{"id":"fe41fd85-51be-4fdb-bce8-e27da6d50a50","arxiv_id":"2607.06137","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":4.0,"correctness_risk":"unknown","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":6,"one_line_summary":"A Lindblad master equation for a J/psi-like harmonic oscillator in an expanding QGP shows that hydrodynamic cooling slows quantum decoherence compared to a static bath, with viscosity having negligible impact.","lead":"This paper models a J/psi particle as a quantum harmonic oscillator coupled to a hot QGP bath and tracks how quantum coherence is lost as the bath expands and cools. It finds that an expanding medium slows decoherence compared to a static bath, and that viscous effects do not significantly change the outcome.","discovery_kind":"unclear","skeptic_critique":{"model":"glm-5.2","headline":"Constant ω₀ is the load-bearing assumption: in-medium binding energy varies strongly with T near T_c, and since n̄(ω₀,T) enters the decoherence rate exponentially, a T-dependent ω₀(T) could shift the quoted timescales by orders of magnitude.","rationale":"The reader correctly identified the constant ω₀ as the most load-bearing assumption, and I agree with that assessment. The concern is real and quantitatively significant: the Bose-Einstein factor n̄(ω₀,T) enters the decoherence rate exponentially, so even a modest change in ω₀(T) — which is expected from color screening — could shift the quoted timescales substantially. The authors themselves flag this limitation honestly. However, I do not think this moves the verdict below CONDITIONAL. The paper is explicitly positioned as a first step, the OQS framework (Lindblad in the optical regime) is applied correctly, internal consistency checks (trace preservation, Wigner normalization, comparison with rate equations) are performed, and the qualitative conclusion — that expansion slows decoherence relative to a static bath — is robust to the ω₀ issue (a decreasing ω₀ at high T would if anything strengthen this conclusion by increasing early-time decoherence in the static case). The viscosity conclusion (negligible effect) is also likely robust, since it depends on the difference between two T(t) profiles, not on the absolute value of ω₀. The paper does not provide code or the explicit γ(T) functional form, which limits reproducibility, but this is consistent with a CONDITIONAL verdict rather than grounds for rejection. The concrete test I propose — recomputing with ω₀(T) from an in-medium potential — is the natural next step the authors themselves envision ('reformulate the same OQS approach changing the properties of the system into a more physical description'). Until that is done, the quantitative timescales should be treated as order-of-magnitude estimates conditional on the constant-ω₀ assumption, which is exactly what the CONDITIONAL verdict communicates.","tokens_in":22844,"tokens_out":3749,"duration_ms":224083,"concrete_test":"Recompute the decoherence timescales from Sec. VI using a temperature-dependent ω₀(T) derived from an in-medium screened potential (e.g., free energy F1(r,T) from lattice QCD or a T-dependent Cornell potential). Specifically, extract ω₀(T) from the curvature of the in-medium potential at its minimum, plug ω₀(T) into n̄(ω₀(T), T(t)) in the Lindblad equation, and re-solve for ρ₀ₙ(t). If the decoherence time for the RHIC case (T₀=0.3 GeV) shifts by more than a factor of 2 relative to the quoted ~5 fm/c, or if the LHC/RHIC ordering changes, the constant-ω₀ assumption is quantitatively decisive and the headline timescales are unreliable without it.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central quantitative claims — coherence lost within ~2 fm/c at LHC and persisting beyond ~5 fm/c at RHIC — depend on the decoherence rate Re(a_n) = (γ/2)·n·(1+2n̄(ω₀,T)) from Eq. (32). The Bose-Einstein factor n̄(ω₀,T) = 1/(e^{ω₀/T}−1) is exponentially sensitive to the ratio ω₀/T. The authors fix ω₀ = 0.457 GeV (vacuum J/ψ value) throughout the evolution, even as T drops from 0.5 GeV toward T_c ≈ 0.16 GeV. In reality, color screening reduces the in-medium binding energy as T rises, so ω₀(T) should decrease at high T and increase as the system cools. This matters most in two regimes: (1) At early times when T₀ = 0.5 GeV, if ω₀(T₀) is actually smaller than 0.457 GeV (weaker binding), then n̄ increases, accelerating decoherence and potentially shortening the ~2 fm/c timescale. (2) Near T_c, if ω₀(T_c) is close to the vacuum value (strong binding restored), n̄ becomes exponentially small, which could extend decoherence well beyond the quoted ~5 fm/c for RHIC. The net effect on the LHC vs RHIC comparison is unclear without the calculation. The authors flag this in Sec. VI ('our assumption that the frequency ω₀ remains unaffected by the environment'), but it is not a minor caveat: it is the single assumption that most directly controls the exponential sensitivity of the decoherence rate. A secondary concern is the quasi-static approximation in Eq. (23), which requires f(t−τ) ≈ f(t) for τ ~ 1/ω₀ ≈ 0.43 fm, while τ_hydro ~ τ₀ = 0.6 fm — a ratio of only ~1.4, not a clean separation. However, the ω₀ issue is more impactful because it enters exponentially rather than parametrically.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"glm-5.2","summary":"The manuscript studies quantum decoherence of a J/ψ-like harmonic oscillator coupled to a thermal reservoir representing the QGP, within the open quantum systems framework. The oscillator frequency ω₀ is fixed from the J/ψ RMS radius, and the dissociation rate γ(T) is taken from the TAMU model. The authors derive a Lindblad master equation in the optical regime, extend it to include a time-dependent temperature T(t) modeling 1D Bjorken expansion, and solve it numerically. The central results are: (1) in a static bath, coherence is lost on timescales of ~5 fm/c at T = 0.3 GeV; (2) with expanding medium, decoherence is slowed relative to the static case; (3) for LHC conditions (T₀ = 0.5 GeV), coherence is lost within ~2 fm/c, while for RHIC conditions (T₀ = 0.3 GeV), it persists beyond ~5 fm/c; (4) viscous corrections (η/s = 1/4π) do not significantly alter the decoherence timescale. The Wigner function evolution from cat-state initial conditions is also presented, showing classicalization and connection to coalescence hadronization models.","tokens_in":23871,"tokens_out":1708,"duration_ms":264490,"significance":"The paper addresses a timely question — how fast quantum coherence of quarkonium is lost in the QGP — using a well-established Lindblad framework in the optical regime. The extension to a time-dependent temperature is a natural and useful step toward realism. The model has a small number of physically motivated inputs (ω₀ from the J/ψ radius, γ(T) from an external dissociation calculation), and the decoherence timescales are genuine outputs rather than fitted parameters. The Wigner-function analysis connecting decoherence to the validity of classical coalescence hadronization is a nice conceptual contribution. The finding that viscous corrections are negligible for decoherence is a concrete, falsifiable result. The work is exploratory rather than definitive, but it provides a reasonable first estimate and a framework that can be refined.","major_comments":[{"comment":"Sec. VI, and Eqs. (32): The central quantitative claims (coherence lost within ~2 fm/c at LHC, persisting beyond ~5 fm/c at RHIC) depend on the decoherence rate Re(a_n) = (γ/2)·n·(1+2n̄(ω₀,T)), where n̄(ω₀,T) = 1/(e^{ω₀/T}−1). The authors fix ω₀ = 0.457 GeV (vacuum J/ψ value) throughout the evolution, even as T drops from 0.5 GeV toward T_c ≈ 0.16 GeV. In reality, the in-medium binding energy — and thus ω₀(T) — varies substantially with temperature, particularly near T_c where color screening is strongly T-dependent. Since n̄ enters the decoherence rate exponentially, a T-dependent ω₀(T) could shift the quoted timescales significantly: at early times when T₀ = 0.5 GeV, a smaller ω₀(T₀) (weaker binding) would increase n̄ and accelerate decoherence; near T_c, a larger ω₀(T_c) (stronger binding restored) would suppress n̄ exponentially and extend decoherence well beyond ~5 fm/c. The authors","section":null},{"comment":"Sec. II.A, Eq. (17): The optical regime requires τ_S ≪ τ_R, i.e., ω₀ ≫ γ(T). With ω₀ = 0.457 GeV, this translates to γ(T) ≪ 0.457 GeV. The authors should verify and state explicitly that this condition is satisfied for the γ(T) values used at all temperatures considered (T = 0.2–0.5 GeV), particularly at the highest T where γ(T) is largest. If γ(T) approaches ω₀ at any point, the rotating-wave approximation underlying Eq. (14) breaks down, and the quantitative results in that regime would be unreliable. A figure or table of γ(T)/ω₀ versus T would address this.","section":null},{"comment":"Sec. II.B, Eq. (22)–(23): The quasi-static approximation T(t') ≈ T(t) requires that the bath correlation time τ_E be much shorter than the hydrodynamic timescale τ_hydro. The authors state this hierarchy but do not provide estimates of τ_E. For the optical regime, τ_E ~ 1/T, which at T = 0.3 GeV gives τ_E ~ 0.66 fm, while τ_hydro ~ τ₀ = 0.6 fm — a ratio of only ~1, not a clean separation. The authors should either provide a more careful justification (e.g., estimating τ_E from the spectral density J(ω) rather than from 1/T) or acknowledge that the quasi-static approximation is marginal at the lower end of the temperature range and discuss how this affects the RHIC results in particular. This is load-bearing because the entire time-dependent T(t) framework — and hence the claim that expansion slows decoherence — rests on this approximation.","section":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"Sec. II.C: The value σ_r = 0.348 fm is attributed to Table 1 of Ref. [19], but the inversion of Eq. (25) to obtain ω₀ = 0.457 GeV should show the intermediate steps (the reduced mass μ = M_c/2 = 0.7 GeV) so the reader can verify the arithmetic.","section":null},{"comment":"Eq. (30): The approximation retaining only terms proportional to n ≫ 1 is stated to work well for n ≥ 4, with 25–40% discrepancy for n = 1,2. Since the n = 1 coherence ρ₀₁ is one of the primary observables shown in the figures, the authors should note this limitation when presenting those results.","section":null},{"comment":"Fig. 8: The caption states that γ obtained from the exponential fit is 'equivalent to the input dissociation rate.' This is expected by construction (the Lindblad equation is built from γ), so the statement should be framed as a consistency check rather than a prediction.","section":null},{"comment":"Sec. VI: The statement 'the bounded system, characterized by frequency ω₀ increases as the temperature decreases' is confusingly worded — ω₀ is held constant throughout. The intended meaning appears to be that the ratio ω₀/T increases. Please rephrase.","section":null},{"comment":"Sec. V.B: The connection to coalescence hadronization (paragraph beginning 'On the one hand, Q̄Q pairs...') is interesting but speculative. A brief statement that this is a qualitative observation motivating future work, rather than an established result, would improve precision.","section":null},{"comment":"References: Several arXiv-only citations (e.g., Refs. [35], [36], [76], [79]) should be updated to published versions if available.","section":null},{"comment":"Typo in Sec. II.C: 'indipendent' should be 'independent' (also appears in Sec. II.A, Eq. (2) description). Similarly, 'reab-sorbed' in Sec. II.B should be 'reabsorbed,' and 'parametrization' is used inconsistently with 'parametrization' elsewhere.","section":null}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The constant-ω₀ assumption is the main substantive concern. The authors themselves flag it in Sec. VI, which suggests awareness, but the manuscript currently presents the quantitative timescales (~2 fm/c LHC, ~5 fm/c RHIC) without sufficient qualification. A sensitivity study — even a simple one varying ω₀ by ±20% — would substantially strengthen the paper and could be done without new physics input. If the authors can show that the qualitative conclusion (expansion slows decoherence; LHC faster than RHIC; viscosity negligible) is robust to reasonable ω₀(T) variation, the paper would merit publication. Without it, the central quantitative claims are not well-supported. The quasi-static approximation concern is secondary but also worth addressing."},"author_rebuttal":{"model":"glm-5.2","summary":"We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The comments identify three important physical issues — the temperature dependence of the binding frequency, the validity of the optical regime, and the quasi-static approximation — that we agree must be addressed more explicitly in the manuscript. Below we respond to each point. We find that two of the three require revision (one partial, one full), and for the third we provide the requested quantitative verification, which also necessitates a revision to make the check explicit in the text.","responses":[{"response":"The referee is correct that a temperature-dependent omega_0(T) could quantitatively shift the decoherence timescales, and we agree this limitation must be stated more prominently. In the current manuscript, we acknowledge on p. 13 that 'this difference depends strongly on the way the dissociation coefficient gamma(T) varies with temperature, as well as on our assumption that the frequency omega_0 remains unaffected by the environment,' and we list the introduction of a T-dependent omega_0 as a future direction in the Conclusions. However, we agree this is insufficiently emphasized given its quantitative impact. We will revise the manuscript to include a dedicated discussion of this point in Sec. VI, explicitly noting the direction of the bias the referee identifies: at early times (high T), a smaller in-medium omega_0 would increase n_bar and accelerate decoherence, while near T_c, a larger omega_0 would suppress n_bar exponentially and extend decoherence. We will also add a quantitative estimate of the sensitivity. That said, we note that a fully self-consistent omega_0(T) is not straightforward to implement within the current framework: the Lindblad equation in the optical regime requires omega_0 to define the system Hamiltonian and the Fock basis at all times, and introducing a time-dependent omega_0(t) would require re-deriving the master equation with a time-dependent system frequency, which involves additional non-trivial terms (parametric driving) beyond the current amplitude-coupling Lindblad form. This is a genuine technical limitation of the present framework, not merely a parameter choice. We will therefore implement a partial revision: adding the sensitivity discussion and the caveat, while deferring the full T-dependent omega_0 treatment to a future study,,","revision_made":"partial","referee_comment":"Major Comment 1 (Sec. VI, Eqs. 32): The central quantitative claims depend on fixing omega_0 = 0.457 GeV (vacuum J/psi value) throughout the evolution, even as T drops from 0.5 GeV toward T_c. In reality, the in-medium binding energy — and thus omega_0(T) — varies substantially with temperature, particularly near T_c where color screening is strongly T-dependent. Since n_bar enters the decoherence rate exponentially, a T-dependent omega_0(T) could shift the quoted timescales significantly."},{"response":"We agree that this verification should be explicit in the manuscript. We have checked the condition gamma(T) << omega_0 for the TAMU model dissociation rates used in this work (from Grandchamp and Rapp, Refs. [18, 58]). At T = 0.5 GeV (the highest temperature considered), the dissociation rate gamma is approximately 0.08-0.1 GeV, giving gamma/omega_0 ~ 0.2. At T = 0.4 GeV, gamma/omega_0 ~ 0.1, and at T = 0.2 GeV the ratio is well below 0.05. The condition gamma(T) << omega_0 is thus satisfied throughout the temperature range, though we acknowledge the ratio is largest at the highest temperatures and the separation is not as dramatic as in typical quantum optics applications. We will add a table or figure of gamma(T)/omega_0 versus T in the revised manuscript, along with an explicit statement that the optical regime condition is satisfied at all temperatures studied, while noting that the margin is narrowest at T ~ 0.5 GeV and results at the highest temperatures should be interpreted with this caveat. We thank the referee for this concrete and actionable suggestion.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"Major Comment 2 (Sec. II.A, Eq. 17): The optical regime requires tau_S << tau_R, i.e., omega_0 >> gamma(T). With omega_0 = 0.457 GeV, this translates to gamma(T) << 0.457 GeV. The authors should verify and state explicitly that this condition is satisfied for the gamma(T) values used at all temperatures considered (T = 0.2-0.5 GeV), particularly at the highest T where gamma(T) is largest. A figure or table of gamma(T)/omega_0 versus T would address this."},{"response":"The referee raises a legitimate concern that we cannot fully resolve within the present framework. The estimate tau_E ~ 1/T is a reasonable order-of-magnitude proxy for the bath correlation time, and at T = 0.3 GeV it indeed gives tau_E ~ 0.66 fm, comparable to tau_hydro = tau_0 = 0.6 fm. A more rigorous estimate would require computing tau_E from the spectral density J(omega) of the reservoir, which in our model is not independently specified — it enters only through the dissociation rate gamma = 2*pi*J(omega_0). Without an explicit form of J(omega) over a range of frequencies, we cannot extract a model-independent tau_E. We therefore agree that the quasi-static approximation is marginal at the lower end of the temperature range, and this directly affects the RHIC results (T_0 = 0.3 GeV), which are precisely the cases where coherence is claimed to persist beyond ~5 fm/c. We will revise the manuscript to: (1) include the explicit estimate tau_E ~ 1/T and the resulting ratio tau_E/tau_hydro at representative temperatures; (2) acknowledge that the separation is marginal at T ~ 0.3 GeV and improves at higher T; (3) add a caveat that the RHIC results, in particular, should be interpreted with this limitation in mind. We note that at LHC temperatures (T_0 = 0.5 GeV), tau_E ~ 0.4 fm and the ratio tau_E/tau_hydro ~ 0.67 is somewhat better, though still not a clean hierarchy. This is a genuine standing limitation of the quasi-static approach that we will be transparent about rather than attempting to dismiss.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"Major Comment 3 (Sec. II.B, Eqs. 22-23): The quasi-static approximation T(t') ~ T(t) requires that the bath correlation time tau_E be much shorter than the hydrodynamic timescale tau_hydro. The authors state this hierarchy but do not provide estimates of tau_E. For the optical regime, tau_E ~ 1/T, which at T = 0.3 GeV gives tau_E ~ 0.66 fm, while tau_hydro ~ tau_0 = 0.6 fm — a ratio of only ~1, not a clean separation. The authors should either provide a more careful justification or acknowledge that the quasi-static approximation is marginal at the lower end of the temperature range and discuss how this affects the RHIC results in particular."}],"tokens_in":23101,"tokens_out":1679,"duration_ms":265490,"standing_objections":["The quasi-static approximation (Major Comment 3) is genuinely marginal at the lower end of the temperature range (T ~ 0.3 GeV), and we cannot provide a more rigorous justification without an explicit spectral density J(omega) beyond the single point J(omega_0). The RHIC results are the most affected, and we can only flag this caveat rather than resolve it.","A fully self-consistent treatment of omega_0(T) (Major Comment 1) requires re-deriving the Lindblad master equation with a time-dependent system frequency, which goes beyond the current amplitude-coupling framework. We can discuss the sensitivity but cannot implement the full treatment in this manuscript."]},"desk_editor":{"model":"glm-5.2","letter":"Short version: the paper extends the amplitude-coupling Lindblad equation for a damped harmonic oscillator (in the optical regime) to include a time-dependent temperature T(t) modeling 1D QGP expansion, and applies it to J/psi decoherence. The framework is internally consistent, the numerical checks (trace preservation, Wigner normalization, asymptotic thermal equilibrium) are solid, and the main qualitative findings — expansion slows decoherence relative to a static bath, and viscous corrections at eta/s = 1/4pi are negligible — are defensible given the model assumptions. The analytic approximation for the decoherence rate (Eq. 32) is a nice touch and agrees reasonably with the numerics for n >= 3. The Wigner function evolution from cat states, showing negative fringe suppression, is pedagogically clear and connects the OQS language to the coalescence hadronization literature in a useful way. The momentum damping rate extracted from the Wigner evolution matching the input gamma(T) is a good internal consistency check. The stress-test concern about constant omega_0 is real and load-bearing, but the authors flag it themselves in Sec. VI. The Bose-Einstein factor n_bar(omega_0, T) enters the decoherence rate exponentially, so a T-dependent omega_0(T) reflecting in-medium binding energy changes could shift the quoted timescales (2 fm/c at LHC, 5 fm/c at RHIC) substantially. This is the main limitation, and it is not minor — but it is honestly acknowledged and the paper positions itself as a first step. The quasi-static Markov approximation (tau_hydro ~ 0.6 fm vs 1/omega_0 ~ 0.43 fm) is a ratio of ~1.4, which is not a clean separation, but the effect here is parametric rather than exponential, so it is secondary to the omega_0 issue. The 1D geometry and harmonic oscillator model are obvious simplifications but appropriate for a first study. No code or data is shared, and the gamma(T) functional form is not given explicitly, which limits reproducibility. This paper is for the heavy-ion OQS community — people working on quarkonium master equations who want a concrete estimate of decoherence timescales under expanding conditions. It deserves a serious referee who can push on the omega_0(T) question and the quasi-static approximation, but the core framework is sound and the results are honestly scoped.","headline":"Useful first step: time-dependent Lindblad for quarkonium decoherence, but quantitative timescales hang on a constant-omega assumption the authors themselves flag as the key caveat.","tokens_in":24022,"tokens_out":581,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":153652,"reading_group":"no","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"glm-5.2","headline":"Expanding plasma slows quarkonium decoherence, viscosity barely matters","keywords":[],"falsifier":"If allowing omega_0 to vary with temperature in a self-consistent way changed the decoherence timescale by a factor of two or more, the quantitative distinction between RHIC and LHC conditions would need to be re-established.","tokens_in":23018,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":1173,"duration_ms":100085,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper models a J/psi charmonium bound state as a quantum harmonic oscillator coupled to a thermal bath representing the quark-gluon plasma, then evolves the system's density matrix under a Lindblad master equation to track how quantum coherence is lost. The central move is extending the standard static-bath Lindblad framework to include a time-dependent temperature T(t) that mimics the one-dimensional hydrodynamic expansion of the fireball produced in heavy-ion collisions. The authors find that when the bath cools as the plasma expands, decoherence proceeds more slowly than in a static bath held at the initial temperature. For LHC-like conditions (initial temperature 0.5 GeV), coherence is lost within roughly 2 fm/c, while for RHIC-like conditions (initial temperature 0.3 GeV), coherence persists beyond 5 fm/c. Viscous corrections to the expansion, modeled at eta/s = 1/4pi, produce negligible change in the decoherence timescale compared to ideal hydrodynamics. The paper also tracks the Wigner function in phase space, showing that negative fringes characteristic of quantum superposition are washed out on the same decoherence timescale, driving the system toward a classical probability distribution.","feed_headline":"Expanding plasma slows quarkonium decoherence, viscosity barely matters","feed_subtitle":"A quantum master equation with time-dependent temperature shows J/psi loses coherence in ~2 fm/c at LHC but survives beyond 5 fm/c at RHIC,”","key_machinery":"Lindblad master equation in the optical regime for a damped harmonic oscillator with amplitude-coupling to a bosonic reservoir, extended to include time-dependent temperature T(t) via a multiplicative factor f(t) on the coupling coefficients. The system frequency omega_0 = 0.457 GeV is fixed from the J/psi root-mean-square radius. The dissociation rate gamma(T) is taken from phenomenological charmonium suppression calculations. Temperature evolution follows a Bjorken-like power law T(t) = T_0 * (tau_0/t)^(c_s^2), with c_s^2 = 1/3 for ideal hydrodynamics or a Boltzmann transport result for viscous expansion.","core_discovery":"The paper's central result is that introducing a realistic time-dependent temperature profile for the expanding QGP into the Lindblad master equation for a J/psi-like harmonic oscillator slows quantum decoherence relative to a static bath, and that this effect depends strongly on the initial temperature (RHIC vs. LHC conditions) but is insensitive to viscous corrections. The mechanism is straightforward: as the plasma expands and cools, the system-reservoir coupling strength gamma(T) decreases, so the rate at which off-diagonal density matrix elements are suppressed drops over time. At LHC temperatures the initial coupling is strong enough that coherence is destroyed in about 2 fm/c, before;","pith_inferences":["If the oscillator frequency omega_0 were allowed to vary with temperature (as it physically should, since in-medium binding energy changes), the decoherence timescales could shift substantially, particularly near T_c where color screening is strongly temperature-dependent. The paper's quantitative results are thus best read as order-of-magnitude estimates for the optical regime rather than precise","The observation that coherence survives beyond 5 fm/c at RHIC conditions raises the question of whether partially coherent quarkonium states could serve as quantum probes of the early-time QGP, carrying phase information from the initial production mechanism through the medium evolution.","The insensitivity to viscosity suggests that decoherence is controlled primarily by the integrated thermal exposure (the time-integrated coupling strength) rather than the instantaneous expansion rate, which could be tested by comparing different equations of state at fixed initial temperature."],"forward_implications":["If decoherence at RHIC temperatures takes longer than 5 fm/c, quarkonium states may retain partial quantum coherence through much of the fireball lifetime, meaning hadronization models that assume fully classical phase-space distributions may need revision for systems produced at lower initial temperatures.","The near-equivalence of ideal and viscous expansion for decoherence suggests that the dominant control parameter is the initial temperature, not the detailed hydrodynamic profile, simplifying future calculations.","The Wigner function evolution provides a direct bridge between the open-quantum-systems description and coalescence hadronization models, which assume Gaussian Wigner functions; the paper shows this assumption becomes valid on the decoherence timescale.","The framework can be extended to other quarkonium states (Upsilon, chi_c) by changing omega_0 and gamma(T), potentially yielding a hierarchy of decoherence times across the quarkonium spectrum."],"fun_headline_variants":["Cooling plasma delays J/psi quantum decoherence","Time-dependent QGP temperature slows quarkonium coherence loss","Expanding fireball preserves J/psi coherence longer than static bath","Viscosity negligibly alters quarkonium decoherence in cooling QGP","Initial temperature sets J/psi decoherence timescale in expanding plasma"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The oscillator frequency omega_0 representing the J/psi binding energy is held constant throughout the evolution, even as the temperature drops from 0.5 GeV to near the phase transition. In reality, the in-medium binding energy and thus the oscillator frequency should change substantially with temperature, particularly near the deconfinement transition where color screening is strongly temperature-dependent. The authors flag this themselves.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Cooling plasma delays J/psi quantum decoherence","Time-dependent QGP temperature slows quarkonium coherence loss","Expanding fireball preserves J/psi coherence longer than static bath","Viscosity negligibly alters quarkonium decoherence in cooling QGP","Initial temperature sets J/psi decoherence timescale in expanding plasma"]},"model":"glm-5.2","effort":"high","cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":640,"prompt_tokens":570,"completion_tokens":70,"prompt_tokens_details":null},"tokens_in":570,"tokens_out":70,"duration_ms":13513,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":null,"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-07-08T15:22:26.128777+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"glm-5.2"},"falsifier":"If allowing omega_0 to vary with temperature in a self-consistent way changed the decoherence timescale by a factor of two or more, the quantitative distinction between RHIC and LHC conditions would need to be re-established.","supporting_citations":[],"review_version":1}