Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 86 references

Planckian Bounds From Local Uncertainty Relations

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives universal lower bounds D ≥ ℏ/(2πm) and η ≥ nh from local uncertainty relations in thermal many-body systems.

desk verdict A self-aware review of the authors' earlier Planckian bounds with new NIST data; the abstract oversells universality, but the paper is honest about where the bounds fail. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10129 v1 pith:4J2I463G submitted 2025-02-14 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-th

Saurish Chakrabarty , Zohar Nussinov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-th
keywords Planckianboundslocaluncertaintyrelationsdiffusionconstantviscosityboundthermalmany-bodysystemsvelocityautocorrelationfunctionGreen-Kuboquantumspeedlimits
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 sets out to show that Planck's constant controls transport in ordinary thermal fluids through simple local uncertainty relations, not only through exotic quantum-critical physics. It asserts that applying the textbook variance uncertainty inequality to the small subset of Hamiltonian terms that actually fail to commute with a local observable yields a universal relaxation time of order ℏ/kBT and a universal shortest length scale of order the thermal de Broglie wavelength, independent of interaction range. Those bounds are then converted into transport floors: a diffusion constant D bounded below by ℏ/(2πm) and a shear viscosity η bounded below by nh, with n the particle density. The paper checks these floors against tabulated diffusion and viscosity data for a dozen fluids and finds them satisfied across gases and most liquids; the exceptions are cryogenic helium and hydrogen, where the authors say the classical averaging and Stokes-Einstein assumptions behind the simplified bounds fail. A sympathetic reader would care because the argument would unify many previously conjectured Planckian limits into one derivation from ordinary uncertainty principles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the local uncertainty relation: the standard inequality σ_A σ_B ≥ ½|⟨[A,B]⟩| evaluated in a mixed thermal state with A restricted to the non-commuting local terms of the Hamiltonian. The paper shows that for a local observable Q only a few terms of H survive in [H,Q], so the bound stays finite and independent of system size, and the classical phase-space distribution makes the variances Gaussian and computable. The transport bounds then ride on two further identities: the Green-Kubo formula D = ∫₀^∞ dt G_v(t), with G_v(t) the velocity autocorrelation function, and the exponential short-time envelope G_v(t) ≳ G_v(0)$e^{{-t/t_d}}$ with t_d = 1/λ_L; combined with λ_L ≤ 2πkBT/ℏ and classical ⟨v²⟩ = kBT/m. For viscosity, the machinery is the kinetic estimate τ_coll ≥ h/(kBT) obtained by averaging the ratio of de Broglie wavelength to speed, inserted into η = n kBT τ_coll.

What would settle it

Measure, in a dilute gas or a simple liquid where classical averaging is beyond doubt, the full velocity autocorrelation function and compute D from the Green-Kubo integral without any Stokes-Einstein conversion; if D < ℏ/(2πm), the central diffusion bound is false. Likewise, direct viscometry of a non-degenerate classical gas showing η < nh would falsify the viscosity floor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the uncertainties of local operators in a thermal many-body system are constrained by the commutator of the observable with only the local part of the Hamiltonian that fails to commute with it. Because this local part has finite variance even as the total Hamiltonian becomes extensive, the uncertainty relation survives the thermodynamic limit and gives interaction-independent inequalities: the time scale for change of any local observable obeys τ ≳ ℏ/kBT, and the spatial gradient scale obeys λ ≳ λT. Coupling these to the Green-Kubo formula for diffusion, with the dissipation time set by the Lyapunov bound λL ≤ 2πkBT/ℏ and the classical value ⟨v²⟩ = kBT/m, yields the central numerical bound D ≳ ℏ/(2πm). A separate kinetic-theory argument, that the collision time cannot be shorter than the time to traverse a de Broglie wavelength, yields η ≥ nh for the shear viscosity. The paper argues that measured diffusion constants and viscosities across many gases and liquids respect these bounds, and that observed violations at cryogenic temperatures are explained by the breakdown of the approximations used to turn the exact inequalities into simple numbers.

Load-bearing premise

The diffusion bound rests on extending the short-time exponential decay inequality G_v(t) ≥ G_v(0)$e^{{-t/t_d}}$ to all times and on evaluating thermal averages like ⟨v²⟩ classically; the paper itself identifies cryogenic helium and hydrogen as places where these assumptions fail and the bound is violated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any non-degenerate classical gas, the self-diffusion constant should stay above ℏ/(2πm); a measured violation without invoking Stokes-Einstein would directly contradict the bound.
  • The viscosity of a classical gas should remain above nh, so Planck's constant acts as a real lower bound on ordinary hydrodynamics.
  • Because the commutator is local, the bounds hold for long-range and short-range interactions alike; interaction range cannot weaken the speed limits.
  • For any transport coefficient whose Green-Kubo integrand is dominated by short times, the same reasoning gives a Planckian floor γ ≳ (ℏ/2πkBT)⟨(Ẏ(0))²⟩.
  • The low-temperature violations reported in the paper are attributed to non-classical averaging, Stokes-Einstein breakdown, or long-time velocity-correlation oscillations, not to failure of the local uncertainty relations themselves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate test suggested by the paper's own distinction between D and D+: measure the short-time integral D+ directly from single-particle displacements in cryogenic helium or hydrogen; if D+ satisfies the bound while D does not, the local bound is intact and the violation sits entirely in the long-time correlation tail.
  • The disorder appendix implies a sharp cross-over statement: as a localized system is delocalized by increasing impurity mobility, the diffusion constant should jump from exactly zero to a value of order αℏ/m with α ≈ c/8d; cold-atom or photonic experiments that tune this mobility could measure α directly.
  • If η ≥ nh is fundamental, quantum-degenerate fluids, where the mean free path falls below the de Broglie wavelength, are the natural place to look for genuine violations, since the classical kinetic derivation no longer applies there.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "local uncertainty relations" for thermal many-body systems, from which it derives bounds on relaxation times, spatial gradients, and transport coefficients, specifically a diffusion bound D ≥ ħ/(2πm) and a viscosity bound η ≥ nh. These bounds are then compared against NIST thermophysical data for a range of fluids in liquid and vapor phases, with additional discussion of disordered systems in an appendix. The authors are transparent about the simplifying assumptions used to obtain the simplified universal forms, but the abstract and conclusions nevertheless present these as universal Planckian bounds.

Significance. If the central bounds were rigorous and truly universal, they would provide fundamental, parameter-free Planckian limits on transport coefficients applicable across classical and quantum systems. The mixed-state uncertainty relation formulation in Section IV is mathematically sound, and the extensive comparison against experimental data using a single parameter-free bound is a useful contribution. However, the universality claims are undercut by assumptions that the paper itself acknowledges: the extension of a short-time exponential decay to all times in the diffusion bound, the replacement of quantum thermal averages by classical ones, and the gas-phase derivation of the viscosity bound. These limitations mean the paper currently establishes heuristic estimates and conditional bounds rather than the universal results advertised in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI, Eq. (14)] The diffusion bound D ≥ ħ/(2πm) follows only if the short-time inequality Gv(t) ≳ Gv(0)e^{-t/t_d} of Eq. (12) is extended to all times. The paper explicitly acknowledges this extension immediately after Eq. (14). This extension is not valid in liquids and dense gases, where Gv(t) becomes negative and oscillatory (the correlation hole), as stated in Section V; in such cases the Green-Kubo integral can be smaller than the integral of the exponential bound. Since Eq. (14) is one of the two headline results of the abstract, the bound should be stated as a bound on D+ (defined in Eq. (6)) or explicitly qualified as an estimate valid only under positivity and monotonicity assumptions, not as a universal inequality for the full diffusion constant D.
  2. [Section VIII and Tables I, IV] The experimental test of the diffusion bound uses the Stokes-Einstein relation D = k_B T/(6πηR) to derive D from viscosity data. This is a model-dependent step that the paper itself notes is known to fail in numerous systems (Refs. [70–78]). The violations reported for hydrogen (ratio 0.5478 in Table I) and the helium violations in Table IV are attributed to Stokes-Einstein breakdown or non-classical averaging, but the paper does not independently establish that these explanations apply. Consequently, the comparison is not a clean test of Eq. (14) for exactly the systems where a universal bound would be most informative, and the claim that the bounds are 'generally satisfied' is weakened.
  3. [Section VII, Eq. (18)] The viscosity bound η ≥ nh is derived from Eq. (16), η = n k_B T τ_coll, which the text states holds only for non-degenerate classical gases, together with the mean free path condition. Yet the bound is applied to liquid-phase data in Tables IV, V, VIII, and IX. For liquid helium at 4.224 K the ratio η/(nh) is 0.2539, and for liquid hydrogen at 20.37 K it is 0.9619, both violations. Thus Eq. (18) is not established for liquids within the paper's own derivation, contradicting the abstract's characterization of this as a universal bound.
  4. [Sections IV–VI] The replacement of quantum canonical averages by classical phase-space averages, ρ_canonical → ρ_classical canonical, is an uncontrolled approximation used to obtain Eqs. (10), (14), and (18). The paper acknowledges that this replacement is unwarranted for cryogenic helium and hydrogen, but the simplified prefactors in all three equations depend on it. Without a rigorous justification of the classical limit for each examined system, these simplified bounds are heuristic estimates rather than rigorous consequences of the local uncertainty relations. The paper should clearly separate the exact bounds (such as Eq. (9) for D+) from the simplified, classical-averaging-based forms.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section V] There are several typographical errors: 'velcoity' should be 'velocity', and 'thees conditions' should be 'these conditions'. The footnote on page 2 also contains 'rightand side', which should be 'right-hand side'.
  2. [Section V, Eq. (7)] The notation |dG_v/dt|_{max} is ambiguous; it should be explicitly defined as the supremum of |dG_v(t)/dt| over t ∈ [0, t_v], rather than left as a possibly endpoint-dependent quantity.
  3. [Figure 4] The axis labels in Figure 4 appear garbled in the manuscript: the right-hand panels should read D/(ħ/2πm) and the left-hand panels η/(nh), but the printed labels (e.g., 'D/(2 m)') are corrupted and should be corrected.
  4. [Section VIII, text near Fig. 1] The diffusion constant for N2 in a carbon nanotube quoted in the text as 1.236 × 10^5 m²/s appears implausibly large by many orders of magnitude; please verify the value and units against Ref. [41].
  5. [Section IV, footnote 2] The proof of the mixed-state uncertainty relation via the modified inner product is only sketched; a slightly more explicit argument that positivity of the inner product follows from positivity of ρ would improve readability.
  6. [Section I] The opening personal tribute to Jan Zaanen is appropriate for a memorial volume, but the manuscript should state explicitly that it is a contribution to such a volume so that readers are not surprised by the nontechnical opening.
  7. [General] The paper depends heavily on the authors' own Refs. [5,6] for the core derivations. Since this manuscript presents the bounds as a central product, deriving at least one of the local uncertainty inequalities (e.g., Eq. (9)) in the text would make the paper more self-contained and reduce the self-citation burden.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the universal transport bounds are derived in-text from the external MSS chaos bound and classical thermal averages, then checked against external NIST data; self-citations to Refs. [5,6] are not load-bearing.

full rationale

I found no circular reduction in the derivation chain. The central diffusion bound D >= hbar/(2 pi m) (Eq. 14) is obtained in Section VI from the MSS Lyapunov bound lambda_L <= 2 pi k_B T/hbar (Eq. 11) together with the assumed short-time exponential decay G_v(t) >= G_v(0) exp(-t/t_d) (Eq. 12) and the classical thermal average <v^2> = k_B T/m; it is not a restatement of an input fitted to the diffusion data. The viscosity bound eta >= n h (Eq. 18) is derived in Section VII from eta = n k_B T tau_coll and the explicit classical average <h m/p^2> = h/k_B T (Eq. 17), again parameter-free. The experimental comparisons use external NIST data and the paper reports both satisfied and violated cases, so there is no selection of data to force the bound. The manuscript does lean on the authors' earlier Refs. [5,6] for the local-uncertainty framework and for the tighter D+ bound (Eq. 9), but that prior work is parameter-free with stated assumptions, and the paper restates the underlying uncertainty-relation argument in Section IV; this is a review-style self-citation, not a logical circle. The one serious caveat is acknowledged by the authors themselves: the derivation of Eq. (14) 'relied on extending the short time inequality of Eq. (12) to all times' (Section VI), and the text notes that in liquids and cryogenic fluids G_v(t) can become negative, so the bound may fail. That is a rigor/validity limitation, not a circularity, because the bound is a genuine consequence of the stated assumption rather than equivalent to it by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central bounds contain no fitted free parameters; every constant comes from uncertainty relations, the chaos bound, or classical thermal averages. The main burdens are assumptions: replacing quantum averages with classical ones, extending short-time exponential decay to all times, applying gas-phase collision reasoning to liquids, and converting viscosity to diffusion via Stokes-Einstein.

assumptions (9)
  • standard math The mixed-state variance uncertainty relation sigma_A sigma_B >= 1/2 |<[A,B]>| holds for arbitrary density matrices.
    Used in Eq. (3) and Section IV; it follows from a positive semi-definite inner product and Cauchy-Schwarz, as the paper sketches.
  • domain assumption For a local observable depending on a single particle coordinate r_iℓ, only the single-particle kinetic term (p_iℓ)^2/(2m) contributes to the commutator with the Hamiltonian.
    Section IV after Eq. (4). This locality is what makes the bound system-size independent and interaction-range independent.
  • ad hoc to paper Quantum canonical averages may be replaced by classical phase-space averages with density e^{-beta K} e^{-beta V}/Z.
    Used to obtain Eqs. (1), (2), (9), and (14). The paper calls this the classical limit, but it is not valid for strongly quantum fluids such as helium.
  • domain assumption For power-law interactions, classical moments Tr(rho (Delta V_i)^p) scale as (k_B T)^p.
    Used after Eq. (9) to reduce the diffusion bound to O(hbar/m). Standard dimensional analysis, assuming convergent integrals for the specific interaction.
  • ad hoc to paper The velocity autocorrelation decays at least exponentially as Gv(t) >= Gv(0) e^{-t/t_d}, and this short-time form is extended to all times.
    Used in Section VI to derive Eqs. (13) and (14). The paper explicitly flags that the derivation relied on this extension; it fails when Gv oscillates.
  • domain assumption The Maldacena-Shenker-Stanford chaos bound lambda_L <= 2 pi k_B T / hbar holds.
    Used in Section VI. It is an external conjecture from Ref. [45], not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption For a classical gas, the mean free path exceeds the thermal de Broglie wavelength, so the collision time is bounded below by the thermal average h/|p| = h/(k_B T).
    Used in Section VII to derive eta >= n h. The paper notes this only holds for non-degenerate classical gases, yet applies the bound to liquids.
  • domain assumption The Stokes-Einstein relation D = k_B T/(6 pi eta R) is used to convert measured viscosity into diffusion constants.
    Used in Section VIII and Appendix A. The paper acknowledges this relation breaks down in some cryogenic and glass-forming fluids.
  • ad hoc to paper In disordered systems, the kinetic energy and local potential standard deviation are comparable, <K_i>/sigma_{V_i} = O(1).
    Appendix B uses this to conclude D_min ~ alpha hbar/m with alpha = c/(8d). The ratio is an order-of-magnitude input, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planckian Bounds From Local Uncertainty Relations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4J2I463G

@misc{pith2026250210129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planckian Bounds From Local Uncertainty Relations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4J2I463G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10129}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce ``local uncertainty relations'' in thermal many-body systems, from which fundamental bounds in quantum systems can be derived. These lead to universal non-relativistic speed limits (independent of interaction range) and transport coefficient bounds (e.g., those of the diffusion constant and viscosity) that are compared against experimental data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10129 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Velocity autocorrelation function of N2 molecules confined within a carbon nanotube [41]. For this system, the diffusion constant D = 1.236 × 105m2 /s while the integral of Eq. (6) yields D+ = 1.265 ×105m2 /s. The relative difference (D+ − D)/D = 2.3%. ally, mismatch between the values of D+ and D becomes more pronounced only under extreme conditions, such as high densities, high pressures, or low temperatures. Devi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Velocity autocorrelation of charged particles in two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Velocity autocorrelation of particles interacting via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the proposed bounds with experimental data [68] for different systems. Left column: Variation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Why the Temperature is High

    Jan Zaanen. Why the Temperature is High. Nature, 430(6999):512–513, 2004

    2004

  2. [2]

    O. Sackur. Die universelle Bedeutung des sog. el- ementaren Wirkungsquantums. Annalen der Physik , 345(1):67–86, 1913

    1913

  3. [3]

    classical

    in Eq. (9)). These latter bounds for the diffusion constantare not farfrom theactualminimalvaluesoftheexperimentallymeasured diffusion constant in some “classical” systems such aswa- ter at atmospheric pressure. In general, we will find these bounds to be quite stringentlysatisfied for the diffusion constants ofall examined gaseswhile violations may arise...

  4. [4]

    100th anniversary of the Sackur-Tetrode equation

    Walter Grimus. 100th anniversary of the Sackur-Tetrode equation. Annalen der Physik , 525(3):A32–A35, 2013. 5 When impurities are mobile, this ratio will, in general, be larger than that in the localized system

    2013

  5. [5]

    H. Tetrode. Die chemische Konstante der Gase und das elementare Wirkungsquantum. Annalen der Physik , 343(7):434–442, 1912

    1912

  6. [6]

    Nussinov

    Z. Nussinov. Macroscopic length correlations in non- equilibrium systems and their possible realizations.Nu- clear Physics B , 953:114948, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Collapse

    Zohar Nussinov and Saurish Chakrabarty. Exact Univer- sal Chaos, Speed Limit, Acceleration, Planckian Trans- port Coefficient, “Collapse” to Equilibrium, and Other Bounds in Thermal Quantum Systems. Annals of Physics, 443:168970, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Shenker, and Douglas Stan- ford

    Juan Maldacena, Stephen H. Shenker, and Douglas Stan- ford. ABoundonChaos. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(8):106, 2016. 12

    work page 2016

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Graf, Alhun Aydin, Joonas Keski-Rahkonen, and Eric J

    Yubo Zhang, Anton M. Graf, Alhun Aydin, Joonas Keski-Rahkonen, and Eric J. Heller. Planck- ian diffusion: The ghost of anderson localization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18768, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. A. N. Bruin, H. Sakai, R. S. Perry, and A. P. Macken- zie. Similarity of Scattering Rates in Metals Showing T-Linear Resistivity. Science, 339(6121):804–807, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Phillips, Nigel E

    Philip W. Phillips, Nigel E. Hussey, and Peter Abba- monte. Stranger than metals.Science, 377:1, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Grissonnanche, Y

    G. Grissonnanche, Y. Fang, A. Legros, S. Verret, F. Lal- iberte, C. Collignon, A. Ataei, M. Dion, J. Zhou, D. Graf, M. J. Lawler, P. Goddard, L. Taillefer, and B. J. Ramshaw. Linear-in temperature resistivity from an isotropic Planckian scattering rate. Nature, 595:667, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    classical

    Z. Nussinov, F. Nogueira, M. Blodgett, and K. F. Kelton. Thermalization and possible quantum relaxation times in “classical” fluids: theory and experiment.arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1915, 2014

    1915 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Planckian prop- erties of 2d semiconductor systems

    Seongjin Ahn and Sankar Das Sarma. Planckian prop- erties of 2d semiconductor systems. Phys. Rev. B , 106:155427, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Mousatov and Sean A

    Connie H. Mousatov and Sean A. Hartnoll. On the Planckian bound for heat diffusion in insulators.Nature Physics, 16(5):579–584, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Nogueira, K

    Jing Xue, Flavio S. Nogueira, K. F. Kelton, and Zohar Nussinov. Deviations from arrhenius dynamics in high temperature liquids, a possible collapse, and a viscosity bound. Phys. Rev. Res., 4:043047, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    A. K. Gangopadhyay, Z. Nussinov, and K. F. Kelton. Quantum mechanical interpretation of the minimum vis- cosity of metallic liquids.Phys. Rev. E, 106:054150, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Planckian

    appear to be generally satisfied with the (not too surprising) exception of low temperature helium and hy- drogen. We reiterate that apart from the obvious invalid use of the classical thermal averaging in these systems, ρcanonical Λ → ρclassical canonical Λ and attendant SER ...

  11. [19]

    Planckiandissipation, minimalviscosityand the transport in cuprate strange metals.SciPost Phys., 6:61, 2019

    JanZaanen. Planckiandissipation, minimalviscosityand the transport in cuprate strange metals.SciPost Phys., 6:61, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Trachenko and V

    K. Trachenko and V. V. Brazhkin. Minimal quantum viscosity from fundamental physical constants. Science Advances, 6(17):eaba3747, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    A. Lucas. Operator Size at Finite Temperature and Planckian Bounds on Quantum Dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:216601, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Viscosityin Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics

    P.K.Kovtun, D.T.Son, andA.O.Starinets. Viscosityin Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:111601, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    Trachenko, B

    K. Trachenko, B. Monserrat, C. J. Pickard, and V. V. Brazhkin. Speed of sound from fundamental physical constants. Science Advances, 6(41):eabc8662, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Theory of liquids: from excitations to ther- modynamics

    K.Trachenko. Theory of liquids: from excitations to ther- modynamics. Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    H. Eyring. The activated complex in chemical reactions. J. Chem. Phys. , 3:107, 1935

    1935

  18. [26]

    H. Eyring. Viscosity, plasticity, and diffusion as examples of absolute reaction rates.J. Chem. Phys. , 4:283, 1936

    1936

  19. [27]

    John A. Hertz. Quantum critical phenomena.Phys. Rev. B, 14:1165–1184, Aug 1976

    1976

  20. [28]

    Quantum Phase Transitions

    Subir Sachdev. Quantum Phase Transitions. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    van der Marel, H

    D. van der Marel, H. J. A. Molegraaf, J. Zannen, Z. Nussinov, F. Carbone, A. Damascelli, H. Eisaki, M. Greven, P. H. Kes, and M. Li. Quantum critical be- haviour in a high-tc superconductor. Nature, 425:271, 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Varma, Z

    C.M. Varma, Z. Nussinov, and Wim van Saarloos. Sin- gular or non-Fermi liquids.Physics Reports, 361(5):267– 417, 2002

    2002

  23. [31]

    M. S. Green. Markoff Random Processes and the Statis- tical Mechanics of Time-Dependent Phenomena. II. Ir- reversible Processes in Fluid. J. Chem. Phys. , 22:398, 1954

    1954

  24. [32]

    Statistical-Mechanical Theory of Irre- versible Processes

    Ryogo Kubo. Statistical-Mechanical Theory of Irre- versible Processes. I. General Theory and Simple Appli- cations to Magnetic and Conduction Problems.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan , 12(6):570–586, 1957

    1957

  25. [33]

    R. Zwanzig. Time-Correlation Functions and Transport Coefficients in Statistical Mechanics. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 16:67, 1965

    1965

  26. [34]

    Hydrodynamic theory of the velocity correlation function.Phys

    Robert Zwanzig and Mordechai Bixon. Hydrodynamic theory of the velocity correlation function.Phys. Rev. A, 2:2005–2012, Nov 1970

    2005

  27. [35]

    G. D. Harp and B. J. Berne. Time-correlation functions, memory functions, and molecular dynamics.Phys. Rev. A, 2:975–996, Sep 1970

    1970

  28. [36]

    B. J. Alder and T. E. Wainwright. Decay of the veloc- ity autocorrelation function. Phys. Rev. A , 1:18–21, Jan 1970

    1970

  29. [37]

    M. H. Ernst, E. H. Hauge, and J. M. J. van Leeuwen. Asymptotic time behavior of correlation functions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 25:1254–1256, Nov 1970

    1970

  30. [38]

    M. H. Ernst, E. H. Hauge, and J. M. J. van Leeuwen. Asymptotic Time Behavior of Correlation Functions. I. Kinetic Terms. Phys. Rev. A , 4:2055–2065, Nov 1971

    1971

  31. [39]

    Compressibility effects in the hydrodynamic theory of Brownian motion

    Robert Zwanzig and Mordechai Bixon. Compressibility effects in the hydrodynamic theory of Brownian motion. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 69(1):2125, 1975

    1975

  32. [40]

    Chakraborty

    D. Chakraborty. Velocity autocorrelation function of a Brownian particle. Eur. Phys. J. B , 83:375, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Leviandier, R

    L. Leviandier, R. Jost, and J. P. Pique. Fourier trans- form: A tool to measure statistical level properties in very complex spectra. Phys. Rev. Lett., 56:2449, 1986

    1986

  34. [42]

    P. W. Anderson. Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices. Phys. Rev., 109:1492, (1958

    1958

  35. [43]

    V. P. Sokhan, D. Nicholson, and N. Quirke. Transport properties of nitrogen in single walled carbon nanotubes. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 120(8):3855–3863, 02 2004

    2004

  36. [44]

    K. N. Dzhumagulova, R. U. Masheeva, T. S. Ramazanov, and Z. Donkó. Effect of magnetic field on the veloc- ity autocorrelation and the caging of particles in two- dimensional Yukawa liquids. Phys. Rev. E , 89:033104, Mar 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Ex- periments

    Dominique Levesque and Loup Verlet. Computer "Ex- periments"onClassicalFluids.III.Time-DependentSelf- Correlation Functions. Phys. Rev. A , 2:2514–2528, Dec 1970

    1970

  38. [46]

    A. I. Larkin and Yu N. Ovchinnikov. Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity. Sov. Phys. JETP, 28(6):1200–1205, 1969

    1969

  39. [47]

    Shenker, and Douglas Stan- ford

    Juan Maldacena, Stephen H. Shenker, and Douglas Stan- ford. A bound on chaos.Journal of High Energy Physics , 2016(8):106, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Roberts, Douglas Stanford, and Leonard Susskind

    Daniel A. Roberts, Douglas Stanford, and Leonard Susskind. Localized shocks. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(3):51, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    Subleading bounds on chaos.J

    Sandipan Kundu. Subleading bounds on chaos.J. High Energ. Phys., 2022:10, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Weak quantum chaos.Phys

    Ivan Kukuljan, Grozdanov Saso, and Tomaz Prosen. Weak quantum chaos.Phys. Rev. B, 96:060301(R), 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Fast scramblers.Jour- nal of High Energy Physics , 2008(10):065–065, oct 2008

    Yasuhiro Sekino and L Susskind. Fast scramblers.Jour- nal of High Energy Physics , 2008(10):065–065, oct 2008

    2008

  44. [52]

    Shenker and Douglas Stanford

    Stephen H. Shenker and Douglas Stanford. Black holes and the butterfly effect.Journal of High Energy Physics , 2014:67, 2014. 13

    2014

  45. [53]

    Sachdev and J

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye. Gapless Spin-Fluid Ground State in a Random Quantum Heisenberg Magnet.Phys. Rev. Lett., 70:3339, 1993

    1993

  46. [54]

    Kitaev, A simple model of quantum holography, http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/kitaev/, http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/kitaev2/

    A. Kitaev, A simple model of quantum holography, http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/kitaev/, http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/kitaev2/

  47. [55]

    Maldacena and D

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford. Remarks on the Sachdev- Ye-Kitaev model. Phys. Rev. D , 94:106002, 2016

    2016

  48. [56]

    Gross and Vladimir Rosenhaus

    David J. Gross and Vladimir Rosenhaus. A Generaliza- tion of Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model.J. High Energy Phys , 2017:93, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Thermoelectric transport in disordered metals without quasiparticles: The Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models and holography

    RichardA.Davison, WenboFu, AntoineGeorges, Yingfei Gu, Kristan Jensen, and Subir Sachdev. Thermoelectric transport in disordered metals without quasiparticles: The Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models and holography. Phys. Rev. B, 95:155131, Apr 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    Kitaev and S

    A. Kitaev and S. Josephine Suh. The soft mode in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model and its gravity dual.J. High Energy Phys., 2018:183, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    Strongly Correlated Metal Built from Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Models

    Xue-Yang Song, Chao-Ming Jian, and Leon Balents. Strongly Correlated Metal Built from Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Models. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:216601, Nov 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Patel, John McGreevy, Daniel P

    Aavishkar A. Patel, John McGreevy, Daniel P. Arovas, and Subir Sachdev. Magnetotransport in a model of a disordered strange metal. Phys. Rev. X , 8:021049, May 2018

    2018

  53. [61]

    Strongly coupled quantum phonon fluid in a solvable model.Physical Re- view Research, 2:033431, 2020

    Evyatar Tulipman and Erez Berg. Strongly coupled quantum phonon fluid in a solvable model.Physical Re- view Research, 2:033431, 2020

    2020

  54. [62]

    Patel and Subir Sachdev

    Aavishkar A. Patel and Subir Sachdev. Quantum chaos on a critical fermi surface. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8):1844–1849, 2017

    2017

  55. [63]

    Operator scrambling and quantum chaos, 2018

    Xiao Chen and Tianci Zhou. Operator scrambling and quantum chaos, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Information Scram- bling and Chaos in Open Quantum Systems

    Paolo Zanardi and Namit Anand. Information Scram- bling and Chaos in Open Quantum Systems. Physical Review A, to appear , 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    Foini and J

    L. Foini and J. Kurchan. The eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and out of time order correlators.Phys. Rev. E, 99:042139, 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    Bounds on chaos from the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis

    Chaitanya Murthy and Mark Srednicki. Bounds on chaos from the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:230606, 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    J. Kurchan. Quantum Bound to Chaos and the Semi- classical Limit. Journal of Statistical Physics , 171:965, 2018

    2018

  60. [68]

    Kountz, Kamran Behnia, and Aharon Kapitulnik

    Jiecheng Zhang, Erik D. Kountz, Kamran Behnia, and Aharon Kapitulnik. Thermalization and possible signa- tures of quantum chaos in complex crystalline materi- als. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 116(40):19869–19874, 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    F. Reif. Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics . McGraw-Hill, New York NY, 1965

    1965

  62. [70]

    Lemmon, Ian H

    Eric W. Lemmon, Ian H. Bell, Marcia L. Huber, and Mark O. McLinden. Thermophysical properties of fluid systems. In P. J. Linstrom and W. G. Mallard, edi- tors, NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Refer- ence Database Number 69 . National Institute of Stan- dards and Technolo...

    2025

  63. [71]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. Investigations on the Theory of Brownian Motion. Dover, New York, 1956

    1956

  64. [72]

    R. M. Secor. Diffusion coefficients in a halocar- bon–polybutene system. Journal of Polymer Science Part A-2: Polymer Physics , 5(2):323–331, 1967

    1967

  65. [73]

    D. W. McCall, D. C. Douglass, and D. R. Falcone. Molec- ularMotion inortho-Terphenyl. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 50(9):3839–3843, 05 1969

    1969

  66. [74]

    Zager and Jack H

    Stephen A. Zager and Jack H. Freed. Electron-spin relax- ation and molecular dynamics in liquids. II. Density de- pendence. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 77(7):3360– 3375, 10 1982

    1982

  67. [75]

    Corresponding States Concept for Sim- ple Supercooled Liquids Identifying a Change of Diffu- sion Mechanism above the Glass Transition Tempera- ture

    Ernst Rössler. Corresponding States Concept for Sim- ple Supercooled Liquids Identifying a Change of Diffu- sion Mechanism above the Glass Transition Tempera- ture. Berichte der Bunsengesellschaft für physikalische Chemie, 94(3):392–399, 1990

    1990

  68. [76]

    Fujara, B

    F. Fujara, B. Geil, H. Sillescu, and G. Fleischer. Trans- lational and rotational diffusion in supercooled orthoter- phenyl close to the glass transition.Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter , 88(2):195–204, Jun 1992

    1992

  69. [77]

    Garrahan, and David Chandler

    YounJoon Jung, Juan P. Garrahan, and David Chandler. Excitation lines and the breakdown of Stokes-Einstein relations in supercooled liquids.Phys. Rev. E, 69:061205, Jun 2004

    2004

  70. [78]

    S. K. Kumar, G. Szamel, and J. F. Douglas. Nature of the Breakdown in the Stokes-Einstein Relationship in a Hard Sphere Fluid. J. Chem. Phys. , 124:214501, 2006

    2006

  71. [79]

    Breakdown of the Stokes- Einstein relation in two, three, and four dimensions.The Journal of Chemical Physics , 138(12):12A548, 03 2013

    Shiladitya Sengupta, Smarajit Karmakar, Chandan Das- gupta, and Srikanth Sastry. Breakdown of the Stokes- Einstein relation in two, three, and four dimensions.The Journal of Chemical Physics , 138(12):12A548, 03 2013

    2013

  72. [80]

    Ryan Soklaski, Vy Tran, Zohar Nussinov, K. F. Kelton, and Li Yang. A locally preferred structure characterises all dynamical regimes of a supercooled liquid.Philosoph- ical Magazine, 96:1212, 2016

    2016

  73. [81]

    Hodgdon and Frank H

    Jennifer A. Hodgdon and Frank H. Stillinger. Stokes- Einstein violation in glass-forming liquids.Phys. Rev. E, 48:207–213, Jul 1993

    1993

  74. [82]

    R. Richert. Heterogeneous dynamics in liquids: Fluctua- tions in space and time.Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 14:R703, 2002

    2002

  75. [83]

    Mackay, Suresh Narayanan, Subashini Asokan, and Michael S

    Anish Tuteja, Michael E. Mackay, Suresh Narayanan, Subashini Asokan, and Michael S. Wong. Breakdown of theContinuumStokes-EinsteinRelationforNanoparticle Diffusion. Nano Lett., 7:1276, 2007

    2007

  76. [84]

    J. M. McMahon, M. A. Morales, C. Pierleoni, and D. M. Ceperley. The properties of hydrogen and helium under extreme conditions. Reviews of Modern Physics, 84:1607, 2012

    2012

  77. [85]

    D.W. Breck. Zeolite Molecular Sieves: Structure, Chem- istry, and Use . A Wiley-Interscience publication. Wiley,

  78. [1973]

    See Table 8.14, pp. 636

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.