Classical and quantum complex dynamics

Sergio Giardino

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Classical and quantum complex dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper attempts to establish a complex-coordinate formulation of phase space in which classical energy, phase-space curvature, and quantum commutation relations derive from a single symplectic product, extending quantization to…

desk verdict The paper honestly credits its classical antecedents, but its central quantization claim collapses on a direct algebraic and dimensional check: Eq. (37) is wrong by a factor of ω² and has the wrong units, so the quantum energy formulas are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16938 v1 pith:YARNBPT6 submitted 2025-01-28 quant-ph

Sergio Giardino This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 45.20.-d03.65.-w

keywords complexphasespaceHamiltoniansymplecticproductquantizationruledissipativesystemsnon-stationaryprocessesphase-spacecurvatureharmonicoscillator

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

The paper attempts to establish that a complex parametrization of classical phase space, $z=(\kappa_0 p+iq)/\sqrt{2}$, provides a single formalism for classical and quantum mechanics. The symplectic inner product of the complex plane is used to relate the curvature of the phase-space curve to classical energy, and a quantization rule is conjectured by promoting the Poisson bracket to a commutator, giving $[\hat z^\dagger_{dH},\hat z_{dH}]=\kappa_0\hbar\omega^2$ for the harmonic oscillator. From this rule the paper derives a quantized energy $E=\hbar\omega^2/(2\kappa_0)(1/m+\kappa_0^2 k)$ and extends the same construction to complex Hamiltonian functions $H+iK$, which describe dissipative and non-stationary classical processes. A sympathetic reader would care because, if the correspondence holds, the formalism offers a geometric route to quantum descriptions of damped or forced systems and ties quantization to the geometry of the phase-space curve.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the complex phase-space variable $z=(\kappa_0 p+iq)/\sqrt{2}$ together with the symplectic inner product $\Omega(z,w)=\mathrm{Re}[zi\bar w]=-\mathrm{Im}[z\bar w]$. The argument also uses the Frenet curvature $\kappa(t)$ of the curve $z(t)$ in the complex plane, and the quantization map that promotes the classical variables to operators and replaces the Poisson bracket by a commutator. The symplectic product is what connects the classical energy, the curvature, and the quantum commutation relations.

What would settle it

Substitute the explicit oscillator solution $q=R\sin\omega t$, $p=m\omega R\cos\omega t$ into Eq. (36) and evaluate both sides with the definition $\Omega(u,v)=\mathrm{Re}[ui\bar v]$; if the two sides are not equal at a generic time for a fixed choice of $\kappa_0$, the claimed energy formula (37) is not a valid identity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the complex coordinate $z=(\kappa_0 p+iq)/\sqrt{2}$ turns the phase space of classical mechanics into a complex plane whose symplectic product $\Omega(z,w)=\mathrm{Re}[zi\bar w]$ carries the full dynamical content. For a harmonic oscillator, the paper identifies the classical energy with $E=\Omega(\dot z_{dH},\ddot z_{dH})/(\kappa_0\omega^2)$, relates this to the Frenet curvature of the curve $z(t)$, and then proposes that quantization amounts to replacing the classical Poisson bracket by a commutator, yielding $[\hat z^\dagger_{dH},\hat z_{dH}]=\kappa_0\hbar\omega^2$ and the quantized energy $E=\hbar\omega^2/(2\kappa_0)(1/m+\kappa_0^2k)$. The same rules are applied to complex Hamiltonians $H+iK$, giving equations of motion that exhibit damping or forcing and leading to a quantized energy for non-stationary processes in Eq. (73). The paper presents this as a step toward a common mathematical language in which classical energy, phase-space curvature, and quantum commutation relations are aspects of one symplectic structure.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the correspondence asserted in Eqs. (28) and (37): that the classical symplectic product of the derivative vectors, divided by $\kappa_0\omega^2$, measures energy, and that promoting the variables to operators and replacing Poisson brackets by commutators remains valid for these higher-derivative objects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Complex Hamiltonians $H+iK$ give classical equations of motion with damping or forcing, so dissipation is represented within the same geometric formalism as conservative motion.
The quantization rule produces a quantized energy for the harmonic oscillator and, through Eq. (73), for non-stationary processes, with the $\beta_0=0$ limit recovering the oscillator result.
Vanishing phase-space curvature marks non-quantizable dynamics: the condition $\kappa=0$ yields $p\propto q$ and $[\hat q,\hat p]=0$.
The symplectic-product relation between energy and phase-space area connects the quantum energy to a minimum-area statement from symplectic geometry.
The formalism is proposed as a common language for classical and quantum mechanics, with tensor-product extensions indicated for higher-dimensional phase spaces.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct substitution of the harmonic-oscillator trajectory into Eq. (36) would settle whether the energy formula holds instant by instant; this is the cheapest decisive check of the central correspondence.
If the quantized energy (73) is correct, damped oscillators should show dissipation-dependent shifts in their energy-level spacings, a signature that could be searched for in driven or damped quantum systems.
The zero-curvature criterion suggests a selection rule: motions whose phase-space trajectories are straight lines would not admit this quantization, giving a geometric reason why certain dissipative regimes resist quantum description.
The same symplectic-product construction could be applied to tensor-product phase spaces, leading to a geometric quantization scheme for field theories; the paper lists this as a future direction without developing it.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

What is actually new here is a proposed route: use a complex phase-space variable, define energy through the symplectic product of the first and second derivatives of z_dH, and quantize via commutators. That route fails where it matters.

The paper does some things well. Section 2 openly says the complex variable (2) appears in Marsden-Ratiu, and refs. [10–13] already treat complex Hamiltonians for dissipative systems. So the classical side is largely repackaging, and the repackaging is honestly credited. The curvature language (Frenet frame, Gromov speculation) is suggestive but not developed into a usable criterion.

The load-bearing step is Eq. (37). For H = p²/2m + kq²/2, direct calculation gives Ω(ż_dH, z¨_dH) = (κ0 k²/(2m²))(p²/m + kq²) = (κ0 ω⁴/2)(p²/m + kq²), not the (κ0 ω²/2)(p²/m + kq²) claimed in Eq. (36). Separately, Ω has dimensions L²/T⁵, so Ω/(κ0ω²) has dimensions M L²/T⁴, not energy. Eq. (40) inherits the wrong units and is therefore unsupported, and the generalization in Eq. (73) has the same disease. The commutator (29) is just canonical quantization restated; (32) follows from operator promotion, but the jump from commutators to energy is asserted, not derived. There is no independent benchmark, so the circularity charge sticks.

Is the paper worth engaging? Classically, it adds no new equations of motion; the imaginary-Hamiltonian examples are simple linear ODEs. Quantum mechanically, the central formulas fail dimensional analysis. I would not cite it. A serious editor could reasonably desk-reject: a referee would spend time checking an error that any careful reader can find in ten minutes. If the author fixes the factor and the dimensions and actually derives the energy rather than postulating it, the idea might support a short follow-up; as it stands, the paper is not ready.

Who gets value from this paper? Someone tracking complex-Hamiltonian formalisms might skim the classical sections for references, but the main result is wrong. I would not bring it to the reading group.

Recommendation: reject; no external review needed unless the central energy formula is corrected and independently grounded.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a complex parametrization of classical phase space, z=(κ0p+iq)/√2, and uses symplectic inner products and plane-curve geometry to relate curvature to energy and Poisson brackets to commutators. It introduces complex Hamiltonian functions H+iK to describe dissipative systems, and conjectures a quantization rule [z†,z]=κ0ℏω² from which it derives quantum energies, including a formula for a non-stationary (attenuated) oscillator. The central claims are that the symplectic product Ω(˙z_dH, ¨z_dH) divided by κ0ω² equals the classical energy, and that commutators among derivatives of z_dH yield quantized energies.

Significance. If correct, this would be an elegant framework unifying classical and quantum dynamics in a single complex formalism and providing a quantization scheme for dissipative and non-stationary processes. The paper is clearly written in places, and the harmonic-oscillator commutator (29) does follow from canonical quantization. However, the central energy identification is invalid: the key formula (36) is algebraically wrong, and the energy expressions are dimensionally inconsistent. Because the quantum energy formulas (40), (58), and (73) inherit these errors and are not independently derived, the main result of the paper does not stand. The novel physical conclusions, including the curvature-based quantization criterion, are therefore unsupported.

major comments (4)

[Section 5, Eq. (36)] For the harmonic oscillator (24), direct calculation gives Ω(˙z_dH, ¨z_dH) = (κ0ω⁴/2)(p²/m + kq²), not the claimed (κ0ω²/2)(p²/m + kq²). Using the definition in Eq. (37), this yields E=ω²H, not E=H. The identification of the symplectic product with classical energy is therefore algebraically incorrect.
[Section 5, Eqs. (37) and (40)] Dimensional analysis shows that z_dH has units L/T, so Ω(˙z_dH, ¨z_dH) has units L²/T⁵; dividing by κ0ω² (with κ0=T/M) gives M L²/T⁴, not energy M L²/T². Hence Eq. (37) cannot define an energy. The same dimension mismatch propagates into the quantum energy (40) and into Eqs. (58) and (73); in Eq. (73), with β0 dimensionless as in Eq. (62), the second term has dimension M⁵L²/T⁴. The central energy formulas of the paper are dimensionally inconsistent.
[Section 4, Eqs. (28)–(40)] The quantization rule (28) is a postulate, and the paper does not derive Eq. (40) from the commutators (29) and (32); no operator Hamiltonian, state, or expectation value is introduced. The only classical anchor for calling (40) an energy is Eq. (37), which is both algebraically and dimensionally invalid. Consequently the quantum energy formula and its generalization (73) are unsupported assertions rather than derived results.
[Section 6, Eqs. (60)–(61)] The inference that the classical proportionality p∝q following from km=1/κ0² implies [q̂,p̂]=0 is not justified: imposing a classical relation between the operators contradicts the canonical commutation relation [q̂,p̂]=iℏ used elsewhere in the paper. The zero-curvature condition may be a classical curiosity, but it does not establish a quantization criterion.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2, Eq. (26)] Equation (26) writes {H,H}=κ0ω²(pq−qp), which is identically zero in classical mechanics; presenting it as a separate expression is confusing and should be clarified as a preliminary to quantization.
[Section 5, Eqs. (35) and (40)] The symbol E is used both for the classical amplitude energy (35) and for the quantum energy (40); different notation would avoid ambiguity.
[Section 4, Eq. (28)] The arrow notation for quantization does not specify an operator-ordering prescription for products like pq; this matters because the classical expressions are products of commuting variables.
[Section 5, Eq. (41)] The passage relating E=A/T to Gromov's non-squeezing theorem is speculative and not connected to the derived formulas; it should be either derived or removed.
[Section 6, Eq. (55)] The 'classical energy' in Eq. (55) can become negative depending on the sign of (1/m−κ0²k) and the amplitudes, which is not discussed.
[Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., 'the classical energy of the system will be the function', 'another perfect agreement', 'what is an interesting find'); a careful proofreading is needed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The quantized energy formulas are rescaled restatements of the ansatz-derived commutators, so the central 'prediction' reduces by construction to the quantization input.

self definitional [Section 5, Eqs. (28), (32), (37), and (40)]
"and therefore the classical energy of the system will be the function E = Ω( ˙zdH, ¨zdH) κ0ω2 (37) ... [A]nd thus one obtains the quantized energy from (29) and (32) to be E = ℏ ω2 2κ0 ( 1 m + κ20k ) . (40)"

Equation (40) is not obtained by quantizing a Hamiltonian; it is Equation (32) divided by iκ0 (up to an overall sign). Equation (32), in turn, was manufactured by taking the classical derivative (31) of the same z_dH and imposing the promotion rule (28). Therefore the 'quantized energy' is a rescaled restatement of the commutator produced by the quantization ansatz itself, with no independent energy operator, no external benchmark, and no derivation from a first-quantized Hamiltonian. The energy prediction is, by construction, a relabeling of the input commutator value.
self definitional [Section 6, Eqs. (72) and (73)]
"[ˆ˙zdH, ˆ¨z† dH] = iℏ [ ω42 ( 1 m + κ20k ) + kβ 40 κ20 ] − β0ℏω2 ( ω2 2 + β20 κ20 ) , (72) ... and the quantum energy will be E = ℏ [ ω2 2κ0 ( 1 m + κ20k ) + kβ 40 ω2κ30 ] (73)"

The non-stationary energy (73) is exactly the imaginary part of the commutator (72) divided by κ0ω². Since (72) is obtained by applying the same promotion rule to derivatives of the complex-Hamiltonian variable z_dH, the generalized 'quantum energy' is again a re-scaled version of a commutator computed from the ansatz, not an independent prediction. The claimed generalization to non-stationary processes is thus constructed from the same quantization input rather than derived from an independently quantized theory.

full rationale

The paper's classical formalism mostly consists of algebraic definitions and substitutions, and its use of external theorems (Frenet geometry, Gromov non-squeezing) is not self-referential. The single self-citation, [30], is contextual and not load-bearing. The circular core is the passage from the quantization ansatz to the claimed energy predictions: the classical energy is defined in Eq. (37) as Ω/(κ0ω²), and then the 'quantized energy' in Eq. (40) is just the commutator of Eq. (32) divided by the same constant. The same pattern repeats for the attenuated oscillator, where Eq. (73) is the imaginary part of the ansatz-derived commutator (72). Thus the central results reduce by construction to the quantization rule that was conjectured earlier, making this a partial but genuine self-definitional circularity. Separate dimensional and algebraic inconsistencies in Eq. (36) are correctness risks rather than circularity arguments, so they do not further increase the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, fields, or dimensions are introduced. The quantum energy is a constructed quantity rather than an entity, and its dimensional inconsistency is treated in the red flags. The free parameters are the dimensional scale κ0 and the coupling constants α0 and β0 introduced for the two dissipative examples.

free parameters (3)

κ0 = not fitted; chosen as τ/μ, later set to 1 or 1/(mω) by hand
Dimensional conversion between momentum and position; every energy and commutator formula depends on it, and the paper changes its value without constraint.
α0 = dimensionless real constant
Strength of the imaginary harmonic oscillator; the quantum energy (58) scales as α0⁵ and is otherwise unconstrained.
β0 = real constant
Coupling of the dissipative p^{n+1} term in the complex Hamiltonian; the claimed energy (73) depends on β0⁴.

assumptions (5)

standard math Standard symplectic mechanics and complex Frenet formulas
Sections 2 and 3 rely on Arnold, Marsden-Ratiu, and Alencar et al.; these are accepted background.
domain assumption Complex parametrization of the phase space is physically faithful
Section 3, after Eq. (2), assumes all classical motion can be represented as plane curves in the complex plane with the real inner product (14).
ad hoc to paper The symplectic product maps to i times the operator commutator
Section 4, Eq. (28): the quantization rule is introduced as a conjecture, with no derivation from an operator Hamiltonian or measurement principle.
ad hoc to paper The symplectic product of derivatives yields energy as E = Ω(˙z,¨z)/(κ0ω²)
Section 5, Eq. (37) is asserted without proof and is dimensionally inconsistent with direct calculation for the harmonic oscillator.
ad hoc to paper Zero curvature of the phase-space curve implies non-quantizability
Section 6, after Eq. (60): the paper infers [q̂,p̂]=0 from p ∝ q with no derivation, which is contradicted by free-particle quantization.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classical and quantum complex dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YARNBPT6

@misc{pith2026250116938,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classical and quantum complex dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YARNBPT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16938}
}

read the original abstract

A generalization of classical mechanics is obtained from a complex parametrization of the phase space. The formalism supports complex Hamiltonian functions describing non-conservative classical mechanical systems. A quantization scheme that is general enough to incorporate non-stationary physical processes is also achieved.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

V. I. Arnold . Mathematical methods in classical mechanics. Springer (1 989)

work page
[2]

J. E. Marsden; T. S. Ratiu . Introduction to mechanics and symmetry. Springer (2002)

work page 2002
[3]

Abraham; J

R. Abraham; J. E. Marsden . Foundations of mechanics. AMS (2008)

work page 2008
[4]

Dirac bracket transformations in phase space

P . G. Bergmann; I. Goldberg . “Dirac bracket transformations in phase space”. Phys. Rev. , 98:531–538, (1955)

work page 1955
[5]

Symmetric Dirac bracket in classical mechanics

W. H. F ranke; A. J. Kalnay . “Symmetric Dirac bracket in classical mechanics”. J. Math. Phys. , 11 :1729–1734, (1970)

work page 1970
[6]

Quantum mechanics in classical dynamics

A. C. Millard . “Quantum mechanics in classical dynamics”. J. Math. Phys. , 38:6230–6248, (1997)

work page 1997
[7]

Complex coordinates and quantum mechanics

F. Strocchi . “Complex coordinates and quantum mechanics”. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 38(1):36, (1966)

work page 1966
[8]

Complex extensions of canonical transformations and qua ntum mechanics

P . Kramer; M. Moshinsky; T. H. Seligman . “Complex extensions of canonical transformations and qua ntum mechanics” in “Group theory and its applications”. vol. III , Academic Press (1975)

work page 1975

Show all 36 references

[9]

Complexiﬁcations and real forms of Hamiltonian structures

V. S. Gerdjikov; A. V. Kyuldjiev; G. Marmo; G. Vilasi . “Complexiﬁcations and real forms of Hamiltonian structures”. Eur. Phys. J. , B29:177–181, (2002)

2002
[10]

Higher order complex Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechani cs systems

M. T ekkoyun; A. G ¨org¨ul¨u. “Higher order complex Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechani cs systems”. Phys. Lett. , A357:261–269, (2006)

2006
[11]

Complex Lagrangians and Hamiltonians

M. T ekkoyun, G. Cabar . “Complex Lagrangians and Hamiltonians”. Cankaya Un. J. Arts Sci. , 1:111–115, (2007)

2007
[12]

Non-standard complex Lagrangian dynamics

E.-N. A. Rami; T. Soulati; Rezazadeh . “Non-standard complex Lagrangian dynamics”. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Cont. Syst., 5:50–62, (2013)

2013
[13]

Applications of the complex, doubleand dual numbers in Lagrangian mechanics

G.F. T orres del Castillo; L.A. Capulin Tlaltecatl . “Applications of the complex, doubleand dual numbers in Lagrangian mechanics”. Rev. Mex. Fis. , 69:010702 1–5, (2023)

2023
[14]

Albert; X

M. Albert; X. Bao; L. Chen . Complex quantum momentum due to correlation. arXiv:2308.16399[quant-ph] (2023)

2023 arXiv
[15]

Lie group dynamical formalism and the relation between qu antum mechanics and classical mechanics

T. F. Jordan; G. Sudarshan . “Lie group dynamical formalism and the relation between qu antum mechanics and classical mechanics”. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 33:515–524, (1961)

1961
[16]

Methods of diﬀerential geometry in analytical mechanics

M. de Le ´on; P . R. Rodrigues . “Methods of diﬀerential geometry in analytical mechanics ”. North-Holland Math- ematics Studies 158 (1989)

1989
[17]

Geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics

A. Ashtekar; T. A. Schilling . “Geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics” In: A. Harvey (eds) “On Einstein s Path. ”. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1422-9 3 Springer (1997)

1997 doi
[18]

A note on constrained complex hamiltonian mechanics

M. T ekkoyun. “A note on constrained complex hamiltonian mechanics”. Diﬀ. Geom. Dyn. Syst. , 8:262–267, (2006)

2006
[19]

Mixing quantum and classical mechanics

O. V. Prezhdo; V. V. Kisil . “Mixing quantum and classical mechanics”. Phys. Rev. , A56:162–176, (1997)

1997
[20]

A Classical Formulation of Quantum Theory?

W. F. Braasch Jr; W. K. W ootters . “A Classical Formulation of Quantum Theory?”. Entropy, 24(1):137, (2022)

2022
[21]

Quantum mechanics as an approximation to classical mecha nics in Hilbert space

A. J. Bracken . “Quantum mechanics as an approximation to classical mecha nics in Hilbert space”. J. Phys. , A36:L329, (2003). 11

2003
[22]

Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi theory

M. Roncadelli; L. S. Schulman . “Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi theory”. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 99:170406, (2007)

2007
[23]

On the Hamilton–Jacobi method in classical and quantum nonconservative systems

A.de Souza Dutra; R. A. C. Correa; P . H. R. S. Moraes . “On the Hamilton–Jacobi method in classical and quantum nonconservative systems”. PTEP, 2016(8):083A02, (2016)

2016
[24]

The introduction of the quantum kinetic energy term via th e Hamilton- Jacobi approach

M. Mollai; M. Razavi; S. Jami; A. Ahanj . “The introduction of the quantum kinetic energy term via th e Hamilton- Jacobi approach”. Eur. Phys. J. Plus , 128(1), 2013

2013
[25]

Structural aspects of Hamilton–Jacobi theory

J. F. Cari ˜nena; X. Gr `acia; G. Marmo; E. Mart ´ınez; M. C. Mu ˜noz-Lecanda; N. Rom ´an-Roy. “Structural aspects of Hamilton–Jacobi theory”. Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. , 13(02):1650017, (2015)

2015
[26]

Quantum mechanics as a classical theory

A. Heslot . “Quantum mechanics as a classical theory”. Phys. Rev. , D31(6):1341, (1985)

1985
[27]

Classical mechanics as an example of generalized quantum mechanics

K. R. W. Jones . “Classical mechanics as an example of generalized quantum mechanics”. Phys. Rev. , D45(8):2590, (1992)

1992
[28]

Alencar; W

H. Alencar; W. Santos; G. Silva Neto . Diﬀerential geometry of plane curves. American Mathemati cal Society (2022)

2022
[29]

The symplectic camel and the uncertainty principle: The t ip of an iceberg?

M. A. de Gosson . “The symplectic camel and the uncertainty principle: The t ip of an iceberg?”. Found. Phys. , 39:194–214, (2009)

2009
[30]

Generalized imaginary units in quantum mechanics

S. Giardino . “Generalized imaginary units in quantum mechanics”. 11 ar Xiv:2311.14162[quant-ph] (2023)

2023
[31]

On the quantization of the dissipative systems

E. Kanai . “On the quantization of the dissipative systems”. Prog. Theor. Phys. , 3(4):440–442, (1948)

1948
[32]

Similar Frenet curves

R. P . Encheva; G. H. Georgiev . “Similar Frenet curves”. Results Math. , 55:359, (2009)

2009
[33]

Contact manifolds and dissipation, classical and quantu m

F.M. Ciaglia; H. Cruz; G. Marmo . “Contact manifolds and dissipation, classical and quantu m”. Ann. Phys., 398:159– 179, (2018)

2018
[34]

T. Hori . “Theory of complex particle without extra dimensions. 7 arXiv:2407.03378[quant-ph] (2024)

2024
[35]

Quantum vs. symplectic computers

I. V olovich. “Quantum vs. symplectic computers”. 7 arXiv:2407.12755[quant-ph] (2024)

2024 arXiv
[36]

Quantum aspect of the classical dynamics

A. K. Pogrebkov . “Quantum aspect of the classical dynamics”. 7 arXiv:2407.16018[math-ph] (2024). 12

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

V. I. Arnold . Mathematical methods in classical mechanics. Springer (1 989)

work page

[2] [2]

J. E. Marsden; T. S. Ratiu . Introduction to mechanics and symmetry. Springer (2002)

work page 2002

[3] [3]

Abraham; J

R. Abraham; J. E. Marsden . Foundations of mechanics. AMS (2008)

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Dirac bracket transformations in phase space

P . G. Bergmann; I. Goldberg . “Dirac bracket transformations in phase space”. Phys. Rev. , 98:531–538, (1955)

work page 1955

[5] [5]

Symmetric Dirac bracket in classical mechanics

W. H. F ranke; A. J. Kalnay . “Symmetric Dirac bracket in classical mechanics”. J. Math. Phys. , 11 :1729–1734, (1970)

work page 1970

[6] [6]

Quantum mechanics in classical dynamics

A. C. Millard . “Quantum mechanics in classical dynamics”. J. Math. Phys. , 38:6230–6248, (1997)

work page 1997

[7] [7]

Complex coordinates and quantum mechanics

F. Strocchi . “Complex coordinates and quantum mechanics”. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 38(1):36, (1966)

work page 1966

[8] [8]

Complex extensions of canonical transformations and qua ntum mechanics

P . Kramer; M. Moshinsky; T. H. Seligman . “Complex extensions of canonical transformations and qua ntum mechanics” in “Group theory and its applications”. vol. III , Academic Press (1975)

work page 1975