It has been pointed out in [1] that the familiar reciprocity relation between the conductivity σ and resistivity ρ should not be expected to hold in all possible settings, but, as argued in [2], is rather a property that may (or may not) emerge as a consequence of specific features, or in certain limits of interest, of a given theory. In this work, I prove the conventional statement: ρ= σ⁻¹, which I refer to as Ohm's reciprocity relation, for a large class of holographic models with $d=3+1$ boundary dimensions. The proof involves a generalisation of the electric-magnetic duality in the $D=4+1$ bulk, the validity of which is discussed in detail. I then confirm these findings by considering one specific model and run numerical simulations in different settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giorgio Frangi (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: