Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Non Markovian electron Brownian motion with radiation reaction force

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that radiation reaction alters electron plasma diffusion only when the dimensionless ratio $J_{\mathrm{rad}} = (\tau - \tau_0)/\tau_r$ exceeds 3, with the crossover set by the long-time mean-square displacement.

desk verdict A clean solution of the stochastic Abraham-Lorentz-like equation with a threshold J=3, but that threshold is controlled by an ad hoc tau0 that takes seconds in the figures. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22952 v1 pith:H766MH4I submitted 2025-05-29 cond-mat.stat-mech

Juan Francisco García-Camacho , Oliver Contreras-Vergara , Norma Sánchez-Salas , Gonzalo Ares de Parga , José Inés Jiménez-Aquino This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech MSC 82C3182D10
keywords radiationreactionforcenon-MarkoviandiffusiongeneralizedLangevinequationstochasticAbraham-LorentzmeansquaredisplacementelectronplasmaOrnstein-Uhlenbeckmemorykernel
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 tries to establish that radiation reaction can leave a measurable imprint on non-Markovian electron diffusion in a plasma, contrary to an earlier conclusion that the effect is negligible. Its central proposal is to replace the memory time $\tau$ in the generalized Langevin equation by an effective memory time $\tau_{\mathrm{ef}} = \tau - \tau_0$, where $\tau_0$ encodes the interaction of the Brownian particle with the radiation reaction force. Solving the resulting stochastic Abraham-Lorentz-like equation gives a long-time mean-square displacement $2D\left(t + \frac{J_{\mathrm{rad}} - 3}{2}\tau_r\right)$, which identifies $J_{\mathrm{rad}} = 3$ as the threshold: below it diffusion looks Markovian, above it radiation reaction matters. If correct, the result provides a single dimensionless criterion for when radiation reaction must be included in plasma-diffusion models.

What carries the argument

The effective memory time $\tau_{\mathrm{ef}} = \tau - \tau_0 > 0$, inserted into the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck-type memory kernel $\gamma(t) = \frac{\gamma_0}{\tau_{\mathrm{ef}}} e^{-t/\tau_{\mathrm{ef}}}$, is the mechanism that carries the argument. It turns the integro-differential GLE into a third-order stochastic differential equation whose homogeneous roots are $0$ and $\frac{-1 \pm \sqrt{1 - 4J_{\mathrm{rad}}}}{2\tau_{\mathrm{ef}}}$. The dimensionless control parameter $J_{\mathrm{rad}} = \tau_{\mathrm{ef}}/\tau_r$ decides whether the roots are real, critical, or complex; the long-time MSD formula then fixes $J_{\mathrm{rad}} = 3$ as the crossover between Markovian-looking diffusion and radiation-reaction-dominated diffusion.

What would settle it

Measure the long-time mean-square displacement of electrons in a plasma while independently determining $\tau$, $\gamma_0$, and $\tau_0$, and check whether the offset $\frac{J_{\mathrm{rad}} - 3}{2}\tau_r$ appears; alternatively, fix $\tau_0$ from first-principles electrodynamics and, if it equals the Abraham-Lorentz time $\approx 10^{-24}$ s, the threshold disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a generalized Langevin equation with an exponentially decaying memory kernel, the paper replaces the memory time $\tau$ by $\tau_{\mathrm{ef}} = \tau - \tau_0$ and converts the equation into a stochastic Abraham-Lorentz-like equation $m\tau_{\mathrm{ef}}\frac{d^3 x}{dt^3} + m\frac{d^2 x}{dt^2} + \gamma_0\frac{dx}{dt} = \sqrt{\lambda}\,\xi(t)$. Solving for the mean-square displacement in the three root regimes, it finds the long-time form $\langle x^2(t)\rangle = 2D\left(t + \frac{J_{\mathrm{rad}} - 3}{2}\tau_r\right)$, so the radiation reaction's influence is controlled by a single dimensionless number, $J_{\mathrm{rad}} = (\tau - \tau_0)/\tau_r$. The threshold $J_{\mathrm{rad}} = 3$ is where the MSD coincides with Markovian diffusion; above it the radiation reaction produces a positive offset and an oscillatory transient. Because $\tau_{\mathrm{ef}}$ is kept positive, the solution avoids runaway and preacceleration.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the radiation-reaction contribution can be encoded as a memory-time subtraction $\tau_{\mathrm{ef}} = \tau - \tau_0$ that is free to be as large as seconds; if $\tau_0$ is instead pinned to the tiny $\sim 10^{-24}$ s characteristic time of radiation reaction, the paper's own equations make the effect vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $J_{\mathrm{rad}} \le 1/4$ the mean-square displacement stays effectively Markovian apart from a fixed time delay, so radiation reaction can be ignored in those regimes.
  • At $J_{\mathrm{rad}} = 3$ the long-time MSD reduces exactly to the Einstein result $2Dt$, making the radiation reaction invisible in diffusion data.
  • For $J_{\mathrm{rad}} > 3$ the MSD acquires a positive offset $\frac{J_{\mathrm{rad}} - 3}{2}\tau_r$ and an oscillatory transient, giving a clear signature to look for in experiments or simulations.
  • The mean-square velocity always reaches $k_B T/m$, so the equilibrium velocity distribution is unaffected even when the positional diffusion is shifted.
  • Requiring $\tau_{\mathrm{ef}} > 0$ keeps the solution causal and free of the runaway and preacceleration pathologies of the standard Abraham-Lorentz equation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would be to tune plasma conditions so that $\tau_0$ varies and watch the long-time MSD offset cross from negative to positive at $J_{\mathrm{rad}} = 3$.
  • If $\tau_0$ is later computed from first principles rather than treated as a free parameter, the threshold becomes a quantitative prediction that could be checked in dedicated numerical experiments.
  • The same memory-time-subtraction construction could be carried over to other self-force problems, where an effective memory time is not fixed by the Abraham-Lorentz scale and a similar threshold might emerge.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies non-Markovian electron Brownian motion in a plasma by replacing the friction memory kernel time τ with an effective time τef = τ − τ0, where τ0 is attributed to the thermal interaction between the Brownian particle and the radiation reaction force. Starting from a GLE with an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck memory kernel, the authors derive a stochastic Abraham-Lorentz-like equation (SALE), solve it analytically for the MSD and MSV in the critical, real-root, and complex-root regimes, and compare with numerical simulations of the SALE. The central claim is that radiation reaction effects become important when the dimensionless parameter Jrad = τef/τr exceeds the threshold value J = 3. The paper concludes that below this threshold the radiation reaction force has no influence on electronic plasma diffusion.

Significance. The paper has useful algebraic content: the MSD and MSV formulas for the SALE, Eqs. (20)-(36), are explicit and the numerical simulations of Eq. (18) are a legitimate check of those formulas. The stated goal, however, is a physical prediction about radiation reaction in plasma diffusion, and that prediction rests on the new time scale τ0 and on a derivation from the GLE. Both foundations are problematic: τ0 is introduced as a free parameter with no derivation from electrodynamics, and the derivation of Eq. (18) contains a dimensionally inconsistent prefactor and an inconsistent noise normalization. Since the threshold J = 3 and the magnitude of the predicted effect are controlled by τ0, the central claim is not supported by the manuscript as written. If a microscopic derivation of τ0 and corrected GLE-to-SALE reduction were provided, the analytical framework could be of interest, but in its present form the physical conclusion is not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) double-counts the prefactor γ0/τef. The memory kernel in Eq. (11) is already γ(t − t′) = (γ0/τef)e^{−|t−t′|/τef}, so writing m v̇ = −(γ0/τef)∫γ(t − t′)v(t′)dt′ + f(t) introduces an extra γ0/τef and is dimensionally inconsistent. Therefore Eq. (18), the SALE that all subsequent results use, is not derived from the stated GLE (4) unless this prefactor is removed and the calculation is redone.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (13)-(16)] The noise normalization is inconsistent. Solving Eq. (13) with the coefficient sqrt(λ/τef) and ⟨ξ(t)ξ(t′)⟩ = 2δ(t − t′) gives a stationary variance λ, whereas Eq. (16), which is supposed to reproduce the FDT (12), gives λ/τef with λ = γ0kBT. The two statements are compatible only if λ is redefined or if the coefficient in Eq. (13) is changed. This affects the noise amplitude appearing in the SALE (18) and hence the numerical coefficients in the MSD and MSV formulas.
  3. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4] The new time scale τ0 is introduced by asserting that the coupling constants ci also take into account the thermal interaction with the radiation reaction force, but no term is added to the Hamiltonian (1) and no electrodynamic calculation fixes τ0. The paper itself notes in Sec. 1 that with τ0 = τe = 6.26 × 10^{-24} s the effect is practically imperceptible, while Figs. 4 and 5 use τ0 = 6 s. Since τ0 is the parameter that controls the predicted effect, the threshold claim is an artifact of choosing τ0 by hand rather than a consequence of radiation reaction.
  4. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (36)] The threshold interpretation is not supported by Eq. (36). The long-time MSD with radiation reaction is 2D(t + (Jrad − 3)τr/2), while the corresponding expression without radiation reaction is 2D(t + (Jbm − 3)τr/2). The difference is therefore D(Jrad − Jbm)τr = −Dτ0, so the deviation from the no-radiation curve is controlled solely by τ0. The special value Jrad = 3 only makes the MSD coincide with the Markovian 2Dt result; it does not mark the onset of a physically significant radiation reaction effect unless a separate, externally grounded criterion for 'importance' is supplied.
  5. [Sec. 3, Figs. 1-5] The numerical comparisons validate the algebraic solutions of Eq. (18) using simulations of Eq. (18), but they do not test either the GLE-to-SALE reduction or the physical input τ0. Consequently, the excellent agreement shown in the figures cannot be cited as evidence that the radiation reaction force affects electronic plasma diffusion in the way claimed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'τef equal τ minus τ0 less than 0', which should read 'greater than 0'; the body of the paper consistently assumes τef > 0.
  2. [Figs. 1-4] The vertical axis labels, for example 'x (m/two.numerator)', are garbled; they should be typeset as ⟨x²⟩ in m².
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains a duplicated phrase, 'Blue line is the is the Markovian MSD'.
  4. [Sec. 4] The concluding remarks contain the typo 'Jrad = Jrad = 3'; this should be 'Jrad = 3'.
  5. [Figs. 4-5 and Sec. 3.3] The simulation parameters (e.g., γ0 = 5, τ = 12 s, τ0 = 6 s) are presented without units or physical justification; given the claim about plasma diffusion, the relevance of these values to actual electron parameters should be stated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed Jrad > 3 threshold is an algebraic restatement of the freely chosen memory time tau0; with the electrodynamic value tau0 ~ 6e-24 s the paper itself says the effect is imperceptible, so the central prediction is controlled by an input parameter rather than by radiation reaction.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.1 (definition of tau0), Sec. 3.3 Eq. (36), Concluding Remarks]
    "we will suppose that ci also takes into account the thermal interaction between the BP and the radiation reaction force. ... Our proposal establishes a threshold value of Jrad = Jrad = 3, above which the effects of the radiation reaction force on the electronic diffusion process are important."

    By Eq. (36), the long-time MSD is 2D(t + (Jrad - 3) tau_r / 2); relative to Markovian 2Dt, the radiation shift is D(Jrad - 3) tau_r = D(tau - tau0 - 3 tau_r). Hence 'Jrad > 3' is exactly the condition tau0 < tau - 3 tau_r. Since tau0 is introduced only by the quoted supposition and is never computed from electrodynamics, the threshold 'prediction' is an algebraic restatement of the chosen memory-time input. The paper itself says that with tau0 = tau_e = 6.26e-24 s the effect is 'practically imperceptible,' while Figs. 4-5 attain Jrad = 30 by taking tau0 = 6 s (tau = 12, tau_ef = 6). Thus the central claim reduces to a freely chosen input.

  2. other [Sec. III, Figs. 3-5; Concluding Remarks]
    "The consistency of our analytical results can be seen when they are compared with the numerical simulation of SALE (18), showing excellent agreement."

    The numerical simulation integrates the same SALE (18) whose analytical solution is being tested, so the agreement is a self-consistency check, not external evidence. In particular, the simulation inherits the same hand-set tau0; for Figs. 4-5 it uses the authors' chosen tau0 = 6 s. Therefore the agreement cannot ground the physical claim that radiation reaction is important for Jrad > 3; it only verifies the algebra of Eq. (27) against a numerical integration of the same model.

full rationale

The mathematical derivation from the GLE with an OU-type memory kernel to the SALE and to the analytical MSD/MSV expressions is internally consistent, and the paper's citation of Ref. [12] (same authors) is not load-bearing: it is used as a baseline and explicitly contradicted. The central circularity is in the physical interpretation of the threshold. The paper defines radiation-reaction effects through tau0 in tau_ef = tau - tau0, but tau0 is never derived from electrodynamics; the only justification is the quoted supposition. Eq. (36) then makes the sign of the radiation-induced MSD shift proportional to (Jrad - 3) tau_r = tau - tau0 - 3 tau_r, so the statement that effects are important above Jrad = 3 is exactly a statement about the chosen tau0. If tau0 is the Abraham-Lorentz time, the paper's own Sec. 1 says the effects are practically imperceptible; if tau0 is set to seconds, as in Figs. 4-5, the effects are visible. The numerical simulation of Eq. (18) does not rescue the claim because it integrates the same model and inherits the same tau0. The score is 6 rather than higher because the analytical solution of the SALE is a genuine self-contained calculation; however, the paper's headline physical prediction reduces by construction to an unconstrained input parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model rests on standard GLE/FDT machinery plus an ad hoc introduction of tau0. The central claim depends on tau0 being assignable a macroscopic value; no equation in the paper predicts tau0 from electrodynamics. The spectral-density choice that produces the OU kernel is standard, but its use with tau_ef = tau - tau0 is the paper's proposal.

free parameters (2)
  • tau0 = chosen by hand: 6 s in Figs. 4-5; 0 in the critical and J=3 cases
    The radiation-reaction memory time. It controls the claimed effect via tau_ef = tau - tau0, is never derived from electrodynamics, and the known Abraham-Lorentz time (about 1e-24 s) makes the effect negligible.
  • tau_ef = 0.04, 0.6, and 6 (s) in the respective figures
    The effective memory time is defined as tau - tau0, but its numerical values in the simulations are hand-picked to illustrate the three root regimes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kubo's second fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Eq. (7), applies with the generalized memory kernel and the radiation-reaction-modified coupling constants.
    Standard GLE/FDT result (Kubo, Zwanzig), but the paper extends it to coupling constants ci that 'also take into account the thermal interaction between the BP and the radiation reaction force' (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption The bath spectral density rho(omega) = 2 gamma0 / (pi tau_ef^2) * omega / (omega^2 + tau_ef^{-2}) produces the OU memory kernel e^{-t/tau_ef}.
    This is a standard construction for obtaining OU noise (Luczka), but using tau_ef = tau - tau0 rather than the bare collision time is the paper's proposal.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective memory time is positive, tau_ef = tau - tau0 > 0.
    Assumed to avoid runaway solutions and to give a decaying kernel; the positivity is central to the claimed causality-freedom, but the restriction is introduced without microscopic justification.
  • ad hoc to paper The coupling constants ci incorporate the radiation-reaction interaction, leading to the memory time tau0.
    The paper states 'we will suppose that ci also takes into account the thermal interaction between the BP and the radiation reaction force' (Sec. 2.1). No derivation from electrodynamics is provided.
  • standard math Noise initial-condition assumption <f(0) xi(t)> = 0 and the long-time limit t >> tau_ef for the stationary FDT.
    Standard assumptions for the OU process, used to simplify the noise correlation in Eq. (16).
invented entities (1)
  • tau0
    purpose: A radiation-reaction memory time introduced via tau_ef = tau - tau0 to quantify the thermal interaction between the Brownian particle and the radiation reaction force.
    No equation in the paper predicts tau0 from electrodynamics. The only physical value mentioned, the Abraham-Lorentz time 6.26e-24 s, makes the effect vanish, while the effect shown in the figures requires tau0 of order seconds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non Markovian electron Brownian motion with radiation reaction force." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H766MH4I

@misc{pith2026250522952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non Markovian electron Brownian motion with radiation reaction force},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H766MH4I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22952}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we study non-Markovian electronic plasma diffusion from a classical point of view, taking into account the effects of the radiation reaction force. The electron Brownian motion is described by a Generalized Langevin Equation (GLE) characterized by an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck-type friction memory kernel. To take into account the effects of the radiation reaction force, an effective memory time which accounts for the thermal interaction of the Brownian particle with its surroundings is proposed. This effective memory time is defined as tauef equal tau minus tau0 less than 0, where the memory time tau accounts for the collision time between electrons in a Brownian motion-like manner, and tau0 is due to the interaction with the radiation reaction force. Under these conditions, the GLE can be transformed into a stochastic Abraham-Lorentz-like equation, which is analytically solved without violation of causality. The theoretical results will be compared with the numerical simulation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Ares de Parga, N

    G. Ares de Parga, N. S /acute.ts1anchez-Salas, J.I. Jim /acute.ts1enez-Aquino, Elec- tronic plasma brow- nian motion with radiation reaction force. Physic a A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 600, 127556 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2022.127556

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Lorentz, La th /acute.ts1eorie /acute.ts1electromagn/acute.ts1etique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants, vol

    H.A. Lorentz, La th /acute.ts1eorie /acute.ts1electromagn/acute.ts1etique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants, vol. 25 (EJ Brill, Harward, 1892)

    work page

  3. [2]

    Abraham, Theorie der elektrizit /dieresis.ts1at (BG Teubner, Leiptzig, (1905))

    M. Abraham, Theorie der elektrizit /dieresis.ts1at (BG Teubner, Leiptzig, (1905))

    work page 1905

  4. [3]

    Rohrlich, Classical charged particles (Addison-Wesley, Readin g, 1965)

    F. Rohrlich, Classical charged particles (Addison-Wesley, Readin g, 1965)

    work page 1965

  5. [4]

    Dirac, Classical theory of radiating electrons

    P.A.M. Dirac, Classical theory of radiating electrons. Proc. Roy. Soc. London. A 167, 929 (1938) https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1938.0124

    arXiv 1938

  6. [5]

    De Witt, R.W

    B.S. De Witt, R.W. Brehme, Radiation damping in a gravitational field. Ann. Phys. 9, 2 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(60)900 30-0 11

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(60)900 1960

  7. [6]

    Landau, E.M

    L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields: Volume 2 (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1975)

    work page 1975

  8. [7]

    Rohrlich, The self-force and radiation reaction

    F. Rohrlich, The self-force and radiation reaction. Am. J. Phys. 68(12) (2000) https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1286430

    work page doi:10.1119/1.1286430 2000

Show all 23 references
  1. [8]

    Ford, J.T

    G.W. Ford, J.T. Lewis, R. O’Connell, Quantum langevin equation. Phy s. Rev. A 37, 11 (1988) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.37.4419

    1988 doi

  2. [9]

    Ford, R.F

    G.W. Ford, R.F. O’Connell, Radiation reaction in electrodynamics and the elim- ination of runaway solutions. Phys. Lett. A 157, 4-5 (1991) https ://doi.org/10. 1016/0375-9601(91)90054-C

    1991

  3. [10]

    Krivitskii, V.N

    V.S. Krivitskii, V.N. Tsytovich, Average radiation-reaction forc e in quan- tum electrodynamics. Sov. Phys. Usp. 34, 3 (1991). https://doi.o rg/10.1070/ PU1991v034n03ABEH002352

    1991

  4. [11]

    O’Connell, Radiation reaction: general approach and applica - tions, especially to electrodynamics

    R.F. O’Connell, Radiation reaction: general approach and applica - tions, especially to electrodynamics. Contemporary Physics 53, 4 ( 2012). https://doi.org/10. 1080/00107514.2012.688563

    2012

  5. [13]

    Zwanzig, Nonlinear generalized langevin equations

    R. Zwanzig, Nonlinear generalized langevin equations. Journal o f Statistical Physics 9(3), 215–220 (1973)

    1973

  6. [14]

    Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics (Oxford univer sity press, (2001))

    R. Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics (Oxford univer sity press, (2001))

    2001

  7. [15]

    Luczka, Non-markovian stochastic processes: Colored no ise

    J. Luczka, Non-markovian stochastic processes: Colored no ise. Chaos 15, 2 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1860471

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    Hsiang, B.L

    J.T. Hsiang, B.L. Hu, Non-markovian abraham-lorenz-dirac equ ation: Radia- tion reaction without pathology. Physical Review D 106, 125018 (20 22). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.125018

    doi

  9. [17]

    Hsiang, B.L

    J.T. Hsiang, B.L. Hu, Atom-field interaction: From vacuum fluctu ations to quan- tum radiation and quantum dissipation or radiation reaction. Physics 1, 430 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/physics1030031

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Bravo, J.T

    M. Bravo, J.T. Hsiang, B.L. Hu, Quantum radiation and dissipation from an atom in a squeezed quantum field. Physics 5, 2 (2023). https://doi.o rg/10.3390/ physics5020040 12

    2023

  11. [19]

    Galley, B.L

    C.R. Galley, B.L. Hu, Self-force with a stochastic component fro m radiation reac- tion of a scalar charge moving in curved spacetime. Physical R eview D 72, 084023 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.084023

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    Galley, B.L

    C.R. Galley, B.L. Hu, S.Y. Lin, Electromagnetic and gravitational r adiation reac- tion in curved spacetime: selfforce derivation from stochastic field t heory. Phys- ical Review D 74, 024017 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe vD.74.024017

    2006 doi

  13. [21]

    Johnson, B.L

    P.R. Johnson, B.L. Hu, S.Y. Lin, Stochastic theory of relativistic particles mov- ing in a quantum field: Scalar abraham-lorentz-dirac-langevin equat ion, radia- tion reaction, and vacuum fluctuations. Physical Review D 65, 0650 15 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.024017

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem

    R. Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Rep. Prog. Phy s. 29, 1 (1966)

    1966

  15. [23]

    Chapra, R.P

    S.C. Chapra, R.P. Canale, et al., Numerical methods for engineer s, vol. 1221 (Mcgraw-hill New York, 2011) 13

    2011

Pith tools

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