationary conﬁgurations. the spectrum associated with the formation of a black hole horizon in a superluminal dispersive theory depends.6 below). which is empty of both incoming and outgoing particles in the external asymptotic region [35]. κ(ω = 0) = κ0 and a value of zero for ω → ωc . then κ(ω) will stay constant and equal to κ0 throughout the relevant part of the spectrum reproducing Hawking’s result.
for instance. one in terms of the inaﬃnity of null geodesics skimming along the event horizon. 5. although several systems can be found in which such conditions hold. is the question of exactly which particular deﬁnition of surface gravity is the appropriate one for controlling the temperature of the Hawking radiation.3 General conditions for Hawking radiation Is it possible to reduce the rather complex phenomenology just described to a few basic assumptions that must be satisﬁed in order to recover Hawking radiation in the presence of Lorentzviolating dispersion relations? A tentative answer is given in [613]. See. Then. [563. If this picture is correct. Hence. the Planckian excitations must start oﬀ in the ground state with respect to freely falling observers.5 Which surface gravity? One issue that has become increasingly important. where the robustness of the Hawking result is considered for general modiﬁed (subluminal as well as superluminal) dispersion relations.4 Source of the Hawking quanta There is a point of view (not universally shared within the community) that asserts that the transPlanckian problem also makes it clear that the rayoptics limit cannot be the whole story behind Hawking radiation.1. The authors of [613] assume that the geometrical optics approximation breaks down only in the proximity of the event horizon (which is equivalent to saying that the particle production happens only in such a region). Work along these lines is continuing. 611]. the Planck dynamics must be much faster than the external subPlanckian dynamics).. as this is a wellknown condition in order to recover Hawking’s result. Indeed. but there is already considerable maneuvering room once one goes to evolving horizons in general relativity. and even more ambiguities once one adopts modiﬁed dispersion relations (as is very common in analogue spacetimes). 5. • Finally. and whether it is therefore robust against modiﬁcations induced by the violation of Lorentz invariance.1. they must evolve in an adiabatic way (i. and another in terms of the peeling properties of those null 82 . Presumably. • Second. 610. In standard general relativity with Killing horizons there is no ambiguity. the wouldbe transPlanckian modes are converted into subPlanckian ones. once one goes beyond ray optics. then the blackhole particle production is a lowfrequency and lowwavenumber process.5.1. it is still an open question whether real black hole physics does indeed satisfy such conditions. Here. Already at the level of timedependent systems in standard general relativity there are two reasonably natural deﬁnitions of surface gravity. it is precisely the ray optics approximation that leads to the transPlanckian problem. they try to identify the minimal set of assumptions that guarantees that such “converted modes” are generated in their ground states (with respect to a freely falling observer). They end up identifying three basic assumptions that guarantee such emergence of modes in the ground state at the horizon. the preferred frame selected by the breakdown of Lorentz invariance must be the freely falling one instead of the rest frame of the static observer at inﬁnity (which coincides in this limit with the laboratory observer). it is also possible to show [613] that realistic situations in which at least one of these assumptions is violated can be imagined.e. it will be the region within a wavelength or so of the horizon (possibly the region between the horizon and the unstable circular photon orbit) that proves to be quantummechanically unstable and will ultimately be the “origin” of the Hawking photons. • First. to the wave optics limit. Of course. particularly in view of recent experimental advances.
505. the relevant “peeling” surface gravity for determining Hawking ﬂuxes has to be determined locally. 5. the expected power loss due to the Hawking emission could be estimated to be on the order of P ≈ 10−48 W (see. 504. For instance. This discrimination mechanism was suggested a decade ago in the context of dynamical Casimir eﬀect explanations of Sonoluminescence [65]. for the hydrodynamic approximation to hold. This fact is indeed the root of the information paradox. while the Hawking ﬂux is 23 Note however.6 How to detect Hawking radiation: Correlations While the robustness of Hawking radiation against UV violations of the acoustic Lorentz invariance seems a wellestablished feature by now (at least in static or stationary geometries).g.g. 119. the Hawking temperature in acoustic systems is simply related to the gradient of the ﬂow velocity at the horizon (see Equation (61)). 512. e. 682. 95]. the conclusions do not change when working in the hydrodynamic regime (where there is a strict analogy with GR). particles created by the mode mixing (Bogoliubov) mechanism are generically in a squeezed state (in the sense that the in vacuum appears as a squeezed state when expressed in terms of the out vacuum) [313] and such a state can be distinguished from a real thermal one exactly by the nontrivial structure of its correlators. 496. in the vicinity of the Killing horizon. more recently this point was highlighted in [42. 604].1. the spectrum observed at inﬁnity is indistinguishable from thermal given that no correlation measurement is allowed. 564. This gradient cannot be made arbitrarily large and. albeit they are comparable and both in the nanoKelvin range). since the Hawking partners are spacelike separated across the horizon. 118. As we have seen. with low speed of sound.. 412] for some discussion of this and related issues. This point was implicitly made in [37. the healing length for a BEC) of the superﬂuid used for the experiment. 19. A remarkable possibility in this sense is oﬀered by the fact that vacuum particle creation leads generically to a spectrum. and later envisaged for analogue black holes in [48]. 83 . 41] and clearly stressed in [412].g.23 Indeed. its strength is indubitably a main concern for a future detection of this eﬀect in a laboratory. 532. 520. 41]. (See for instance [612. which is (almost) Planckian but not thermal (in the sense that all the higher order ﬁeld correlators are trivial combinations of the twopoint one). and “phase velocity horizons”. [48]): arguably too faint to be detectable above the thermal phonon background due to the ﬁnite temperature of the condensate (alternatively.geodesics that escape the black hole to reach future null inﬁnity. Work on these important issues is ongoing. This implies that in a cold system. 412.. there are additional levels of complication coming from the distinction between “group velocity horizons”. It is this latter deﬁnition that is relevant for Hawkinglike ﬂuxes from nonstationary systems (e. 66. and the fact that null geodesics have to be replaced by modiﬁed characteristic curves. evaporating black holes) and in such systems it never coincides with the inaﬃnitybased deﬁnition of the surface gravity except possibly at asymptotic futuretimelike inﬁnity i+ . but was ﬁnally investigated and fully exploited only recently in a stream of papers focussed on the BEC set up [22. Regarding analogue models of gravity. If we now add modiﬁed dispersion relations. The outcome of such investigations (carried out taking into account the full Bogoliubov spectrum) is quite remarkable as it implies that indeed. one can see that the Hawking temperature is generally below the typical temperature of the BEC. 190. it is still possible that a detection of the spontaneous quantum particle creation can be obtained via some other feature rather than the spectrum of the Hawking ﬂux.) This “surface gravity” is actually an emergent quantity coming from averaging the naive surface gravity (the slope of the c–v proﬁle) on a ﬁnite region around the wouldbe Killing horizon associated with the acoustic geometry [200]. that for a real black hole and Lorentzinvariant physics. like a BEC.. The presence of dispersion also makes explicit that the crucial notion underlying Hawking emission is the “peeling” properties of null ray characteristics. Early comments along these lines can be found in [94. and over a ﬁnite frequency range. one actually needs it to be at least a few times the typical coherence length (e. Despite this.
84 . the latter will show a deﬁnite structure totally absent when the ﬂow is always subsonic or always supersonic. it is interesting to add that the correlator analysis can be applied to a wider class of analogue systems. in the case of strictly Lorentz invariant dispersion relations there can be no modemixing and particle creation. In fact. (See Section 5.generically outpowered by the condensate intrinsic thermal bath. both via numerical simulations as well as via a detailed analytical investigation. and [512]. and hence the model has no predictive power regarding the ultimate origin of the relevant incoming modes. At this point one can no longer trust the dispersion relation (303) (which in realistic analogue models is emergent and not fundamental anyway). 611]. These conclusions regarding the impossibility of clearly predicting the origin at early times of the modes ultimately to be converted into Hawking radiation are not speciﬁc to the particular dispersion relations (302) or (303) one is using. which are “progenitors” of the outgoing modes after bouncing oﬀ in the proximity of the horizon. see [682]. or extended to the study of the particle creation in timevarying external ﬁelds (dynamical Casimir eﬀect) in Bose– Einstein condensates (where the timevarying quantity is the scattering length via a Feshbach resonance) [118]. In the Corley–Jacobson model (303) this unphysical behaviour is removed thanks to the presence of the physical cutoﬀ K. the need for these assumptions can be interpreted as evidence that these models are not yet fully capable of solving the transPlanckian problem. 610. This is why one actually has to assume that the WKB approximation fails in the proximity of the horizon and that the modes are there in the vacuum state for the comoving observer. one can see that if one keeps tracking a “progenitor” incoming mode back in time.) 5. just the situation one was trying to avoid. In this sense. that a realistic ﬁnite temperature background does not spoil the long distance correlations which are intrinsic to the Hawking eﬀect (and. the incoming modes must have the same frequency as the outgoing ones. these issues underpin the analysis by Sch¨tzhold and Unruh regarding the spatial “origin” of the Hawking u quanta [563. the Killing frequency is conserved on a static background. (For stimulated Hawking emission. Even more remarkably. 311] that in this framework it is not possible to explain the origin of the short wavelength incoming modes. it is still true that in tracking the incoming modes back in time one ﬁnally sees a wave packet so blue shifted that k = K. in the Unruh model (302). it was shown. Ultimately. such studies are very interesting for their possible application as cosmological particle production simulations (possibly including Lorentzviolations eﬀects).4. In particular. in principle. However.7 Open issues In spite of the remarkable insight given by the models discussed above (based on modiﬁed dispersion relations) it is not possible to consider them fully satisfactory in addressing the transPlanckian problem. in particular it has been applied to analogue black holes based on cold atoms in ion rings [290]. indeed. Hence. it is. As we shall see. it was soon recognised [149.) Finally. possible to have a clear cut signature of the Hawking eﬀect by looking at the densitydensity correlator for phonons on both sides of the acoustic horizon. This seems to suggest that for the foreseeable future the correlation pattern will oﬀer the most amenable route for obtaining a clean signature of the (spontaneous) Hawking eﬀect in acoustic analogues. In fact. thus. For example. for nonexcessively large condensate temperatures the correlations can be ampliﬁed).1. This is tantamount to saying that the transPlanckian problem has been moved from the region near the horizon out to the region near inﬁnity. then its group velocity (in the comoving frame) drops to zero as its frequency becomes more and more blue shifted (up to arbitrarily large values).
1. where the lattice is associated with the freefall coordinate system (taken as the preferred system).1. 149]. 216.5. 523. either as reformulations of the physics. this time dependence of the lattice points is found to be of order 1/κ. 567. 549. 567. the problem of recovering a smooth evolution of incoming modes to outgoing ones is resolved by the intrinsicallyregularised behaviour of the wave vectors ﬁeld. 266. 461. correspondingly one obtains a sinusoidal dispersion relation for the propagating modes.9 Analogue spacetimes as background gestalt In addition. 478. the requirement of a ﬁxed shortdistance cutoﬀ leads to the choice of a lattice spacing constant at inﬁnity. long wavelength outgoing modes are seen to originate from short wavelength incoming modes via a process analogous to the Bloch oscillations of accelerated electrons in crystals [149. and that the lattice points are at rest at inﬁnity and fall freely into the black hole. 120. 311]. 109. on such a lattice. • Black hole entropy viewed in the light of analogue spacetimes [158]. This would be enough to recover Hawking radiation but it would imply the unphysical assumption of a refractive index. 53.1. 222.5). or as alternative scenarios [62. which is valid at any frequency. In this model an event horizon for the electromagnetic ﬁeld modes can be simulated by a surface of singular electric and magnetic permeabilities. 586]. An alternative avenue was considered in [149]. The net result is that. 462]. However. the only (crucial) assumption being again that the “transPlanckian” modes with k > K are in their ground state near the horizon. it was shown in [523] that the Hawking result can be recovered even in the case of a dispersive medium. 279. and wavevectors are identiﬁed modulo 2π/ℓ where ℓ is the lattice characteristic spacing. • TransHawking versions of Hawking radiation. in [523] the transparency of the refractive medium at high frequencies has been used to introduce an eﬀective cutoﬀ for the modes involved in Hawking radiation in a classical refractive index analogue model (see Section 4. 431. 480. 430. 550. 185. In particular. which becomes transparent above some ﬁxed frequency K (which we can imagine as the plasma frequency of the medium). the ﬁeld takes values only at the lattice points.24 In this case. the lattice spacing grows in time and the lattice points spread in space as they fall toward the horizon. 223. Hence. 429. among the many papers using analogue spacetimes as part of their background mindset when addressing these issues we mention: • “Top down” calculations of Hawking radiation starting from some idealised model of quantum gravity [4. 124. However. In [149] the authors explicitly considered the Hawking process for a discretised version of a scalar ﬁeld. and hence unnoticeable to longwavelength modes and relevant only for those with wavelengths on the order of the lattice spacing. 542. Furthermore. 257. 335. 489. 530. 536. • “Bottom up” calculations of Hawking radiation starting from curved space quantum ﬁeld theory [52. it is possible to preserve a discrete lattice spacing. 428. There a lattice description of the background was used for imposing a cutoﬀ in a more physical way with respect to the continuum dispersive models previously considered. 184. 280. 24 85 . [149] also considered the case of a lattice with proper distance spacing constant in time but this has the problem that the proper spacing of the lattice goes to zero at spatial inﬁnity. and hence there is no ﬁxed shortdistance cutoﬀ. 591]. 278.8 Solid state and lattice models It was to overcome this type of issue that alternative ways of introducing an ultraviolet cutoﬀ due to the microphysics were considered [522. 384. 5. With such a choice. 526]. 541. • Hawking radiation interpreted as a statement about particles traveling along complex spacetime trajectories [481. In such a discretised spacetime. 108.
In contrast. 698. The details of the conﬁguration are not important for the following discussion. Then.1 Classical stability of the background (no MDR) Let us consider a threedimensional irrotational and inviscid ﬂuid system with a stationary sinktype of ﬂow – a “draining bathtub” ﬂow – (see Figures 1 and 2). for example. but one does not require. the modes to be normalizable.) To be speciﬁc. dr∗ 2 (306) (307) r0 4 ln is a “tortoise” coordinate. the gravitational ﬁeld in general relativity has two dynamical degrees of freedom – those associated with gravitational waves – that have to be analysed separately. In a normal mode analysis one requires boundary conditions such that the ﬁeld is regular everywhere. in (r + r0 ) r + 2 arctan (r − r0 ) r0 (308) 86 . r. only the fact that there is a sphericallysymmetric ﬂuid ﬂow accelerating towards a central sink. even at inﬁnity. 447].2 Dynamical stability of horizons Although the two issues are very closely related. ϕ) ≡ e−iωτ χlm (r) Ylm (θ. if one is analysing the solutions of the linear ﬁeld theory as a way of probing the stability of the background conﬁguration. c is constant. we are neglecting the existence of MDR. for instance. as we have discussed in Section 2. 521. (304) In this expression we have used the Schwarzschild time coordinate τ instead of the lab time t. φlm (τ. 5. (We are assuming that the hydrodynamic regime remains valid up to arbitrarilyshort length scales. one can consider less restrictive boundary conditions. θ. let us choose the geometry of the canonical acoustic blackhole spacetime described in [624]: ds2 = −c2 1 − 4 r0 r4 dτ 2 + 1 − 4 r0 r4 −1 dr2 + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θ dϕ2 . Of course. and the stability analysis of the background itself. one can consider the typical boundary conditions that lead to quasinormal modes: These modes are deﬁned to be purely outgoing at inﬁnity and purely ingoing at the horizon. these are the “axial” and “polar” perturbations. The quasinormal modes associated with this sink conﬁguration have been analysed in [69]. For instance. linearizing the Euler and continuity equations leads to a massless scalar ﬁeld theory over a blackhole–like spacetime.2. ϕ). If we expand the ﬁeld in spherical harmonics. as we will soon see. 2 r r − d2 + Vl (r) χ. 620. that sink being surrounded by a sphere acting as a sonic horizon. we have to carefully distinguish between the stability analysis of the modes of a linear ﬁeld theory (with or without modiﬁed dispersion relations – MDR) over a ﬁxed background. However. The results found are qualitatively similar to those in the classical linear stability analysis of the Schwarzschild black hole in general relativity [619. r (305) we obtain the following equation for the radial part of the ﬁeld: ω2 χ= c2 where Vl (r) = Here r∗ ≡ r − 1− 4 r0 4 r 4 l(l + 1) 4r0 + 6 .5.
As a consequence. that in the general case of acoustic geometries constructed from compressible ﬂuids. let us write down a quite loose but useful translation dictionary: • The “classical” or macroscopic wave function of the BEC represents the classical spacetime of GR. (For length scales on the order of.the present situation we only have scalar perturbations. but only when probed at longenough wavelengths such that it behaves as pure hydrodynamics. Once one compensates. The diﬀerences are so profound. classical blackholelike conﬁguration. However. Let us describe what happens when one takes into account the existence of MDR. in principle.3 Classical stability of the background (MDR in BECs) Before continuing with the discussion of the instability of conﬁgurations with horizons. An important point we have to highlight here is that. This shows.2. The macroscopic wave function of the BEC behaves as a classical irrotational ﬂuid but with some deviations when short length scales become involved. and in order not to cause confusion between the diﬀerent wording used when talking about the physics of BECs and the emergent gravitational notions on them. 232] but taking the ﬂow to be eﬀectively onedimensional. the potentials associated with “axial” and “polar” perturbations of Schwarzschild spacetime. 87 . 5.2. that quantum corrections to the classical behaviour of the system must make the conﬁguration with a sonic horizon dynamically unstable against Hawking emission. it must then be impossible to create an isolated truly stationary horizon by merely setting up external initial conditions and letting the system evolve by itself. although in the linear regime the dynamical behaviour of the acoustic system is similar to general relativity. and at the very least metastable. The dynamical tendency of the system to evolve is suggestively similar to that in the standard evaporation process of a black hole in semiclassical general relativity. given an approximately stationary. one would be able to produce. and that associated with scalar perturbations of the canonical acoustic black hole. can lead to the development of shocks. 5.) What are the eﬀects of the MDR on the dynamical stability of a blackholelike conﬁguration in a BEC? The stability of a sink conﬁguration in a BEC has been analysed in [231. a standard quantum mode analysis leads to the existence of Hawking radiation in the form of phonon emission.2 Semiclassical stability of the background (no MDR) Now. produce qualitatively the same behaviour: There is a series of damped quasinormal modes – proving the linear stability of the system – with higher and higher damping rates. by manipulating external forces. for the backreaction eﬀects that in a physical general relativity scenario cause the horizon to shrink or evaporate. in an analogue system a truly stationary horizon can be set up by providing an external power source to stabilise it against Hawking emission. there exist sets of perturbations that. Once again. These instabilities are associated basically with the bound states inside the black hole. Nevertheless. the healing length. among other things. an analogue system exhibiting precisely a stationary horizon and a stationary Hawking ﬂux. this is no longer true once one enters the nonlinear regime. The underlying nonlinear equations in the two cases are very diﬀerent. a situation completely absent in vacuum general relativity. independent of how small they are initially. a wonderful physical system that has MDR explicitly incorporated in its description is the Bose– Einstein condensate. in any system (analogue or general relativistic) with quantum ﬂuctuations that maintain strict adherence to the equivalence principle (no MDR). or shorter than. What these authors found is that these conﬁgurations are dynamically unstable: There are modes satisfying the appropriate boundary conditions such that the imaginary parts of their associated frequencies are positive.
4 Black holes. at any regime. are describable by the linearised Gross–Pitaevskii equation alone). Of course. 18. white holes. respectively). 5. in the form of MDR. corresponds to some sort of semiclassical vacuum gravity. a blackhole–whitehole in a straight line and the same in a ring (see Figures 17. At this point we would like to remark. In these analyses one looks for the presence or absence of 88 . one will have “quantum” instabilities. as the BEC does not fulﬁl. v x v(x) −c Figure 17: Onedimensional velocity proﬁle with a blackhole horizon. but probably not the simplest in terms of realizability in a real laboratory. then. 232. Its “classical” behaviour (in the sense that does not involve any probability notion) is already taking into account. 199]. • The macroscopic wave function of the BEC. without the restriction of being probed only at long wavelengths.• The “classical” longwavelength perturbations to a background solution of the Gross–Pitaevskii equation correspond to classical gravitational waves in GR. • The Bogoliubov quantum quasiparticles over the “classical” wave function correspond to a further step away from semiclassical gravity in that they are analogous to the existence of quantum gravitons over a (semiclassical) background spacetime. There are several classical instability analyses of these types of conﬁgurations in the literature [231. its underlying quantum origin. Here.2. that the analysis based on the evolution of a BEC has to be used with care. 386. For example. 29. 19 and 20. besides the sink type of conﬁgurations (these are the most similar to the standard description of black holes in general relativity. this analogy does not imply that these are spin 2 waves. 155. for an entire catalogue of them see [37]). • If the perturbations have “quantum seeds” (that is. they cannot directly serve to shed light on what happens in the ﬁnal stages of the evaporation of a black hole. once again. are described by the Bogoliubov equations). and rings In the light of the acoustic analogies it is natural to ask whether there are other geometric conﬁgurations with horizons of interest. one will have “classical” instabilities. it only points out that the perturbations are made from the same “substance” as the background conﬁguration itself. then. Summarizing: • If the perturbations to the BEC background conﬁguration have “classical seeds” (that is. a white hole with two asymptotic regions. the Einstein equations. let us mention four eﬀectively onedimensional conﬁgurations: a black hole with two asymptotic regions.
v x v(x)
−c
Figure 18: Onedimensional velocity proﬁle with a whitehole horizon.
v x v(x)
−c
Figure 19: Onedimensional velocity proﬁle with a blackhole horizon and a whitehole horizon.
x=−L/2
Periodically Identified v
x=L/2
x
v(x)
−c
Figure 20: Onedimensional velocity proﬁle in a ring; the ﬂuid ﬂow exhibits two sonic horizons, one of black hole type and the other of whitehole type.
89
modes with a positiveimaginarypart eigenfrequency, under certain appropriate boundary conditions. The boundary condition in each asymptotic region can be described as outgoing, as in quasinormal modes, or as convergent, meaning that at a particular instant of time the mode is exponentially damped towards the asymptotic region. Let us mention that in Lorentz invariant theory these two types of conditions are not independent: any unstable mode is at the same time both convergent and outgoing. However, in general, in dispersive theories, once the frequency is extended to the complex plane, these two types of conditions become, at least in principle, independent. Under outgoing and convergent boundary conditions in both asymptotic regions, in [29] it was concluded that there are no instabilities in any of the straight line (nonring) conﬁgurations. If one relaxed the convergence condition in the downstream asymptotic region, (the region that substitutes the unknown internal region, and so the region that might require a diﬀerent treatment for more realistic black hole conﬁgurations), then the black hole is still stable, while the white hole acquires a continuous region of instability, and the blackhole–whitehole conﬁguration shows up as a discrete set of unstable modes. The whitehole instability was previously identiﬁed in [386]. Let us mention here that the stable blackhole conﬁguration has been also analyzed in terms of stable or quasinormal modes in [30]. It was found that, although the particular conﬁgurations analyzed (containing idealised steplike discontinuities in the ﬂow) did not posses quasinormal modes in the acoustic approximation, the introduction of dispersion produced a continuous set of quasinormal modes at transPlanckian frequencies. Continuing with the analysis of instabilities, in contrast to [29], the more recent analysis in [155, 199] consider only convergent boundary conditions in both asymptotic regions. They argue that the ingoing contributions that these modes sometimes have always correspond to waves that do not carry energy, so that they have to be kept in the analysis, as their ingoing character should not be interpreted as an externallyprovoked instability25 . If this is conﬁrmed, then the appropriate boundary condition for instability analysis under dispersion would be just the convergent condition, as in nondispersive theories. Under these convergent conditions, the authors of [155, 199] show that the previouslyconsidered blackhole and whitehole conﬁgurations in BECs are stable. (Let us remark that this does not mean that conﬁgurations with a more complicated internal region need be stable.) However, blackhole–whitehole conﬁgurations do show a discrete spectrum of instabilities. In these papers, one can ﬁnd a detailed analysis of the strength of these instabilities, depending on the form and size of the intermediate supersonic region. For instance, it is necessary that the supersonic region acquire a minimum size so that the ﬁrst unstable mode appears. (This feature was also observed in [29].) When the previous mode analysis is used in the context of a quantum ﬁeld theory, as we mention in Section 5.1, one is led to the conclusion that blackhole–whitehole conﬁgurations emit particles in a selfampliﬁed (or runaway) manner [150, 155, 199]. Although related to Hawking’s process, this phenomenon has a quite diﬀerent nature. For example, there is no temperature associated with it. When the blackhole–whitehole conﬁguration is compactiﬁed in a ring, it is found that there are regions of stability and instability, depending on the parameters characterizing the conﬁguration [231, 232]. We suspect that the stability regions appear because of speciﬁc periodic arrangements of the modes around the ring. Among other reasons, these arrangements are interesting because they could be easier to create in the laboratory with current technology, and their instabilities easier to detect than Hawking radiation itself. To conclude this subsection, we would like to highlight that there is still much to be learned by studying the diﬀerent levels of description of an analogue system, and how they inﬂuence the stability or instability of conﬁgurations with horizons.
25
Personal communication by R. Parentani
90
5.3
Superradiance
Another phenomenon that has been (and is being) analysed from the analogue gravity perspective is superradiance. The rotational kinetic energy accumulated in a rotating black hole can be extracted from it by scattering into it waves of suﬃciently low frequency and high angular momentum. In general, in order that the wave can extract rotational energy from the system, it has to satisfy the condition ω < m Ω, (309)
where Ω is the angular speed of the black hole at the event horizon and m is the harmonic azimuthal number of the wave. This is a purely classical process ﬁrst considered by Penrose [499]. When dealing with quantum ﬁelds, as opposed to classical ﬁelds, this process can proceed spontaneously. Quantum mechanically, a rotating black hole will tend to radiate away all of its angular momentum, eventually approaching a nonrotating Schwarzschild black hole [696, 697]. This process is known as superradiance. (The term superradiance was already used in condensed matter to describe processes in which there was some coherent emission of radiation from an otherwise disordered system.) Again, these processes have a purely kinematical origin, so they are perfectly suitable for being reproduced in an analogue model. Regarding these processes, the simplest geometry that one can reproduce, thinking of analogue models based on ﬂuid ﬂows, is that of the draining bathtub of Section 2. Of course, this metric does not exactly correspond to Kerr geometry, nor even to a section of it [641, 633]. However, it is qualitatively similar. It can be used to simulate both Penrose’s classical process and quantum superradiance, as these eﬀects do not depend on the speciﬁc multipole decomposition of Kerr’s geometry, but only on its rotating character. A speciﬁc experimental setup has been put forward by Sch¨tzhold and Unruh using gravity waves in a u shallow basin mimicking an ideal draining bathtub [560]. Equivalent to what happens with Kerr black holes, this conﬁguration is classically stable in vacuum (in the linear regime) [69]. A word of caution is in order here: Interactions of the gravity surface waves with bulk waves (neglected in the analysis) could cause the system to become unstable [657]. This instability has no counterpart in standard general relativity (though it might have one in braneworld theories). Superresonant scattering of waves in this rotating sink conﬁguration, or in a simple purely rotating vortex, could in principle be observed in this and other analogue models. There are already several articles dealing with this problem [55, 57, 56, 112, 193, 392]. Most recently, see [524], where necessary and suﬃcient conditions for superradiance were investigated. A related phenomenon one can consider is the blackhole bomb mechanism [513]. One would only have to surround the rotating conﬁguration by a mirror for it to become grossly unstable. What causes the instability is that those ingoing waves that are ampliﬁed when reﬂected in the ergosphere would then in turn be reﬂected back toward the ergoregion, due to the exterior mirror, thus being ampliﬁed again, and so on. An interesting phenomenon that appears in many condensed matter systems is the existence of quantised vortices. The angular momentum of these vortices comes in multiples of some fundamental unit (typically or something proportional to ). The extraction of rotational energy by a Penrose process in these cases could only proceed via ﬁniteenergy transitions. This would supply an additional speciﬁc signature to the process. In such a highly quantum conﬁguration, it is also important to look for the eﬀect of having highenergy dispersion relations. For example, in BECs, the radius of the ergoregion of a single quantised vortex is on the order of the healing length, so one cannot directly associate an eﬀective Lorentzian geometry with this portion of the conﬁguration. Any analysis that neglects the highenergy terms is not going to give any sensible result in these cases.
91
423. 424. 406. In closing this section. it is quite easy to obtain a bimetric or multimetric model. and via external control of the scattering length using a Feshbach resonance. the only attempt to use analogue models in the reverse direction. Reversing the sign of the interaction. 269. 381. the condensate implodes and loses a sizable fraction of its atoms in the form of a “nova burst”. • Barcel´ et al.5. The phenomenon we are referring to is the “Bose nova” [175]. [85. 179. and Fedichev and Fischer [196] have focussed on the behaviour of cigarlike condensates in grosslyasymmetric traps. 343. 5.2. The condensate is rendered unstable by exploiting the possibility of tuning the interaction (more precisely the scattering length) between the atoms via a magnetic ﬁeld. 122. 600] where analoguelike ideas are applied to cosmological inﬂation). have undertaken both numerical [328] and general theoretical [677. rather than one.4 Cosmological particle production Analogue model techniques have also been applied to cosmology.4). Models considered to date focus on variants of the BECinspired analogues: • Fedichev and Fischer [195. then VSL cosmologies can be given a mathematically welldeﬁned and precise meaning [58. [46. 683] analyses of cosmological particle production in a BECbased FLRW universe. 380. and the very interesting question is the extent to which the formal predictions are going to be modiﬁed when working with real systems experimentally [47]. 487. 5. making it attractive. 459. is that birefringence can now be used to model “variable speed of light” (VSL) geometries [58. and 5. 47] have focussed on BECs and tried to mimic FLRW behaviour as closely o as possible. 588. In all of these models the general expectations of the relativity community have been borne out – the theory deﬁnitely predicts particle production. • Weinfurtner. 426. 84. This is an experiment dealing with a gas of a few million 85 Rb atoms at a temperature of about 3 nK. 88. condensedmatterphysics–inspired ideas about how to solve longstanding problems of semiclassical gravity. 5. analogue models have in the past been very useful in providing new. 87. Jain. so far. Since analogue models quite often lead to two or more “excitation cones”. • Weinfurtner [674. 90. that is to import wellknown concepts of semiclassical gravity into condensed matter frameworks. 589. 566. 89. 181]. 181].1. If left to evolve 92 .5 Bose novae: an example of the reverse ﬂow of information? As we have seen in the previous sections (5. 86. destabilises the condensate. it is interesting to brieﬂy discuss what perhaps represents. et al. 675] has concentrated on the approximate simulation of de Sitter spacetimes. If one of these metrics is interpreted as the “gravitational” metric and the other as the “photon” metric. • Fischer and Sch¨tzhold [206] propose the use of twocomponent BECs to simulate cosmic u inﬂation. An interesting sideeﬀect of the original investigation. After a brief waiting time (generally called tcollapse ). both via free expansion. 297. We expect that these analogue models provide us with new insights as to how their inherent modiﬁeddispersion relations aﬀect cosmological processes such as the generation of a primordial spectrum of perturbations (see. 425.3. 587. • Lidsey [403]. 296. both in expanding BECs. 194] have investigated WKB estimates of the cosmological particle production rate and (1+1) dimensional cosmologies. for example. 460. 458.
an elegant explanation of such a phenomenology was proposed in [105. In fact. 5. while modes with higher frequencies remain basically unaﬀected and their amplitudes obey a harmonic oscillator equation. or more properly. if the condensate interaction is again made repulsive after some time tevolve . are those for which the physical frequency is smaller than the collapse rate. although in reality they are bending around the invisible compact region. This is not so surprising as the quantum excitations above the BEC ground state feel a timevarying background during the collapse. where they could be used to lend ideas and techniques developed in the context of gravitational physics to the explanation of condensed matter phenomena. However. One then obtains a diﬀerent representation gµν (x) of the ﬂat geometry. and. one needs to ensure that light rays (beyond geometric optics it is impossible to produce perfect invisibility [449. more and more modes stop growing and start oscillating. By construction. before the condensate has suﬃcient time to stabilise. 106] primarily shows a possible new application of analogue models. 106] a key role in explaining the observed burst and jets is played by the concepts of “frozen” versus “oscillating” modes – borrowed from cosmology – (although with a reverse dynamics with respect to the standard (expanding) cosmological case). 498. which is equivalent to a creation of particles from the quantum vacuum. which are ampliﬁed. To end this brief account we would like to highlight the broad scope of application of these ideas: Essentially the cloaking techniques can be applied to any sort of wave. As the collapse rate decreases. ηµν . the analogy is even deeper than this. the analysis presented in [105. low observability has been a matter of extensive study for decades. which are characteristic of quantum ﬁeld theory in variable external ﬁelds. then the formation of “jets” of atoms is observed. Although this simple model cannot explain all the details of the Bose novae phenomenology. 387]. With the appearance of a technology capable of producing and controlling metamaterials and plasmonic structures [3]. all of the previously growing modes are suddenly converted into particles. based on the wellknown semiclassical gravity analysis of particle creation in an expanding universe. precisely. cloaking is becoming a real possibility. which is diﬀerent from the identity only inside the compact region. not a particular region [439]. as a consequence. in [105. To achieve cloaking. these jets being characterised by lower kinetic energy and a distinct shape with respect to the burst emission. to make rays propagate in Minkowski spacetime but using nonCartesian coordinates. Take the Minkowski metric in some Cartesian coordinates x′ . and apply a diﬀeomorphism.6 Romulan cloaking devices A wonderful application of analogue gravity techniques is the design of cloaking devices [385. In the case of a sudden stop of the collapse by a new reversal of the sign of the interaction. 106]. explaining in this way the generation of jets and their lower energy (they correspond to modes with lower frequencies with respect to those generating the bursts). the scattering process with the compact region will not change the directions of the rays. we think it is remarkable how far it can go in explaining several observed features by exploiting the language and techniques so familiar to quantum cosmology. 690]) eﬀectively behave as if they were propagating in Minkowski spacetime. making everything within the compact region invisible. Now take the x to be the Cartesian coordinates of the real laboratory spacetime. the number of atoms in the burst stabilises and a remnant condensate is left. one then expects squeezing of the vacuum state and mode mixing. Interestingly. Recent implementations of these ideas have investigated the concept of a “spacetime cloak” or “history editor” that cloaks a particular event. the dynamics of quantum excitations over the collapsing BEC were shown to closely mimic that for quantum excitations in a timereversed (collapsing instead of expanding) scenario for cosmological particle creation. One way of producing this is. In this sense. In the case of Bose novae. the modes. In fact. How to achieve invisibility. and build this metric with the metamaterial. However.undisturbed. from acoustic cloaking [133] 93 .
94 . one might adapt the ideas of Berry [67. 308]. and with enough civil engineering. 5. 68] to antitsunami cloaking. and one should carefully check SPIRES (or the beta version of INSPIRE) for the most recent articles. For superradiance and cosmological issues (especially particle production) there seems to be considerable ongoing interest.to earthquake damage prevention [192].7 Going further For more details on the transPlanckian problem. More radically. some of the key papers are the relatively early papers of Unruh [608] and Jacobson [307.
1. water basins are relatively cheap and easy to construct and handle. produced by a piston) against a ﬂuid ﬂow produced by a pump. Here we report a brief list of the ongoing eﬀorts. (In the engineering and ﬂuid mechanics literature this eﬀect is typically referred to as “wave blocking”. There are very recent claims of photon detection from a phase velocity horizon in an optical ﬁbre [66]. 1.) For incident waves moving against the ﬂow it would be impossible to cross such a horizon. France [532] and Vancouver. This stimulated Hawking emission is a classical eﬀect that (via the usual discussion in terms of Einstein A and B coeﬃcients) is rather closely related to spontaneous quantum Hawking emission. The simplest setup with such a device is to send water waves (e. There is already deﬁnite evidence for mode conversion and negativenorm modes (group velocity opposite to phase velocity) [532]. In particular. performed under the auspices of the gravitation theory group (Physics) and the ﬂuid mechanics group (Civil Engineering) at the University of British Columbia.. (as described in Sections 4.3.1 Wave tank experiments As we have seen. Canada [682]. and additional details will soon be available in planned followup articles. 6. a ramp is placed in the water. and for whitehole–like behaviour in hydraulic jumps [334]. and more recently for stimulated Hawking emission [682]. [17]. 95 .3 and 4.) Experimentally. waves in shallow water can be considered to be a particularly simple analogue gravity system. It seems that reliable and reproducible experimental probes of spontaneous quantum Hawking radiation might be just a few years in the future. such technology underlay the 1983 work of Badulin et al. with positive and negative slopes separated by a ﬂat section. The Nice experiments have been carried out using a large wavetank 30 m long. in 2007 Rousseaux et al.) Remarkably. wave tanks or wave ﬂumes) have acquired a prominent role in recent years.8 m wide and 1. converted from positivefrequency waves in a moving medium. and in the sense that the system is the analogue of a whitehole horizon. A related experiment. the time reversal of a blackhole horizon.8 m deep.g. In particular. [17]).1. and such wave tanks are currently used by groups in Nice. When a train of waves is sent against the reverse ﬂuid ﬂow there will be a place where the ﬂow speed equals the group velocity of the waves – there a group velocity horizon will be created. shallow water basins (more precisely. (310) α2 gH /cH More details of the experimental setup can be found in [682]. (See Section 4. with a smaller water basin.4 and possibly implicit in the results of Badulin et al. The same group has now set up a more compact experiment based on the hydraulic jump. (Remember that in the shallowwater regime the low momentum comoving dispersion relation for surface water waves is ω 2 = gk tanh(kh) where g denotes the gravitational acceleration of the Earth at the water surface and h is the height of the channel. A central result of the Weinfurtner et al. To generate a waterwave horizon.6 Experimental eﬀorts In recent years several eﬀorts towards the detection of analogue Hawking radiation have been carried out with diﬀerent physical systems. albeit the degree of mode conversion appears to be signiﬁcantly higher than that expected from theory. group is that the relevant Bogoliubov coefﬁcients have been experimentally measured and are observed to satisfy the expected Boltzmann relation 2πω β2 = exp − . wherein measurements of the “Froude cones” convincingly demonstrate the presence of a surfacewave white hole [334]. has recently (August 2010) reported the detection of stimulated Hawking emission [682]. [532] reported the ﬁrst direct observation of negativefrequency waves.1.
(Lower temperatures for the condensate permit longerwavelength characteristic Hawking quanta. a sonic horizon was achieved by a counterintuitive eﬀect of “density inversion”.2 we brieﬂy described an analogue model based on the ripplons in the surface separating two diﬀerentiallymoving superﬂuids. 6.) However. In particular. the refractive index of the ﬁbre.20 – 0. Given that 8 ms would correspond to one cycle of 6 nK Hawking radiation. The density inversion is achieved by overlapping a lowfrequency (broad) harmonic potential and a highfrequency (narrow) Gaussian potential generated via an elongated laser. The Hawking radiation predicted for the system as realised has a temperature of about 0. In this manner a sonic black hole was generated. These interphases are being produced in Helsinki’s Low Temperature Lab [76. The nature of the instability in these experiments is controlled by the diﬀerence in velocities between the normal and superﬂuid components of the ﬂow. These instabilities are related to the appearance of an ergoregion in the analogue metric for ripplons and to the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability [657].2 Bose–Einstein condensate experiments We have already extensively discussed the theoretical aspects of BoseEinsteincondensate–based analogue models. 476]. are being investigated. In particular.3 Diﬀerentiallyrotating ﬂows in superﬂuid helium At the end of Section 4. 228. This low density region corresponds to a slowerthannormal speed of sound. in which a deep potential minimum creates a region of low density. x). it appears that increases in TH together with amelioration of the lifetime of the sonic black hole might put the detection of the analogue spontaneous quantum Hawking eﬀect within experimental reach (via correlation experiments) in the near future.35 nK. generated with a suitable laser. and the nature of these instabilities. higher densities could allow one to increase the Hawking temperature.and positiondependent correction δn. However. The wavefront at which this change in the refractive index occurs will move naturally at a speed close to the speed of light (and ﬁbre 96 . 505]. So there is a tradeoﬀ between Hawking temperature and physical size of the condensate. The ABinterphase is prepared in a small quartz cylinder (3 mm radius times 11 cm long) inside a rotating cryostat. 201. 539. 232] as well as Lavalnozzle– shaped traps [48. commonly proposed settings are long thin condensates in a linear or circular trap [231. The 3 HeA is rotating with the cryostat while the 3 HeB remains at rest with respect to the lab.6. 202]. one order of magnitude smaller than the lowest temperature allowed by the size of the system. Regarding the actual experimental possibility of generating BECbased acoustic black holes. unfortunately.2. and kept stable for about 8 ms. this has been the ﬁrst time that the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability has been observed in superﬂuids [76]. in particular an ABinterphase in 3 He. 77. in this setting the critical values at which instabilities appear as functions of the temperature.4 Fibreoptic models A recent implementation of analogue models based on electrodynamics is that based on ﬁbreoptic engineering [504. several options have been envisaged in the literature. and TH ≈ a few nK seems within experimental reach. which must still ﬁt into the condensate. It still remains to further lower the ambient temperature so as to probe the nature of the instabilities in the absence of any normal ﬂuid component. to create a propagating front at which the refractive index of the ﬁbre changes suddenly (albeit by a small amount). it is only very recently that an experiment aimed at the formation of a sonic black hole in a BEC has been set up. and the creation of a sonic horizon has been convincingly argued for [369]. In this case. Basically. n0 . Among other things. acquires a time. and hence to the possibility for the ﬂow speed to exceed the speed of sound and generate sonic horizons at the crossing points (where the speed of the ﬂow and that of sound coincide). δn ∝ I(t. 6. as would a potential maximum. The basic idea in this case is to use long dispersive light pulses (solitons). which is proportional to the instantaneous pulse intensity I at a give spacetime position.
This will be the equivalent of a blackhole horizon for the probe wave. the rear end of the pulse will act as a white hole for the probe wave. until the probe group velocity will match the pulse one. very recently Belgiorno et al. Similarly. Eﬀectively. have reported experimental detection of photons from a blackhole–whitehole conﬁguration possessing a “phase velocity horizon” [66]. it is then expected that the quantum counterpart should also be reproducible in this manner. If one now sends a continuous wave of light. and quantum eﬀects in analogue spacetimes. 505] the behaviour of the probe waves at the pulse was investigated. 97 . 64]. along the ﬁbre in such a manner that the probe group velocity in the ﬁbre is arranged to be slightly larger than the pulse group velocity. The underlying theory behind their speciﬁc experiment is considered in [63.optic engineering allows one to control this feature). and one should carefully check SPIRES (or the beta version of INSPIRE) for the most recent articles. Since this behaviour lies at the core of the mechanism responsible for the mode conversion underlying the Hawking eﬀect. there will be a point on the front side of the pulse where the two group velocities will match. and it was shown for the white hole case that the expected classical behaviour is theoretically reproduced. the increase in the refractive index will slow it down. 6. Indeed.5 Going further There seems to be considerable ongoing interest in experimental probes of analogue spacetimes. In [504. In fact. as the probe wave reaches the back of the pulse. what we might call a probe. then it will be possible to obtain horizonlike eﬀects.
the following topics come to mind as steps on a path towards a possible theory of Quantum Gravity: • Backreaction. The other two independent components of the 98 . Let us now expand on these issues a little. and then takes this expectation value as a source for the perturbed Einstein equations. 224. calculates the expectation value of the quantum energymomentum tensor of matter ﬁelds in the appropriate quantum state (the Unruh vacuum state for a radiating black hole). This calculation gives us information about the tendency of spacetime to evolve under vacuum polarization eﬀects. • Weinberg–Witten theorem. • Quantum gravity phenomenology. These authors started from an eﬀectively onedimensional acoustic analogue model. the tendency of the analogue geometry to evolve due to quantum eﬀects is formally equivalent (approximately. • Eﬀective spintwo excitations. • Diﬀeomorphism invariance. • The cosmological constant problem. 75. The blackhole evaporation process can be considered as paradigmatic among these phenomena. Some work has already been done dealing with these topics in the context of analogue gravity. 7. • Quantum gravity. Here.1 Backreaction There are important phenomena in gravitational physics whose understanding needs analysis well beyond classical general relativity and ﬁeld theory on (ﬁxed) curved background spacetimes. To calculate the appropriate backreaction terms they took advantage of the classical conformal invariance of the (1+1)dimensional reduction of the system. we know explicitly the form of the expectation value of the energymomentum tensor trace (via the trace anomaly). In particular. conﬁgured to have an acoustic horizon by using a Laval nozzle to control the ﬂow’s speed. Since we are currently unable to analyse the entire process of blackhole evaporation within a complete quantum theory of gravity. 25]. Therefore. we conﬁne our discussion to this case. A nice feature of analogue models of general relativity is that. [166. One takes a background blackhole spacetime. In this case. They then considered the eﬀect of quantizing the acoustic waves over the background ﬂow. it is natural to explore whether the analogue gravity programme could be extended to the point of yielding a theory of “Quantum Gravity”. although the underlying classical equations of motion have nothing to do with Einstein equations. 431]). a way of proceeding is to analyse the simpler (but still extremely diﬃcult) problem of semiclassical backreaction (see. of course) to that in semiclassical general relativity. • Equivalence principle.7 Towards a Theory of Quantum Gravity? The key question one should ask at this stage is this: “Where can we go from here?” Apart from continuing with the analysis of the issues described in the previous two sections. An example of the type of backreaction calculations one can perform are those in [23. for example. • Emergent gravity. 137. 95. the onset of the backreaction eﬀects (if not their precise details) can be simulated within the class of analogue models.
analogue spacetimes generally lead to refringence – that is the occurrence of Fresnel equations that often imply multiple propagation speeds for distinct normal modes.2 Equivalence principle Analogue models are of particular interest in that the analogue spacetimes that emerge often violate. (However. This stochastic gravity approach not only considers the expectation value of the energymomentum tensor but also its ﬂuctuations. This is the heart and soul of any metric theory of gravity and is basically the requirement of the universality of free fall. rather than to Schwarzschild black holes. 7. one would have to compare the eﬀects caused by the modiﬁed dispersion relations to those caused by pure semiclassical backreaction (which incorporates deviations from standard general relativity as well). we would like to comment that one can go beyond the semiclassical backreaction scheme by using the stochastic semiclassical gravity programme [298. in general. to some extent. 638]. If one further wishes to impose monometricity. In seeking a semiclassical description for the evolution of the geometry. then the Fresnel equation must be some integer power of some single quadratic expression. if all excitations “see” the same geometry. In a metric theory. In this way. This result is quite o speciﬁc to the particular onedimensional conﬁguration analysed. one would have to understand the diﬀerences between the standard backreaction scheme in general relativity. Whatever the spacetime geometrical structure is. But with multiple degrees of freedom. For example. If one is dealing with a single degree of freedom. This is a behaviour similar to what is found for nearextremal Reissner–Nordstr¨m black holes. they aﬀect the “classical” behaviour of the background geometry as much as the behaviour of the quantum ﬁelds living on the background. Faced with this situation. Now it is this feature that is relatively diﬃcult to arrange in analogue models. more generally.energymomentum tensor were approximated by the Polyakov stress tensor. Only if this algebraic constraint is satisﬁed can one assign a “metric” to each of the quadratic factors. 638]. then monometricity is no great constraint. In a very interesting paper [490]. an even stronger algebraic statement [45.) Can we expect to learn something new about gravitational physics by analysing the problem of backreaction in diﬀerent analogue models? As we have repeatedly commented. a multimetric model). the Einstein equivalence principle [45. and that based on Equations (229) and (230). encoded in the semiclassical Einstein–Langevin equation. Parentani showed that the eﬀects of the ﬂuctuations of the metric (due to the ingoing ﬂux of energy at the horizon) on the outgoing radiation led to a description of Hawking radiation similar to that obtained with analogue models. one is well on the way to satisfying the observational and experimental constraints. In other words. As such. the analyses based on analogue models force us to consider the eﬀects of modiﬁed highenergy dispersion relations. It would be interesting to develop the equivalent formalism for quantum analogue models and to investigate the diﬀerent emerging approximate regimes. what they found is that the tendency of a leftmoving ﬂow with one horizon is for it to evolve in such a manner as to push the horizon downstream at the same time that its surface gravity is decreased. 302]. in BECs. there are two ways in which the analogue gravity community might proceed: 99 . 301. closely related to nearextremal Reissner–Nordstr¨m black holes. the Einstein equivalence principle is a “principle of universality” for the geometrical structure of spacetime. requires an algebraic constraint on the Fresnel equation that it completely factorises into a product of quadratics in frequency and wavenumber. this amounts to the demand of monometricity: A single universal metric must govern the propagation of all excitations. To end this subsection. To even obtain a bimetric model (or. plus local Lorentz invariance and local position invariance of nongravitational experiments. This programme aims to pave the way from semiclassical gravity toward a complete quantumgravitational description of gravitational phenomena. o we should not conclude that acoustic black holes are.
and timedependent) aether 4velocity V a . 180. While the analogue models are not themselves primary physics. But one can then rewrite this dispersion relation (in the eikonal approximation) as −(V a ∂a )2 + f ([g ab + V a V b ]∂a ∂b ) Ψ(x) = 0. This procedure allows us to take a quantity that is manifestly not Lorentz invariant.3 Nontrivial dispersion as Einsteinaether theory There is a certain precise sense in which nontrivial dispersion relations can eﬀectively be viewed as implicitly introducing an “aether ﬁeld”. Little work along these lines has yet been done. 314]. In this case one has to provide the aether ﬁeld with a suitable dynamics. 100 . shed light on other branches of physics.4). Of course. 219. 314]. 180. the dispersion relation ω 2 = f (k 2 ). even a Lorentz breaking one. g ab ∂a ∂b + j([g ab + V a V b ]∂a ∂b ) Ψ(x) = 0. and indeed as a way of “breaking” even more fundamental symmetries and features of standard general relativity. As long as the background is slowly varying. using f (w) = j(w) + w. That is. • Use the refringence that occurs in many analogue models as a way of “breaking” the Einstein equivalence principle. 2. this can be rewritten as: [∆d+1 + j(∆d )] Ψ(x) = 0. we can then rephrase much of the analogue gravity discussion in the presence of nontrivial dispersion relations in terms of a variant of the Einsteinaether models [323. 7. Try to ﬁnd a broad class of analogue models (either physically based or mathematically idealised) that naturally lead to monometricity. Though situations of this type are not directly relevant to the gravity community. However. in a gravitation theory context one might still want to require background independence taking it as a fundamental property of any gravity theory. 219. Accept refringence as a common feature of the analogue models and attempt to use refringence to ones beneﬁt in one or more ways: • There are real physical phenomena in nongravitational settings that deﬁnitely do exhibit refringence and sometimes multimetricity. with a view to exploring possible extensions of general relativity.1. and then assert ω 2 = f (k 2 ) in this rest frame. in standard analogue models such an aether ﬁeld does not come with its own dynamics: It is a background structure which breaks the physicallyrelevant content of what is usually called diﬀeomorphism invariance (see next section 7. there is signiﬁcant hope that the mathematical and geometrical tools used by the general relativity community might in these situations. they can nevertheless be used as a way of providing hints as to how more fundamental physics might work. in the sense of providing a kinematic (but not dynamic) implementation of Einsteinaether theory [323. and nevertheless “covariantise” it via the introduction of new structure — a locally speciﬁed preferred frame deﬁned by the (possibly position. at least partially because it is not clear what features such a model should have in order to be “clean” and “compelling”. The point is that to deﬁne nontrivial dispersion one needs to pick a rest frame V a . (313) (312) (311) with ∆d+1 = g ab ∇a ∇b and with the aether ﬁeld V a hiding in the deﬁnition of the spatial Laplacian ∆d = [g ab +V a V b ]∇a ∇b .
) The argument is the same for curved spacetimes. the internal observer would have no way to detect the “absolute” or ﬁxed background. 694] for abstract quantum systems based on the underlying notion of qubits.e. these works indicate the possible existence of systems exhibiting purely helicity ±2 excitations. those observers who can only perform (lowenergy) experiments involving the propagation of the relativistic collective ﬁelds. the dynamics of this geometry is a diﬀerent issue. [256]. 7. see. By revisiting classic Lorentz– FitzGerald ideas on length contraction. Thus. if all the degrees of freedom contained in the metric had a physical role.e.. it has been explicitly shown in [36] that (lowenergy) Lorentz invariance is not broken. 101 . i. These internal observers will then have no way to collect any metric information beyond what is coded into the intrinsic geometry (i. a condensedmatter–like system) that still exhibit in their lowenergy spectrum eﬀective massless spintwo excitations. It is a wellknown issue that the expected relativistic dynamics.. Indeed. This naturally raises the question of whether or not diﬀeomorphism invariance is lost in the analogue spacetime construction. 693. (For earlier suggestions along these lines. One crucial ingredient in these constructions is the existence of a speciﬁc vacuum state with the characteristics of a stringnet condensate.. Although not fully conclusive. Internal observers would be able to write down diﬀeomorphism invariant Lagrangians for relativistic matter ﬁelds in a curved geometry. then diﬀeomorphism invariance would be violated. i. These authors also show that it is not easy to have just helicity ±2 excitations – typically one would also generate helicity ±1 and massless scalar excitations. However. So the apparent background dependence provided by the (nonrelativistic) condensedmatter system will not violate active diﬀeomorphism invariance.4 Diﬀeomorphism invariance When looking at the analogue metrics one problem immediately comes to mind. i. This precise question has been investigated in [262.. have to date not been reproduced in any known condensedmatter system. which will be described below.5 Eﬀective spintwo particles Related to the previous point is the possibility of having quantum systems with no pregeometric notions whatsoever (i. in the emergent gravity scenario inspired in the phenomenology of 3 He. The answer to this question is that active diﬀeomorphism invariance is maintained but only for (lowenergy) internal observers. for instance. [400] and [660]. that an internal observer cannot detect his absolute state of motion. and analyzing the Michelson–Morley experiment in this context. This is what would happen. at least not for these internal inhabitants. The laboratory in which the condensedmatter system is set up provides a privileged coordinate system. Here we are thinking of “active” diﬀeomorphisms.e.e. See. as opposed to what happens in a general relativistic context in which only the geometrical degrees of freedom (metric modulo diﬀeomorphism gauge) are physical. Invariance under active diﬀeomorphisms is equivalent to the assertion that there is no “prior geometry” (or that the prior geometry is undetectable).e. one is not really reproducing a geometrical conﬁguration but only a speciﬁc metrical representation of it. for example. As is well known. not “passive” diﬀeomorphisms (coordinate changes).7. Many readers may prefer to rephrase the current discussion in terms of the undetectability of prior structure. the Einstein equations.. they only get metric information up to a gauge or diﬀeomorphism equivalence factor). 263. for instance. any theory can be made invariant under passive diﬀeomorphisms (coordinate changes) by adding a suﬃcient number of external/background/nondynamical ﬁelds (prior structure).
to investigate quantum ﬂuctuations of the eﬀective geometry (gravitons). That is: The Weinberg–Witten theorem has no direct application to analogue spacetimes – at the kinematic level it has nothing to say. there are acceptable theories that have massless charged particles with spin j > 1/2 (such as the massless version of the original Yang–Mills theory). and the ways in which it may be evaded. it is plausible (even though no speciﬁc and compelling model of the relevant microphysics has yet emerged) that the spacetime manifold and spacetime metric might arise only once one averages over suitable microphysical degrees of freedom. the powerful second part of the theorem becomes empty in the presence of gravity . respectively. The word “fundamental” is here used in a rather technical sense – ﬂuid mechanics is not fundamental because there is a known underlying microphysics. that gravity (and in particular the whole notion of spacetime and spacetime geometry) might be no more “fundamental” than is ﬂuid dynamics. typically attributed to Sakharov [540. desiring. that gravity itself may not be “fundamental physics”. Finally we mention that. for instance. . maybe not mainstream but deﬁnitely a strong minority opinion. 366. all analogue experiments probing the Hawking eﬀect or cosmological particle production.6 Weinberg–Witten theorem The Weinberg–Witten theorem [673] has often been interpreted as an insurmountable obstacle for obtaining massless spintwo excitations as eﬀective degrees of freedom emerging from any reasonable underlying quantum ﬁeld theory. Our theorem does not apply to these theories because they do not have Lorentzcovariant conserved currents or energymomentum tensors. (This includes. which are so central to the Euler and continuity equations. 7. though motivated by quite diﬀerent concerns. 404]. . Indeed. 102 . Indeed it is now a relatively common opinion. However. 212. Note particularly the comment by Kubo [366] . For careful discussions of the technical assumptions see [596. the review article [61] gives a good overview of the Weinberg–Witten theorem. then one should bear in mind that the Weinberg–Witten theorem is derived under speciﬁc technical assumptions (strict Lorentz invariance in ﬂat spacetime) that are not applicable in the current context. 628]. . the theorem dearly does not apply to theories in which the gravitational ﬁeld is a basic degree of freedom but the Einstein action is induced by quantum eﬀects. make no sense at the microphysical level and emerge only as one averages over timescales and distancescales larger than the mean free time and mean free path. . First. and also theories that have massless particles with spin j > 1 (such as supersymmetry theories or general relativity). In the same way.7 Emergent gravity One of the more fascinating approaches to “quantum gravity” is the suggestion. for instance. of which ﬂuid mechanics is only the lowenergy lowmomentum limit. Furthermore. at the dynamic level its applicability is rather limited by the stringent technical assumptions invoked – speciﬁcally exact Lorentz invariance at all scales – and the fact that these technical assumptions are not applicable in the current context. then the Weinberg–Witten theorem has nothing to say. the status of the Weinberg–Witten theorem [673] insofar as it applies to analogue models is rather subtle. these are purely kinematic experiments that do not probe the dynamics of the eﬀective spacetime. when it comes to Sakharovstyle induced gravity those authors explicitly state [673]: However. even if the speciﬁc technical assumptions are satisﬁed.7. that of molecular dynamics. note that whenever one’s main concern is in developing an analogue spacetime at the purely kinematic level of an eﬀective metric. the very concepts of density and velocity ﬁeld.) When one turns to the dynamics of the eﬀective spacetime. then those authors state [673]: Of course. Furthermore.
For a particular Fermi point. the electromagnetic and gravitational ﬁelds encode. This can only be assured if EL ≫ EB . Unfortunately. that is. There are additional relevant scales in these systems. as at that energy scale the geometrical picture based on the bosonic condensate disappears. That is why from now on we can called EB alternatively the Planck energy scale EP ≡ EB . but in this section we are going to talk exclusively of these two. The possible emergence of gravitational dynamics in the context of a condensedmatter system has also been investigated for BECs [252. Special relativity dominance or EL ≫ EP : The EP dependence of the gravitational coupling constant tells us that the ﬂuctuations that are more relevant in producing the Einstein– Hilbert term are those with energies close to the cutoﬀ. It has been shown that. Thus. one obtains a oneloop eﬀective action for the geometric ﬁeld. one also needs the induced dynamical term to dominate over the preexisting treelevel contribution (if any). Therefore. −gR. In helium three the opposite happens: EB ≫ EL . nor in any known condensedmatter system.2. the diﬀerent bosons appearing in the systems condense so that they can exhibit collective behaviour. one can describe the system as a set of Weyl spinors coupled to background electromagnetic and gravitational ﬁelds. EL . The √ 2 term −gR will appear multiplied by a constant proportional to EB . This integration cannot be extended beyond EB . around the Planck scale. but of ﬂuidmechanical type. At energies below EB . is the Lorentz scale at which the quasiparticles of the system start to behave relativistically (as Weyl spinors). EB will be the cutoﬀ of the integration. starting from abstract systems of PDFs with a priori no geometrical 103 . EL > EB : For the induction mechanics to give rise to an Einstein–Hilbert term. to assure the induction of an Einstein–Hilbert term one needs the Fermionic ﬂuctuation with energies close to the Planck scale to be perfectly Lorentzian to a high degree. Both electromagnetic and gravitational ﬁelds are built from bosonic degrees of freedom. This scale marks the onset of the superﬂuid behaviour of helium three.8 One speciﬁc route to the Einstein equations? In fact. Therefore. in the eﬀective Lagrangian we have to be sure that the ﬂuctuating Fermionic ﬁeld “feels” the geometry (fulﬁlling a locallyLorentzinvariant equation) at all scales up to the cutoﬀ. what we have called specialrelativity dominance is not implemented in helium three. which have condensed. and so it is completely nonrelativistic. Volovik [660]. Apart from any predetermined dynamics. respectively.7. Now. 3. 2 2. giving place to a short range interaction (on the order of the healing length). As we mention in section 4. we need three conditions (which we shall see immediately are really just two): √ 1. However. its position and its “lightcone” structure through space and time. The other energy scale. the dynamics of the gravitational degrees of freedom is nonrelativistic but of ﬂuidmechanical type. Sakharov oneloop dominance: Finally. to be added to the treelevel contribution (if any). the dynamics of the gravitational degrees of freedom is not Einstein. these bosonic ﬁelds will acquire additional dynamical properties through the Sakharovinduced gravity mechanism. It is in the immediate surroundings of these Fermi points where the relativistic behaviour shows up. 571]. one obtains a modiﬁed Poisson equation. When one is below both energy scales. there is a speciﬁc route to reproduce Einstein equations within a Fermiliquidlike system advocated by G. there exist two important energy scales. One is the energy scale EB at which bosonization in the system start to develop. for the simple gravitational dynamics in these systems. In a Fermi liquid like 3 HeA phase.2 discussing the “heliocentric universe” this occurs in the 3 HeA phase because the vacuum has Fermi points. in order that the geometrical degrees of freedom follows an Einstein dynamics. Integrating out the eﬀect of quantum ﬂuctuations in the Fermionic ﬁelds ` a la Sakharov. That is.
If the temperature is not zero there will be a pressure pM associated with the thermal distribution of quasiparticles. 7. (at least for the current epoch). there are already a number of heuristic investigations about how a vacuum energy could dynamically adapt to the evolution of the matter content. the phrase “emergent gravity” is now used to describe the whole class of theories in which the spacetime metric arises as a lowenergy approximation. 681]. depending on the microscopic characteristics of the system we can have quite diﬀerent situations. 584. with the possibility of driving the Lorentz breaking scale arbitrarily high [585. the emergence of Nordstr¨m spin0 gravity has been shown to be possible [253]. In this sense the Hoˇava models are a useful antidote to the r usual feeling that Lorentz violation is typically Planckscale. and in particular analogue models based on ﬂuid mechanics or the ﬂuid dynamic approximation to BECs. it is remarkable that it matches its order of magnitude. In particular in [198] it was shown that the relevant quantity entering the analogue of the cosmological constant is a contribution coming only from the excitations above the condensate. at zero temperature. In this way. are speciﬁc 104 . However. Then. and where gravity was “induced” via oneloop physics in the matter sector [540. this o is relativistic though not Einstein. 288. and need not be r emergent [287. Additionally.information. Their total internal pressure at equilibrium is (modulo ﬁnitesize eﬀects) always zero. This contribution would depend on 4 the cutoﬀ as EP . In counterpoint. it also gives rise to a cosmological term. 7. More generally. the total cosmological term Λ ∝ ρV = −pV will be 4 automatically forced to be (relatively) small. so if there were not additional contributions counterbalancing this term. and in which the microphysical degrees of freedom might be radically diﬀerent. and not a large number.9 The cosmological constant problem The condensed matter analogies oﬀer us an important lesson concerning the cosmological constant problem [660]. and which implications it could have for the evolution of the universe [27. 635. 289]. Analogue models. This value is not expected to match exactly the preferred value of Λ obtained in the standard cosmological model (ΛCDM) as we are certain to be out of thermodynamic equilibrium. at equilibrium one will have pM + pV = 0.10 Other pieces of the puzzle Sakharov had in mind a speciﬁc model in which gravity could be viewed as an “elasticity” of the spacetime medium. which constitute the matter ﬁeld of the system. 628]. so that there will be a small vacuum energy Λ ∝ pM . Guided by these lessons. liquid systems (as opposed to gases) can remain stable on their own. However. emergent gravity in condensedmatterlike systems will always give place to an enormous cosmological constant inducing a stronglyrepulsive force between quasiparticles. Remarkably. 350. 349. in Hoˇava gravity the graviton appears to be fundamental. As ﬁnal cautionary remark let us add that consideration of an explicit toy model for emergent gravity [252] shows that the quantity that actually gravitates cannot be so easily predicted without an explicit derivation of the analogue gravitational equations. if gravity emerges from a liquidlike system. the Lorentz breaking scale and the Planck scale are in this class of models distinct and unconnected. without requiring any external pressure. we know that at low temperatures. Sakharov had hoped to relate the observed value of Newton’s constant (and the cosmological constant) to the spectrum of particle masses. 351]. The EP contribution coming from quasiparticle ﬂuctuations will be exactly balanced by contributions from the microphysics or “transPlanckian” contributions. This implies that. albeit any dynamical model implementing this idea will probably have to do so only at late times to avoid possible tension with the observational data. Sakharov’s induced gravity not only can give rise to an Einstein–Hilbert term under certain conditions.
As such.examples of “emergent physics” in which the microphysics is well understood. 105 . they are useful for providing hints as to how such a procedure might work in a more fundamental theory of quantum gravity.
one is searching for a mathematical framework in which to develop an abstract quantum theory which then itself encompasses classical Einstein gravity (the general relativity). the analogue models provide us with hints as to what sort of modiﬁed dispersion relation might be natural to expect given some general characteristics of the microscopic physics. The “string”. 106 . an investigation of appropriate analogue models might be able to illuminate possible mechanisms leading to this kind of quantum gravity phenomenology. 141.26 Thus. The key point is that at low energies (well below the Planck energy) one expects the locallyMinkowskian structure of the spacetime manifold to guarantee that one sees only special relativistic eﬀects. Several of the analogue models are known to exhibit similar behaviour. 182] to brane worlds [99] and loop quantum gravity [229]. “string models” (also known as “Mmodels”). The discreteness of spacetime at short scales is not the only way of breaking Lorentz invariance. The basic idea is that the mooted replacement for diﬀerential geometry would be relevant at extremely small distances (where the quantum aspects of the theory would be expected to dominate). The three main approaches to quantum gravity currently in vogue. as ultrahigh energies are approached (although still below Planckscale energies) several quantumgravity models seem to predict that the locally Euclidean geometry of the spacetime manifold will break down. the last years have seen a large wealth of work in testing the eﬀects of such dispersion relations and in particular strong constraints have been cast by making use of high energy astrophysics observations (see. 321]. 221]. There are several scenarios for the origin of this breakdown ranging from string theory [360. 533. 534. 507]. some of the analogue models provide controlled theoretical laboratories in which at least some forms of subtle highmomentum breakdown of Lorentz invariance can be explored. The search for a quantum theory of gravity is fundamentally a search for an appropriate mathematical structure in which to simultaneously phrase both quantum questions and gravitational questions. 318. However. As such. 580. 7. Remarkably.11 Quantum gravity – phenomenology Over the last few years a widespread consensus has emerged that observational tests of quantum gravity are for the foreseeable future likely to be limited to precision tests of dispersion relations and their possible deviations from Lorentz invariance [435. and so might be able to provide us with new ideas about other eﬀects of physical quantum gravity that might be observable at subPlanckian energies. for example. More precisely. 317. with a lowmomentum eﬀective Lorentz invariance eventually breaking down at high momentum once the microphysics is explored. “loop”. 435. 579. and reduces to it in an appropriate limit [113. Hopefully. 396] and references therein).12 Quantum gravity – fundamental models When it comes to dealing with “fundamental” theories of quantum gravity. Common to all such scenarios is that the microscopic structure of spacetime is likely to show up in the form of a violation of Lorentz invariance leading to modiﬁed dispersion relations for elementary particles.7. the analogue models play an interesting role which is complementary to the more standard approaches. which are generally expected to be suppressed by powers of the Planck energy. 83. it is important to keep in mind that not all the abovecited quantum gravity models violate the Lorentz symmetry in the same manner. [6. 319. “loop space” (and the related “spin foams”). while at larger distances (where the classical aspects dominate) one would hope to recover both ordinary diﬀerential geometry and speciﬁcally Einstein gravity or possibly some generalization of it. 580. and 26 However. 321. 320. 221. Such dispersion relations are characterised by extra terms (with respect to the standard relativistic form). general relativistic eﬀects are negligible at short distances. and “lattice models” (Euclidean or Lorentzian) all share one feature: They attempt to develop a “pregeometry” as a replacement for classical diﬀerential geometry (which is the natural and very successful mathematical language used to describe Einstein gravity) [113.
A recent (Jan. there is a welldeﬁned manner in which a notion of “Lorentzian diﬀerential geometry”. 532. if any. once one is in the continuum limit. where. 635. the “analogue gravity programme” is extremely successful in this regard. and additionally shares with most of the analogue spacetimes the presence of modiﬁed dispersion relations and highenergy deviations from Lorentz invariance [287. 288. and so obtain rather diﬀerent shortdistance replacements for classical diﬀerential geometry. Indeed. and by and large not particularly well understood. While the consensus in the theoretical community is that Bose–Einstein condensates are likely to provide the best working model for analogue gravity. 289. and in particular a “Lorentzian eﬀective spacetime metric” can be assigned to any particular ﬂuid ﬂow [607. We leave this as an open challenge to the experimental community. a BECbased experiment [369]. not an end in itself. 470]. 7. Fluid mechanics is a guide to the mathematical possibilities. and double check the extent to which the model provides a theoretically robust and clean analogue to general relativistic curved spacetime. one should not take them too literally [624. 682. and so it would seem useful to develop an abstract mathematical theory of the “discrete” → “continuum” → “diﬀerential geometry” chain using this ﬂuid mechanical analogy (and related analogies) as inspiration. the system must be treated using discrete atoms or molecules as the basic building blocks. Broadly speaking. 107 . and the ﬁbreoptic experiment [66]. 470]. 2009) development is the appearance of Hoˇava gravity [287. 288. for any experimental group interested in analogue spacetimes the two key issues to address are: • Identify a particular analogue model easily amenable to laboratory investigation. at large distances. 624. while. Though Hoˇava gravity is not directly an r analogue model per se. Because the relevant mathematics is extremely diﬃcult. it is possible that we might still be surprised by experimental developments. 334]. providing a speciﬁc and explicit example of a “discrete” → “continuum” → “diﬀerential geometry” chain of development. 584. What the “analogue gravity programme” does not seem to do as easily is to provide a natural direct route to the Einstein equations of general relativity. there are deep connections – with some steps toward an explicit connection being presented in [694]. 585. • Identify the technical issues involved in actually setting up a laboratory experiment.13 Going further Beyond the various theoretical issues we have discussed above there is the important question of “experimental analogue gravity” – to what extent can all these ideas be tested in direct laboratory experiments? Currently several experimental groups are investigating analogue models – surface wave experiments [17. 634. The parts of the analogy that do work well are precisely the steps where the standard approaches to quantum gravity have the most diﬃculty. but that merely indicates that current analogies have their limits and therefore. of these three standard approaches will be preferable in the long run [580]. Here we are speciﬁcally referring to ﬂuid mechanics. We feel it likely that analogue models can shed new light on this very confusing ﬁeld by providing a concrete speciﬁc situation in which the transition from the shortdistance “discrete” or “quantum” theory to the longdistance “continuum” theory is both well understood and noncontroversial. Furthermore. 289]. there is a welldeﬁned continuum limit that leads to the Euler and continuity equations. it is far from clear which.“lattice” approaches to quantum gravity diﬀer in detail in that they emphasise diﬀerent features of the longdistance model. This r model is partially motivated by condensed matter notions such as (deeply nonperturbative) anomalous scaling and the existence of a “Lifshitz point”. at short distances. 681].
livingreviews.net/ – the new INSPIRE bibliographic database (currently beta version) for keeping track of (almost all of) the general relativity and particle physics aspects of the relevant literature.edu/spires/ – the SPIRES bibliographic database for keeping track of (almost all of) the general relativity and particle physics aspects of the relevant literature. Those ﬁve access points should allow you to keep abreast of what is going on in the ﬁeld.harvard. • http://ads. bimetricity. These analogies have ranged from rather general but very physical analogue models based on ﬂuidacoustics. 108 .8 Conclusions In this review article we have seen the interplay between standard general relativity and various analogies that can be used to capture aspects of its behaviour.edu/ – the SAO/NASA ADS bibliographic database for keeping track of (almost all of) the astrophysical aspects of the relevant literature.org – the electronicpreprint (eprint) database for accessing the text of (almost all. post 1992) relevant articles. we have seen several rather abstract mathematical toy models that bring us to such exotic structures and ideas as birefringence. A tertiary concern (at least as far as the general relativity community is concerned) is the use of relativity and diﬀerential geometric techniques to improve understanding of various aspects of condensed matter physics.arXiv.1 Going further Though every practicing scientist already knows this. for the sake of any student reading this we mention the following resources: • http://www. etc.org/ – the Living Reviews in Relativity journal. Secondary reasons include the rather speculative suggestion that there may be more going on than just analogy – it is conceivable (though perhaps unlikely) that one or more of these analogue models could suggest a relatively simple and useful way of quantizing gravity that sidesteps much of the technical machinery currently employed in such eﬀorts. to highly speciﬁc models based on BECs. The primary reason that these analogies were developed within the general relativity community was to help in the understanding of general relativity by providing very downtoearth models of otherwise subtle behaviour in general relativity. • http://relativity. and wave optics. • http://inspirebeta. slow light. and suspect that there are several key but unexpected issues whose resolution would be greatly aided by the analysis of appropriate analogue models. liquid helium. Additionally. • http://www. Finsler spaces. and Sakharov’s induced gravity. The authors expect interest in analogue models to continue unabated. 8. geometrical optics.stanford.slac.
Carlos Barcel´ has been supported by the Spanish o MICINN through the project FIS200806078C0301. Additionally. Finally. 109 . The authors also wish to speciﬁcally thank Enrique Arilla for providing Figures 1 and 2. the authors wish to thank Renaud Parentani for helpful comments. speciﬁcally with respect to the question of which notion of surface gravity is the most important for Hawking radiation. and Silke Weinfurtner for providing Figure 6 of the artwork.9 Acknowledgements The work of Matt Visser was supported by the Marsden fund administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand. and by the Junta de Andaluc´ through the ıa projects FQM2288 and FQM219. the authors also wish to thank Germain Rousseaux for bringing several historicallyimportant references to our attention. MV also wishes to thank both SISSA (Trieste) and the IAA–CSIC (Granada) for hospitality during various stages of this work.
2631 [grqc]].. 974– 982. G.H. arXiv eprint. and Fuentes. J. [DOI]. Astrophys.worldscinet. Lett. [grqc/0310007]. N. arXiv eprint. T. A. A. “Optimal Quantum Estimation of the UnruhHawking Eﬀect”. “Numerical simulation of vacuum particle production: applications to cosmology.3301 [hepth]]. [arXiv:0810.. and Zhidenko.. 110 .. Phys. and Weinfurtner. (SISSA. [arXiv:grqc/0509057]. [arXiv:1007. Phys. Lett.R. (2003). A.. 044019. Rev. 2371–2393.. 24.V. Phys..R. 47. E. 454–464.sissa. R. [hepth/9210035]. Mackay. “Propagation in a thermal graviton background”. D. and Spiegel. I. G. pp. eds. [DOI]. Phys. and Verdaguer. and Vikman. Bilic..T. E.G. Class.com/9789812834300/9789812834300_0171. N.. (2003). and Das.... “Perturbations of Schwarzschild black holes in laboratories”. 2007). NJ.2489 [hepth]]. J.. D.0389 [quantph]]. (2006). [hepth/9602125]. “Inﬂuence functionals and the accelerating detector”. 5901–5910. D. Phys... 202.. Quant. A. T. (2007). Proceedings of the MG11 Meeting on General Relativity. 393. D. V. [astroph/9712103].it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)006. 105. [DOI]. [5] Ambrosetti. Nanopoulos... [8] Anderson. [10] Antunes. H. and Strings”.. 23 – 29 July 2006.. [DOI]. Grav. R. Rev. 2007). “‘Superluminal’ scalar ﬁelds and black holes”. [3] Al`.References [1] Abdalla. H.optics]]. “Ray trajectories for a spinning cosmic string and a manifestation of selfcloaking”. Charbonneau. Trieste.K. Italy. [13] Aspachs. J. Phys. and Lakhtakia. [DOI]. u [4] Amati.. (1998). Nature. in Kleinert. N.. and Vikman. Rev. R. and Ruﬃni. A. A. [arXiv:0706. Rev. “Black holes by analytic continuation”. and Russo. “Radiative transfer through a ﬂowing refractive medium”. (World Scientiﬁc. [grqc/0311065]. (2008). Grav. (1993). [14] Babichev. “Looking beyond the horizon”. Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories.3113 [physics.L.. (2010). Trieste. [12] Arteaga. arXiv eprint. R. Berlin. (1997). E. Class. D.. 4637–4641. [9] Anglin. N. dynamical Casimir eﬀect and timedependent nonhomogeneous dielectrics”. 1471–1474. Singapore. (1975). Fields. D. Parentani.. Adesso. 4525– 4537. J. Quant. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011): http://eproceedings. 23. 151301. M. Germany .. Rev. S. (2010). E. 374. [arXiv:arXiv:1007.D.. V.A. [arXiv:0704. A. [DOI]..html. Jantzen. “Potential Sensitivity of GammaRay Burster Observations to Wave Dispersion in Vacuo”. URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://pos. “Is a classical Euclidean TOE reasonable?”.G. [11] Arbona.. in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology. “Acoustic horizons in axially symmetric relativistic accretion”. River Edge. Lett. N.. 102. Mukhanov. June 11 – 15 2007. [DOI]. (2004). Ellis.. Proceedings of Science. [DOI]. 70.. [DOI]. Mukhanov. [DOI]. [ADS].. E. [hepph/0310131]. [2] Abraham. “Cloaking a Sensor”. and Engheta. Konoplya.A.. 56. (2009). and Sarkar. S. “The ﬂuid/gravity correspondence: Lectures notes from the 2008 Summer School on Particles. J. T. [6] AmelinoCamelia.E. [7] Anderson. J. 763–765. Mavromatos. The Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity. 233901. [15] Babichev.
71. C.other]]. [DOI]. A. Fabbri.V. Lett. A.. A. 28. 217–223. [DOI]. and Jannes. and Rozenberg. S. Novello. “Quantum eﬀects in acoustic black holes: The backreaction”. Italy. Fagnocchi. Quantum Grav. [arXiv:0711. A. [21] Balbinot. “Numerical analysis of backreaction in acoustic black holes”. G. Atmos. “Braneworld physics from the analoggravity perspective”. (SISSA.. 043622. G. 17. 2007). 161302. 111 . [arXiv:grqc/0601079]. 2371–2377.. (2004). R. [DOI]. 19(10). S. Fagnocchi. Phys. [DOI]. “Hawking radiation from acoustic black holes. 635–639. (2006).M.[16] Babichev.. Fabbri. [grqc/0405096]. A. 78..0561 [hepth]]. Phys. and Campos. “Nonlocal density correlations as signal of Hawking radiation in BEC acoustic black holes”. 064019. Class. (2010)... M. Rev. 084024. Izv. in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology.. D. A.. Riv. Recati. [23] Balbinot. and Procopio. [26] Baldovin. I. (1983). Lett.L. [DOI]. S. [31] Barcel´. [DOI]. [grqc/0405098]... N.. [arXiv:grqc/0701173]. “A nongravitational wormhole”. 95. JETP Lett..I. due to a rotating body.4000 [grqc]]. C. 75. A. “Cosmology as a search for overall equilibrium”.. and Salim. Perez Bergliaﬀa. and Garay... [hepth/0206217]. A. (1958).. 1–11. 563. and Nagar. A. [25] Balbinot. Mukhanov. Rev. 021603. B.sissa.. C. Fabbri. [20] Balbinot. Fagnocchi. A. Fabbri. [grqc/0003075]. 84. G. 201–212. J. [arXiv:grqc/0601083]. (2005). L. Garay.. C. and Recati.. and Vikman. Trieste. [19] Balbinot. 1–55. 236–239. Trieste. Garay..it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)007. [arXiv:grqc/0611090]. (2004). (2008). R. S. “Eﬀect of a gravitational ﬁeld. J. short distance and backreaction eﬀects”.4520 [condmat. [28] Barcel´. o (2007). and Fabbri.J.. E. Rev.. B121. [arXiv:condmat/0610367]. R. 101. Cano. (2006).. A. R. (2003). [22] Balbinot. Jannes.. [DOI]. [arXiv:0708. Cano. [29] Barcel´. A.E.. A. R. causality and emergent geometry”. [18] Balazs. and Fabbri. [arXiv:1005. and Parentani. 2008(02). (2008). 1–4. A. “Probing eﬀects of modiﬁed dispersion o relations with Bose–Einstein condensates”. [30] Barcel´. Mod.. Proceedings of Science. Carusotto.. F. A. Pokazayev..D. and Jannes. Phys. [arXiv:grqc/0603089].J. “Backreaction in Acoustic Black Holes”. URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://pos. superluminal propagation. Phys. L. Int. 024008.. “Testing Hawking particle creation by black holes through correlation measurements”. I.. (2007). (2000). C. High Energy Phys. R. [27] Barcel´. D. Rev. 110. June 11 – 15 2007. “kEssence. and Carusotto.. Cano. J.. [DOI].. [DOI]. R.J... Phys. D.. K. “Quasinormal mode analysis in BEC o acoustic black holes”. V. 19.. 75. Fagnocchi.P. “The depletion in Bose Einstein condensates using Quantum Field Theory in curved space”... [17] Badulin. Phys... on the plane of polarization of an electromagnetic wave”. A. Fagnocchi. Nuovo Cim. 3265–3276. Nuovo Cim. A. Fabbri. 74. L. (2007). “Stability analysis of sonic horizons in o BoseEinstein condensates”. G. Phys. A.. [24] Balbinot. S. Fagnocchi. o Phys. Ocean.. Phys. Phys. [DOI]. D... R.. S. 782–787. Rev. “A laboratory study of the transformation of regular gravitycapillary waves in inhomogeneous ﬂows”. Rev. [DOI]. Rev. S. S.
186. M. (2009). S.. [38] Barcel´. [arXiv:1011. o Class. [DOI]. S. “Refringence. L. Quantum Grav. Phys. Sonego. C.. (2008). Liberati. and Visser. D.. 003. M. [DOI].. S. [DOI]. G. S.J. Liberati. Sonego. o 191–199. D. [36] Barcel´.. Phys. [arXiv:0807. “The two faces of quantum sound”. (2010).. and Jannes. ﬁeld theory. [DOI]. [DOI]. (2001). [40] Barcel´.. C. (2002). (2006). Rev. M. (2010). L. [34] Barcel´. C. Liberati. Phys. L. [45] Barcel´. 044042. [37] Barcel´. 83. M.. o Class. Phys. [arXiv:grqc/0607008]. [DOI].. C. 5341–5366. C. Grav. Liberati. Phys. Liberati. Garay. S. [DOI]. [arXiv:1011.. and Visser. S. [33] Barcel´. 171301. Quantum Grav. “Analog gravity from Bose–Einstein condensates”. 024016. Sonego. Phys. and Liberati. [DOI]. [42] Barcel´. G. Liberati.0181 [grqc]]. 044032. [DOI]. 6. Phys. [35] Barcel´. C. 2010(02).4651 [grqc]]. arXiv eprint. Phys. 77. 19.4147 [grqc]]. Class. G. C. D. Garay.. and Visser. (2006).4960 [grqc]]. “Analogue models for FRW cosmologies”. M. “Quasiparticle creation by analogue o black holes”. “Minimal conditions for the existence of o a Hawkinglike ﬂux”. [48] Barcel´.. S.... (2001). (2003). [47] Barcel´. [43] Barcel´. 97. [arXiv:0712. 3735–1–11. 053613. and Visser. Int. o 82. “Analog gravity from ﬁeld theory normal modes?”. 112 . C. “Hawkinglike radiation does not require o a trapped region”. Liberati. (2003). and Visser. C.[32] Barcel´.. S. 79.org/NJP/6/186. (2003). J. o Class. Phys. [grqc/0011026]. and Jannes. Int. S. 18.. Quantum Grav.. “Hawkinglike radiation from evolving o black holes and compact horizonless objects”. [grqc/0104001]. URL (accessed 31 May 2005): http://stacks.. M. M. S.J.. 12. “On the impossibility of superluminal travel: the o warp drive lesson”. Quant. [grqc/0305061]. 2961–2982.. Rev. [DOI]. Sonego.. [condmat/0307491]. S. “Towards the Observation of Hawking Radiao tion in Bose–Einstein Condensates”. 1641–1650.. [arXiv:1001. Liberati. [arXiv:1006. 18. S.5911 [grqc]].. [46] Barcel´... and normal modes”.. S. [44] Barcel´. [41] Barcel´.1130 [grqc]]. Lett. C. and Visser. C.J. [39] Barcel´. Rev. and Visser. 1137–1156. “A real LorentzFitzGerald contraction”. (2008). “Quantum NonGravity”. S. S. and Jannes. C. 68. 3595–3610. J.. [DOI]. Liberati.. Mod.... G. (2010). and Visser... [arXiv:grqc/0604058]. Liberati. C.. [DOI]. [grqc/0110036]. M.. Liberati. “Probing semiclassical analogue gravity in Bose– o Einstein condensates with widely tunable interactions”. 38. Rev. Sonego. o [arXiv:1002. arXiv eprint. “Causal structure of analogue spaceo times”.iop. (2004).. S. and Visser. S. and Visser. “Sensitivity of Hawking radiation to superluminal o dispersion relations”. D. Phys.. “Fate of gravitational collapse in semio classical gravity”.. A. Finazzi. Sonego.5593 [grqc]].. [DOI]. New J.. 18. C. C. Rev. M. [grqc/0111059]. and Visser.. Liberati. A.. D. S. Rev. M. M. (2010). Found. S. (2010).. High Energy Phys. Garay. [DOI].. 23.. 041501(R). o Mod. C.4652 [grqc]].. and Visser. S. C. and Jannes. M. [arXiv:0705. J.
31..... arXiv eprint. 83... [DOI]. “The four laws of black hole mechanics”.livingreviews. Liberati. V. D. and Visser.. “Geometrodynamics of variableıs. H. S. Rev.. [60] Becar.. 799–806.. 1–19.. Phys. J. (2011). 8. C. and Faccio. [DOI]. Pulgar.. (2010).1735 [grqc]]. Mod. S. R. in Khalil. Phys. N.. 044020. MolinaPar´ C. J. Lett. (2000).. and Visser. (2005). V. A271. and Liberati. [arXiv:0910. D. “What can we learn by probing transPlanckian physics”. [50] Barcel´. [53] Barrab`s.. [astroph/0001441]. [DOI]. [DOI].. arXiv eprint. Liberati. D.... Math. and Saavedra. speedoflight cosmologies”. Quantum Grav. [grqc/0303012].G. arXiv eprint. S. 59. J.. Boulanger. Class.org/lrr200512. Ortenzi.. Phys.. G. Sala.. B. “Einstein gravity as an emergent phenomenon?”. (2000). [grqc/0106002]. (Rinton Press.A. “‘Superresonance’ from a rotating acoustic black hole”. “Black Hole Thermodynamics in Carath´odory’s Approach”.. [grqc/0501097]. G. Quantum Grav. 62. 1–18. pp. (2003). Commun. [51] Bardeen. S. 161–170. [63] Belgiorno.[49] Barcel´.. Phys. Carter. Egypt. 2001. Cacciatori. [54] Basak. [62] Belgiorno. 104. [56] Basak. S. 024015. Rev. “Reﬂection coeﬃcient for superresonant scattering”. S. P. [hepph/0106133]...W. Cacciatori. and Faccio. D. M. Class. Princeton. and Parentani. D. R. Phys.L. 2001). C. 283–288. [arXiv:0808. Living Rev. Gorini. 124010. (2005). Visser. [64] Belgiorno.. G.. Phys. Rev. Shaﬁ. Visser. 3907–3913. D. January 9 – 14. [grqc/0001102]. and Parentani. P. [DOI]. [59] BasteroGil. F. (2001). [DOI]. [arXiv:grqc/0505065]. “Metric ﬂuctuation corrections to Hawking e radiation”..P. M.. P. (2010). arXiv eprint. (2003). Cairo. and Sciama. e 312. (2003). [DOI]. 103518. C. [55] Basak. NJ.4150 [quantph]]. “Quantum radiation from superluminal refractive index perturbations”. [52] Barrab`s. [58] Bassett.W. Rev. S. S.. Q. 324–330. 20. V. 2929–2936.3508 [quantph]].L.. 62. “Analogue Gravity”. and Majumdar. [grqc/9812076]. [61] Bekaert. [arXiv:1007. International Conference on High Energy Physics. S.. [65] Belgiorno.. Rev. [grqc/0210020]. Relativity.0435 [hepth]]. Gonzalez. A. [arXiv:quantph/9904018]. C. and Majumdar. D. Phys. Liberati. and Tallat. (2000). [57] Basak. [DOI]. S. F. S. “Hawking radiation via Anomaly and Tunneling method from Unruh’s and Canonical acoustic black hole”. 10. Lett. 20. “Stochastically ﬂuctuating blackhole geomee try. 140403. D.. B. Frolov. (1973). 113 . (2008).. and Sundell. [grqc/0310105]. R.M. X.. Phys.. F.. “Sound wave in vortex with sink”. P. F. “Sonoluminescence: Twophoton correlations as a test of thermality”. S. o Int. Frolov. 308–313. Ortenzi. “How higherspin gravity surpasses the spin two barrier: nogo theorems versus yesgo examples”. (2003)... URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://www. Lett. Phys. eds. “Dielectric black holes induced by a refractive index perturbation and the Hawking eﬀect”. and Hawking. [DOI]. Hawking radiation and the transPlanckian problem”. 1–14. [DOI]. lrro 200512. [arXiv:1003.. M. Rizzi. [DOI]. V. L. [grqc/0203059].. “Analog of Superradiance eﬀect in BEC”. (1999). M. M.P.
and Starinets. N. New York. “κPoincar´ dispersion relae tions and the black hole radiation”. [DOI].. Rev. L. 1982). A. 6th edition.. D. 1980).. 26. Phys. D. B. Quantum Grav. Am. “Eﬀective geometry of the n = 1 uniformly rotating selfgravitating polytrope”.. 105.. and NowakSzczepaniak.D.... 129. (Cambridge University Press.. [79] Bogoliubov. (2008). and Volovik.. [DOI]. “Searching for signals of minimal length in extra dimensional models using dilepton production at hadron colliders”.. E. [grqc/0108069]. New J. E. Physica B. [DOI]. Cherubini. [DOI]. [DOI]. (2005). G. G. and Sridhar. (2010). N. Phys. Phys. F. V. Skrbek. 3953–3964. 27. [DOI]. 16.. Ser. S. 114 . and Polchinski. (Pergamon. R..S.W. and Davis. [70] Berti. Cattoen. [77] Blaauwgeers. [78] Blaut. M. Eska. [71] Bhattacharyya. Lett.. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. “Tsunami asymptotics”. Phys. J. Cambridge. 3055–3071. “Eﬀective geometries in selfgravitating polytropes”. A. [DOI].O. Class. “On the theory of superﬂuidity”. (1947). J. 7177–7199. 23. [grqc/9908002].iop. 60–69.. [80] Bombelli.. Rev. Filippi. Eltsov. 463. 124006. Haley. T. R. (2004). 064024.C. D. [DOI]. [DOI]. 22. R.. Phys. Interference and Diﬀraction of Light. 89... V. D. 7.4634 [grqc]]. Oxford. Lett. Cardoso. Mathews. “Relationships between various characterizations of wave tails”. and Geralico. URL (accessed 20 March 2011): http://stacks. “AB interface in rotating superﬂuid 3 He: the ﬁrst example of a superﬂuid shearﬂow instability”. (2001). and Weinfurtner. “Shear Flow and KelvinHelmholtz Instability in Superﬂuids”. M. R. K. (Moscow). D... P. [arXiv:1009. R.2975 [grqc]]. Faber. London. Phys. C.. Finne. Proc. 521. Rev. J. and Filippi.[66] Belgiorno. Lett. (2003). (2002). C. Phys. J. 78. (2004). P. “Quasinormal modes and classical wave propagation in analogue black holes”. 203901. (2004). Phys. [DOI]... M. [81] Boonserm. Phys. Soc. 46–50. 57–61.. [grqc/0408099]. [arXiv:condmat/0111343]. S. KowalskiGlikman. N.. [76] Blaauwgeers. [69] Berti. [DOI]. [grqc/0411034]. and Lemos.. 163001.. “Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes”. E. Sci. Phys. P. [hepph/0408295]. S. [73] Bini. 155301. A.P. 329333. Quant. “The string theory landscape”... 044005. [83] Bousso. Cherubini. Grav. et al. L.org/13672630/7/i=1/a=129. et al.E. Krusius.. Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation. 291. D. “Focused tsunami waves”. M. [68] Berry. Class. 364–370. B.. 11.. Rev. Quantum Grav. 70. [DOI]. “Hawking Radiation from Ultrashort Laser Pulse Filaments”. Rev. A. Visser. “Relativistic Acoustic Geometry”. A. (2007). [72] Bilic... (1999). [DOI]. and Wolf... (1994). K.V. (2010). Quantum ﬁelds in curved space. [74] Bini. and Sonego. “Eﬀective refractive index tensor for weak ﬁeld gravity”.. [75] Birrell. M. [82] Born. Cardoso. [Google Books].B. New York. [arXiv:0905. V.P. Lett.. Class.. D82.. J.V. (2009). 1905–1915. [DOI].P. Rao. A. S. 603. (2005). G. [67] Berry.. C.
and Ng. Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics (CosPA 2002).4345 [grqc]]. pp. (2002). R. 100–113.. R. Phys. Woodbury. D. (2001).. and Salgado. New York. J. Lubo. [94] Brout. 1–12. Massar. Wave propagation and group velocity. 53. Y. (2001).. 83. 1–6.. 7. Rev. [92] Brillouin. R. [86] Brandenberger.org/lrr20045.. R. and Yashchuk.. 848–853. P.other]]. Kimball.H. C. R. P. P. D. Gabriel. R. “Nonlinear Magnetooptics and Reduced Group Velocity of Light in Atomic Vapor with Slow Ground State Relaxation”. [96] Budker. “Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Eﬀective Field Theory”. and Spindel. 31. 24 – 29 November 2002. “A Status Review of Inﬂationary Cosmology”. Lecture Notes in Physics. The Early Universe and Observational Cosmology. eds. (1999). Parentani. Mod.P.. Phys.. (World Scientiﬁc. R. [89] Brandenberger. R.H. (2002).. 1–9. J.. Phys. [90] Brandenberger.. in He. A. Phys. River Edge. 4559–4568. [Google Books]. 59. D. Berlin. Braz. eds...livingreviews.E.. Int. S. Usp. [DOI]. pp. and Spindel. 044005. D. (2001). Mexico. “TransPlanckian Physics and Inﬂationary Cosmology”.. “Spin superﬂuidity and magnons Bose–Einstein condensation”. R. [DOI].H. Phys. “Minimal length uncertainty principle and the transPlanckian problem of black hole physics”. L.worldscinet. Parentani.4889 [condmat. Proceedings of the 5th Mexican School on Gravitation and Mathematical Physics (DGFM 2002).. K.html. “A Primer for black hole quantum physics”.. [85] Brandenberger. (1999). [DOI]. M. R. [hepth/0112122].. [98] Burgess. Taiwan. A. and Martin. S.. [hepth/0202142]. D. [DOI]. N. [DOI]. NY. 2003). Playa del Carmen. 1767–1770. (2010). S. “On signatures of short distance physics in the cosmic microwave background”.W. (2002). 999–1006.. [hepth/9506121]. 131–146.H. (2004).. [DOI]. (1995). [93] Brout.H.F. “Light rays at optical black holes in moving media”. and Halnes. Massar. Phys. “Frontiers of inﬂationary cosmology”.. and Martin. 083514... [astroph/0005432]. [97] Bunkov. [grqc/0106045]. Phys.H.[84] Brandenberger. D. C. [DOI]. Singapore. J. R. Rev. 52. Proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium.. Rochester. [hepth/0306071]. [DOI]. G. Relativity. NJ. in Bret´n. “The robustness of inﬂation to changes in superPlanckscale physics”. Living Rev.M. R. (Academic... [DOI]. URL (accessed 31 May 2005): http://www. J. S. Rept. 66. Lett. (Springer. 329–454. [hepth/9807063]. Joras. [arXiv:0710.. Rev. (1995). J. 2004). 16.. 1960). Phys. [arXiv:1003.. Lett. X. Mod. “Hawking radiation without transPlanckian frequencies”. “TransPlanckian physics and the spectrum of ﬂuctuations in a bouncing universe”. and Spindel. and Martin. J. V. 3663–3680. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011): http://eproceedings.V. 31 May – 2 June 2002. Quintana Roo.com/9789812704900/9789812704900_0008. I.. 127–167. 024005. 17. 115 . [hepph/0101119]. Taipei. [95] Brout. lrr20045. [87] Brandenberger.. [hepth/0210186]. Phys. [88] Brandenberger. 646. 260. “Lectures on the theory of cosmological perturbations”. M. [hepph/0102183].H. Rev. arXiv eprint. [DOI]. o CervantesCota. Rev. Phys.G.M. 65. [91] Brevik..
P. E. [DOI]. Portugal. G. [111] Cardoso. Lett. Rep. and Mignemi. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011): http://eproceedings. [grqc/0402017]. High Energy Phys. [100] Cacciatori...M. [102] Cadoni. D. V. F. (1999).G.A. 22.optics]]. B. arXiv eprint. [109] Canfora. “Loopgenerated bounds on changes to the graviton dispersion relation”. Sala.. Belgiorno. Rev.S. 2002(03). [grqc/0302036]. B.[99] Burgess.. J.E. River Edge. 409–419. (2010). [110] Caravelli.. V. Exp.1340 [grqc]].A. J.. “BEC Collapse. 043... Cline. High Energy Phys. [arXiv:1008. Quant. 124032. “Acoustic analogues of black hole singularities”. R. G. Phys. and Faccio. S. [DOI]. and Pani. Hu. Phys. (2001). 2003(12)..M.P. 68. E. [condmat/0207289].org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095021. J. V. F. 043625..1097 [physics. arXiv eprint.. “Acoustic analogues of twodimensional black holes”. [DOI]. Class. Phys. [physics/0503042]. [DOI]. [104] Calogeracos. 12. a a P. Matias. G. Particle Production and Squeezing of the Vacuum”. [101] Cadoni. [108] Canfora. F. 2427–2434. [grqc/0108040]. New J. [DOI]. Rev. and Hu. (2010). E. Phys. 2006). E. (2003). L.. “Back Reaction from Trace Anomaly in RNblackholes Evaporation”. Singapore. M. [103] Cadoni. Phys. V. [112] Cardoso. and Volovik. M. D... [113] Carlip. C. S. J. Faro. [107] Calzetta. New Worlds in Astroparticle Physics. (2005). and Hu. (2004). J.P. 885–942. NJ. [hepph/0201082]. and Vilasi.. M. Potting. M. “Spacetime geometries and light trapping in travelling refractive index perturbations”.. and Mazzitelli..L. Lemos... A. 1–7. URL (accessed 25 March 2011): http://stacks.. 459–520. and S´. D. Filotas. 8 – 10 January 2005.. Theor. Gorini.. pp.. Quantum Grav.com/9789812774439/9789812774439_0026.. Ortenzi. “Coarsegrained eﬀective action and renormalization group theory in semiclassical gravity and cosmology”. [grqc/0410107]. “Bose–Einstein condensate collapse and dynamical squeezing of vacuum ﬂuctuations”. 72. (World Scientiﬁc. [arXiv:physics/0510164]. F. 64. Prog.. [grqc/0504143].. A.. G. Pimenta. 70. 245–251.L. [DOI].. S. S.. “Quasinormal modes and stability of the rotating acoustic black hole: Numerical analysis”.D.. [condmat/0208569]. [105] Calzetta. and Moore. “Acoustic Black Holes”. arXiv eprint. J. [hepth/0102199]. [condmat/9901163]. [DOI].L. in Mour˜o. [DOI].. [106] Calzetta. (2003). (2006)... [DOI]. G. 23. 69.html. 084012. 281–287. [arXiv:1006. “Rotational quantum friction in superﬂuids: Radiation from object rotating in superﬂuid vacuum”. Grav. and Vilasi. “Properties of Quantum Graphity at Low Temperature”. 095021..worldscinet.M.A.. A. [grqc/0410138]. F. “Acoustic horizons for axially and spherically symmetric ﬂuid ﬂow”. “Trace anomaly and black holes evaporation”. 116 . Rizzi. (2002). (2002).L.iop. Rep. eds. (2004). Phys.D. Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop. “Quantum gravity: A progress report”. Rev. (2003). (2001). Phys. 055. B. and Yoshida. Class. [DOI].. 352.. [DOI]. F. and Markopoulou.
ed. [DOI]. 117 . R. Rev. J... (1998). [126] Castin. and Mersini.. [hepth/0111287].L. Balbinot..V. constraints. 81. held in Mytilene. A. [DOI]. Recati. N. [120] Casadio. and Fabbri. and Lin. F. A. and Hawking. Peres. 13. Shuryak. A. 77. 583. “Hydrodynamic ﬂow from fast particles”. (2004). 57. and Parentani. “Numerical observation of Hawking radiation from acoustic black holes in atomic Bose–Einstein condensates”. 307. Fourth Aegean School on Black Holes. [DOI]. 484.iop. “On dispersion relations and the statistical mechanics of Hawking radiation”. K. R. 54. [128] Chang. Chu. Itzhaki. 419–434... 89–123. [116] Carter.Y. J. Chu.. [117] Carter. Phys. [Google Books]. Phys. Class. New York. Int. (1997).R. M. [DOI]. [arXiv:hepph/0602183]. 103001. and Recati. (N. “Black hole horizon ﬂuctuations”.. J. R.2314 [condmat.H..0507 [condmat. Phys. Phys. “Transplanckian entanglement entropy”. A. “Transplanckian dispersion relation and entanglement entropy of black hole”. 52. B. Phys.. “Short distance signatures in cosmology: Why not in black holes?”. “On braneworld black holes and short scale physics”. [119] Carusotto. 477–482. [hepth/0306055]. [129] Chang. R. [118] Carusotto. and Dum. [115] Carlip.. D. (2008). (1996). B..). A. Rev. [DOI]. F... “The electronic properties of graphene”. L.L. 391–404.. Int.S. “Models for chronology selection”. and Sedrakian. Theor. Int. [astroph/0305186].. D. [arXiv:0907. S. “Bose–Einstein Condensates in Time Dependent Traps”. Phys. Physics of Black Holes: A Guided Tour.. N. Berlin. R. [hepth/9606106].. (2002). Lecture Notes in Physics.. 17 – 22 September 2007. New J. Physics of Neutron Star Interiors. Fagnocchi. “Density correlations and dynamical Casimir emission of Bogoliubov phonons in modulated atomic BoseEinstein condensates”. [122] Casadio. and black hole entropy”. [hepth/9709066]. 1395–1412... 5315–5319. [DOI]. and Lin. and Teaney. 769. [DOI]. [DOI]. 19. [DOI]. C. “Relativistic superﬂuid models for rotating neutron stars”.. S. 109–162. Berlin. 195–208. Rev. N. in Papantonopoulos. (Springer. 46. Guinea.J.other]]. 578. (2003). in Blaschke. S.W.. I. (2006).K. C. p. “Covariant Analysis of Newtonian MultiFluid Models for Neutron Stars I: MilneCartan Structure and Variational Formulation”. 19. [arXiv:0807.. [123] CasalderreySolana. Balbinot. E. Fortschr. “Black Hole Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics”.. [arXiv:0803. A.. 2192– 2203... Mod. F. [DOI]..quantgas]]. 2001). and Geim.. 2453–2462. B.. [121] Casadio. R. J.. Lett. and Chamel. D. [hepth/0208050].. [124] Casher.. S. [hepph/0304099]. F. N.4520 [grqc]]. (2010)... R. (2004). Phys. Lecture Notes in Physics. (2007). D. Quantum Grav. Glendenning. 56. B.M. Massar. 2009). D. Phys. S. (2004). Novoselov. eds.. [arXiv:grqc/0601041]. 2372–2380. [DOI]. Phys.. [125] Cassidy. [hepth/0312136]. Mod. Phys. (Springer. J.S. [astroph/0101257]. New York. 10. Ann. [DOI]. Nucl.. 291–325.. Greece. [DOI]. Phys. Phys. Fabbri. Y. [127] Castro Neto. (2009).S. D. E. (2004). Lett.. 192–198. A.[114] Carlip. Englert. A.org/13672630/10/i=10/a=103001.. Mod. I. Eur. arXiv eprint. “Horizons. pp. [DOI].K. URL (accessed 20 March 2011): http://stacks. A.
. [DOI]. H. 70. (2003).L. D. [145] Corley. Phys.. (2007).[130] ChangYoung. [grqc/0407033]. [grqc/0505005]. Fugleberg. Kobes. (2010).. S. Zahn. New York. and Lee. 2088–2104. [DOI]. [146] Corley. 1–9. Rev. (1992). Rev.R.. “The enhancement of inﬂaton loops in an αvacuum”. S. J. P. Galloway. [138] Chru´ciel. Phys. [arXiv:grqc/0505163]. Germany. S. 1–14. arXiv eprint. D. Phys. “Superﬂuid analog of the Davies–Unruh eﬀect”. C. K. S. R. Lett. Analysis. Rev. [hepph/0309265]. College Park. MD. D. D. 084016. [131] Chapline..P. 23. P.. [141] Coleman.. C. and Shiu. Phys.. “Acoustic cloaking in three dimensions using acoustic metamaterials”. Thesis. Numerics.R. “Mathematical general relativity: a sampler”. Kruk. The role of short distance physics in the Hawking eﬀect. 1997). D. T¨bingen. 104011. 72. 73. “Energy ﬂow in acoustic black holes”. 6155–6161.S. 61–102.B. Appl. 2002). 084021. A. (2004).. “Quasinormal modes of a coupled scalar ﬁeld in the acoustic black hole spacetime”.T... [DOI]. G. 55. Rev. “Trace anomalies and the Hawking eﬀect”. [139] Chrusciel. (1997).. D.. S. April 2001... G.1016 [grqc]]. D.M. [hepth/0011241]. Chin... J. P. [grqc/0012094]. 118 .L. G. “Quantum phase transitions and the breakdown of classical general relativity”. Kunstatter. and Tosi. Phys. Rev.. Hohlfeld.O. and Santiago. arXiv eprint. and Mazur. Succi. Int. T. M. “Superﬂuid picture for rotating spacetimes”. 18.. [DOI]. 116008.. (2006). G.2049 [grqc]]. 59. “Particle creation via high frequency dispersion”. in Frauendiener. [140] Chu. Proceedings of the internationl workshop. A. and Glashow. Greene. 3587–3590. (University of Maryland. Rev. [arXiv:1003. 2825–2830. 604. u (Springer. C. “Black holes”. (2010). and Pollack. Phys.. Lecture Notes in Physics. M. Phys. R. B. E. Phys.E. Lett. [DOI].R.A. J. T.R. and Chan. Ph. [DOI]. M. and Pickering.. Berlin. K. arXiv eprint. (2006). S. Phys. Federici. F. [135] Cherubini. Mod.. [hepph/0306070]. and Fulling.. [137] Christensen. “Excised acoustic black holes: The scattering problem in the time domain”. pp. G.. eds.J.. Kimm.. [DOI]. 1–9.. A. arXiv eprint. S. Laughlin. [DOI]. 21–24.. [134] Chen.T. (2005). Lett. [144] Consoli. G.T. (2001). and Friedrich.B. E. [arXiv:1004. S. Phys. “Approximate Lorentz invariance of the vacuum: A physical solution of the ‘hierarchy problem’ ?”. H. “Highenergy tests of Lorentz invariance”. M. 91. and Jing. 15. (1977). (1999). Lett.L. [hepph/9812418]. [143] Comer. [grqc/0201053]. 16. Eune.. D..... H.. J. and Martin. D. Phys. [DOI]. [DOI]. “Surface gravity and Hawking temperature from entropic force viewpoint”. The Confors mal Structure of SpaceTime: Geometry. Mod. [142] Collins. Carrington. 2231–2240. [133] Chen. [132] Chapline.D. “Remarks on inﬂation and noncommutative geometry”. [136] Choy. (2004). Mod. (2003). [grqc/0504048]. M.I. 183518. 25. D.
[161] Das. 1568–1586.. “Computing the spectrum of black hole radiation in the presence of high frequency dispersion: An analytical approach”. (2007). L.2755 [hepth]]. [hepth/0401160]. arXiv eprint. “Black hole lasers”. (1999). and Rivasseau.3618 [astroph]]. (2004).A.. 1–12.H. (2000). D. in Dalibard. B. and Parentani. J.. Duplantier. [153] Cortijo. Rev. information and beyond”... and Vozmediano. A.. [162] Das. [DOI]. Roberts. Phys. “Lattice black holes”. [grqc/0408081].L. T. [157] Czerniawski. Rev. 6269–6279. (1998). [150] Corley. “Black hole lasers. “Stable Rb85 BoseEinstein Condensates with Widely Tunable Interactions”. 81.B. “Black hole thermodynamics: Entropy. [DOI]. [155] Coutant. “Absorption cross section of canonical acoustic holes”. [hepth/9709166]. [151] Cornish.. [DOI]. Progress in Mathematical Physics. [hepth/9710075]. arXiv eprint. (2007).A. 38. 47002. D76. arXiv eprint. [149] Corley. “Transonic Black Hole Accretion as Analogue System”. [DOI].. (Interscience. [arXiv:0704.K. T.. Poincar´ Seminar 2003: Bose–Einstein Condensation – Entropy.K. Europhys. 6280–6291. Phys. 1989). Phys.C. 107502. [DOI]. A. e (Birkh¨user. 797–816.. and Wieman. (2004). T. [hepth/9601073]. “Hawking Spectrum and High Frequency Dispersion”. Wiley Classics Library. 77.A. [DOI]. S. [hepth/9806203]. 124011. 21.. 54. V. “Eﬀects of topological defects and local curvature on the electronic properties of planar graphene”. J.. Lett. [grqc/0201037]. [astroph/0404482].. Quantum Grav..E. [DOI]. D. S..E. “Analogue Hawking radiation from astrophysical black hole accretion”. D. T. a mode analysis”. E. “Astrophysical Accretion as an Analogue Gravity Phenomena”. 293–308. and Vozmediano. (2004). (1996). 084042.K. Phys. eds. [163] Das. Rev. [158] Damour. and Hilbert. S. (2010). 59.A. M. Phys. Nucl. Phys.. T. T. “Analogous Hawking Radiation from Astrophysical Black Hole Accretion”. [DOI]. 119 . 2. Rev. D. Class. “Electronic properties of curved graphene sheets”. (2007). [154] Courant. Pramana. D. Claussen. and Jacobson. 57. 1795– 1798.. (1998)..L. D.. [DOI]. [arXiv:condmat/0612374]. Phys.. [DOI]. Basel. [hepth/0403202]. Rev. (2002). [arXiv:condmat/0603717]. G. Lett. [DOI].. S. S.. (2004). E. Rev.. S.K. M. T. Cornell... and Jacobson. 57. Proe ceedings of the third and fourth Poincar´ Seminars. N.A. R. [arXiv:0912. and Matsas. New York.. J. Methods of Mathematical Physics. “The entropy of black holes: A primer”. [156] Crispino.S. and Jacobson. 5253–5260. T. [148] Corley. D. (2007). 63. [152] Cortijo. Phys.A. “What is wrong with Schwarzschild’s coordinates?”.[147] Corley. a [159] Das. 2004). R.A. B763. [160] Das. A..R. C. Rev. Boston. arXiv eprint. 85.H. Oliveira.. [grqc/0411006].
Phys. D.V. [DOI]. “PseudoSchwarzschild Spherical Accretion as a Classical Black Hole Analogue”. Cosmol. Rev. R. [179] Easther. arXiv eprint. 68. 061502.. (2004).. and Klippert.. [170] De Lorenci. Phys.[164] Das.. (2007). 1877–1890. “BlackHole Accretion Disc as an Analogue Gravity Model”. 1–5. 1–8. [DOI]. (2001). Roberts. [DOI].S. A. Quant. S.C. A. Nature. 412.3916 [grqc]]. Cornell. Gen. 13.L. Claussen. [DOI]. and Das.R.A. E. D. [178] Dziarmaga. “The selfenergy of a charged particle in the presence of a topological defect distribution”. [DOI].0329 [grqc]]. Y.H. Fulling. Rev. N..N. 2720–2723. Rev.R. E.. and Ottewill. [DOI]..E. (1976).. Rev. [DOI]. and Salim. Kinney. (2009). [DOI]. J. “A new form of the Kerr solution”.. Bilic. Moraes. C.. 064027.A. Phys.W. Phys.A. 79.. B. 225003. 1–4. Grav. W. N. [167] de A.K.. Cornish. D. and Shiu.0010 [grqc]]. [grqc/0112041]. “Energy momentum tensor near an evaporating black hole”. and Obukhov.C.A. [176] Doran. [arXiv:0904. L. “Analogue gravity from electrodynamics in nonlinear media”.. R. R. S. arXiv eprint. (2005). Gravit. [hepth/0104102].. J. [165] Dasgupta. [grqc/0107008]. Klippert. [arXiv:0705. [condmat/0105019]. [hepph/0308184].. Marques. 347–357.C.B. C. and Unruh. [DOI].A. “Scattering of Sound Waves by a Canonical Acoustic Hole”. “Inﬂation as a probe of short distance physics”.. Rev. Phys. [DOI].A. 2. T.. Y... S. Relativ. [DOI]. 2113–2122.M. S. F. (2001). Mod. Int. G. Gen. Bilic.. D. (2009). [166] Davies. “Nonlinear electrodynamics and FRW cosmology”. [arXiv:0908.M. [169] De Lorenci. J. 067503. and Crispino. [174] Dolan. arXiv eprint. [177] Dumin. “Dynamics of collapsing and exploding BoseEinstein condensates”. 1–6. P. S. D.R. [arXiv:astroph/0604477]. R. and Wieman. S. 009. A. (1971).. [grqc/0401030]. J. W. 103502. (2003). Greene. Phys. Astropart. 295–299. [DOI]. V. and Dasgupta. [172] de M Carvalho. 65. 65. 37... (2000).. (2002). [171] De Lorenci. 063501. 19. “On the gravitational ﬁeld acting as an optical medium”. 064014. [arXiv:grqc/9910099]. 120 . Grav.G. “On an Expansion Method for Black Hole Quasinormal Modes and Regge Poles”. 26. 64.. V. Class. V. [168] de Felice. Phys. T.. F. C.. 2007(06). Rev.. 61. Rev.. Phys. (2002)... and Furtado. [grqc/0210104]. “Analogue of superradiance eﬀect in acoustic black hole in the presence of disclination”. Oliveira.L. “On optical black holes in moving dielectrics”. Novello. [173] Dolan.. Rel. [arXiv:astroph/0501410].. G. D.R. “Analog electromagnetism in a symmetrized 3 HeA”. Klippert. N.K. J. (2001). (2003). [175] Donley. (2007). Phys.. D. E. “Topological Defect Density in OneDimensional FriedmannRobertsonWalker Cosmological Model: Corrections Inferred from the MultiJosephsonJunctionLoop Experiment”. M.
[180] Eling, C., Jacobson, T. and Mattingly, D., “EinsteinAether Theory”, in Liu, J.T., Duﬀ, M.J., Stelle, K.S. and Woodard, R.P., eds., DESERFEST: A Celebration of the Life and Works of Stanley Deser, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA, 3 – 5 April 2004, pp. 163– 179, (World Scientiﬁc, River Edge, NJ; Singapore, 2004). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0410001 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 15 March 2011): http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812774804/9789812774804_0012.html. [181] Ellis, G.F.R. and Uzan, J.P., “‘c’ is the speed of light, isn’t it?”, Am. J. Phys., 73, 240–247, (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0305099]. [182] Ellis, J.R., Mavromatos, N.E., Nanopoulos, D.V. and Volkov, G., “Gravitationalrecoil eﬀects on fermion propagation in spacetime foam”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 32, 1777–1798, (2000). [grqc/9911055]. [183] Eltsov, V.B., Krusius, M. and Volovik, G.E., “Superﬂuid 3 He: A Laboratory model system of quantum ﬁeld theory”, arXiv eprint, (1998). [condmat/9809125v1]. [184] Englert, F., “The Black hole history in tamed vacuum”, arXiv eprint, (1994). [grqc/9408005]. [185] Englert, F., Massar, S. and Parentani, R., “Source vacuum ﬂuctuations of black hole radiance”, Class. Quantum Grav., 11, 2919–2938, (1994). [DOI], [grqc/9404026]. [186] Fabbri, A. and Mayoral, C., “Steplike discontinuities in Bose–Einstein condensates and Hawking radiation: the hydrodynamic limit”, arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1004.4876 [grqc]]. [187] Faccio, D., Cacciatori, S., Gorini, V., Sala, V.G., Averchi, A., Lotti, A., Kolesik, M. and Moloney, J.V., “Analogue Gravity and Ultrashort Laser Pulse Filamentation”, Europhys. Lett., 89, 34004, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.4426 [grqc]]. [188] Fagnocchi, S., “Analog models beyond kinematics”, arXiv eprint, (2006).
[arXiv:grqc/0611096].
[189] Fagnocchi, S., “Backreaction eﬀects in acoustic black holes”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 33, 445– 450, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0601084]. [190] Fagnocchi, S., “Correlations of Hawking radiation in acoustic black holes”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 222, 012036, (2010). [DOI]. [191] Fagnocchi, S., Finazzi, S., Liberati, S., Kormos, M. and Trombettoni, A., “Relativistic Bose– Einstein condensates: a new system for analogue models of gravity”, New J. Phys., 12, 095012, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1001.1044 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 20 March 2011): http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095012. [192] Farhat, M., Guenneau, S. and Enoch, S., “Ultrabroadband Elastic Cloaking in Thin Plates”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, 024301, (2009). [DOI]. [193] Federici, F., Cherubini, C., Succi, S. and Tosi, M.P., “Superradiance from BEC vortices: a numerical study”, Phys. Rev. A, 73, 033604, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0503089]. [194] Fedichev, P.O. and Fischer, U.R., “Gibbons–Hawking Eﬀect in the Sonic de Sitter SpaceTime of an Expanding Bose–EinsteinCondensed Gas”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91, 240407, (2003). [DOI], [condmat/0304342]. [195] Fedichev, P.O. and Fischer, U.R., “‘Cosmological’ quasiparticle production in harmonically trapped superﬂuid gases”, Phys. Rev. A, 69, 033602, (2004). [condmat/0303063].
121
[196] Fedichev, P.O. and Fischer, U.R., “Observer dependence for the phonon content of the sound ﬁeld living on the eﬀective curved spacetime background of a Bose–Einstein condensate”, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 064021, (2004). [DOI], [condmat/0307200]. [197] Finazzi, S., Liberati, S. and Barcel´, C., “Semiclassical instability of dynamical warp drives”, o Phys.Rev., 79, 124017, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:arXiv:0904.0141 [grqc]]. [198] Finazzi, S., Liberati, S. and Sindoni, L., “The cosmological constant: a lesson from BoseEinstein condensates”, (2011). [arXiv:1103.4841 [grqc]]. [199] Finazzi, S. and Parentani, R., “Black hole lasers in Bose–Einstein condensates”, New J. Phys., 12, 095015, (2010). [DOI], [arXiv:1005.4024 [condmat.quantgas]]. URL (accessed 25 March 2011): http://stacks.iop.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095015. [200] Finazzi, S. and Parentani, R., “Spectral properties of acoustic black hole radiation: broadening the horizon”, arXiv eprint, (2010). [arXiv:1012.1556 [grqc]]. [201] Finne, A.P., Eltsov, V.B., Hanninen, R., Kopnin, N.B., Kopu, J., Krusius, M., Tsubota, M. and Volovik, G.E., “Dynamics of vortices and interfaces in superﬂuid 3 He”, Rep. Prog. Phys., 69, 3157–3230, (2006). [DOI]. [202] Finne, A.P., Eltsov, V.B., H¨nninen, R., Kopnin, N.B., Kopu, J., Krusius, M., Tsubota, M. a and Volovik, G.E., “Dynamics of vortices and interfaces in superﬂuid 3 He”, Rep. Prog. Phys., 69, 3157, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:condmat/0606619]. [203] Fischer, U.R., “Motion of quantized vortices as elementary objects”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 278, 62–85, (1999). [DOI], [condmat/9907457]. [204] Fischer, U.R., “Quasiparticle universes in Bose–Einstein condensates”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 19, 1789–1812, (2004). [DOI], [condmat/0406086]. [205] Fischer, U.R., “Dynamical Aspects of Analogue Gravity: The Backreaction of Quantum Fluctuations in Dilute BoseEinstein Condensates”, in Unruh, W.G. and Sch¨ tzhold, u R., eds., Quantum Analogues: From Phase Transitions to Black Holes and Cosmology, Lecture Notes in Physics, 718, pp. 93–113, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2007). [DOI], [arXiv:condmat/0512537]. [206] Fischer, U.R. and Sch¨tzhold, R., “Quantum simulation of cosmic inﬂation in twocomponent u Bose–Einstein condensates”, Phys. Rev. A, 70, 063615, (2004). [DOI], [condmat/0406470]. [207] Fischer, U.R. and Visser, M., “Riemannian geometry of irrotational vortex acoustics”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 110201, 1–4, (2002). [DOI], [condmat/0110211]. [208] Fischer, U.R. and Visser, M., “On the spacetime curvature experienced by quasiparticle excitations in the Painlev´–Gullstrand eﬀective geometry”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 304, 22–39, e (2003). [DOI], [condmat/0205139]. [209] Fischer, U.R. and Visser, M., “Warped spacetime for phonons moving in a perfect nonrelativistic ﬂuid”, Europhys. Lett., 62, 1–7, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0211029]. [210] Fischer, U.R. and Volovik, G.E., “Thermal quasiequilibrium states across Landau horizons in the eﬀective gravity of superﬂuids”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 57–88, (2001). [grqc/0003017]. [211] Fiur´˘ek, J., Leonhardt, U. and Parentani, R., “Slowlight pulses in moving media”, Phys. as Rev. A, 65, 011802, 1–4, (2002). [quantph/0011100].
122
[212] Flato, M., Sternheimer, D. and Fronsdal, C., “Diﬃculties with massless particles”, Commun. Math. Phys., 90, 563, (1983). [DOI]. [213] Fock, V.A., The Theory of Space, Time, and Gravitation, (Pergamon, New York, 1964), 2nd edition. [214] FonsecaBarbatti, C., Novello, M., Salim, J.M. and Arcuri, R.C., “Creation of a wormhole due to nonlinear electrodynamics”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 17, 1305–1314, (2002). [DOI]. [215] Ford, L.H., “Quantum ﬁeld theory in curved spacetime”, arXiv eprint, (1997). [grqc/9707062]. [216] Ford, L.H. and Svaiter, N.F., “Cosmological and black hole horizon ﬂuctuations”, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 2226–2235, (1997). [DOI], [grqc/9704050]. [217] Ford, L.H. and Svaiter, N.F., “A Fluid Analog Model for Boundary Eﬀects in Field Theory”, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 065034, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0903.2694 [quantph]]. [218] Ford, L.H. and Svaiter, N.F., “Quantum Density Fluctuations in Classical Liquids”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 030602, (2009). [DOI]. [219] Foster, B.Z. and Jacobson, T., “PostNewtonian parameters and constraints on Einsteinaether theory”, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 064015, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0509083 [grqc]]. [220] Franchini, F. and Kravtsov, V.E., “Horizon in Random Matrix Theory, Hawking Radiation and Flow of Cold Atoms”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, 166401, (2009). [DOI], [arXiv:0905.3533 [condmat.strel]]. [221] Friedan, D., “A tentative theory of large distance physics”, J. High Energy Phys., 2003(10), 063, (2003). [DOI], [hepth/0204131]. [222] Frolov, V.P., “Black Hole Entropy and Physics at Planckian Scales”, in S´nchez, N. and a Zichichi, A., eds., String Gravity and Physics at the Planck Energy Scale, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute, Erice, Italy, September 18 – 19, 1995, NATO ASI Series C, 476, (Kluwer, Dordrecht; Boston, 1996). [hepth/9510156]. [223] Frolov, V.P. and Larsen, A.L., “Stationary strings and 2D black holes”, Nucl. Phys. B, 449, 149–158, (1995). [DOI], [hepth/9503060]. [224] Fulling, S.A., Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved SpaceTime, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1989). [Google Books]. [225] Fursaev, D.V., “Entanglement and gravitational physics”, J. Phys. A, 39, 6385–6391, (2006). [DOI]. [226] Fursaev, D.V., “Entanglement entropy in critical phenomena and analogue models of quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 124025, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:hepth/0602134]. [227] Furtado, C., de M Carvalho, A.M., Garcia de Andrade, L.C. and Moraes, F., “Holonomy, Aharonov–Bohm eﬀect and phonon scattering in superﬂuids”, arXiv eprint, (2004). [grqc/0401025]. [228] Furuhashi, H., Nambu, Y. and Saida, H., “Simulation of Acoustic Black Hole in a Laval Nozzle”, Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 5417–5438, (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0601066]. [229] Gambini, R. and Pullin, J., “Nonstandard optics from quantum spacetime”, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 124021, (1999). [DOI], [grqc/9809038].
123
“Hawking Radiation in Sonic Black Holes”. A.. P. (2000). (2005).. [arXiv:0705.[230] Garay.R. [236] Garcia de Andrade. (1977). S. [grqc/0002015]. (2005). [grqc/0409116].W. Phys. 79.. 94. conformal anomaly and cosmological event horizons”. L. L. “Sonic black holes in dilute Bose–Einstein condensates”. “Stationary Metrics and Optical ZermeloRandersFinsler Geometry”. [245] Gibbons. C. Rev. arXiv eprint. 339. Herdeiro. Int. (2007). Rev. [244] Ghafarnejad.A. X.1404 [hepth]]. [DOI]. and Kim. 56.W. A.. [DOI]. “NonRiemannian geometry of turbulent acoustic ﬂows and analog gravity”. [grqc/0405062].C. “Irrotational vortex geometry of torsion loops”.. “Action integrals and partition functions in quantum gravity”. 349–358. [grqc/9403008]. Phys. “Hadamard renormalization. (2009). L. Cirac. Phys. 061302. 652. (2004). de M Carvalho. [grqc/0503088]. Phys. “Black hole analogues in braneworld scenario”. 327–329. H. [DOI]. 15.G. Anglin. A.C. [DOI]... Europhys. L. [240] Garcia de Andrade. L. [239] Garcia de Andrade. Y. 1–4. (1997). L.2877 [grqc]]. [DOI]. “NonRiemannian vortex geometry of rotational viscous ﬂuids and breaking of the acoustic Lorentz invariance”. [DOI]. Rev.I.C.. Phys.C.. (2005). [grqc/0409115]. and Furtado. [242] Ge. arXiv eprint. 623. [237] Garcia de Andrade.H. Phys. arXiv eprint. 63. S. [234] Garcia de Andrade. [231] Garay. [arXiv:quantph/0507166]. [arXiv:0811. D. “Quantum gravity and minimum length”. Lett. and Shen. Lett. [247] Giovanazzi..C. G.M. [246] Gibbons. [DOI]. Phys. J.R. “Quantum teleportation with sonic black holes”.M.. J. and Zoller. J. D. L. D.. (2004).C. (2004).W. arXiv eprint. Lett. S. P.... Lett... H.. 141–146. Rev. and Hawking. [238] Garcia de Andrade.W.H. 1–13. Rev. Rev. [DOI]. (2005). [grqc/0406057]. 85.. [243] Ge. 2752–2756..C. L. and Werner. arXiv eprint. J. D. Phys. C. A. [grqc/0502106]. Phys. (2004). (2004)..1396 [hepth]]. “Relativistic superﬂuid hydrodynamics”. and Salehi. (1995). Phys. L. (2007). L.J. 023611. 145–166. [physics/0411064]. and Zoller. X. B. 4643–1–5.R. 188–193. “NonRiemannian acoustic black holes: Hawking radiation and Lorentz symmetry breaking”.J. Phys. Rev. “On the necessity of nonRiemannian acoustic spacetime in ﬂuids with vorticity”.C. Warnick. [235] Garcia de Andrade.. [grqc/0411103]. Cirac. X. 70. Mod. L. 10. [DOI].W. 67. C. [grqc/0005131]. [233] Garcia de Andrade. [DOI]. 4633–4639. (2001). 124 . and Kim. M.. Phys. [hepth/9709158]. Lett. “NonRiemannian geometry of vortex acoustics”. 538– 544.. (2005).. 044022.. A.C.. Lett. J. G. “Geometric phase for fermionic quasiparticles scattering by disgyration in superﬂuids”. 064004. [241] Ge. S. [232] Garay.. “Sonic Analog of Gravitational Black Holes in Bose–Einstein Condensates”. [DOI]. “Probing extra dimensions with higher dimensional black hole analogues?”.H. Lett.J. [arXiv:0705.I. Anglin. [grqc/0410036]. B. 346. [DOI].
105–120.E. L. 70. [DOI]. [DOI]. (2000).. “On the emergence of time and gravity”.P. “Emergence of Lorentzian signature and scalar gravity”. Class. S109–S120. 1993). 064015.. “On Pairs of Diﬀerence Operators Satisfying: [D. [256] Giulini. 2007). Approaches to Fundamental Physics: An Assessment of Current Theoretical Ideas. [DOI]. [262] Gu.3673 [grqc]]. Grav. (Leipzig).. [arXiv:0806. A.4239 [grqc]]. S.O. R.. X. (2007). S. [arXiv:grqc/0606100]. (1998). F. Phys. B. [condmat/0405007]. 545–568. S... D.. (1923). J. Phys.. Quant. Liberati. D. [253] Girelli. F. ZhengCheng and Wen. 32. 135015. and Sindoni. A. Fys. [hepth/9703015]. [263] Gu.1203 [grqc]]. “Is the notion of time really fundamental?”. [250] Girelli. [DOI]. [DOI]. Z.. arXiv eprint. a 72... [252] Girelli. Kiss. F. and Seiler. “The sonic analogue of black hole radiation”. Grav. [grqc/9910080]. 125 . Phys. Berlin. L. 1–15. Phys. (2006). [arXiv:0907. (2007). (Cambridge University Press. Class. W. “Emergence of helicity +/ − 2 modes (gravitons) from qubit models”. [arXiv:grqc/0603087 [grqc]]. Percacci. “Zur Lichtfortpﬂanzung nach der Relativit¨tstheorie”. Ann. [DOI]... (2009). 39. Rev. Farrell. ´ [260] Goulart de Oliveira Costa. Math. 3995–4008.. Gen. 084013. “Gravitational dynamics in BoseEinstein condensates”. S. Gravit.G. Liberati.. 044019. Phys. “Modiﬁed dispersion relations from the renormalization group of gravity”. Rev. XiaoGang. [DOI]. and Sindoni. 721. Rev. Relativ. C. [arXiv:0905..4876 [grqc]]. Cambridge. Astron. arXiv eprint. D. New York. Quant. (2009). L. Phys. [249] Giovanazzi. Liberati.. [DOI]. 044019. L. [DOI]. (2006). S. “Schwarzschild atmospheric processes: A classical path to the quantum”.. S. (2004). “Conditions for onedimensional supersonic ﬂow of quantum gases”. and Sindoni.. F. Liberati.. “A lattice bosonic model as a quantum theory of gravity”. New York. 78.. (2008). “Allgemeine L¨sung des statischen Eink¨rperproblems in der Einsteinschen o o Gravitationstheorie”. S.. [DOI]. [251] Girelli. J. (1922). [DOI].. J. (Springer. “A classiﬁcation of the eﬀective metric in nonlinear electrodynamics”. [Google Books]. 16(8). [264] Gullstrand.Z. [arXiv:condmat/0604541]... 79.. (2009). (2009). A. S. and Sindoni.. [arXiv:grqc/0607030]. Cambridge Studies in Low Temperature Physics. Liberati. and Rahmede. and Krisch. U. L. and Perez Bergliaﬀa. and Sindoni. [arXiv:0903.[248] Giovanazzi. and Szmigielski. E. Mat. and Leonhardt. 24. 39.. Phys. Lecture Notes in Physics. (2009). F. [arXiv:grqc/0611024].X]=Id”. I.C. 4. 79. 735–741. “Phenomenology of quantum gravity and Finsler geometry”. in Stamatescu. Phys. [259] G´rski. F.. Ark. T. A. [258] Gordon. and Wen. eds. 063602. 421–456. Excitations in a Bosecondensed Liquid.4910 [grqc]].. E. arXiv eprint. [arXiv:0807. [254] Girelli.. Rev. D. 26. E. [257] Glass. o J. “Remarks on the Notions of General Covariance and Background Independence”. D.N. [255] Girelli. [261] Griﬃn. Rev. [DOI].. C. 75. S. Liberati. pp.
53. [DOI]. [hepth/0204110].. Phys. (2010). 1992). 199–220. 23 – 29 June 1991. and Sloth. [279] Helfer. Nature. [DOI]. (2004).. Phys. 81. A. Lloyd. Japan. The Large Scale Structure of SpaceTime.S. 329. 43.N. [276] Hehl. [280] Helfer. backreaction. [275] Hawking. pp. Cambridge. 943–1008. Lett.W. eds. Prog... 249–259.W. (World Scientiﬁc. Severini. (Norton..W.F. D. A. [DOI]. A. H.R.. “The river model of black holes”. and Lisle. [277] Hehl. 1903). o “Quantum BoseHubbard model with an evolving graph as a toy model for emergent spacetime”. S. The Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: on recent developments in theoretical and experimental general relativity.. [274] Hawking. Phys.. and Burgess.W. New York.D. S. and Ellis. 674.[265] Hadamard.. Paris. [physics/0411038]. [273] Hawking. [DOI]. [271] Hawking. [268] Hamma.. Phys. Found. Thorne. Y. “State reduction and energy extraction from black holes”. K. (1992). (2000).. Commun. (1974). Ferris. Phys.. S.S. J. F. Novikov.N. Am. A.P. “Hawking radiation and ultraviolet regulators”. Online version (accessed 23 March 2011): http://projecteuclid. and Obukhov. T. S. 66. Rev. Lett. 603–611. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. [269] Hassan.W. 248. “Chronology protection: Making the world safe for historians”. Caravelli.D. Markopoulou. Proceedings of the meeting held in Kyoto.. J. in Sato. gravitation and relativistic ﬁeld theories. (2008).J.org/getRecord?id=euclid. [grqc/0008016]. [278] Helfer. and Obukhov.. Phys. I. in The Future of Spacetime. T. F. 2002).. 277–283. [270] Hawking. “Particle creation by black holes”.W. “Black hole explosions?”. and the Hawking process”. 334. A. N. 434–458.. A. [DOI].. Phys. pp.. [267] Hamilton.. “TransPlanckian modes. (1975). S. “Linear media in classical electrodynamics and the Post constraint”. Math. K.D. S. F. Rev.S.W. “To consider the electromagnetic ﬁeld as fundamental. [arXiv:0911. “Do black holes radiate?”. [DOI]. submitted. A. [Google Books]. M. [266] Hambli.. 5717–5722.. Phys. [physics/0404101].. 519–532. (1996).W. Phys.cmp/1103899181. 87–108. 1973). 3–16. [grqc/0304042].. (2003). “Chronology protection conjecture”.. Rev. G. 126 . C. 46. D. (Cambridge University Press. (2005). [grqc/0407055]. [grqc/0411060]. A. and Markstr¨m. 76. Singapore. Y. and Nakamura. Nucl. Le¸ons sur la propagation des ondes et les ´quations de l’hydrodynamique c e (Lectures on the propagation of waves and the equations of hydrodynamics). B. (Hermann.. [hepth/9510159]. “The Chronology Protection Conjecture”. Rep. and Lightman. 30–31. D. S. S. “TransPlanckian eﬀects in inﬂationary cosmology and the modiﬁed uncertainty principle”.F. and the metric only as a subsidiary ﬁeld”. Phys.. arXiv eprint. F.P. [DOI]. (2004). [272] Hawking.... [DOI]. [DOI]. 104032. (2003). S. [DOI]. J.5075 [grqc]].
B. (2000). Rev.2410 [hepth]]. [286] Hochberg. arXiv eprint. Lett. [289] Hoˇava. 2641–2650. 104... 1–18. J. 23. S.C. S. Edmonton. (World Scientiﬁc. [292] Horwitz. and Cirac. and P´rezMercader. (2004). Phys. and Tanaka. (1997). O.. Rev. [DOI]. [294] Hossenfelder. B. (2006). ed. [arXiv:1007. and MelbyThompson. “General Covariance in Quantum Gravity at a r Lifshitz Point”. [283] Himemoto. 105003. Phys. in Lee.... [296] Hu. [DOI]. Quantum Grav. (2010). H. “Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point”. Horizons in World Physics. (2006).. 161301. Y. “Selfconsistency in theories with a minimal length”. (2006). [DOI]. 55... “Evaporating black holes and collapsing bubbles in ﬂuids”. 1815–1821. 2727–2744. [arXiv:1008.. Phys. (2009). Rev. in Reimer. [290] Horstmann.4801 [quantph]]. P.3657 [hepth]]. 064029. [DOI].. [DOI]. “A generalization of the model of Hawking radiation with modiﬁed high frequency dispersion relation”. D.L.I. T. “Spectral Dimension of the Universe in Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point”. D. Phys. Class.. Class. [DOI]. 2005).3494 [quantph]]. Mod. ed. A. Fagnocchi. J. [DOI]. [DOI]. 250. Rev. [arXiv:0904. [grqc/9609043]. B.. [DOI]. (2010). inﬂationary cosmology and thermal particle production”. Sch¨tzhold. D. B. [288] Hoˇava. “A Liquid Model Analogue for Black Hole Thermoe dynamics”. 084008. “Regularization of Newton constant. P. [hepph/0410122].. Quant. CAP–NSERC Summer Institute in Theoretical Physics. 102. Lett. “Measureu ment of Hawking Radiation with Ions in the Quantum Regime”. 1988). “Hawking Radiation from an Acoustic Black Hole on an Ion Ring”. Singapore. L.[281] Henson. [291] Horstmann. “The causal set approach to quantum gravity”. 127 . (2004). Phys. D. 250403... [284] Ho. R. (1997). r [arXiv:0901. [arXiv:grqc/0601121]. A. July 10 – 25. [arXiv:grqc/0602065]. [grqc/0407076]. [293] Hossenfelder. [grqc/9904076]. Reznik.. Quantum Gravity Research Trends. arXiv eprint. 70.. 79. S. [DOI]. J. Phys. Rev. S. 21. 064027.. 1987. and Cirac. P. Alberta. Reznik. and symmetry of particle spectrum”.3775 [hepth]]. [arXiv:0902.. 61. New York. [295] Hossenfelder. Rev. Rev. D. [285] Hochberg. “Classical Gravity as an Eikonal Approximation to a Manifestly Lorentz Covariant Quantum Theory with Brownian Interpretation”. Lett. (2009). J. J.. “The minimal length and large extra dimensions”. [287] Hoˇava. B. 19. 74. “Running coupling with minimal length”. “Dynamical ﬁnite size eﬀect. transPlanckian dispersion relation. “See a Black Hole on a Shoestring”. [hepph/0405127]. P. (2010).... (2004).. C. unpublished.. NJ. and Oron. 4880–4888. D. 82.. D. S. Phys. [282] Heyl. [arXiv:hepth/0510245].I. Phys.P. Teaneck. (Nova Science. r Phys. Grav.M. D. S. 064004.M. Fagnocchi.. [hepth/0308103]. Rev.
html. CPT y and Lorentz Symmetry.E.livingreviews.. “Nonequilibrium quantum ﬁelds in cosmology: Comments on selected current topics”.. 38. T. 174. T. [hepth/9303103]. K. “On the origin of the outgoing black hole modes”. T.. “TransPlanckian redshifts and the substance of the spacetime river”. Observatoire de Paris. Cambridge. [DOI]. Singapore.. 1995). [300] Hu. River Edge. 2nd edition. S. Phys.worldscinet. [310] Jacobson. MA. W. “Stochastic gravity: A primer with applications”.. “Blackhole evaporation and ultrashort distances”. 1–17. [305] Israel. Prog. Rev. [hepth/0001085].. [309] Jacobson. 7. (2009). Theor. V. J. New York. T. [299] Hu. [DOI]... W.L.. “The Theory of a Quantum Noncanonical Field in Curved Spacetimes”. [DOI].A. France. 7082– 7088. Mexico. (2002)..[297] Hu. and Volovik. NJ. Relativity...A.A.L. “Stochastic Gravity: Theory and Applications”. eds. [DOI].org/lrr20043. “Fermionic Microstates within the Painlev´–Gullstrand Black e Hole”. B.. A. (World Scientiﬁc. p. 1987).com/9789812778123/9789812778123_0039. [303] Huhtala. [DOI]. Phys. and Matos.. [307] Jacobson. [DOI]. N. in Hawking. [arXiv:0903. Suppl. B. [grqc/9902064]. Bloomington. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011): http://eproceedings. Int.0878 [grqc]]. S. [306] Ito. [DOI]. in Mac´ ıas. Theor. 80. Phys.4568 [hepth]]. and Liberati. 44. D. Recent Developments in Gravitation and Mathematical o Physics. Obreg´n. Living Rev. G. 48. “Stochastic gravity”. (1996). lrr20043. eds.. H. Rev..L. “Dark stars: the evolution of an idea”. D. B. 12 – 16 December 1994. (2003). [308] Jacobson. B. [304] Indurain. Quevedo. [grqc/0111055]. [DOI]. E. Rev. Quantum Grav. 53.A. Phys.W. Proceedings of the First Mexican School on Gravitation and Mathematical Physics. NJ. J. O. [grqc/9409053]. J. R1–R42. Phys. (World Scientiﬁc. Proceedings of the Second Meeting. Phys. “Lorentz violation and Hawking radiation”. 012015. 199–276. [arXiv:0905. Ser. B. [hepth/9601064]. URL (accessed 31 May 2005): http://www.J. pp. 111. Theor. [hepth/9510026]... Phys. 1785–1806. Phys.A....A. H. 20. (1993). Singapore. Class. T... and Ugakkai. T. “Black hole radiation in the presence of a short distance cutoﬀ”. Three Hundred Years of Gravitation. N. in Kosteleck´. 128 . (1991). [312] Jacobson..A. D. eds. 136. “Can spacetime be a condensate?”. Phys. and Israel. Guanajuato. Rev. and Verdaguer. [302] Hu. in De Vega.L. 94. (1999). Cambridge. 316–320. [DOI]. River Edge. 2987–3037. 44. and Verdaguer. ed.. Int. (Cambridge University Press. and S´nchez. P. (World Scientiﬁc.. [301] Hu. J. 1994. USA.. 1987). 15 – 18 August 2001. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics. J. [grqc/0211090]. [311] Jacobson. “Emergent/Quantum Gravity: Macro/Micro Structures of Spacetime”.. [arXiv:grqc/0503067]. Exp. 728–741. (2005).S. (2004). Conf. Singapore. 2002). Second Paris Cosmology Colloquium. T. (MIT. River Edge. 1996). Theor. D. [DOI]. eds. [298] Hu.. B... 2 – 4 a June. 853–861.L. E. NJ.. 045008.. [grqc/0110079].L. “Introduction to Black Hole Microscopy”. (1999). (2009). 1731– 1739. pp.
(1998). 195009. phenomena and astrophysical constraints”. Springer Proceedings in Physics.A. J. 87–108. “Conformal invariance of black hole temperature”. pp. 024006. S. NJ.. Proceedings of Science. [grqc/9811014]. 2005). Annals Phys. D. [323] Jacobson. [321] Jacobson. and Mattingly. Liberati. [315] Jacobson. [DOI]. D.. [322] Jacobson. (SISSA. 024017. and KowalskiGlikman. 124011. T.1677 [grqc]]. Trieste. and Kang. and Mattingly... New York. J.A.. M. S. in Novello. T. [326] Jacobson. Phys. Liberati. “Einsteinaether waves”.1547 [grqc]]. “Lorentz violation and Crab synchrotron emission: A new constraint far beyond the Planck scale”. “Lorentz violation at high energy: concepts. [grqc/9307002]. 2007). “Astrophysical Bounds on Planck Suppressed Lorentz Violation”. D. Rev. [320] Jacobson. G. [DOI]. [arXiv:astroph/0505267]. “Horizon surface gravity as 2d geodesic expansion”. Rev. (1993). c Proceedings of the 9th Adriatic Meeting. 1–7. arXiv eprint. T.. Class. Lecture Notes in Physics.A. eds. Nature.A. Lett. Particle Physics and the Universe. T. G. S.. Rev. T. Phys. [DOI]. 874–880. 1–10. [DOI].. Exp. Quantum Grav. 321. Liberati. [grqc/0404067].A. June 11 – 15 2007. and Mattingly. T. D..[313] Jacobson. “Eﬀective spacetime and Hawking radiation from moving domain wall in thin ﬁlm of 3 HeA”. Theor.. 2002).A. [DOI]. Liberati. [317] Jacobson. “Quantum gravity phenomenology and Lorentz violation”. [arXiv:grqc/0402005 [grqc]]. D.A. [astroph/0212190]. River Edge. Italy. Rev. “Black hole and baby universe in a thin ﬁlm of 3 HeA”. T. Visser.. Phys. in AmelinoCamelia. [grqc/0308048]. T.. “Threshold eﬀects and Planck scale Lorentz violation: Combined constraints from high energy astrophysics”.E.it/cgibin/reader/conf. (Springer. Phys.E. 25. 70. [318] Jacobson. D. 150–196. D.. 064021. [314] Jacobson. D. J. (1998). 129 . 98. pp... [DOI]... Singapore. (2004). T. D. and Volovik. [arXiv:0806. (2003).A. [327] Jacobson. 2005).. 10. T.A. G. [319] Jacobson. [hepph/0209264]. [arXiv:hepth/0703233].. J. New York. in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology. and Parentani. and Volovik.. 58. and Volovik. and Koike. and Mattingly. 67.. (World Scientiﬁc. 1–26.. [Google Books].. (2008). S. “Hawking radiation on a falling lattice”. D. and Parentani.. M.. [DOI]. R. (2006). [hepth/9908099].. and Wess. [DOI]. Berlin. Phys. eds. Rev. [325] Jacobson. T. “Event horizons and ergoregions in 3 He”. Berlin. 68. 1019–1021.A. and Mattingly. [hepph/0407370]. [condmat/0205174]. [DOI].. [316] Jacobson. URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://pos. R.sissa. in Trampeti´. 424. “Einsteinaether gravity: a status report”. “Black hole entanglement entropy regularized in a freely falling frame”. T. T. 669. Planck Scale Eﬀects in Astrophysics and Cosmology. Grav. (Springer. [324] Jacobson. G. Phys. September 2003. (2007). Class. Artiﬁcial Black Holes... [arXiv:0801. (2003). (2000). D. and Mattingly.cgi?confid=43. Liberati. T. 76. D. eds. Quant. Trieste. and Mattingly.. T. 101–130. G. “Introduction to quantum ﬁelds in curved spacetime and the Hawking effect”. L201–L206. S. 61.. (2003). T. Dubrovnik. 024003.
Lett. and Rousseaux. Solid State Commun. [DOI]. B. [DOI]. 39. A. J. C. and Sinha.1701 [physics.. [DOI]. 3–13. “Dynamics of black hole formation in an exactly solvable model”. [DOI]. [astroph/0103225]. [DOI]. 397–406. [329] Jannes. 024041. “A covariant informationdensity cutoﬀ in curved spacetime”. Rev.L. A. Visser. Emergent gravity: the BEC paradigm. (2008).V. Surkov. [330] Jannes. and Garay.V..3627 [grqc]]. Barcel´. Found.sissa. [arXiv:0904. Lett. 63. 64. arXiv eprint.. [physics/9705005]. (1999).. R. “Graphene: New bridge between condensed matter physics and quantum electrodynamics”. K. J. G. Lett. (Universidad Complutense de Madrid.0613 [grqc]]. [334] Jannes. Phys. (2009). [arXiv:0705. G.. Samuel. [332] Jannes. [337] Kagan. and Shlyapnikov. P. in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology. M. [DOI]. 26. [DOI]. (2007). (2001).C. (2002)...I. [340] Katti. D.. Rev. Rev. 54.. “Mode generating mechanism in inﬂation with a cutoﬀ”.. D. Y. 2604–2607. Phys. “The circular jump is a white hole”. [343] Kempf. Class. Surkov. [hepth/0203172]. Italy. 92. [331] Jannes. C. 1–6. (2007). URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://pos.W. [DOI]. [arXiv:0907. [DOI]. Phys. “The Universe in a Soap Film”. C. R1753–R1756.. 2009)..S. Phys. Quant.2839 [grqc]]. June 11 – 15 2007. A. Rev. and Shlyapnikov. Trieste.. G.. R. “Some comments on ‘The Mathematical Universe”’. 1–6. and Gardiner.0867 [grqc]]. Rev.ﬂudyn]]. 083514..2077 [condmat.. 79. [342] Kempf. E. [341] Kempf. Rev. “Perturbation spectrum in inﬂation with cutoﬀ”. “QNM spectrum in (1+1)dimensional o BEC black holes”. and Thaler. [344] Kim. 143. 1–5. [333] Jannes.J. and Novoselov. Ph. A. 608. E. [grqc/0409003]. J. [arXiv:0810. Phys.. “Ultraslow Group Velocity and Enhanced Nonlinear Optical Eﬀects in a Coherently Driven Hot Atomic Gas”. 221301.J. (SISSA. Thesis. [arXiv:0904. G. Proceedings of Science. (1996). arXiv eprint. Phys.. W..[328] Jain. G.. “Evolution of a Bosecondensed gas under variations of the conﬁning potential”. (2009). [339] Katsnelson.L.. 5229–5232. M. [astroph/0009209]. 033616. A. [335] Jevicki.M. G. Y. (2001). Phys. et al. Trieste.. [DOI].. 82. Phys. 135018. 10–16. [DOI]. [338] Kash. “Condensed matter lessons about the origin of time”. Maissa.. A. and Niemeyer..D.. P. (2010).. M. Lett. and Oh. Rev.. [DOI]. “On the condensed matter scheme for emergent gravity and interferometry”. S. Mathis. “Evolution and global collapse of trapped Bose condensates under variations of the scattering length”.T. A. Madrid. 130 . “Decay rate and lowenergy nearhorizon dynamics of acoustic black holes”. Piquet. S. 76. (2009). Cano. arXiv eprint. Weinfurtner. [336] Kagan. D. (1997). J.. L.W. G.other]]. (2005). Phys.. 2007). [grqc/0310035]. Rev.. S.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)021. (2004). Phys. [arXiv:1010. Kim. G. “Analog model of a Friedmann– Robertson–Walker universe in Bose–Einstein condensates: Application of the classical ﬁeld method”. [arXiv:0904.. G. Grav.1057 [grqc]]. 103501.. 66..
2805 [grqc]]. (2001). (2008). “De Sitter space as an arena for doubly special relativity”.1439 [grqc]]. Phys.G. High Energy Phys. T. Phys. (2008). U. Phys.E. arXiv eprint. and Volovik.[345] Kim. [DOI]. [349] Klinkhamer.. Rev. M. (2004). and Volovik.. Phys.T. N. [arXiv:0801. Son. J. G. [arXiv:grqc/0601028]. Y. W. [DOI].. [DOI]. lrr19992. R. and Padmanabhan.. (2002). Phys. Exp. (1989).. J.S. 528–532. 044032. B. 49. “Towards a classiﬁcation of wave catastrophes”. [359] Kopnin. URL (accessed 31 May 2005): http://www.D.livingreviews. G. 6. “Superresonance eﬀect and energy ﬂow in acoustic black holes”. [346] Kim. “QuasiNormal Modes of Stars and Black Holes”. G. Rev. (1998). “Statistical entropy and superradiance in 2+1 dimensional acoustic black holes”. “Statistical Mechanics of Graphity Models”. “Stopping Light via Hot Atoms”. J. [condmat/9712187]. [DOI]. and Park. 2. [arXiv:0801. [347] Kim.. 063528.E. [DOI]. 77. 67. [DOI]. Markopoulou.3563 [hepth]]. Phys. (2008). [arXiv:0907.E. “Testing dispersion relations of quantum kappaPoincare algebra on cosmological ground”. [arXiv:0706. Yoon. [arXiv:0805. Phys. F. S. and Shin. [354] Kokkotas... G.R. Soc. B.. K.B.0619 [grqc]]. J. 683–685. [362] KowalskiGlikman. (1999). B. 2007(07).. [360] Kosteleck´. and Yoon. 024036. [DOI]. S246–S247. 291–296. [348] Kiss. [355] Kolekar. J. D. [361] KowalskiGlikman. [350] Klinkhamer.. V.. A. 547.E. [arXiv:0806. “Towards a solution of the cosmological constant problem”. “Critical velocity and event horizon in paircorrelated systems with relativistic fermionic quasiparticles”. JETP Lett. “Thermodynamics of (2+1)dimensional acoustic black hole based on the generalized uncertainty principle”. E. 131 . E. H. [grqc/0504127]. Lett.. S. 78. 86. D. [357] Konopka. (2007). Rev. J. [DOI].J. Phys.. 499.. F. [DOI]. [352] Kobes. 1–8. (2006).. [DOI]. (2010). Korean Phys. Phys. Son. and Samuel. [arXiv:0711. and Volovik. arXiv eprint. and Severini. and Leonhardt. “Spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry in string y theory”.R.R. 628–631. [DOI].. D. [arXiv:1005. 259–265. Lett. Lett. [351] Klinkhamer.. 15–20. D. 501–506. Rev.0861 [hepth]]. Rev. Can. Phys. 085015. M.O. “Selftuning vacuum variable and cosmological constant”. 84. (2008). “Dynamic vacuum variable and equilibrium approach in cosmology”. [DOI]. T. T. O.A. [physics/0309036]. 070. F.3170 [grqc]]. “Holography in Action”. Living Rev. Rev. and Volovik.. [DOI]. (2006). [DOI]. W. and Markopoulou.. D. M. Rev. Y. 39. (2008). and Schmidt. Phys... [hepth/0207279].. (2010)..4887 [hepth]].2283 [hepth]]. F. 82. T. (2001). S. “Anomaly Analysis of Hawking Radiation from Acoustic Black Hole”. and Scully..J. F. Lett. (2006).. 78. [astroph/0006250].org/lrr19992.. J. D.J. T. Opt. [356] Konopka.. 77. [353] Kocharovskaya.. 91. [358] Konopka. 104029. Relativity. “Constrained mechanics and noiseless subsystems”. W. “Quantum Graphity: a model of emergent locality”. Rostovtsev. Theor.
Lett. (June 1994). Rev.. “Limitations on the existence of massless composite states”. eds. [376] Larsen. 1959). 82. 2nd edition. Phys. Lett. (1982).L. A. Reissue of 1932 ed.. Part 2. [374] Landau. 1879. and Zaikin. B. Phys. (2002). 1980).. A. [365] Krein. 1932). 35. O. Mod. (Pergamon Press. Z.. Proceedings of the conference. “A Simple Stationary Line Element for the Schwarzschild Geometry.M. 1–14. Oxford. 65.D. 1971). L.0073 [condmat. [375] Landau. Phys. [379] Lemaˆ ıtre. T. Vasiliev. M. [367] Kurita.. and Tsubota.. H. “Spacetime analogue of BoseEinstein condensates: Bogoliubovde Gennes formulation”... [arXiv:0810. The classical theory of ﬁelds. 18. G. Phys. “Doubly special relativity: A kinematics of quantum gravity?”.. Morinari.. [arXiv:1007. (Pergamon. Y.D. Phys. “Zur Theorie der Gravitation”. D. L. 240401. L. (1933). [DOI].. [DOI]. Tsubota. [DOI].. Int.B. Course of Theoretical Physics.W. 105022. G. M. Ser. 8. arXiv eprint. 473–476.1337]. (Scientiﬁc World. C. (1926). Rev.3350 [hepth]]. 109. H. AddisonWesley. Gordon.. Rev. L. E. E. A. in Semikhatov. (2010). 1984). Statistical Physics. [366] Kugo. F. 053602.. Oxford. Phys. 205–208.M.. A. “L’univers en expansion”.. [DOI]. “Analog model for quantum gravity eﬀects: phonons in random ﬂuids”. J. R. Mineola. Reading. L. and Steinhauer. and Uzan. Sci. 023510. Martin. Kobayashi. New York. M. (Pergamon Press.. June 24 – 29. Soc. T. [377] Laschkarew.D. 3rd edition. Lett.P.P. 2002). [arXiv:1006.. 131301. A. [380] Lemoine.[363] KowalskiGlikman. 132 . Hydrodynamics. L.. Lubo. N..M. and Svaiter. Kobayashi. P. and Ishihara. 6. “Realization of a Sonic Black Hole Analog in a Bose–Einstein Condensate”. “Cosmic strings and black holes”. Moscow.. D.. London. 53. [371] L¨mmerzahl. and Some Applications”. ﬁrst edition publ. [373] Landau. “Particle creation in Bose–Einstein condensates: Theoretical formulation based on conserving gapless meanﬁeld theory”. Lifshitz. [364] Kraus.other]].D. J. 105. (2003). [hepth/0209264]. [372] Landau. [grqc/9406042].. Electrodynamics of continuous media. Phys. MA. (1996). J. (2010). Blumkin. New York.3088 [condmat. (2008). (Dover. NY. M. Russia.. Bruxelles. “Stressenergy tensor for transPlanckian cosmology”. H. E. and Pitaevskii.. 6th edition. Course of Theoretical Physics. 105.V.P. [hepth/0109128].. and Hehl. and Lifshitz.. [DOI]. “Emergent relativity”. 2002. Menezes.. V. [DOI]. [369] Lahav.. (2010). arXiv eprint. Ann. 9. F. New York. [hepth/9610063]. [DOI]. Rev. [370] Lamb. M.. [368] Kurita. (2004).F. [arXiv:0906. 51–85. and Lifshitz. J. Oxford. and Pitaevskii... Moscow. [grqc/0302028].. 3rd International Sakharov Conference on Physics. [grqc/0409072].. Ishihara. and Wilczek. Y. 831–854. Phys. G. M. C. Itah.. Rev. A. J.. Fluid Mechanics. arXiv eprint. Course of Theoretical Physics. 70.M. Lifshitz. (Pergamon Press. [378] Laughlin.. 1–10. E.. M.quantgas]]. A. “Riemannian light cone from vanishing birefringence a in premetric vacuum electrodynamics”.M. W.
P. B. New York. (2000). Part. 174–181. U. [DOI]. P. T. (2000). [arXiv:0805. Rev. (International School for Advanced Studies. P. Trieste. [quantph/0305007]. 5253. [387] Leonhardt. “Quasinormal modes. 4301–4312. [physics/0001064]. U. Rev. J. P... Visser.G. 66. [396] Liberati. [Google Books]. “Quantum physics of simple optical instruments”. 62. (2003). [390] Leonhardt. (1999). Croatia. [391] Leonhardt. D. (2005). R.3834 [grqc]]. I. Kiss. 1777–1780. ¨ [386] Leonhardt.it/contribution?id=PoS(P2GC)018. D. P.. 1207–1250. eds. [DOI]. “Intrinsic instability of sonic white holes”. (2006).. Klabucar.0142 [grqc]]URL: http://pos. (2002).. G. “Transformation Optics and the Geometry of Light”. R. Nucl. and Saavedra. F. NJ. 822–825. S. S. Girelli. 60. “Black Hole Lasers Revisited”. [arXiv:0706. Rep. arXiv eprint. A. [grqc/0003016]. Berlin. [383] Leonhardt. 84.. [DOI]. “Reply to Comment on “Relativistic Eﬀects of Light in Moving Media with Extremely Low Group Velocity” by M. J. Proceedings of Science. U.. Prog.. 103520. [393] Liberati. Sci. Science. P2GC. [arXiv:0906. 229–246. and Piwnicki. Gravity and Cosmology. 69–152. Rev. 53. 1–13. Germany. eds. Phys.. Dubrovnik. [grqc/0211069]. [hepth/0212027].. and Piwnicki. S.. “Analogue Models for Emergent Gravity”. A. [DOI]. Visser”. [382] Leonhardt.4778]. (2000). Iengo. Ph. U. L. arXiv eprint.S. “Lorentz Violation: Motivation and new constraints”. 61–85. Artiﬁcial Black Holes.D. Lecture Notes in Physics. 21 August – 2 September 2006. and Piwnicki. L.. Quantum Analogues: From Phase Transitions to Black Holes and Cosmology.. Lett. and Sindoni. and Uzan. [385] Leonhardt...0681 [astroph. [388] Leonhardt.. pp. Phys. L. S.. Singapore.HE]]. U. 012111.. Rev. in Sch¨ tzhold.. M. superradiance and area spectrum for 2+1 acoustic black holes”... T. eds. [grqc/0108085].A. [grqc/0009050]. pp. Pallua. and Ohberg.. “Spacetime geometry of quantum dielectrics”. 85.. “Quantum gravity phenomenology via Lorentz violations”. 718. “Relativistic Eﬀects of Light in Moving Media with Extremely Low Group Velocity”. and Philbin. [DOI]. “Optical Conformal Mapping”. Trieste. B. [DOI]. 2010). (Springer.[381] Lemoine.. [condmat/9906332]. Opt. U.. [395] Liberati. (2009). 2000). T. in Novello. and Maccione... and u Unruh. “Slow Light”. [grqc/0410074]. and Picek. [392] Lepe. [394] Liberati. Lett... (World Scientiﬁc. (2009). S. [arXiv:0909. (2003). Phys. Phys. Lett. 67. Rev. [384] Leonhardt. [DOI]. [ADS]. 133 . Phys. Phys. School on Particle Physics. 1–8. 617.. Rev.. [DOI]. 312(5781). River Edge. J. Ann.. [DOI]. in Bonora. Prog. M. 2007). S. 245–267. U. U..G. U. [DOI]. U. 59. “TransPlanckian dark energy?”.. and Philbin. U.sissa. [arXiv:0803. (SISSA. Phys. and Volovik. 2002). Martin. M.. Quantum vacuum eﬀects in gravitational ﬁelds: Theory and detectability. “Optics of nonuniformly moving media”. (2009). [389] Leonhardt.0669 [grqc]]. Thesis.
[DOI]. Grav. S. M. 80. [412] Macher. [DOI].. 2009(04). (2006). J. “Naturalness in emergent spacetime”. 42. R. and Kirk. Rev. M. [410] Maccione. “Ultraviolet cut oﬀ. and Visser. [quantph/0010055]. [grqc/0107091]. 63. Class. “Linking the transPlanckian and the information loss problems in black hole physics”. 151301.. [405] Lubo. 124009. [DOI]. Sonego. S. Relativ. and Parentani. [DOI]. S. M. [DOI]. Cosmol. (2000). S. (Berlin). J. Rev... Liberati.. [411] Maccione.... Phys. “Ultraviolet cutoﬀ and bosonic dominance”.[397] Liberati. and Parentani. 085003. Quant. [408] Maccione. Mattingly. Celotti. Phys.. (2008). Phys.3634 [condmat. Astropart. (2008). D. 79. “Blackhole radiation in BoseEinstein condensates”. 68. Liberati. S. (2003). (2006).. (2003). (2009). L. S. [402] Liberati. Taylor..M. M. Rev.2673 [astroph]]. J. [arXiv:0902. [hepth/0306187].. Phys. [DOI]. Rev.). Phys. (2007). S... Sindoni. (N. A. [398] Liberati. and Liberati. special relativity. [DOI]. [DOI]. [arXiv:0809. Phys. (2002). 1–1. M. Phys. Gravit. Ann. L. A. [DOI]. [DOI]. (2000). (2009). Lett. Astropart. 803–829. [arXiv:0903. Ann. 96. (2009). 298.. Class. [DOI]. 2008(08).1756 [astroph. Phys. L. “Cosmic dynamics of Bose–Einstein condensates”. Cosmol. L. [404] Loebbert. S.. [DOI]. 1–9.G. “Analogue quantum gravity phenomenology from a twocomponent BoseEinstein condensate”. J. “New constraints on Planckscale Lorentz Violation in QED from the Crab Nebula”. J. 23. A. [407] Lubo. [arXiv:0805. Rev. Class. S. 167–185.. 2007(10). 1–10. 043601.M. “The WeinbergWitten theorem on massless particles: An Essay”. Rev.2224 [hepth]]. [DOI]. [400] Liberati.. Kirk. “Fasterthanc signals. [DOI].. 1139–1152.Y. 2903–2923. Phys. 022. R..2548 [astroph]]. (2008). and Liberati. 21.. 17. [403] Lidsey. M. (2004). 103003. Cosmol. M. [arXiv:0904.. [DOI].0220 [astroph]]. (2009). [399] Liberati. L. [arXiv:0707. 61. D. D. Phys. M. S. 777–786. Phys.. S. and Visser. Phys. 78. S. [hepth/9911191]. D. J. [hepth/0305216].. Rev.. and causality”. (2001). [arXiv:0905.. [406] Lubo. Phys. Quantum Grav. J.HE]]. Quantum Grav. “Planckscale Lorentz violation constrained by UltraHighEnergy Cosmic Rays”. S. Sonego... F. 134 .quantgas]]. “Black/White hole radiation from dispersive theories”.. [409] Maccione. “Quantum minimal length and transPlanckian photons”.G. 17. Rev. “Gammaray polarization constraints on Planck scale violations of special relativity”.0815 [grqc]]. black holeradiation equilibrium and big bang”. Sonego. [grqc/0003105]. and Sonego.E.. Visser. and Weinfurtner. 68. “Unexpectedly large surface gravities for acoustic horizons?”. and Weinfurtner.... and Visser. [DOI]. S. D. and Ubertini. [DOI]. Astropart. [401] Liberati. Gen.. P. J. [arXiv:grqc/0510125]. [413] Macher. “GZK photon constraints on Planck scale Lorentz violation in QED”. 124008.. 125005. [arXiv:grqc/0512139].. S. A. D. “Scharnhorst eﬀect at oblique incidence”. 027. 125004. S. Visser. D. 3129–3154. 013... [grqc/0307037]. Celotti.
“A Cosmological Window on TransPlanckian Physics”.. “Corley–Jacobson dispersion relation and transPlanckian inﬂation”. [arXiv:0807. Phys. (2009). and KowalskiGlikman. 063513. J. [arXiv:0811. “Quantum entanglement produced in the o formation of a black hole”. J. [DOI]. C. [428] Massar. in AmelinoCamelia. Berlin. [grqc/9411039].3264 [hepph]]. M.J..4326 [hepph]]. [425] Martin. Phys. 77. 001. Phys. and Sa’d. [424] Martin. (2001).. 101502. Cosmol.. [DOI]. u D..H. R. arXiv eprint. Rev. arXiv eprint. R. [grqc/9502024]. 2008). 68. 2007(08). F. Astropart. 52. 241101. and Brandenberger. Trieste. E. G. 82. in 8th Conference Quark Conﬁnement and the Hadron Spectrum.4010 [grqc]]. A. [DOI]. D. C. [426] Martin.it/contribution?id=PoS(Confinement8)140. 669. Phys. [hepth/0005209].[414] Maia. 63. R. Lecture Notes in Physics. 1–5. R.J. [hepth/0201189]. J. “Quantum toy model for blackhole backreaction”. 103514. “The semiclassical back reaction to black hole evaporation”.3909 [hepph]]. Rev. and Manuel. Rev. (2007). (2002). 2004). “Acoustic black holes in a twodimensional ‘photonﬂuid”’. [DOI]. J. 123501. Ladek Zdr´j. 064028. “Dependence of the spectra of ﬂuctuations in inﬂationary cosmology on transPlanckian physics”. D. and Sch¨tzhold. (2007). F.. [415] Mannarelli. [hepth/0305161]. [423] Martin. and Brandenberger.H. “TransPlanckian problem of inﬂationary cosmology”.H.. Phys. J. “Mutual friction in a cold colorﬂavorlocked superﬂuid and rmode instabilities in compact stars”. R. [DOI]. M. Planck Scale Eﬀects in Astrophysics and Cosmology... Garay. C. (2010). Proceedings of Science. and Parentani.. [422] Martin. (SISSA. (Springer. L. Basil A. Phys. [427] Mart´ ınMart´ ıinez.H. Poland. [arXiv:0705.4512 [hepph]]. Rev. and Le´n. (2008). “Towards gravity from the quantum”... [arXiv:hepth/0604120]. [arXiv:0802.. from cold atoms to quark matter”.. C. 76. 5857–5864. D. [417] Mannarelli. 1–16. [416] Mannarelli. (2001). J. 40th Karpacz Winter School of Theoretical Physics. [419] Manuel. 78.0321 [hepph]].. 54. Rev. URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://pos. and Manuel. “Transport theory for cold relativistic superﬂuids from an analogue model of gravity”. (1995). D. New York. “Dissipative superﬂuids. 65. Phys. “Hydrodynamics of the CFL superﬂuid”. J. Manuel. 103014. 1–16.. (1996). [DOI]. arXiv eprint. Rev.. and Brandenberger. “Bulk viscosity in a cold CFL superﬂuid”. Phys. Phys.. [DOI]. R. S. 101. “Inﬂationary cosmological perturbations of quantummechanical origin”. 7426–7443. Rev. D. [420] Marino. (2008). (2008). [arXiv:0706. [429] Massar. Rev. D. Phys.. “From vacuum ﬂuctuations to radiation: Accelerated detectors and black holes”.. [hepth/0406011]. [421] Markopoulou.2858 [quantph]]. Phys. D. C. o 4 – 14 February 2004.. [astroph/0012031].. F. S. [418] Manuel. (2006). J. [DOI]. [arXiv:1007.sissa. M. 135 . [arXiv:0910. Rev.1624 [grqc]]. [DOI]. Lett. Rev. eds. 063804. [arXiv:0808. and LlanesEstrada. C. and Brandenberger. (2003).
M.. 77. “How the change in horizon area drives black hole evaporation”. 1–9. L. R. and Sigl. J. Q. A. [DOI].. C. Favaro. New York. 1986).0539 [grqc]]. Theoretical Hydrodynamics.. [arXiv:grqc/0601034]. (2010). J. G. [arXiv:0804. 54. (2008).. [DOI]. Classical Theory”. The Fourth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on recent developments in theoretical and experimental general relativity.J. 8. 1591–1595. H. [DOI]. Proc. eds. (1985).S. R. D. [442] Milgrom. Maccione. Cosmol. Rev. C. January 9 – 14. A. [445] Misner. [441] Mersini. NJ. Atti del VI Convegno Nazionale di Relativit` Generale e Fisica della Gravitazione.. Amsterdam.2880 [hepth]]. Phys. “Relic dark energy from transPlanckian regime”. (2011).. Optics. London. Astropart.0521 [hepph]].. Ser. 1968). D. and Parentani. International Conference on High Energy Physics. B. Thorne. Liberati. (2000). “Possible cosmogenic neutrino constraints on Planckscale Lorentz violation”. “On the classical and quantum irrotational motions of a relativistic perfect ﬂuid: I. S. D. [434] Matarrese. Italy. L.H. 043508.. M. S. D. “Massive particles in acoustic spacetimes emergent inertia and passive gravity”.W.. 1985.M. “From vacuum ﬂuctuations to radiation. “Steplike discontinuities in BoseEinstein condensates and Hawking radiation: dispersion eﬀects”. Bologna. or a history editor”. 2001. URL (accessed 31 May 2005): http://www. Egypt. Phys. D. 2001). 283–287. and Rinaldi.M.. Soc. 024003.livingreviews. Galaverni. and Tallat. 64.org/lrr20055.. 136 .[430] Massar. S. 401. pp. [439] McCall. 73. (2006). New York. (2008). and Parentani. Phys. 78. Black holes”. [DOI].. 1986). 084005. and Wheeler.. 53–66. “Dark energy from the transPlanckian regime”. [hepph/0101210]. R. 289–294. M. [433] Matarrese. [arXiv:0709.. eds. [444] Minic. 333–356. Florence. Elsevier. ed. in Fabbri.. [443] MilneThomson.A.. Phys.. 10 – 13 October 1984. L. (NorthHolland. [DOI]. in Ruﬃni. gravitation and relativistic ﬁeld theories. [431] Massar. Relativity. D.. “Perturbations of an irrotational perfect ﬂuid”. Kinsler.. Cairo. [437] Mattingly.. Rev. L.. Phys. “A spacetime cloak. arXiv eprint. 214501. London. and Heremans. and Kanti.. (W. S.2125 [grqc]]. A. Proceedings of the meeting held at the University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’. [grqc/9903027]. [436] Mattingly.. [hepph/0106134]. [DOI]. pp. R. 13. M. and Modugno. [DOI]. a Proceedings of the 4th Italian Conference on General Relativity and the Physics of Gravitation.. 5th edition. 125021. pp. BasteroGil..W.. (Pitagora Editrice. P. 575. “Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance”. Rev. B. Nucl. Phys. [arXiv:0911. (2001). 007. (2005). (Macmillan. Shaﬁ.. Rev. S. 17 – 21 June. Freeman. D. [arXiv:1008.. S. (Rinton Press. Rev. M. (1996). Princeton. D. 1973). [grqc/9502024]. and Boardman.. Fabbri. Gravitation. “Phonons in a relativistic perfect ﬂuid”. Living Rev. 7444–7458. R. (2010). 2010(02). “High Temperature Superconductivity and Eﬀective Gravity”. A. “Causal sets and conservation laws in tests of Lorentz symmetry”. in Khalil.. lrr20055. S. II. K. J. [435] Mattingly. San Francisco.. J. [432] Matarrese. [440] Mersini. M. P. Phys. [438] Mayoral.
[451] Naddeo. “Production and decay of evolving horizons”. Mod. 1038–1046.. 24.other]]. [astroph/0005533]. [458] Niemeyer.). [462] Nikoli/’c.other]]. A. J. A.M. Evans. (N.... (2001). “Gravitational perturbations of spherically symmetric systems. Phys. [DOI]. [arXiv:grqc/0510083]. Lett. [hepth/0402145].C. D. 63. and Scelza. [459] Niemeyer. A. Phys. [DOI]. J. [grqc/0312063]. Mod. K. [DOI]. Rev. and Xu. Am.C. 235. 084006. Y. and Yoo.M. Rev. arXiv eprint. Phys. (2005). D. (2002). (1980). [grqc/0208035]. 1–11. K. [grqc/0411041]. 137 . and Scelza.. K. “Quasinormal ringing for acoustic black holes at low temperature”.C.. 64. [DOI]. Ogawa.G. “TransPlanckian dispersion and scale invariance of inﬂationary perturbations”. D.. Phys. Zhang. (2010). J. arXiv eprint. [455] Nandi.K. “Black holes radiate but do not evaporate”. Phys.C. [grqc/0409085]. [461] Nikoli´. [460] Niemeyer. (2002). 71. arXiv c eprint. C. [arXiv:physics/0702069]. (2008). J.. [447] Moncrief. Quant. 101301. “Inﬂation with a Planckscale frequency cutoﬀ”. 67. D. “A note on the analogy between superﬂuids and cosmology”. [arXiv:0910.C. D. and Parentani. Rev. [449] Nachman.. [DOI]. [453] Nandi. (Clarendon. [ADS]. J. V.. G. J. 23.. “Analogue of the Fizeau eﬀect in an eﬀective optical medium”. Phys.I.. D. H. K. Astrophys.. M.. Phys. [grqc/0410052].Z. (2003). V. Phys. Alsing. Oxford. A. “Acoustic Wormholes”.. Y. [DOI]. (2006). [DOI]. 1–4. and Cai. 531–576. (2009). 123502. R. The exterior problem”. 88. [astroph/0201511].. D. 76. 4637–4658.. Class. 2nd edition. H. R. “Would Bohr be born if Bohm were born before Born?”. [448] Moncrief. 128. 1–7... (2005). 025002. [DOI]. “Stability of stationary. [452] Nakano. I.[446] Møller. (2002). Int.0790 [condmat. R. “Time in quantum gravity by weakening the Hamiltonian constraint”. [450] Naddeo. Phys.K. [DOI]. 083510. 24.. J. Kurita.H.. B. [ADS].Z. [DOI]. “Minimal modiﬁcations of the primordial power spectrum from an adiabatic short distance cutoﬀ”. H. Int. Lett. Y. (1974). Ann. c 143–146. 14. Mod. H. 17.. J.B.. [DOI]. M. spherical accretion onto a Schwarzschild black hole”. 1–7. Rev.. 323–342. Rev.0794 [condmat. “Reconstructions from boundary measurements”. [DOI]. (1988).Y. 4187–4196. [454] Nandi. P. (2001). C.K... [464] Novello. 2257– 2261. The Theory of Relativity. Grav. Phys. [arXiv:0910. Parentani. and Visser. (2004).. J. [463] Nikoli´. 1972). 3249–3256. (2004). G. [DOI]. A. D. and Bhadra.. 513–520. [astroph/0101451]. Zhang. (2003). Mod. “Eﬀective geometry in nonlinear electrodynamics”. [arXiv:hepth/0206149].. A. Phys. Math. [456] Nielsen. “Wave equation of the scalar ﬁeld and superﬂuids”. Ann.. and Campo. arXiv eprint. 66. “Unruh model for the Einstein–Rosen charge: Squealing wormholes?”. [DOI]. A. [457] Niemeyer. “Cosmological consequences of short distance physics”.
W. “Nonlinear electrodynamics and the acceleration of the Universe”. [DOI].. [467] Novello. and Klippert. [grqc/0311036]. Rep.. 25th Anniversary (1977–2002). pp. Xth Brazilian School of Cosmology and Gravitation. S. and Salim.. Cosmology and Gravitation. “Geometrical aspects of light propagation in nonlinear electrodynamics”. Phys.. De Lorenci. Salim. (2005).E.. A.. M. [473] Obukhov.N. 288–300. 859–871. [DOI].. [474] Obukhov. D. “Spacetime metric from linear electrodynamics”. (2003). and Horwitz. arXiv eprint. and Klippert. and Volovik. [grqc/0103061]. Phys. (2001).S. [466] Novello.. “Uniformly accelerated mirrors. Phys. (2003). M.. M. 49–125. “Notes on moving mirrors”. Relativ. [arXiv:grqc/0703070]. 29 July – 9 August 2002. (2000). (2003). 024022. [DOI]. D. Salim. V. [grqc/0309114]. [471] Obadia. (2004). 1–10. [DOI]. Masaaki. Phys. arXiv eprint. [480] Padmanabhan. Rev. 084027. Phys. 491–506. D81. 1–4. NJ. S. [grqc/0302052]. R. 1–18. Dolan. 406. in Novello Santiago. 69. 20. [DOI]. [470] Novello. 19. D. “Analog black holes in ﬂowing dielectrics”. J. [hepph/0205018]. [479] Oron.M..... [DOI]. N. J.. N. 138 . M... [DOI]. E. R. 2637–2643. [DOI]. [DOI].[465] Novello.. Phys. [476] Okuzumi. G. V. Rev. (2005). Phys. 76. Rev. 2003). J. S. Gen. “Eﬀective electromagnetic geometry”. 1–17.. 63. eds. and Perez Bergliaﬀa. M. E. (2001).R. L. and Parentani.M.A. “Towards a selfconsistent model of analogue gravity”. M. [478] Oppenheim. Phys. “Thermodynamics with longrange interactions: From Ising models to black holes”.. Y. 016108. Singapore. 466–470. Rev. and Crispino. S. Y. Class. and Salim. (2003). [469] Novello.E. 37. and Perez Bergliaﬀa. 61. 044019. De Lorenci. (World Scientiﬁc. D. Rev.. [DOI]. Rev... 68. [DOI]. Rev.N. S. T. R. (1999). A. 1–4.E. T. 668..M. Rev. “Eﬀective Geometry”. Complex Paths and Quantum Tunneling”. 64.A. 2002). Visser. and Sakagami.P. D. J. 67. “Gravity and the thermodynamics of horizons”. Rio de Janeiro. “Eikonal approximation to 5D wave equations as geodesic motion in a curved 4D spacetime”. [grqc/9911085]. D. [astroph/0312093]. [grqc/0405072]. [arXiv:grqc/0509045]. “Entropy of Horizons. eds. Phys. Perez Bergliaﬀa. R. [481] Padmanabhan. Quantum Grav. “Quasinormal ringing of acoustic black holes in Laval nozzles: Numerical simulations”. [475] Okninski. River Edge.. M. II: Quantum correlations”. E. Phys. [468] Novello. [472] Obadia. NY. Lett. [grqc/0209057]. [477] Oliveira. J. [grqc/9904067]. (American Institute of Physics. O. “Black hole hydrodynamics”.. Mod.B. [grqc/0212066]. (2007).. F. [DOI]. M.. Brazil. (2004). (2010). [grqc/0201061]. Artiﬁcial Black Holes. 1–17. AIP Conference Proceedings. “Absorption of planar waves in a draining bathtub”. 045001. and Parentani. L. 458. Phys. Melville. Mangaratiba. Perez Bergliaﬀa. B. 083511. 124013..M.. Gravit. D.C. 127301.. Lett. and Hehl. (2003).
R.M. 139 . (2000). [hepth/9509104]. Phys... R.. D. 046901. and Smith. and Lee. “The Recoils of a Dynamical Mirror and the Decoherence of its Fluxes”. (1921). [498] Pendry. [DOI]. Mod. 501–525. Trieste. Internal Structure of Black Holes and Space Time Singularities. (2002). R. [485] Parentani. [495] Parentani.. 465. in Burko. [492] Parentani. (2006). B. “What did we learn from studying acoustic black holes?”. “Thermodynamical Aspects of Gravity: New insights”. [grqc/0009011]. “Confronting the transPlanckian question of inﬂationary cosmology with dissipative eﬀects”. “Constructing QFT’s wherein Lorentz Invariance is broken by dissipative eﬀects in the UV”. URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://pos. R.. (2001). Phys. “Hawking radiation from Feynman diagrams”. 17. (2008). R. [arXiv:1003. [arXiv:1003. 4. J. J. Int. e e e 677–680.. June 11 – 15 2007.K.. Nucl. J. “The inﬂationary paradigm: predictions for CMB”.B. R. Quant. D. Rev. Phys. R. [488] Parentani. “Beyond the semiclassical description of black hole evaporation”.. Phys.2563 [hepth]]. Class. O. Theor. “Surface Density of Spacetime Degrees of Freedom from Equipartition Law in theories of Gravity”. “Resonance Solitons as Black Holes in Madelung Fluid”. [DOI]. [487] Parentani. D. [DOI]. [grqc/9502030]. (2010). “From vacuum ﬂuctuations across an event horizon to long distance correlations”. 25.. 1–4.. (2010).it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)039. 124040. A. [497] Pashaev. Int. 1601–1619. [494] Parentani. C. (1995). 41. R. 175–214. (Institute of Physics Publishing.. 492. Nucl. 1997). Rev. [DOI]. “The validity of the background ﬁeld approximation”. [483] Padmanabhan. Phys.. T. Phys.. 154015. (2010). Rept. 17. D. [489] Parentani... (1996). eds. A. B.. Phys. [496] Parentani. [arXiv:0911. Haifa. 82.. 2175–2200. 454.5665 [grqc]]. [hepth/9810139]. 2721–2726. [DOI]. Grav.. B. in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology. Italy. Phys. Bristol.. 312(5781). D. [490] Parentani. R.. Phys. 2007). (2002). [484] Painlev´. (SISSA. [arXiv:0710. Rev. [grqc/9904024]. 13. “The Recoils of the accelerated detector and the decoherence of its ﬂuxes”. D. Nucl. 63. “Time dependent perturbation theory in quantum cosmology”. [491] Parentani. R. 61.. L.sissa. [DOI]. (2002).. “Controlling Electromagnetic Fields”. [DOI].4664 [hepth]]. A. Israel. C.3943 [hepth]]. [grqc/0204079]. Lett. [486] Parentani. 81.[482] Padmanabhan.R. 227–249. 173. [arXiv:0704. P. (1997). J. Philadelphia. and Ori. June 29 – July 3. Science. T. Physique. 1997. [grqc/9610045].. 73. 025008. Acad. Annals of the Israel Physical Society. Phys. [DOI]. R. Mod. [astroph/0404022]. R. 1780–1782. [493] Parentani. R. 1–4. [DOI]. (2003). [grqc/9710059]. Proceedings of Science. Trieste. 935– 943.H. Prog. R. 041503. “La m´canique classique et la theorie de la relativit´”.5004 [grqc]]. Phys. [arXiv:0709. 027501.. [DOI]. [DOI]. Schurig. Sci.3625 [grqc]]. Rev. “Quantum metric ﬂuctuations and Hawking radiation”.
. Physica D. 105018. A.G. “Gravitational Collapse: The Role of General Relativity”. [510] Pleba´ski. “Glimmers of a pregeometric perspective”.G. Hebd. S. [grqc/9606074]. [506] Philips.. D. Benjamin. [arXiv:0910. [ADS]. “Nearthermal radiation in detectors. Phys. and Koks.. C. “Floating Orbits. E. [arXiv:0711. [arXiv:0711. [grqc/0201007]. A. 17. Phys.A. [509] Piwnicki. (2001). S. R. F. New York. (2002). Phys. D. D. Lectures on Nonlinear Electrodynamics. (W.. 6. 344.. (2009). [DOI]. M. R.. “Electromagnetic waves in gravitational ﬁelds”. [DOI]. [513] Press.4796 [grqc]]. [DOI].. “Wave Equation for Sound in Fluids with Vorticity”.. 238. W. (2008). arXiv eprint. Hill. 82. 1. Fagnocchi. e e Acad.F. S. (2010). Hibberd. [DOI]. [503] Pham. (1972). J. R. Nuovo Cimento. [DOI]. and Leonhardt. 4795–4812. U. (1956).A. “Sur les ´quations de l’electromagn´ dans la materie”.E. T. The ManyBody Problem: A Lecture Note and Reprint Volume. [511] Pleba´ski. Rev. Hill. K. (2003). M. (1997). Kuklewicz. F. Rev.. [505] Philbin. 252–276. S.0647 [grqc]]. 1962). [DOI]. (2007).R. S. Fleischhauer. Sci. “Storage of Light in Atomic Vapor”. “Geometrical approach to light in inhomogeneous media”. 13.. B.. Frontiers in Physics. 239–266. o “Fiberoptical analogue of the event horizon”. Kuklewicz. [astroph/0401577].. A. Mod.. S. Soc. Lett. [DOI]. Astron.. 211–212.. A. 207–210. Mod. 1367–1370. [arXiv:1009. 1543–1558.. 1396–1408. [DOI]. Science. [507] Piazza.K. D. arXiv eprint. and Liberati. Konig. S. and Walsworth. [500] Pereira.. C... o Lett. (2001). C. A. Phys.. [astroph/0212515].. “Fiberoptical analogue of the event horizon: Appendices”. 191. 2nd edition. and Visser. 1469– 1476. “Flowing Liquid Crystal Simulating the Schwarzschild Metric”. [DOI]. “Analogue Cosmological Particle Creation: Quantum Correlations in Expanding Bose Einstein Condensates”..E. Found.H.. J. (1998).1314 [grqc]]. and Teukolsky. 55. 783–786. [arXiv:hepth/0506124]. Phys. 118. 40. E..L. K¨nig. Stone. S. (Nordita. “On the Euclidean approach to quantum ﬁeld theory in G¨del spacetime”. Int.. mirrors and black holes: A stochastic approach”. Mon. Mair.. Phys. 86. Seanc. A. and Leonhardt. 242. 1970). 319. D. Int. 121–136. Q. n [512] Prain. Riv. [508] Pines. (2010).. [514] Radu. [504] Philbin. Rev... [515] Raval. Rev.. Hu.. and Moraees. J.. 83–88.. [condmat/0106255]. D. n (1960)..L. Phys.[499] Penrose. J.4797 [grqc]]. Superradiant Scattering and the BlackHole Bomb”. 465–467. F.M. 140 . S. P.. A. “Eﬀective geometry in Astrophysics”.. (2004).. [516] Ray. [501] Perez Bergliaﬀa. Robertson. F. [DOI]. “Linearized perturbation on stationary inﬂow solutions in an inviscid and thin accretion disc”. U. Nature. Not. Phys. [DOI]. Copenhagen. Robertson. (1969). 247. [502] Perez Bergliaﬀa. T. R.
and Leonhardt..org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095018. Maissa. and Bhattacharjee. URL (accessed 20 March 2011): http://stacks. A. [528] Rosu. Phys. (1999). J. Phys.G. 81–91. Relativ. [arXiv:0907. Int. (2010).. [DOI]. H. Rev. 1063–1069. New J. Phys. 1977–1982.. 124016.C. Rev. “Origin of the thermal radiation in a solidstate analogue of a black hole”. unpublished.. 80.. Grav. and Leonhardt. 5. [astroph/0307447]. [physics/9711015]. J. Coullet. Phys..J. A.slac... 285–295. N..iop. Philbin. [519] Ray. 10. [530] Rosu. 053015. 108. “Generalized superradiant scattering”. Phys.. Penner. Gen. [grqc/9412012]. G. [523] Reznik.. and Cosmol.[517] Ray.4305 [condmat. H. A. B. [arXiv:1004. G. [grqc/9703076]. J. [527] Rosu. “Superoscillations and transPlanckian frequencies”. Philbin. (1989). D. T..5546 [grqc]]. (2008). “Horizon eﬀects with surface waves on moving water”. 55. [DOI]. U. [grqc/9905049]. 241–248. [arXiv:astroph/0703251]. (1997). Rev. [DOI].. “Letter: A Moving Medium Simulation of Schwarzschild Black Hole Optics”. Pavloﬀ. Class. P. [ADS]. [521] Regge.4767 [grqc]]. [522] Reznik. A. A.org/13672630/10/i=5/a=053015. (2003). Weinfurtner. [520] Recati. A.iop. 095018. arXiv eprint. T. Grav.. 24. J. and Bhattacharjee. [525] Rosquist. “Stability of a Schwarzschild Singularity”. 80. Rev.C.. “A Dynamical Systems Approach to an Inviscid and Thin Accretion Disc”. Quant... A.. and Wheeler. [DOI]. 371. New J..K. 141 . U. C.edu/spires/find/hep/www?key=2056828. I”. [grqc/0309104].. H.K. T. 043603. (2004). Phys. D. 044044. “Classical and quantum inertia: A matter of principles”. H. [ADS].. [DOI].. Gravit. [DOI]. Phys. Mathis. 423–430.G. [DOI]. [arXiv:0711. 112. D. [526] Rosu.. [524] Richartz. 62. C. 109.. (2000). [DOI]. [531] Rousseaux.A. [529] Rosu. and Carusotto. and Unruh. P. Lett.K.G. (2007). (2009). Phys. [arXiv:condmat/0409315]. “Relativistic quantum ﬁeld inertia and vacuum ﬁeld noise spectra: By quest of the lost universality to high energy radiometric standards”. [DOI]. “Towards measuring Hawking like eﬀects in the laboratory.. (1997). 36. K.quantgas]]. 131– 132. [grqc/9606083]. “Observation of negativefrequency waves in a water tank: a classical analogue to the Hawking eﬀect?”. Rev.. Nuovo Cimento B. “Bogoliubov theory of acoustic Hawking radiation in Bose–Einstein condensates”. M. P. Online version (accessed 31 May 2005): http://www. [grqc/9606070]. “Standing and travelling waves in the shallowwater circular hydraulic jump”. “Evolution of transonicity in an accretion disc”. 39.stanford.K.. [arXiv:0909. S. (2007). J. H. [DOI]. (2009). (1994).. Mathis. Phys. Ma¨ ıssa. (1957).K. B. “TransPlanckian tail in a theory with a cutoﬀ”. 2152–2158. [532] Rousseaux. and Bhattacharjee.2317 [grqc]]. 1479.... 12. [DOI].. Theor. Nuovo Cimento B. “On the circular vacuum noise in electron storage rings”. 1–7. W. (2000).K.. [518] Ray. I.C. URL (accessed 24 March 2011): http://stacks.
[DOI]. [547] Schmelzer. 55. [536] Russo. [551] Sch¨tzhold. 161302. Gravit. [548] Schmelzer. 084023. “Particle deﬁnition in the presence of black holes”. (1995). C. [DOI]. A. (November 2003). pp.. “Surface tension and the cosmological constant”. [DOI]. Rev. ed.. 024029. I. Phys. 1601–1608.. [grqc/0104013]. [542] Salehi. u [grqc/0011047]. “The Dynamic Space of General Relativity in Second Atomization”. 64.. [DOI]. 61. [grqc/0003020]. [539] Sakagami. A. (2006). Gen.D. “Model of black hole evolution”. J. [Google Books]. “Evaporating Black Holes And An Entropic ScaleHierarchy”. 871–877. 16.. (2006). in Reimer. (2001). (1968). arXiv eprint. S. and Sinha.. u (2001). World. [grqc/0001096].. Phys.. J. [550] Sch¨tzhold. 97. [540] Sakharov. “Hawking Radiation in Laboratories”. Phys.. [DOI]. [549] Sch¨tzhold. [hepth/0302178]. 63. Relativ. and Ohashi. (2005). I. I. (2000). L. (2002).A. (1997).. “On the Hawking eﬀect”. Rev.. 593–619.. 153–172. “Quasinormal modes of Unruh’s acoustic black hole”... Rev. and Sakagami. “Dynamical zerotemperature phase transitions and cosmic inﬂation / deﬂau tion”. Phys. “General Ether Theory”. Lett. 2004). Nucl. “Loop quantum gravity”. (2002). Cambridge. (2000).. 2005). Prog. (2000). 35.. I. Rev. 024014. [grqc/0205035]. Phys. Dokl. [537] Saavedra. C. [DOI]. B. (Nova Science. Phys. 107. “A metric theory of gravity with condensed matter interpretation”. [arXiv:condmat/0603804]. [grqc/0405132]. [grqc/9905034]. C.. 442. J. (2003). Horizons in World Physics. R. Rev. M. 1679–1690. Phys.G.. 37–41... [538] Saida. 249. [arXiv:grqc/0508040]. L. D... Rev. “A generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity with generalrelativistic limit”. [534] Rovelli. 1267–1272. Phys. Lett. D.. A21. Lett. (Cambridge University Press. arXiv eprint.. 135703. D. [grqc/9409023]. (1994). 12. Phys. “Derivation of the Einstein Equivalence Principle in a Class of Condensed Matter Theories”. 142 .. [grqc/0108072]. [541] Salehi. [DOI]. 1040–1041. 1–14. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Mod. [hepth/9602124].. Quantum Gravity. A. arXiv eprint. H. 95. [545] Schmelzer. “Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity”. and Smolin. [546] Schmelzer. 1–8. D. [grqc/9411005]. “Evaporating black holes and long range scaling”.[533] Rovelli. Theor. New York. Phys. “Black hole radiation with high frequency dispersion”. arXiv eprint. Phys. [535] Rovelli. R. “Vacuum quantum ﬂuctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation”. Sov. [DOI].. M. [543] Samuel. R. H. H. New York. [arXiv:quantph/0505196]. arXiv eprint. [DOI]. [544] Saul. General Relativity Research Trends. (2001). [grqc/0001101].
(2007). [DOI]. “Is there an imprint of Planckscale physics on inﬂationary cosmology?”. [arXiv:1002. Rev. J. and Sch¨tz. W. [arXiv:0705. Phys. [grqc/0205099].. “Emergent horizons in the laboratory”. [DOI]. Lond. [quantph/0408145]. G. 419. (2003). u 66. Friedenauer. [arXiv:1004.3518 [grqc]]. [DOI]. Phys. and Soﬀ.. (2002). G. (2004). u Phys. Quant.1686 [grqc]]. R. 114011. R. Lett.. and Woszczyna. [DOI]. M.. R. (2002).. Class. 72. Theor. 201301. and Zubairy. Phys. W. “‘Exotic’ quantum eﬀects in the laboratory?”.. “Dielectric Black Hole Analogs”. “The Higgs mechanism in Finsler spacetimes”. 1997). Uhlmann.G. R. T. Uhlmann. 143 . “Recreating Fundamental Eﬀects in the Laboratory?”. 77. A. [DOI]. [555] Sch¨tzhold. (2010).G. [arXiv:0712.. 75–83. A. [554] Sch¨tzhold. and Unruh. Cambridge. Soc.2397 [quantph]]. Quantum Grav. [562] Sch¨tzhold. M. “Fundamental Quantum Eﬀects from a QuantumOptics Perspective”. [553] Sch¨tzhold. Plunien. “Problems of doubly special relativity with variable speed u of light”.. [DOI]. “Quantum backreaction u in dilute Bose–Einstein condensates”. R.. “On Quantum Correlations across the Black Hole Horizon”. Grav. Phys. D. u 121. 2895. [557] Sch¨tzhold. u Phys.G. Exp.2394 [grqc]].. M. Petersen. Lett... Lett..1844 [grqc]]. [condmat/0503581]. “Gravity wave analogues of black holes”. S. (Cambridge University Press. R. [Google Books]. [DOI]. (2002). [grqc/0010042].. 431. 124009. [569] Sindoni. R. and Unruh. Phys.. Sci.. Roy. and Maia. u 164065.. R. [arXiv:1004. R. D. 1–4. R. (2005). [DOI]. [grqc/0203060].. Padmanabhan. (2008).. 19.. 1–13. [567] Shankaranarayanan.3755 [quantph]]. and Srinivasan.O. (2005). Rev. D. “Hawking radiation in diﬀerent coordinate settings: complex paths approach”..2586 [grqc]]. [566] Shankaranarayanan. Rev. 78. [565] Scully. “Blackhole backreaction – a toy model”. “On the origin of the particles in black hole evaporation”. Schmitz. T... Rev. 95. L... [563] Sch¨tzhold. 801–810. [DOI].. W. [DOI].. u A36. and Unruh. “Hawking Radiation in an Electromagnetic Waveguide?”. 031301. [DOI]. arXiv u eprint. Quantum Optics. M. K.. Phys. 1–8.. 78. Astron.. 105005. D. Class. 2671–2687. New York. W. [568] SiemieniecOzieblo. R. and Unruh. Xu.. (2009). [arXiv:1004.. [564] Sch¨tzhold. 061101. [arXiv:0804. Rev. S. Class. 041504. (2010). [DOI]. Quantum Grav. Astrophys. and Fischer. 1–4. Y. and Unruh. [558] Sch¨tzhold. R.G. u a “Analogue of Cosmological Particle Creation in an Ion Trap”. (2008). u (2008).. 25. Rev. Adv. “Acoustic instabilities at the transition from the radiationdominated to the matterdominated universe”. Rev. 41. Phil. 20. Phys. [559] Sch¨tzhold. [astroph/0106562]. (2008). D..S.G. u Phys. Trans. C. 99.. [561] Sch¨tzhold. A. G.R.[552] Sch¨tzhold. [grqc/0308049]. [quantph/0104121]. U. [560] Sch¨tzhold. (2008). J. (2003).2590 [quantph]]. [arXiv:1004. R.. u 88. 044019. L. Lett. H. 81. 124033. 2. [556] Sch¨tzhold. Lett. Rev. W. [DOI].
C. Dokl.. U. Phys. and Szczachor. 3833–3839. “Bimetric pseudoFinslerian spacetimes”. AIP Conference Proceedings. [580] Smolin. R. [grqc/0309009]. 1971). pp. 251601. J. B. 60. [581] Smolyaninov. [arXiv:0910. L. T. [DOI]. Rev. [572] Singha. L. and Savage. 1196. “Linear and nonlinear optics of surface plasmon toymodels of black holes and wormholes”.R. J. M. Phys..4376 [grqc]]. a Mod. Conf. [DOI]. [585] Sotiriou. (2003). R. r (2009).. Visser. (2005). Girelli. a 189. D. 29 June – 03 July 2009. L. (1957). E. 19. [grqc/0311062]. 2009). J. (1999).S. T.. 226–229.K. High Energy Phys. and Visser. (1995).. Phys.. T.M. 22. [571] Sindoni.4464 [hepth]]. J.. “Quantum gravity without Lorentz invariance”. [DOI]. K.P. [DOI]. J. “PseudoFinslerian SpaceTimes and Multirefringence”. S. [arXiv:0905.. Phys... arXiv eprint. and Padmanabhan. Quantum Grav. Phys.I. (2005). M. (Springer. [586] Srinivasan..0689 [grqc]]. [DOI].. [DOI]. J. [587] Sriramkumar. [arXiv:0806. [DOI]. “The inﬂuence of gravitation on the propagation of light”. [grqc/9503027].0950 [grqc]]. “Phenomenologically viable Lorentzviolating quantum gravity”. and Visser. “A note on particle kinematics in Hoˇava–Lifshitz scenarios”.. “Surface plasmon toymodels of black holes and wormholes”.. Ser.1329 [grqc]]. Geom. S. [576] Skrotskii. 144 . [578] Slatyer. [grqc/0306089].. “Particle production and complex path analysis”. (2003). “Hydraulic jump in onedimensional ﬂow”. [arXiv:0909. “Superradiant scattering from a hydrodynamic vortex”. D. Visser.2798 [hepth]].. Lett..A. J. [grqc/0408034]. Poland. J.. [arXiv:0810. (2003).. Rev.. and Weinfurtner. arXiv eprint. M. (2009). C.. 012037. arXiv eprint. M.[570] Sindoni. G. [584] Sotiriou. 417–426. [hepth/0303185]. 2009(10). S. T..5391 [grqc]]. (2003). “Birefringence in pseudoFinsler spacetimes”. (2010). Phys. (2010).. “Emergent Gravitational Dynamics in Bose–Einstein Condensates”. 71. 48. Int.D. and Ray. J.. [DOI]. 033. “How far are we from the quantum theory of gravity?”. 24007.V. Durka.C. 1119–1146. [DOI]. [582] Smolyaninov. [condmat/0501182]. “Causal sets: Discrete gravity (Notes for the Valdivia Summer School)”. Wroclaw. eds. Bhattacharjee.B.K. and Liberati. (2009). The Foundations of Acoustics. 258–265. Sov. T.. Rev. 2. arXiv eprint. “Experimental signatures of quantum gravity”. [583] Sorkin.P. New York. (2005). “Initial state of matter ﬁelds and transPlanckian physics: Can CMB observations disentangle the two?”. Melville. [579] Smolin. (2009). 1–11. Phys. and Visser.. D.. M. arXiv eprint. [577] Skudrzyk. [ADS]. Class. [575] Sk´kala. I. and Davis.. arXiv eprint. S. [573] Sk´kala. M. 102. I. Phys. in KowalskiGlikman. [arXiv:0904... and Padmanabhan. L. [DOI]. and Weinfurtner. [grqc/9812028]. (American Institute of Physics. A. J. [arXiv:1008. aca cepted.. Eur. [arXiv:condmat/0508388]. 103512. Proceedings of the XXV Max Born Symposium. F. [574] Sk´kala.. L.I. The Planck Scale.
M. K. [ADS]. 1960). Phys. “TransPlanckian Particle Creation in Cosmology and Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays”. 66. E... [arXiv:0710. New Haven. arXiv eprint. Musser. and Macdonald. (2000).C. D. [596] Sudarshan. [600] Tanaka.G.. URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://stacks. Miyamoto.V.. “Notes on black hole phase transitions”. [DOI]. (2001). [601] Thorne. M.. [DOI]... Lett. J... [condmat/9909315].L. arXiv eprint. A. “Phonons and Forces: Momentum versus Pseudomomentum in Moving Fluids”. Phys. [arXiv:1005. [591] Stephens. Rev. “Acoustic energy and momentum in a moving medium”.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095016. (2001). 2183–2200. Phys. Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm. “Iordanskii force and the gravitational Aharonov–Bohm eﬀect for a moving vortex”. [602] Trautman. J. [DOI].S. [603] Turukhin. B. [astroph/0104043]. B. “Magnus and other forces on vortices in superﬂuids and superconductors”. [grqc/0208002]. [595] Stone. [DOI]. [590] Steinacker. (NorthHolland.[588] Starobinsky.A. Phys. [594] Stone.. Rev. in Hoﬀman.H. and Torii. “Robustness of the inﬂationary perturbation spectrum to transPlanckian physics”. (Indiana University Press. 1341– 1350. ed. 624– 629. a y pp..2178 [condmat. 023602. [597] Synge. [DOI].. Lett..2645 [condmat. 105003. [589] Starobinsky. [604] Uhlmann.S. Bloomington. Rev. Quant. Low Temp. [condmat/9909313]. 88. (1997). Phys.. (2002). J. 1–4. and Hu. “Zel’dovichStarobinsky Eﬀect in Atomic BoseEinstein Condensates: Analogy to Kerr Black Hole”.. and Tkachev.J. Exp. A. [592] Stone. 40. [DOI]. 1–6.S. T. M.S. Phys. 1966). (2010). 12. E. Shahriar. [grqc/0102052]. IN.I. Tsubota. D. Rev. and Volovik. I. Lett. T. [DOI]. Theor. Perspectives in Geometry and Relativity: Essays in honor of V´clav Hlavat´. (Yale University Press. 73. (2002). (2010). B. (2002). [astroph/0012431]. B. G.. Ham. J.. M. T.R..E.A. 235–239. “Comparison of Newtonian and relativistic theories of spacetime”. “Particle velocity in noncommutative spacetime”. 62. “A comment on transPlanckian physics in inﬂationary universe”. New J. V. J. Relativity: The General Theory. Phys. H. [arXiv:1003. [599] Tamaki... Amsterdam. (2008). Grav. Phys... [DOI]. [DOI]. Phys. London. A. 1986).A. 76. [598] Takeuchi. (2001). (1981). Theor.. [condmat/9708017]. J. Rev.. T.. M. and Hemmer. Int. 413–425.quantgas]]. “Timeresolved density correlations as probe of squeezing in toroidal Bose–Einstein condensates”. H. Class. [condmat/0012316]. Sudarshanam. Theor. 095016.. 145 . 150. 11780–11786. Exp. “Observation of Ultraslow and Stored Light Pulses in a Solid”.other]]. M. [astroph/0207572]..L. [593] Stone. Harada..4134 [hepth]]. Price. “Massless particles of high spin”.. CT. 27. [DOI]. 24.A.. “Emergent Geometry and Gravity from Matrix Models: an Introduction”.iop. 133001. P. (2000). A. U. G. 1591–1594.. Phys.. eds. R. 415–418. (2000). arXiv eprint. D. M.... 61.
[609] Unruh. 2005. “Aspects of cosmic inﬂation in expanding Bose– u Einstein condensates”. R. eds. W. (2008). Phys. URL (accessed 17 March 2011): http://edoc. [DOI]. D. URL (accessed 20 March 2011): http://stacks.. 2007). W. [DOI]. “On slow light as a black hole analogue”. (1970). [DOI]. M. u 68.ub. and Sch¨tzhold. Ph. Italy. [606] Unruh. 361–377. W. (1999). Trans. [617] Vestergaard Hau. Philos. “Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in ultracold atomic gas”. “Sonic analog of black holes and the eﬀects of high frequencies on black hole evaporation”. and Sch¨tzhold. W. (2003).G. 51.. URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://pos. Munich. London. held in Dresden. [grqc/0303028].. Soc.de/7761/..H. Z.. 146 . [grqc/0408009]..iop. 2905–2913.G. Rev.G. Proceedings of Science. [618] Vikman. “Dumb holes: Analogues for black holes”. Phys. 1. Rev. and Behroozi. W. Phys. C. Rev. 1–4. 1–14. W. 718. W. Nature. “Universality of the Hawking eﬀect”. 366. 2827–2838. [DOI]. 71. [614] Unruh...E. Selected lectures from the international workshop on ‘Quantum Simulations via Analogues’. Y. New J. in Unruh. 718. (2005).. 2007). [DOI]. (1995). A. 7. 227. R.sissa. J.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)039. (SISSA. Lecture Notes in Physics. [DOI]. [616] Vachaspati.unimuenchen. and Sch¨tzhold. (Springer. 024008.G. R.[605] Uhlmann. “Stability of the Schwarzschild metric”. “The Analogue Between Rimfall and Black Holes”... Berlin. Quantum Analogues: From Phase Transitions to u Black Holes and Cosmology.. R. 397.V.G. New York.org/13672630/7/i=1/a=248. Germany.. [arXiv:quantph/0509063]. (2004). [condmat/0404480]. W. [610] Unruh. (2003). D. D. July 25 – 28. Phys.G. 870–892. Lecture Notes in Physics. Lett. Berlin.. causality and emergent geometry. 14.. Dutton.G. [620] Vishveshwara. (Springer.. Germany. 2007). Rev. Phys. Ser. S. [DOI]. R. T. [615] Vachaspati. “Scattering of gravitational radiation by a Schwarzschild blackhole”. “Propagating phase boundaries as sonic horizons”. Rev. [grqc/9409008]. 1351–1353. Low Temp. July 25 – 28...G. W.G. [611] Unruh. Quantum Analogues: From Phase Transitions to Black Holes and Cosu mology. pp.D. [607] Unruh.. [DOI]. “Notes on blackhole evaporation”. 136. and Sch¨tzhold. 2007). and Sch¨tzhold. L. Thesis. in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology. eds. arXiv eprint. 1–11. Selected lectures from the international workshop on ‘Quantum Simulations via Analogues’. Harris. (2005). Phys. Phys. (LMU. Trieste. Nature. 936–938. R. [619] Vishveshwara. [grqc/0312069].. Kessence: cosmology. D. Trieste.. New York. D. Rev. A. C. T. 248. “Cosmic Problems for Condensed Matter Experiment”. u 024028. 594–598.V. C. [DOI]. [613] Unruh. [DOI]. [DOI]... (1970). (1976). 2870–2879. 46. “Experimental black hole evaporation”. held in Dresden. W. (1981). [608] Unruh. Phys.G. [DOI]. June 11 – 15 2007. “Where are the particles created in black hole evaporation?”. [612] Unruh... Xu. 2005.
. M. eds. Phys. NY. 1767–1791.. Mod. [grqc/0111111]. [627] Visser.. “The quantum physics of chronology protection”. “Emergent rainbow spacetimes: Two pedagogical examples”.. M. Barcel´.. y Proceedings of the Second Meeting. [622] Visser. C.. Phys. 15. [637] Visser. [628] Visser. (1998). [grqc/0309072]. [DOI]. [636] Visser. 2051–2067. “Acoustic propagation in ﬂuids: An unexpected example of Lorentzian geometry”. 1719–1734. 15 – 18 August 2001. USA. 2002). [635] Visser. Lett. (1992).J. “Heuristic approach to the Schwarzschild geometry”. “The Kerr spacetime: [arXiv:0706. Mod.P.. Phys.html. arXiv eprint. [633] Visser. (2000). Barcel´.com/9789812778123/9789812778123_0043. The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology: Celebrating Stephen Hawking’s 60th Birthday. 80. [632] Visser. Rev. (2009). AIP Series in Computational and Applied Mathematical Physics. M. 5252. “Hawking radiation without black hole entropy”. Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking.. 17. [grqc/0002011]. [hepth/0109033]. [DOI]. G. arXiv eprint. A brief introduction”.. J.. [grqc/9712016]. “Essential and inessential features of Hawking radiation”. Woodbury. D. D.[621] Visser. 34. “Comment on “Relativistic Eﬀects of Light in Moving Media with Extremely Low Group Velocity””. 025011. r (2009). (2005). 3436–3439. Phys. arXiv eprint. (2007). Phys. (Cambridge University Press. Mod. A. Quantum Grav. in Kosteleck´.. D.. (2007).. “Sakharov’s induced gravity: A modern perspective”. Relativ. M. and Liberati.S. “Acoustics in Bose–Einstein Condensates as an Exo ample of Broken Lorentz Symmetry”. M. o Gravit. Rev. NJ. [623] Visser. pp. M. [626] Visser. Int. M. 85. and Liberati.. 14. 336–340. [DOI]. (2002). (1998). J. E.0810 [grqc]]. 80. River Edge. [arXiv:0912. S.. 2003). arXiv eprint. [arXiv:0902. D. Gen.. (World Scientiﬁc.0590 [hepth]]. Int. in Gibbons.. [625] Visser. Lett. Rev. [grqc/0204022]. [630] Visser. Class. 977–992. [DOI]. “Acoustic black holes”. S. M..worldscinet. pp. [631] Visser. New York. M. [grqc/0204062].. [grqc/9712010]. Phys. “Lorentz symmetry breaking as a quantum ﬁeld theory regulator”. [634] Visser. [DOI]. 147 . [DOI]. [DOI]. M... 2445–2451. M. Shellard. “Powercounting renormalizability of generalized Hoˇava gravity”. (1993).0622 [grqc]]. “Dirty black holes: Thermodynamics and horizon structure”. “Analogue models of and for gravity”. [DOI]. M. [grqc/9901047]. C. M. ergospheres. Phys. V.. [hepth/9203057]. (2002). 46. M. CPT and Lorentz Symmetry. [629] Visser. 1995).W. [arXiv:0712.. ed.4757 [hepth]]. S. M. [DOI]. Bloomington. 12. Singapore. [DOI].. and Rankin.. (1999). (American Institute of Physics.. M. [Google Books]. 649–661.A. [hepth/0106111].. Lett.. [grqc/9311028]. [624] Visser. (2003). M. Cambridge. arXiv eprint. and Hawking radiation”. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011): http://eproceedings. 161–175. Rev. “Acoustic black holes: Horizons.
.. and MolinaPar´ Carmen. [640] Visser. Rev.E. S. arXiv eprint. [condmat/0409639]. G. “Vortex analogue for the equatorial geometry of the Kerr black hole”. G. (1998)... 721–725. 67. Trieste. 63. “Gravity of monopole and string and gravitational constant in 3 HeA”. arXiv eprint. “Massive KleinGordon equation from a BECbased analogue spacetime”. Phys. 67. (SISSA. e Theor. (Kluwer Academic. C. “AB interface in superﬂuid 3 He and Casimir eﬀect”. Lett. Lett. 69.. H. [grqc/0004049]. [DOI]. [643] Visser. “Induced gravity in superﬂuid 3 He”.M. [DOI].. irrotational ﬂuid ﬂow”. G. Czech.sissa. “Vortex vs. [641] Visser. 22. J. in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology. [649] Volovik.E. Grav. 6. (1998). URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://pos. “Fermion Zero Modes in Painlev´–Gullstrand Black Hole”. G. M. Y.1310 [grqc]]. [arXiv:1001. 3048.iop..E.. (2005). Phys. G. G. Dordrecht.it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)042. arXiv eprint. 148 . 2007). “Birefringence versus bimetricity”. (1996). [grqc/9510001]. [652] Volovik. 12.E. [653] Volovik.. Phys..[638] Visser.E. Lett. Low Temp. Phys. “Cosmology. in Bunkov. M. 113. Phys. (1995).. (1998). [DOI]. G. 095014.E. S. 483–489. New J. Theor. [DOI]. M. and Liberati. G. Lett. eds. J. 044020. Proceedings of Science. (2000). Barcel´. [grqc/9901077]. [grqc/0204017]. spinning string: Iordanskii force and gravitational Aharonov– Bohm eﬀect”. (2001). [644] Volovik... 667–680.0427 [grqc]]. J. [condmat/9607212]. M. [639] Visser. o (2002). [condmat/9902171]. Phys. [DOI]. Phys. Exp.. and Godfrin. 46. [DOI]. [condmat/9602129].. (2004). (2004). Theor. [642] Visser. (2010). J. G. J.org/13672630/12/i=9/a=095014. 698–704. [648] Volovik. [arXiv:grqc/0506029].. e Phys. [condmat/9806010]. Class. (1996). S. URL (accessed 20 March 2011): http://stacks. [650] Volovik... and Weinfurtner. 72.... M. [grqc/0104088]. Topological defects and the nonequilibrium dynamics of symmetry breaking phase transitions. Boston. 2000). (1997). Quantum Grav. “Links between gravity and dynamics of quantum liquids”. G. [DOI]. [651] Volovik. S. [condmat/9804078]. S.. [645] Volovik. “Massive phonon modes from a BECbased analog model”. “Analogue spacetimes: Toy models for ‘quantum gravity”’. 841–846. 662–668.E. particle physics and superﬂuid 3 He”.E... Phys. [Google Books]. and Weinfurtner. [arXiv:0712. arXiv eprint. and Weinfurtner. “Simulation of Painlev´–Gullstrand black hole in thin 3 HeA ﬁlm”. and Cosmol. 2493–2510.. Lett. and Weinfurtner. “Acoustic geometry for general relativistic barotropic ıs. J. (1999). Exp. 353–387.. [DOI]. M. 73. Exp. pp. Exp... [condmat/9804308]. [646] Volovik. D. Theor. [grqc/9809081].E. Theor. [grqc/0409014]. “Is there analogy between quantized vortex and black hole?”. G.E. “Energymomentum tensor of quasiparticles in the eﬀective gravity in superﬂuids”. [647] Volovik. 187–203. Exp.E. “3 He and Universe parallelism”. J.. [654] Volovik.
G. [662] Volovik. “On temperature corrections to Einstein equations”. G. [659] Volovik.. J... “The hydraulic jump as a white hole”. (2003).. G. Phys.. (2009). G.. Low Temp. Exp. (2002). [657] Volovik.E.E. Phys.E. (World Scientiﬁc. [663] Volovik. Low... pp. R.. [660] Volovik. [Google Books]. R. Singapore.. G. 33. 82. [arXiv:physics/0508215].E. [669] Vozmediano. 349–368. Singapore.. (2005). [DOI].worldscinet.html. G. [DOI]. J. 63–66. “Vacuum Energy and Cosmological Constant: View from Condensed Matter”. River Edge. Theor.. New York. Phys. 127–177. Theor. 751–756. [arXiv:grqc/0603093]. Conf. NJ. Phys. Exp. “Aspects of 3 He and the Standard Electroweak Model”.H.I. [DOI]. [Google Books]. J. and Zelnikov. 2007). [DOI]. 153. 10. 624–627. “Twenty years of magnon Bose condensation and spin current superﬂuidity in 3 HeB”. Exp. “Superﬂuid analogies of cosmological phenomena”. “Momentum space topology of fermion zero modes on brane”. H. “From quantum hydrodynamics to quantum gravity”.. [grqc/0104046]. “Eﬀective gravity and quantum vacuum in superﬂuids”.4113 [grqc]]. 525–528. Phys. eds. [grqc/0301043]. the entropy of extremal black hole and the vacuum energy?”.. Proceedings of the MG11 Meeting on General Relativity. in Kleinert. (2001). [668] Volovik. Mod. M. [DOI]..E. (Clarendon Press.E. 145. Rep. and Ruﬃni. 266–284. 2002). 1984). [grqc/0309066]. [DOI]. [condmat/9510065]. [DOI]. Online version (accessed 22 March 2011): http://eproceedings.E. G. The Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity. 1451–1470. [DOI].. [arXiv:0904. Jantzen.M. “z = 3 LifshitzHoˇava model and Fermipoint scenario of emergent gravity”. Low Temp.. [656] Volovik.E. [arXiv:condmat/0701180]. [658] Volovik. 012001. 89. International Series of Monographs on Physics. [667] Volovik.E.. Phys. Theor. G.. G. [661] Volovik. Phys.. Chicago. J. A. Temp. G. Found.. “Gauge ﬁelds and curvature in graphene”. F. [670] Wald. de Juan. Phys. River Edge. 471–521. [grqc/0101111]. [Google Books]. “What can the quantum liquid say on the brane black hole. Phys. G. 337–356. pp. 351.. 149 . (World Scientiﬁc. [664] Volovik. [DOI]. (2006). (University of Chicago Press. [DOI].E. and Volovik. [DOI]. Germany . Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories. A.A. in Novello. [grqc/0005091]. 129. 76. and Vachaspati. and Cortijo. [grqc/0112016].. T. G. 195–348.. [grqc/0208020]. (2008).E.. “Blackhole horizon and metric singularity at the brane separating two sliding superﬂuids”.. 25–39. 2003). 78.com/9789812834300/9789812834300_0170. (2002).E. 117. Lett. J.T.E. B. The Universe in a Helium Droplet. M. 124. (2001). Oxford. M. Berlin. [DOI]. (1996). Visser. Oxford University Press. 296–300. G. r JETP Lett. J. [666] Volovik. (2008). [arXiv:grqc/0612134]. G.E. Artiﬁcial Black Holes. 75. R.[655] Volovik.. eds. JETP Lett. Lett... NJ. 23 – 29 July 2006... Lett. J.. (2003).. Ser.. J. Phys. Int. G. “Blackhole and whitehole horizons in superﬂuids”. [665] Volovik. General Relativity.
1346 [grqc]].. (SISSA. and Gardiner. 115–163. Quant. Liberati..it/contribution?id=PoS(QGPh)044.. [DOI]. [arXiv:grqc/0703117]. lrr20016. (1980). and Visser. Relativ.. S. S. (2006). [DOI]. 065012. M. [arXiv:grqc/0511105]. eds.W. S. Lett. and Sch¨tzhold. Gravit.. B96. July 25 – 28. M.P. “On the phenomenon of emergent spacetimes: An instruction guide for experimental cosmology”.. 37. “The Band Theory of Graphite”. 189. Conf. Phys.. “Modelling Planckscale Lorentz violation via analogue models”. 59. and Lawrence. held in Dresden. E. 76. Jain. (2006). A.4530 [grqc]]. Phys. 6807–6814. R.W. (2005). Phys. and Visser.. Conf. J.. J. URL (accessed 13 December 2010): http://pos... W. [DOI]. Tedford. Lecture Notes in Physics. [672] Wallace. “Signaturechange events in emergent spacetimes with anisotropic scaling”. Ser. [arXiv:0804. “Analogue Spacetime Based on 2Component Bose–Einstein Condensates”.. Rev.. Simulation of gravitational objects in Bose–Einstein condensates.. June 11 – 15 2007. Ser. Phys. [DOI].0308 [grqc]]. [arXiv:0801. [684] Weinfurtner. “Analogue model for quantum gravity phenomenology”. Visser. A.. 021302. Unruh. E. (2007). P.. Selected lectures from the international workshop on ‘Quantum Simulations via Analogues’. [DOI]. M. A39. “Measurement of stimulated Hawking emission in an analogue system”. New York. [676] Weinfurtner. Berlin..W. G. T.A. Munich. “The Thermodynamics of Black Holes”. S. and Visser. Gen. Trieste. M.G. Living Rev.4416 [grqc]].org/lrr20016. “Limits on Massless Particles”.. [grqc/0404022]. Penrice. (2009). “Projectable Hoˇava–Lifshitz gravity in a r nutshell”. Conf.R. 1549– 1554. 2004). J. 26.. (2009). [arXiv:grqc/0512127]. “Cosmological particle production in emergent rainbow spacetimes”. Ser.. 012054. Jain.livingreviews. and Visser. “TransPlanckian physics and signature change events in Bose gas hydrodynamics”. 106.. Relativity. S.. Phys. 373–385. [arXiv:1008.. (Springer. Phys. 4. 2005. arXiv eprint. Phys. [673] Weinberg. [677] Weinfurtner. S. [arXiv:1002. 718. Visser. in From Quantum to Emergent Gravity: Theory and Phenomenology. White. S. Proceedings of Science. S.... and Witten. [DOI]. S. C. Diploma Thesis.. (2007). “Analog model for an expanding universe”. [arXiv:grqc/0605121]. Rev. (1947). S. [arXiv:grqc/0404063]. Grav.. Phys. D. [DOI].2673 [grqc]]. Sotiriou. S. M. and Gardiner.sissa. [683] Weinfurtner. [DOI]. 2007). 622–634. [DOI].. “Emergent spacetimes”.. Liberati..J. 150 ..G. M. White. (Technical University of Munich and Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics. [682] Weinfurtner. Lett. Garching.M. Italy. 012046. [681] Weinfurtner. in German.. [680] Weinfurtner. (2010). [arXiv:0711. R. Class. Quantum Analogues: u From Phase Transitions to Black Holes and Cosmology. M..C. 222. and Visser. 71. M. Rev. P. (2011). [679] Weinfurtner.[671] Wald. S. J. 33. [678] Weinfurtner. S. and Visser. [arXiv:0905. W. Trieste. Germany. [DOI].. (2001). C. P. [685] Weinfurtner. S. [DOI].1911 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 31 May 2005): http://www. [674] Weinfurtner. in Unruh.. 2007).. M. pp... Liberati. S. 124008. [675] Weinfurtner. S.
[arXiv:0812. [arXiv:condmat/0602443]. 40. J. C. “Nonlinear phenomena in electrical circuits: Simulation of nonlinear relativistic ﬁeld theory and possible applications”... and Li. [grqc/9812052]. Opt. 17. J.R..... (2000). D. A. T. O. a a [701] Zloshchastiev. Rev. [DOI]. 326. [arXiv:0801. Grav. and Zhong. 897–905.M. F. (2010). Y. Quantum Grav. quasinormal modes and tails.. D. 16. Phys. and Habashy..S. Exp. [DOI]. Thesis. R. 2009).0009 [hepth]]. L. 104033.3744 [grqc]]. “Emergent Gravity at a Lifshitz Point from a Bose Liquid on the r Lattice”. “Acoustic phase lenses in superﬂuid He as models of composite spacetimes in general relativity: Classical and quantum properties with provision for spatial topology”. S.B. Mod. 045007. Int. J. “Acoustic ray tracing in moving inhomogeneous ﬂuids”. (1972). X. Lett. B. [687] White. Cao. 737–738. 124023.B. C.. 151 . Nuovo Cimento.M.G.[686] White. Huang. 53B. [hepth/0501073].. Soc. Y. 30. 785–792. Mod. [arXiv:0709. (2008).G.N. and Sun. “A New Way to Make Waves”. P. [694] Xu. Theor. X. “Eﬀective potential for even parity Regge–Wheeler gravitational perturbation equations”. C. and Visser. 81. P. arXiv eprint..K.. Pol. JETP. [DOI]. and Hoˇava.. [700] Zhidenko. “The Generation of Waves by a Rotating Body”. K. Phys. Linear perturbations of black holes: stability. (1999). 1085. Ph. “Transverse force on a moving vortex with the acoustic geometry”. J. [699] Zhang. Rev. [696] Zeldovich. (1970). K. Lett. [693] Xu. C. 264–279. Phys. E. “Novel Algebraic Boson Liquid phase with soft Graviton excitations”. A.. [arXiv:1003. Class. 53.. Y.... 1211–1218. (1968). 180. [condmat/9912149]. [690] Wolf.D. [688] Winicour. (2006). 24.1347 [grqc]]. (2010). Acoust. J... 77. [DOI]... Class. 1700–1704.. 35.W. 497–512. [DOI]. S˜o Paolo.. [695] Zaslavsky. 27. [697] Zeldovich.J. Phys. (2007). [692] Xi. arXiv eprint. (1971). “Geometry and thermodynamics of quantumcorrected acceleration horizons”.Z. Acta Phys. Duan. [arXiv:0903.. A.B. (1999). “On Gravitational anomaly and Hawking radiation near weakly isolated horizon”. F. [DOI].. “Detection of gravitational waves by stellar scintillation in space”. [DOI]. “Quasinormal Modes and LateTime Tails of Canonical Acoustic Black Holes”. [DOI]. [grqc/9802060].3714 [grqc]]. J. (2004). (Universidade de S˜o Paolo. [698] Zerilli. “Signature change events: A challenge for quantum gravity?”. Phys. [702] Zloshchastiev.. Rev. (2000). Lett. Phys.3555 [grqc]]. 375. Sov. (1973).G. [689] Winterberg. [DOI]. “Invisible bodies and uniqueness of the inverse scattering problem”. P. Quant. Am. arXiv eprint. Phys. (1993).. 14. Weinfurtner. “Ampliﬁcation of cylindrical electromagnetic waves reﬂected from a rotating body”. [grqc/0003029]. M. [691] Wu.