Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 101 references

Gromov ground state in phase space engineering for fusion energy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Gromov's non-squeezing theorem forbids the Gardner ground state in a waterbag plasma, raising the minimum energy reachable by wave-driven phase space engineering.

desk verdict The waterbag counterexample is correct and worth publishing, but the paper's central claim that Gromov raises the ground state energy is a conjecture, not a theorem, and the practical case rests on an unquantified 'blunt instrument' assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08494 v1 pith:KLQLPUV3 submitted 2024-12-11 physics.plasm-ph math-phmath.MPmath.SGphysics.comp-ph

Hong Qin , Elijah J. Kolmes , Michael Updike , Nicholas Bohlsen , Nathaniel J. Fisch This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phmath-phmath.MPmath.SGphysics.comp-ph
keywords phasespaceengineeringGromovnon-squeezingtheoremGardnergroundstatesymplecticmapscapacityfusionenergyaneutronicwaterbagdistribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Phase space engineering with radio-frequency waves is central to heating, current drive, and $\alpha$-particle energy channeling in fusion devices, but the paper argues that the permitted manipulations are more restricted than previously recognized. Beyond Liouville's theorem, which only requires constant phase space volume, Hamilton's equations generate symplectic maps, and Gromov's non-squeezing theorem forbids certain volume-preserving rearrangements. The paper exhibits a waterbag distribution in $\mathbb{R}^4$ whose Gardner ground state, a long thin 'noodle' with zero energy, cannot be reached by smooth symplectic maps because the squeezing would violate Gromov's theorem. The result is that the lowest energy state accessible by real wave-particle interactions, the Gromov ground state, lies above the Gardner ground state, and this sets a tighter theoretical limit on electromagnetically extractable fusion energy. The paper poses the computation of this ground state as an open problem and conjectures that a linear version is solvable.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by Gromov's non-squeezing theorem, stated for a canonical Hamiltonian system of $n$ degrees of freedom in $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$: no smooth symplectic map sends the ball $B^{2n}(r)$ into the cylinder $Z^{2n}_j(R)$ when $r>R$. The paper couples this with Gardner's restacking construction, which sets the ground state under volume-preserving maps, and with Moser's trick, which shows any two diffeomorphic equal-volume sets are connected by a volume-preserving diffeomorphism. The decisive move is choosing the uniform ball $B^4(r)$ as initial data and the target $B^3(R)\times L$: the energy functional $\frac{1}{2}(x^2+v_x^2+v_y^2)$ gives an explicit formula for the noodle energy that vanishes as $R\to 0$, while Gromov's theorem blocks exactly that limit for symplectic maps. A cited result [97] shows that dropping the smoothness and bounded-derivative requirement lets symplectic maps approach any equal-volume set, so the theorem's force is directed at smooth, practically controllable maps.

What would settle it

For the waterbag example, one could numerically search over smooth symplectic maps with bounded derivative norms for a map that lowers the energy below the paper's 'approximate Gromov ground state' value $W=6W(f_0)/5$; finding such a map would falsify the claim that Gromov's constraint raises the accessible ground state, while a search that fails would support it. Alternatively, solving the conjectured linear problem and finding a $4\times4$ symplectic matrix whose image of $B^4(1)$ has energy below that value would directly test the conjecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an explicit counterexample: a uniform ball $B^4(r)$ with energy $\varepsilon=\frac{1}{2}(x^2+v_x^2+v_y^2)$ can be reshaped by a volume-preserving map into the cylinder $B^3(R)\times L$ with $R\to 0$ and $L\to\infty$, driving the energy to zero while preserving volume; this is the Gardner ground state. But the same map would send $B^4(r)$ inside the cylinder $Z^4_1(R)$ with $R<r$, which Gromov's non-squeezing theorem forbids for any smooth symplectic map. Hence the energy-zero state is not reachable by Hamiltonian dynamics, and the paper argues the accessible ground state is higher; the construction suggests a 'thick, short noodle' with $R\ge r$ and energy $W=6W(f_0)/5$, i.e., no reduction from the initial ball. The paper further notes that if maps with arbitrarily large derivatives are allowed, the Gromov ground state approaches the Gardner ground state, which is why the practical conclusion depends on wave-particle interactions being a blunt instrument that cannot produce arbitrarily fine structure.

Load-bearing premise

The practical increase in ground-state energy depends on the claim that wave-particle interactions are a blunt instrument, so the physically relevant maps are smooth symplectic maps with bounded derivatives; if arbitrarily fine symplectic structure can be implemented, the Gromov ground state coincides with the Gardner ground state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For aneutronic fusion schemes such as p-B11, the maximum energy that RF waves can extract from fusion products is bounded by the Gromov ground state, not the Gardner ground state, making the paper's limit relevant to reactor economics.
  • Numerical codes that simulate phase space engineering should use symplectic integrators; volume-preserving algorithms alone can explore states that are physically unreachable.
  • In the waterbag example, any smooth symplectic rearrangement must keep the $(x,v_x)$ footprint at least as large as the original ball, so the accessible energy cannot fall to zero.
  • The linear Gromov ground state problem, minimizing energy over $4\times 4$ symplectic matrices acting on $B^4(1)$, is conjectured to be solvable and would give a concrete benchmark for practical beam optics.
  • Under coarse-grained control, both Gardner and Gromov ground state energies rise, and the coarse-grained Gromov energy is necessarily higher, quantifying the cost of finite wave control.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the linear symplectic capacity agrees with the full symplectic capacity for balls and cylinders, then the linear Gromov ground state may be a computable proxy for the full problem; one immediate test is to numerically minimize the energy functional over $\mathrm{Sp}(4,\mathbb{R})$ for the waterbag and compare with $W(f_0)$.
  • The distinction between symplectic and merely volume-preserving control likely applies beyond fusion, for example to instability saturation and turbulence free-energy bounds, wherever Hamiltonian rearrangement sets an energy floor.
  • A practical consequence the authors leave implicit is that as wave control becomes finer, the Gromov gap narrows, so the 'blunt instrument' premise creates a direct trade-off between control resolution and recoverable energy.
  • The 'mushroom' construction shows the non-squeezing theorem is necessary but not sufficient for accessibility, so determining the true Gromov ground state may require additional symplectic invariants beyond the symplectic capacity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper argues that phase-space engineering for fusion must respect not only Liouville's volume-preserving constraint but also Gromov's non-squeezing constraint, since Hamiltonian maps are symplectic. The paper defines the Gardner ground state as the minimum-energy state reachable by smooth volume-preserving maps and conjectures that the corresponding 'Gromov ground state' under smooth symplectic maps has higher energy. The main technical example in Sec. III is a uniform waterbag distribution on B4(r) with energy ε = (x^2 + v_x^2 + v_y^2)/2. The paper shows that the Gardner construction B3(R)×L has volume 4πR^3L/3 and energy (3/10)R^2V, which tends to zero as R→0; because B3(R)×L lies inside the cylinder Z_1^4(R), Gromov's theorem forbids this map when R<r. Section IV discusses an approximate Gromov ground state, a potential 'mushroom' counter-construction, and Katok's result that unbounded derivatives allow the Gromov ground state to approach the Gardner ground state. Section V introduces coarse-grained and linear Gromov ground states and poses the challenge of computing them.

Significance. The waterbag example is a valid, self-contained demonstration that not every volume-preserving rearrangement is realizable by Hamiltonian dynamics, and it draws a useful connection between symplectic topology and the plasma available-energy literature. If a positive energy gap under physically relevant symplectic maps could be established, it would set a new theoretical upper bound on extractable energy in aneutronic fusion. However, the broader claim that the Gromov constraint raises the ground-state energy is not proven in the manuscript: it rests on an unquantified 'blunt instrument' premise and on a non-rigorous argument against the mushroom construction. The paper is best read as a challenge problem and a partial counterexample rather than as a complete theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV (mushroom paragraph)] The argument that the mushroom is not a Gromov ground state is not rigorous. The sentence 'The pre-image of the stem should be almost the entire ball' is unsupported: because symplectic maps preserve volume, the pre-image of the stem has exactly the volume of the stem, which in the described mushroom construction need not be almost all of B4(r). Applying Gromov's theorem 'to the stem by itself' does not yield the stated conclusion, since the stem is not a ball and no ball of radius r is embedded in it. The paper therefore does not rule out the possibility that symplectic maps make the energy arbitrarily small while satisfying non-squeezing.
  2. [§IV–§V (Katok result and bluntness)] The paper concedes that with arbitrarily large derivatives, the Gromov ground state approaches the Gardner ground state (Ref. [97]). The claimed positive energy gap therefore depends entirely on the 'blunt instrument' premise, which is never quantified: no derivative bound, smoothness class, or domain restriction is specified, and no argument is given that physically realizable wave maps satisfy such a bound with a sharpness that preserves a nonzero gap. As written, the assertion in Sec. II that 'the Gromov ground state is higher than the Gardner ground state' is a conjecture rather than a demonstrated result.
  3. [§III and abstract] The waterbag example proves only that the particular volume-preserving construction B3(R)×L with R<r is not symplectically accessible. It does not establish a lower bound on the energy over all symplectic maps from B4(r); for instance, a mushroom or another construction might approach zero energy. The abstract and Sec. II state the stronger conclusion that the extra Gromov constraint 'should produce a higher-energy ground state.' This conclusion goes beyond what the example demonstrates and should be qualified as a conjecture unless a rigorous lower bound is supplied.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III] The phrase 'ground state energy is 0, which is reachable when R→0' should be stated as an infimum; no finite R>0 gives exactly zero energy, and after taking the limit the target set B3(0)×L is degenerate.
  2. [§IV] The statement 'the minimum R allowed by Gromov's theorem for symplectic maps is r' is a statement about the cylinder radius of the image; it would be clearer to say that if a symplectic map into Z_1^4(R) exists, then necessarily R≥r, which is exactly the contrapositive of non-squeezing.
  3. [Abstract and §I] The term 'Gromov ground state' is used in the abstract and in Sec. I but is only formally defined in Sec. IV; consider defining the term at first use.
  4. [§IV] Reference [101] is cited as 'to be published'; since the paper makes a conjecture that relies on that work, the statement should be clarified so readers know the conjecture is not yet supported by a published proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the waterbag calculation is self-contained and the broader claim is openly conjectural.

full rationale

The paper's only worked derivation is the waterbag example in Sec. III. It computes the initial energy W(f0) = pi^2 r^6 / 8, constructs a volume-preserving noodle B^3(R) x L with energy 3 R^2 V / 10, and observes that sending B^4(r) into B^3(R) x L subset Z^4_1(R) with R < r would violate Gromov's non-squeezing theorem. This step uses an external theorem (Gromov 1985) and standard calculus; it is not equivalent to an input or to a fitted parameter. Sec. IV does not pretend to derive the Gromov ground state: it calls the R = r noodle an 'approximate Gromov ground state' and immediately says 'obviously, this approximate Gromov ground state is not a good approximation at all,' and it poses the exact problem as a 'challenge question' and a 'conjecture.' The mushroom discussion is speculative and its pre-image argument is not rigorous, but that is a correctness or rigor concern, not circularity. The Appendix proves Gardner accessibility via Moser's theorem, an independent external result. Self-citations ([26], [39], [40], [51], [52]) supply context or definitions, such as the Gromov ground state terminology and Gardner restacking, but none of the paper's equations or the Gromov application reduces to those citations. No circularity found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only size parameter in the example, r, is the initial waterbag radius set by the initial condition, not a number fitted to data. The paper introduces no adjustable constants; the energy minimizations are analytic and assumption-driven. No new physical entities are introduced; 'Gromov ground state' and 'linear Gromov ground state' are newly named optimization problems, not new particles, forces, or dimensions.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Gromov's non-squeezing theorem: no smooth symplectic map sends a ball of radius r into a cylinder of smaller radius in a conjugate coordinate pair.
    Invoked in Sec. III to rule out the noodle state B3(R)xL, which is contained in the cylinder Z^4_1(R), for R smaller than r.
  • standard math Moser's theorem: on a compact connected manifold, two volume forms with equal total volume are related by a diffeomorphism.
    Used in the Appendix (Theorem 2) to prove the Gardner ground state is accessible by smooth volume-preserving maps.
  • standard math Katok's result: symplectic maps with arbitrarily large derivatives can send a set arbitrarily close to another set of equal volume.
    Cited in Sec. IV to argue the Gromov ground state approaches the Gardner ground state when the derivative bound is removed.
  • domain assumption Charged particle dynamics in electromagnetic fields is a canonical Hamiltonian system, so its solution maps are symplectic.
    The paper's core identification of phase space engineering with symplectic maps (Sec. I-II) rests on this.
  • domain assumption The toy model: 2-dof Hamiltonian with potential phi(x)=x^2/2, energy epsilon=1/2(x^2+vx^2+vy^2), and uniform waterbag on B4(r).
    Defines the counterexample in Sec. III; the y-independence of the energy enables the noodle construction.
  • standard math For balls and cylinders, the linear symplectic capacity equals the general symplectic capacity (de Gosson-Hiley).
    Supports the conjecture in Sec. IV that the linear Gromov ground state is approachable and solvable.
  • domain assumption Realistic wave-particle interactions are blunt: they cannot generate arbitrarily fine phase space structure, so the relevant maps have bounded derivatives.
    Needed for the practical claim that the Gromov ground state lies above the Gardner ground state; the paper states this as a practical limit in Secs. IV-V.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gromov ground state in phase space engineering for fusion energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLQLPUV3

@misc{pith2026241208494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gromov ground state in phase space engineering for fusion energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLQLPUV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08494}
}
read the original abstract

Phase space engineering by RF waves plays important roles in both thermal D-T fusion and non-thermal advanced fuel fusion. But not all phase space manipulation is allowed, certain fundamental limits exist. In addition to Liouville's theorem, which requires the manipulation to be volume-preserving, Gromov's non-squeezing theorem imposes another constraint. The Gardner ground state is defined as the ground state accessible by smooth volume-preserving maps. However, the extra Gromov constraint should produce a higher-energy ground state. An example of a Gardner ground state forbidden by Gromov's non-squeezing theorem is given. The challenge question is: What is the Gromov ground state, i.e., the lowest energy state accessible by smooth symplectic maps? This is a difficult problem. As a simplification, we conjecture that the linear Gromov ground state problem is solvable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Gromov’s non-squeezing theorem. No smooth symplectic map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [97]

    A. B. Katok, Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya7, 535 (1973)

    work page 1973

  2. [1]

    T. H. Stix, Waves in Plasmas (Springer, New York, 1992) rev. and updated ed. of: The theory of plasma waves. 1962. 12

    1992

  3. [2]

    I. Y. Dodin, Journal of Plasma Physics88, 905880407 (2022)

    2022

  4. [3]

    N. J. Fisch, Reviews of Modern Physics59, 175 (1987)

    1987

  5. [4]

    I. Y. Dodin, N. J. Fisch, and J. M. Rax, Physics of Plasmas11, 5046 (2004)

    2004

  6. [5]

    N. J. Fisch, J. M. Rax, and I. Y. Dodin, Physical Review Letters91, 205004 (2003)

    2003

  7. [6]

    A. H. Reiman, The Physics of Fluids26, 1338 (1983)

    1983

  8. [7]

    Yoshioka, S

    Y. Yoshioka, S. Kinoshha, and T. Kobayashi, Nuclear Fusion24, 565 (1984)

    1984

Show all 101 references
  1. [8]

    R. L. Haye, R. Prater, R. Buttery, N. Hayashi, A. Isayama, M. Maraschek, L. Urso, and H. Zohm, Nuclear Fusion46, 451 (2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    A. H. Reiman and N. J. Fisch, Physical Review Letters121, 225001 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    N. J. Fisch and J.-M. Rax, Physical Review Letters69, 612 (1992)

    1992

  4. [11]

    N. J. Fisch, Physics of Plasmas2, 2375 (1995)

    1995

  5. [12]

    N. J. Fisch and M. C. Herrmann, Nuclear Fusion35, 1753 (1995)

    1995

  6. [13]

    M. C. Herrmann and N. J. Fisch, Physical Review Letters79, 1495 (1997)

    1997

  7. [14]

    N. J. Fisch, Physical Review Letters97, 225001 (2006)

    2006

  8. [15]

    I. E. Ochs, N. Bertelli, and N. J. Fisch, Physics of Plasmas22, 082119 (2015)

    2015

  9. [16]

    Courant and H

    E. Courant and H. Snyder, Annals of Physics3, 1 (1958)

    1958

  10. [17]

    A. W. Chao, Physics of Collective Beam Instabilities in High Energy Accelerators (Wiley, New York, 1993)

    1993

  11. [18]

    T. P. Wangler,Principles of RF Linear Accelerators (John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1998)

    1998

  12. [19]

    R. C. Davidson and H. Qin, Physics of Intense Charged Particle Beams in High Energy Accelerators(Imperial College Press and World Scientific, Singapore, 2001)

    2001

  13. [20]

    J. S. Wurtele, in Proceedings of the XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies (1999) pp. 836–859

    1999

  14. [21]

    Penn and J

    G. Penn and J. S. Wurtele, Physical Review Letters85, 764 (2000)

    2000

  15. [22]

    P. Emma, Z. Huang, K.-J. Kim, and P. Piot, Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams 9, 100702 (2006)

    2006

  16. [23]

    Cornacchia and P

    M. Cornacchia and P. Emma, Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams5, 084001 (2002)

    2002

  17. [24]

    J. Ruan, A. S. Johnson, A. H. Lumpkin, R. Thurman-Keup, H. Edwards, R. P. Fliller, T. W. Koeth, and Y.-E. Sun, Physical Review Letters106, 244801 (2011). 13

    2011

  18. [25]

    W. M. Nevins, Journal of Fusion Energy17, 25 (1998)

    1998

  19. [26]

    Qin, Physics of Plasmas31, 050601 (2024)

    H. Qin, Physics of Plasmas31, 050601 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Schliessmann, M

    F. Schliessmann, M. Arnold, L. Juergensen, N. Pietralla, M. Dutine, M. Fischer, R. Grewe, M. Steinhorst, L. Stobbe, and S. Weih, Nature Physics19, 597 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    Clery, Science 10.1126/science.add5489 (2022)

    D. Clery, Science 10.1126/science.add5489 (2022)

    2022 doi

  22. [29]

    Abdou, M

    M. Abdou, M. Riva, A. Ying, C. Day, A. Loarte, L. Baylor, P. Humrickhouse, T. F. Fuerst, and S. Cho, Nuclear Fusion61, 013001 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    Helander, Journal of Plasma Physics83, 715830401 (2017)

    P. Helander, Journal of Plasma Physics83, 715830401 (2017)

    2017

  24. [31]

    Helander, Journal of Plasma Physics86, 905860201 (2020)

    P. Helander, Journal of Plasma Physics86, 905860201 (2020)

    2020

  25. [32]

    R. J. J. Mackenbach, J. H. E. Proll, and P. Helander, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 175001 (2022)

    2022

  26. [33]

    R. J. J. Mackenbach, J. H. E. Proll, R. Wakelkamp, and P. Helander, J. Plasma Phys.89, 905890513 (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    R. J. J. Mackenbach, J. H. E. Proll, G. Snoep, and P. Helander, J. Plasma Phys. 89, 905890522 (2023)

    2023

  28. [35]

    E. J. Kolmes, I. E. Ochs, and N. J. Fisch, J. Plasma Phys.90, 905900203 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    E. J. Kolmes and N. J. Fisch, Physics of Plasmas31, 042109 (2024)

    2024

  30. [37]

    Helander and R

    P. Helander and R. J. J. Mackenbach, J. Plasma Phys.90, 905900401 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    C. S. Gardner, The Physics of Fluids6, 839 (1963)

    1963

  32. [39]

    I. Y. Dodin and N. J. Fisch, Physics Letters A341, 187 (2005)

    2005

  33. [40]

    E. J. Kolmes and N. J. Fisch, Physical Review E102, 063209 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    Moser, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society120, 286 (1965)

    J. Moser, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society120, 286 (1965)

    1965

  35. [42]

    Gromov, Inventiones Mathematicae82, 307 (1985)

    M. Gromov, Inventiones Mathematicae82, 307 (1985)

    1985

  36. [43]

    Stewart, Nature329, 17 (1987)

    I. Stewart, Nature329, 17 (1987)

    1987

  37. [44]

    Hofer and E

    H. Hofer and E. Zehnder,Symplectic invariants and Hamiltonian dynamics (Birkhauser Ver- lag, 1994)

    1994

  38. [45]

    de Gosson, Symplectic Geometry and Quantum Mechanics (Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2006)

    M. de Gosson, Symplectic Geometry and Quantum Mechanics (Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2006)

    2006

  39. [46]

    de Gosson and F

    M. de Gosson and F. Luef, Physics Reports484, 131 (2009)

    2009

  40. [47]

    M. A. de Gosson, Foundations of Physics39, 194 (2009)

    2009

  41. [48]

    M. A. de Gosson and B. J. Hiley, Foundations of Physics41, 1415 (2011)

    2011

  42. [49]

    M. A. de Gosson, American Journal of Physics81, 328 (2013). 14

    2013

  43. [50]

    M. A. de Gosson and B. Hiley,The Principles of Newtonian and Quantum Mechanics: The Need for Planck’s Constant, h (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2016)

    2016

  44. [51]

    E. J. Kolmes, P. Helander, and N. J. Fisch, Physics of Plasmas27, 062110 (2020)

    2020

  45. [52]

    E. J. Kolmes and N. J. Fisch, Physical Review E106, 055209 (2022)

    2022

  46. [53]

    R. W. Bussard and N. A. Krall, Fusion Technology26, 1326 (1994)

    1994

  47. [54]

    Rostoker, F

    N. Rostoker, F. Wessel, H. Rahman, B. C. Maglich, B. Spivey, and A. Fisher, Physical Review Letters 70, 1818 (1993)

    1993

  48. [55]

    Rostoker, M

    N. Rostoker, M. W. Binderbauer, and H. J. Monkhorst, Science278, 1419 (1997)

    1997

  49. [56]

    Mazzucato, Fundamental Plasma Physics6, 100022 (2023)

    E. Mazzucato, Fundamental Plasma Physics6, 100022 (2023)

    2023

  50. [57]

    E. J. Lerner, S. M. Hassan, I. Karamitsos-Zivkovic, and R. Fritsch, Physics of Plasmas30, 120602 (2023)

    2023

  51. [58]

    H. Kong, H. Xie, B. Liu, M. Tan, D. Luo, Z. Li, and J. Sun, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66, 015009 (2023)

    2023

  52. [59]

    Wei, S.-Z

    W.-Q. Wei, S.-Z. Zhang, Z.-G. Deng, W. Qi, H. Xu, L.-R. Liu, J.-L. Zhang, F.-F. Li, X. Xu, Z.-M. Hu, B.-Z. Chen, B.-B. Ma, J.-X. Li, X.-G. Ren, Z.-F. Xu, D. H. H. Hoffmann, Q.-P. Fan, W.-W. Wang, S.-Y. Wang, J. Teng, B. Cui, F. Lu, L. Yang, Y.-Q. Gu, Z.-Q. Zhao, R. Cheng, Z. W...

    2023 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Liu, H.-s

    M.-s. Liu, H.-s. Xie, Y.-m. Wang, J.-q. Dong, K.-m. Feng, X. Gu, X.-l. Huang, X.-c. Jiang, Y.-y. Li, Z. Li, B. Liu, W.-j. Liu, D. Luo, Y.-K. M. Peng, Y.-j. Shi, S.-d. Song, X.-m. Song, T.-t. Sun, M.-z. Tan, X.-y. Wang, Y.-m. Yang, G. Yin, and H.-y. Zhao, Physics of Plasmas 31,...

    2024 doi

  54. [61]

    Boris, inProceedings of the Fourth Conference on Numerical Simulation of Plasmas (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington D

    J. Boris, inProceedings of the Fourth Conference on Numerical Simulation of Plasmas (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington D. C., 1970) p. 3

    1970

  55. [62]

    P. H. Stoltz, J. R. Cary, G. Penn, and J. Wurtele, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams5, 094001 (2002)

    2002

  56. [63]

    G. Penn, P. H. Stoltz, J. R. Cary, and J. Wurtele, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 29, 1719 (2003)

    2003

  57. [64]

    H. Qin, S. Zhang, J. Xiao, J. Liu, Y. Sun, and W. M. Tang, Physics of Plasmas20, 084503 (2013). 15

    2013

  58. [65]

    Y. He, Y. Sun, J. Liu, and H. Qin, Journal of Computational Physics281, 135 (2015)

    2015

  59. [66]

    Zhang, J

    R. Zhang, J. Liu, H. Qin, Y. Wang, Y. He, and Y. Sun, Physics of Plasmas22, 044501 (2015)

    2015

  60. [67]

    Y. He, Y. Sun, R. Zhang, Y. Wang, J. Liu, and H. Qin, Physics of Plasmas23, 092109 (2016)

    2016

  61. [68]

    X. Tu, B. Zhu, Y. Tang, H. Qin, J. Liu, and R. Zhang, Physics of Plasmas23, 122514 (2016)

    2016

  62. [69]

    Qin and X

    H. Qin and X. Guan, Physical Review Letters100, 035006 (2008)

    2008

  63. [70]

    Squire, H

    J. Squire, H. Qin, and W. M. Tang,Geometric Integration of the Vlasov-Maxwell System with a Variational Particle-in-cell Scheme , Tech. Rep. PPPL-4748 (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, 2012)

    2012

  64. [71]

    Squire, H

    J. Squire, H. Qin, and W. M. Tang, Physics of Plasmas19, 084501 (2012)

    2012

  65. [72]

    J. Xiao, J. Liu, H. Qin, and Z. Yu, Physics of Plasmas20, 102517 (2013)

    2013

  66. [73]

    J. Xiao, H. Qin, J. Liu, Y. He, R. Zhang, and Y. Sun, Physics of Plasmas22, 112504 (2015)

    2015

  67. [74]

    J. Xiao, J. Liu, H. Qin, Z. Yu, and N. Xiang, Physics of Plasmas22, 092305 (2015)

    2015

  68. [75]

    Y. He, H. Qin, Y. Sun, J. Xiao, R. Zhang, and J. Liu, Physics of Plasmas22, 124503 (2015)

    2015

  69. [76]

    Y. He, Y. Sun, H. Qin, and J. Liu, Physics of Plasmas23, 092108 (2016)

    2016

  70. [77]

    Zhang, H

    R. Zhang, H. Qin, Y. Tang, J. Liu, Y. He, and J. Xiao, Physical Review E94, 013205 (2016)

    2016

  71. [78]

    J. Xiao, H. Qin, P. J. Morrison, J. Liu, Z. Yu, R. Zhang, and Y. He, Physics of Plasmas23, 112107 (2016)

    2016

  72. [79]

    H. Qin, J. Liu, J. Xiao, R. Zhang, Y. He, Y. Wang, Y. Sun, J. W. Burby, L. Ellison, and Y. Zhou, Nuclear Fusion56, 014001 (2016)

    2016

  73. [80]

    Kraus, K

    M. Kraus, K. Kormann, P. J. Morrison, and E. Sonnendrücker, Journal of Plasma Physics 83, 905830401 (2017)

    2017

  74. [81]

    J. W. Burby, Physics of Plasmas24, 032101 (2017)

    2017

  75. [82]

    P. J. Morrison, Physics of Plasmas24, 055502 (2017)

    2017

  76. [83]

    Z. Zhou, Y. He, Y. Sun, J. Liu, and H. Qin, Physics of Plasmas24, 052507 (2017)

    2017

  77. [84]

    J. Xiao, H. Qin, J. Liu, and R. Zhang, Physics of Plasmas24, 062112 (2017)

    2017

  78. [85]

    J. Xiao, H. Qin, and J. Liu, Plasma Science and Technology20, 110501 (2018)

    2018

  79. [86]

    Xiao and H

    J. Xiao and H. Qin, Computer Physics Communications241, 19 (2019)

    2019

  80. [87]

    Xiao and H

    J. Xiao and H. Qin, Nuclear Fusion59, 106044 (2019)

    2019

  81. [88]

    Xiao and H

    J. Xiao and H. Qin, Computer Physics Communications265, 107981 (2021)

    2021

  82. [89]

    Xiao and H

    J. Xiao and H. Qin, Plasma Science and Technology23, 055102 (2021)

    2021

  83. [90]

    A. S. Glasser and H. Qin, Journal of Plasma Physics86, 835860303 (2020). 16

    2020

  84. [91]

    Z. Wang, H. Qin, B. Sturdevant, and C. Chang, Journal of Plasma Physics87, 905870406 (2021)

    2021

  85. [92]

    Kormann and E

    K. Kormann and E. Sonnendrücker, Journal of Computational Physics425, 109890 (2021)

    2021

  86. [93]

    Perse, K

    B. Perse, K. Kormann, and E. Sonnendrücker, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing43, B194 (2021)

    2021

  87. [94]

    A. S. Glasser and H. Qin, Journal of Plasma Physics88, 835880202 (2022)

    2022

  88. [95]

    Campos Pinto, K

    M. Campos Pinto, K. Kormann, and E. Sonnendrücker, Journal of Scientific Computing91, 46 (2022)

    2022

  89. [96]

    J. W. Burby, Scientific Reports13, 18286 (2023)

    2023

  90. [98]

    N. J. Fisch and J.-M. Rax, Phys. Fluids B5, 1754 (1993)

    1993

  91. [99]

    M. J. Hay, J. Schiff, and N. J. Fisch, Phys. Plasmas22, 102108 (2015)

    2015

  92. [100]

    M. J. Hay, J. Schiff, and N. J. Fisch, Physica A473, 225 (2017)

    2017

  93. [101]

    Updike, H

    M. Updike, H. Qin, N. Bohlsen, and N. J. Fisch (2024), to be published. 17

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.