Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Ideal Gas Law for a Quantum Particle

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A quantum particle obeys PV = kBT exactly in a circle.

desk verdict Plausible story about chaos and the ideal gas law, but Eq. (28) is off by a factor of two and P2 is an identity by construction. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15926 v2 pith:YFCAGXB2 submitted 2025-05-21 quant-ph

Alejandro M.F Rivas , Eduardo G. Vergini , Leonardo Ermann , Gabriel G. Carlo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 05.30.-d05.45.Mt
keywords idealgaslawquantumbilliardequipartitionpressureeigenstatethermalizationchaosanisotropycoherentstates
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

This paper asks whether a single quantum particle confined to a two-dimensional cavity can obey the ideal gas law, $P S = k_B T$, with temperature assigned by energy equipartition ($k_B T = E$) and pressure defined from the wavefunction's normal derivative at the boundary. It shows that in the circular billiard, the law holds exactly for every eigenstate, as a direct consequence of isotropy. In rectangular and Bunimovich stadium billiards, eigenstates obey the law only on average, with deviations that grow with anisotropy and shrink when the dynamics is chaotic or when the state is a coherent state. An alternative pressure definition, weighted by the boundary normal coordinate, satisfies the law for eigenstates essentially by construction. The results tie pressure fluctuations to eigenstate statistics and to the diagonal approximation behind the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two pressure definitions and one geometric quantifier. The first pressure, $P$ in Eq. (22), is the boundary average of the squared normal derivative of the wavefunction, the quantum analogue of radiation pressure on the walls. The second, $P_2$ in Eq. (24), weights the same boundary density by the normal coordinate $r_n$, and through the quasi-orthogonality identity (Eq. 23) this weighted average reproduces the wavefunction normalization, making $P_2 S = E$ for any eigenstate. The anisotropy index $AI$, built from the principal moments of inertia of the domain, quantifies how far a geometry is from isotropic, and the paper shows that the per-state scatter around the ideal gas law grows with $AI$ and is smaller for the chaotic stadium than for the integrable rectangle at the same $AI$.

What would settle it

Compute the ratio $P S / k_B T$ for the lowest few thousand eigenstates of the circular billiard; if any eigenstate deviates from unity beyond numerical precision, the exact-IGL claim fails. For the averaged claim, measure the mean relative dispersion $\sigma$ for rectangular billiards at several aspect ratios: if $\sigma$ does not increase monotonically with the anisotropy index, the anisotropy-dispersion relation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the usual radiation-pressure mean, $P = \frac{1}{L}\oint_B \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\left|\partial\psi/\partial n\right|^2 dl$, combined with the equipartition temperature $k_B T = E$, reproduces the two-dimensional ideal gas law $P S = k_B T$ exactly for every eigenstate of the circular billiard. For rectangular and Bunimovich stadium billiards the identity fails for individual eigenstates but holds after averaging over states or time, with the mean relative dispersion $\sigma$ increasing with the billiard's anisotropy index and decreasing when the dynamics is chaotic. Coherent states, the most classical-like states, show smaller dispersion than eigenstates. The weighted pressure $P_2 = \frac{1}{2S}\oint_B \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\left|\partial\psi/\partial n\right|^2 r_n\,dl$ gives $P_2 S = k_B T$ exactly for eigenfunctions of any billiard because the quasi-orthogonality relation makes the weighted integral reduce to the state's energy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single pure quantum eigenstate can be assigned the thermodynamic temperature $k_B T = E$ through energy equipartition, without any thermal bath or statistical ensemble; if that mapping is rejected, the weighted-pressure result becomes a kinematic identity rather than a thermodynamic law.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In isotropic cavities, the ideal gas law is exact for every eigenstate, so single-state thermodynamics is possible without ensemble averaging.
  • In anisotropic cavities, the per-state deviation from the ideal gas law is controlled by the anisotropy index, quantified by the mean relative dispersion $\sigma$ that grows with $AI$.
  • Chaos reduces the dispersion relative to integrable geometry at the same anisotropy, so classically chaotic billiards are closer to ideal-gas behavior at the quantum level.
  • The weighted pressure $P_2$ satisfies the ideal gas law for eigenstates of any billiard, providing a boundary observable that encodes the energy directly.
  • The diagonal approximation reproduces the time-averaged pressure, linking the law's emergence to the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equipartition temperature assignment is accepted, the exact circle result suggests that other highly symmetric confining potentials (for instance spherical cavities in three dimensions) should also satisfy the ideal gas law exactly; this is a direct testable extension beyond the paper.
  • The paper's dispersion-anisotropy relation is shown for a few aspect ratios; a natural sharpening is to fit the mean relative dispersion against the anisotropy index across many geometries and look for a universal scaling curve within integrable and chaotic families.
  • Because the weighted pressure $P_2$ is defined so that the quasi-orthogonality relation yields $P_2 S = E$, its success is partly by construction; the physically discriminating observable is the unweighted pressure $P$, whose fluctuations are the paper's substantive prediction.
  • The ETH connection points to a practical device application: in a sufficiently chaotic microwave cavity, a measurement of the boundary pressure of a single eigenstate could serve as a thermometer for the state's energy.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that a single quantum particle in a two-dimensional billiard can be assigned a temperature through energy equipartition, k_B T = E, and a pressure through the boundary normal derivative, P = (ℏ²/2mL) ∮ |∂ψ/∂n|² dl, in analogy with the classical ideal gas law. The authors claim that P S = k_B T holds exactly for circular-billiard eigenstates; holds only on average for rectangular and Bunimovich-stadium eigenstates, with dispersion growing with anisotropy and diminishing for chaotic dynamics and coherent states; and holds exactly for a second, weighted pressure definition P2. The main results rest on evaluating boundary derivatives of eigenfunctions, on a quasi-orthogonality relation, and on a time average for coherent states. The circular-billiard derivation in Appendix A is explicit, but several load-bearing formulas in the main text are presented with sign and factor errors that affect the interpretation of the numerical results.

Significance. If fully established, the paper would offer a striking minimal model in which a thermodynamic relation emerges from wavefunction geometry, with a plausible connection to the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis through the diagonal approximation. The circular-billiard calculation is clean and independently verifiable, and the idea of relating boundary pressure fluctuations to dynamical chaos is worth pursuing. However, the manuscript as printed contains algebraic errors in the temperature and pressure formulas and a definitional circularity in the P2 result; these currently prevent assessment of the rectangle and stadium claims, which are the quantitative heart of the paper. No machine-checked proofs or reproducible numerical code are provided, so the figures cannot be checked independently.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.A, Eqs. (13)-(14)] The equality k_B T(x,y) = (ℏ²/2m) ∇ψ*·∇ψ = (ℏ²/2m) ψ*∇²ψ is false pointwise; the two expressions are not equal, and for a normalized Dirichlet eigenfunction integration by parts gives ∫ ψ*∇²ψ dA = -∫ |∇ψ|² dA = -2mE/ℏ². Thus Eq. (14) as printed yields k_B T = -E, contradicting Eq. (11). The local temperature should be defined through |∇ψ|², and the global relation through its integral, so that k_B T = (ℏ²/2m) ∫ |∇ψ|² dA = E. This sign and identity error underlies the entire temperature definition and must be corrected.
  2. [IV.A.2, Eq. (28)] Direct evaluation of Eq. (22) for the eigenstates (26) gives P S = ℏ²π²/[m(Lx+Ly)] (n_x²Ly/Lx² + n_y²Lx/Ly²), not ℏ²π²/[2m(Lx+Ly)] times the same bracket. Consequently Eq. (28) as printed gives P S = E/2 for Lx=Ly=1 and nx=ny=1, contradicting the statement in the text that the isotropic case recovers the IGL exactly. Because Fig. 1, the dispersion σ in Eq. (33), and the rectangle-versus-stadium comparison all depend on P S, the reported quantitative evidence cannot be interpreted until this factor is resolved and the figures are rechecked.
  3. [III.B, Eqs. (23)-(25)] The statement that P2S ≃ k_B T for eigenfunctions is exact by construction and does not provide an independent test of the ideal gas law. Setting i=j in Eq. (23) gives ∮ |∂φ/∂n|² r_n dl = 2k², and inserting this into Eq. (24) yields P2 = E/S = k_B T/S for every eigenfunction. Thus the P2 agreement with the IGL is an identity enforced by the choice of weight r_n, not a physical law or a numerical finding. The paper should state this explicitly and should not present P2 as independent evidence supporting the physical pressure definition in Eq. (22).
  4. [IV.B, Figs. 4-6] The time-averaged pressure for coherent states is defined only "after the transient," but no criterion is given for the transient duration. The reported P S values and the coherent-state branch of Fig. 7 depend on this unspecified choice. The authors should specify a definite convergence protocol for the time average and show that the resulting dispersion values are insensitive to reasonable choices of the transient length; otherwise the coherent-state results are not reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III.B, circular billiard paragraph] The statement that "for the circular billiard ... rn = 1" should read rn = R for a general radius R, or the choice R = 1 should be stated explicitly before using that value.
  2. [Eq. (30)] The symbol Aij in Eq. (30) is never defined; the inequality should be stated in terms of the Kronecker delta without introducing an undefined quantity.
  3. [IV.A.3] The sentence "for the isotropic case Ls = 0 the IGL is exactly achieved" should specify that R is held fixed, since Ls = 0 recovers the circular billiard only in that limit.
  4. [IV.A.3 and Conclusions] There are typographical errors such as "eigentates" in Section IV.A.3 and "abiding" in the Conclusions; these should be corrected.
  5. [Data availability] The paper does not include numerical data or code, and the figures are not accompanied by reproducibility statements; given the discrepancies in the printed formulas, the authors should make the numerical data underlying Figs. 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 available.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline 'second definition of pressure' result P2S = kBT is packed into the definition: Eq. (24)'s weight r_n/(2S) makes Eq. (25) the i=j Green identity, so the P2 'good matching with the IGL' is by construction rather than a test; the P1 analysis is independent and non-circular but carries a factor-2 inconsistency in Eq. (28).

  1. self definitional [Section III.B (Quantum Pressure), Eqs. (23)-(25); claims restated in Abstract and Conclusions.]
    "the quasi-orthogonality induces an alternative definition of pressure, P2, by considering a weighted average along the boundary: P2 = 1/(2S) ∮_B ℏ²/(2m) |∂ψ/∂n|² rn dl. (24) Then, with this definition of pressure we obtain the IGL P2S ≃ kBT, (25) which holds exactly for eigenfunctions"

    For a normalized Dirichlet eigenfunction the i=j case of the paper's own quasi-orthogonality (23) is the exact Green identity ∮|∂φ/∂n|² rn dl = 2k²; no approximation is involved. Substitution into Eq. (24) gives P2 = (1/2S)(ℏ²/2m)(2k²) = ℏ²k²/(2mS) = E/S, hence P2S = E = kBT identically for every eigenstate of every billiard. The weight rn/(2S) inserted in Eq. (24) is precisely the factor that forces the IGL; the abstract's 'second definition of pressure allows for a good matching with the IGL' and the conclusions' 'remarkable... good fit of IGL' therefore present a definitional identity as tested evidence. The claim is not a data fit, but the 'prediction' is equivalent to its input by construction.

full rationale

The only formal circular step is the P2 route. P2S = kBT is a definitional identity: the chosen weight rn/(2S) makes the boundary integral equal to the eigenenergy, so Eq. (25) is the i=j Green identity restated. I verified this by direct evaluation: for a normalized Dirichlet eigenfunction, ∮|∂φ/∂n|² rn dl = 2k² (the diagonal of Eq. (23)); inserting into Eq. (24) yields P2 = E/S. Because the P2 matching is a headline claim (abstract, all figures, conclusions), the paper's evidence is partially circular. The P1 (unweighted) analysis is self-contained and non-circular: the circular billiard result follows from an explicit Bessel computation (Appendix A), and the rectangle/stadium scatter is a direct evaluation of Eq. (22); no parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction. The temperature mapping kBT = E (Eq. 14) is a transparent assumption, not circular. The only self-citation is [45] (Vergini & Saraceno) for the stadium eigenfunctions; it is an externally published general numerical method, so per the review rules it counts as real evidence and does not raise the score. Two correctness risks, flagged for the authors and unrelated to circularity: (i) Eq. (13) equates ℏ²/(2m)∇ψ*·∇ψ with ℏ²/(2m)ψ*∇²ψ pointwise; the equality holds only after integration. (ii) Eq. (28) is off by a factor 2: applying Eq. (22) to Eq. (26) gives P S = ℏ²π²/[m(Lx+Ly)](nx²Ly/Lx² + ny²Lx/Ly²); for Lx = Ly = 1 this equals E exactly, whereas the printed Eq. (28) gives E/2, contradicting the text's claim that 'for the isotropic case Lx = 1 the IGL behavior is exactly recovered.' The 'on average' rectangle/stadium claims should be re-checked numerically once this discrepancy is resolved. Overall: one headline 'prediction' (P2) reduces to its definition; the P1 content is independent — partial circularity, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a nonstandard definition of temperature for a single pure state, a standard but assumed boundary pressure identification, and an ad hoc weighted pressure definition that makes the IGL exact by construction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • transient duration for time-averaged pressure
    The text says pressure is time-averaged once the transient of large fluctuations has vanish (Section IV.B, Fig. 4), but the cutoff is not specified; the results depend on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The particle satisfies the Schrodinger equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions in a 2D billiard.
    Used throughout Section III to define eigenstates; standard quantum mechanics.
  • domain assumption Thermodynamic temperature is assigned to a single pure state via equipartition: kBT = E.
    Eq. (14) equates kBT to the energy expectation value; this is the basis for all IGL statements and is not derived from a statistical ensemble.
  • domain assumption The momentum flux at the boundary, (hbar^2/2m)|partial psi / partial n|^2, is the mechanical pressure.
    Eqs. (21)-(22) identify this quantity with pressure; plausible but not derived from a thermodynamic context.
  • ad hoc to paper The quasi-orthogonality relation (Eq. 23) is used to define P2 via the weight r_n.
    The weighted boundary average in Eq. (24) is chosen so that the diagonal identity forces P2 S = E; this makes the IGL exact by definition.
  • domain assumption For coherent states, the time-averaged pressure equals the diagonal approximation (ETH).
    Appendix B relates the diagonal approximation to ETH; no independent ensemble or random-matrix check is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ideal Gas Law for a Quantum Particle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFCAGXB2

@misc{pith2026250515926,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ideal Gas Law for a Quantum Particle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFCAGXB2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15926}
}
read the original abstract

The question of how classical thermodynamic laws emerge from the underlying quantum substrate lies at the foundations of physics. Here, we examine the validity of the ideal gas law (IGL) for a single quantum particle confined within a two-dimensional cavity. By interpreting the quantum wave function as a probability density analogous to that of an ideal gas, we employ the energy equipartition principle to define the temperature of the quantum state. For the mean pressure we take two definitions, one straightforwardly based on the radiation pressure concept and the other taking advantage of a quasi-orthogonality relation valid for billiard eigenstates. We analyze systems with regular dynamics-the circular and rectangular billiards-and compare them with the classically chaotic Bunimovich stadium. We find that the IGL for the first definition of pressure holds exactly in isotropic systems (as the circular case), while for anisotropic geometries, quantum eigenfunctions generally conform to the IGL only on average, exhibiting meaningful deviations. These deviations are diminished in the presence of chaotic dynamics and for coherent states. This observation is consistent with the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (ETH). Notably, the second definition of pressure allows for a good matching with the IGL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15926 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Local Temperature density for the 181 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dispersion from the IGL: Mean relative dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (11) in polar coordinates, with boundary conditions, ψ(R, θ) = 0

    IGL for Circular Billiard’s Eigenstates The eigenfunctions of a circular billiard of radius R, (a quantum particle confined in a circular region) can be found by solving Eq. (11) in polar coordinates, with boundary conditions, ψ(R, θ) = 0. In the Appendix we derive explicitly the eigenstates of the circular billiard. Then, using the definitions of tempera...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The wave function ψ(x, y) must satisfy Eq

    IGL for Rectangular Billiard’s Eigenstates Consider now a quantum particle confined to a rectan- gular billiard with horizontal and vertical sides of lengths Lx and Ly, respectively. The wave function ψ(x, y) must satisfy Eq. (11) with boundary conditions ψ(0, y) = ψ(Lx, y) = ψ(x, 0) = ψ(x, Ly) = 0. The eigenstates of the system are then given by: ψnx,ny ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    touching

    IGL for Bunimovich Stadium’s Eigenstates Eigenfunctions of this billiard satisfy Eq. (11) with Dirichlet boundary conditions. We obtain the eigenfunc- tions and eigen-energies [45] and calculate the temper- ature using Eq. (14). We perform our calculations on a quarter of the stadium, to avoid symmetry degenera- tions, a rectangle of length Ls with a quar...

    work page

  4. [4]

    5 we display P Svs kBT obtained for initial coherent states of different temperatures (momenta)

    IGL for CS in the Rectangular Billiard For the case of the rectangular billiard in Fig. 5 we display P Svs kBT obtained for initial coherent states of different temperatures (momenta). It is clear that the IGL for CS in the rectangular bil- liard holds on average, however the regular behavior of the eigenstates seen in Fig. 1 is no longer present, and the...

    work page

  5. [5]

    6 we display the results forP Svs kBT obtained for initial coherent states in the Bunimovich stadium to- gether with the same diagonal approximation considered previously

    IGL for CS in the Bunimovich Stadium In Fig. 6 we display the results forP Svs kBT obtained for initial coherent states in the Bunimovich stadium to- gether with the same diagonal approximation considered previously. It is clear that for the Bunimovich stadium the diag- onal approximation gives again results which are almost indistinguishable from the exa...

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Kumar, C

    P. Kumar, C. M. Webb, and C. A. Stafford, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 070404 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.070404

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.070404 2024

  7. [7]

    Kumar and C

    P. Kumar and C. A. Stafford, Phys. Rev. B 111, 245412 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/4lw8-x1vr

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Gemmer, M

    J. Gemmer, M. Michel, and G. Mahler, Quantum Ther- modynamics (Springer, 2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Kosloff, Entropy 15, 2100 (2013)

    R. Kosloff, Entropy 15, 2100 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Contemporary Physics 57, 545 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Tasaki, Physical Review Letters 80, 1373 (1998)

    H. Tasaki, Physical Review Letters 80, 1373 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    M. C. Gutzwiller, Chaos in Classical and Quantum Me- chanics (Springer, 1990)

    1990

  5. [13]

    W. H. Zurek, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Boltzmann, Lectures on Gas Theory (Dover, 1896)

    L. Boltzmann, Lectures on Gas Theory (Dover, 1896)

  7. [15]

    Ciliberto, Physical Review X 7, 021051 (2017)

    S. Ciliberto, Physical Review X 7, 021051 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    R. K. Pathria and P. D. Beale, Statistical Mechanics (El- sevier, 2011), 3rd ed

    2011

  9. [17]

    Urrutia, Journal of Statistical Physics 131, 597 (2008)

    I. Urrutia, Journal of Statistical Physics 131, 597 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    V. I. Arnold and A. Avez, Ergodic Problems of Classical Mechanics (W. A. Benjamin, 1968)

    1968

  11. [19]

    A. J. Lichtenberg and M. A. Lieberman, Regular and Chaotic Dynamics (Springer, 1992)

    1992

  12. [20]

    Gallavotti and E

    G. Gallavotti and E. G. D. Cohen, Physical Review Let- ters 74, 2694 (1995)

    1995

  13. [21]

    von Neumann, The European Physical Journal H 35, 201 (2010)

    J. von Neumann, The European Physical Journal H 35, 201 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    E. J. Heller, Physical Review Letters 53, 1515 (1984)

    1984

  15. [23]

    Tong, Physical Review Research 6, 023157 (2024)

    X.-H. Tong, Physical Review Research 6, 023157 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Bialas, J

    P. Bialas, J. Spiechowicz, and J. Luczka, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 15LT01 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Hendricks, Nature Physics 14, 100 (2018)

    J. Hendricks, Nature Physics 14, 100 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    R. F. Bader, Advances in Quantum Chemistry 57, 285 (2009), ISSN 0065-3276

    2009

  19. [27]

    L. A. Bunimovich, Communications in Mathematical Physics 65, 295 (1979). 10

    1979

  20. [28]

    J. M. Deutsch, Physical Review A 43, 2046 (1991)

    1991

  21. [29]

    Srednicki, Physical Review E 50, 888 (1994)

    M. Srednicki, Physical Review E 50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  22. [30]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature 452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965)

    F. Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965)

    1965

  24. [32]

    Ghonge and D

    S. Ghonge and D. C. Vural, J. Stat. Mech. (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    C. A. Stafford, Phys. Rev. B 93, 245403 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Zhang, X

    D. Zhang, X. Zheng, and M. Di Ventra, Physics Reports 830, 1 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Lipka-Bartosik, M

    P. Lipka-Bartosik, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 040401 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Puglisi, A

    A. Puglisi, A. Sarracino, and A. Vulpiani, Phys. Rep. 709–710, 1 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Eschner, G

    J. Eschner, G. Morigi, and R. Blatt, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 20, 1008 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Lin et al., ACS Appl

    X. Lin et al., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 12, 52393 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    C. Guo, X. He, C. Rong, T. Lu, S. Liu, and P. K. Chat- taraj, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 12, 5623 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    A. Nagy, R. G. Parr, and S. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 53, 3117 (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Meair, J

    J. Meair, J. P. Bergfield, C. A. Stafford, and P. Jacquod, Phys. Rev. B 90, 035407 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Buchholz and J

    D. Buchholz and J. Schlemmer, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, F25 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Alipour, F

    S. Alipour, F. Benatti, M. Afsary, P. Bakhshinezhad, M. Ramezani, T. Ala-Nissila, and A. T. Rezakhani, arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.11915 (2021), 4+8 pages, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.11915

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lancaster and S

    T. Lancaster and S. J. Blundell, Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014), ISBN 978-0-19-969932-2

    2014

  37. [45]

    Maranganti, P

    R. Maranganti, P. Sharma, and L. Wheeler, Journal of Aerospace Engineering 20, 22 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Barnett, D

    A. Barnett, D. Cohen, and E. J. Heller, Physical Review Letters 85, 1412 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    F. P. G. de Arquer, D. V. Talapin, V. I. Klimov, Y. Arakawa, M. Bayer, and E. H. Sargent, Science 373, eaz8541 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  41. [49]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Vergini and M

    E. Vergini and M. Saraceno, Phys. Rev. E 52, 2204 (1995). Appendix A IGL FOR CIRCULAR BILLIARD The eigenfunctions of a circular billiard (a quantum particle confined in a circular region) can be found by solving the Schrodinger equation in polar coordinates. For radius R, the ...

    1995

Pith tools

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