Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 57 references

On the original Ulam's problem and its quantization

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Under resonance, the classical piecewise linear Fermi-Ulam accelerator is recurrent almost everywhere, while its quantization shows quadratic energy growth.

desk verdict A serious, original paper with two load-bearing gaps: the quantum exact-energy formula drops N-dependent oscillatory terms, and the classical recurrence proof infers ergodicity from minimality. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01684 v2 pith:3I3Z5X7V submitted 2025-06-02 math.DS math-phmath.MPquant-ph

Changguang Dong , Jing Zhou This is my paper
classification math.DSmath-phmath.MPquant-ph MSC 37N0581Q5035Q4137E10
keywords FermiaccelerationFermi-Ulammodelresonanceescapingorbitsrecurrencequasi-energyspectrumquantumFloquettheoryintervalexchangemap
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

Fermi's acceleration idea, in its simplest piecewise-linear form, asks whether a particle bouncing between a fixed and a periodically moving wall can gain unbounded energy. This paper claims that under a resonance condition on the wall parameters, the classical model is recurrent: escaping orbits exist but are a null set, and almost every orbit returns infinitely often to its initial momentum. The quantized version of the same resonant model behaves oppositely, with generic quadratic energy growth $E(N)=aN^2+bN+c$ ($a\ge0$) and an absolutely continuous quasi-energy spectrum with finitely many components. The paper also gives an explicit procedure to locate the rare classical escaping orbits, covering the original parameter choice and previously known linearly escaping orbits, and so completes, modulo a null set, the answer to the original question.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of adiabatic normal forms $P_1,P_2$ (Proposition 2.2) obtained from the coordinates $I=T(lv+l\dot l)$ and $\theta=\frac{1}{2T}\int_0^t l^{-2}\,ds$; these affine maps compose to a parabolic map that preserves circles $C_D$ defined by $\tau+\frac{A}{2(B-A)}I=D$. Under classical $q$-resonance, the restriction to $C_D$ is equivalent to a skew product $\eta_F(\tau,n)=(F(\tau),n+\eta(\tau))$ over an interval-exchange map $F$ with a piecewise constant integer cocycle $\eta$, and the recurrence conclusion comes from applying the zero-average-cocycle recurrence theorem to this skew product. On the quantum side, the 'stopped wall' transformation converts the moving boundary into a Schrödinger equation with two delta-kick potentials, and $(p,q)$-resonance reduces the Floquet operators to finite-dimensional matrices $S(x)$ and $R(x)$ built from cyclic coefficients $\gamma_n$ and diagonal phase factors; the quadratic energy coefficient is a positive semidefinite quadratic form in the initial wave, and the eigenphases of $RS$ are the quasi-energies.

What would settle it

Take a resonant parameter set with $q\ge2$ and an irrational invariant circle $C_D$, simulate the skew product, and record the fiber increments $\eta(F^j(\tau))$; the paper predicts that the partial sums return to zero infinitely often for Lebesgue-almost every $\tau$, so a positive-measure set of starting points whose momentum escapes to infinity would refute the recurrence theorem, as would a rigorous proof that $F$ on some irrational circle is minimal but not ergodic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that general resonance organizes both the classical and quantum piecewise linear Fermi-Ulam accelerators. Classically, with $q$-resonance $(B-A)/A=q$, the phase cylinder foliates into invariant circles $C_D$, and on each irrational circle the dynamics is a skew product over an ergodic interval-exchange base with a piecewise-constant cocycle of zero average; by a standard recurrence theorem for cocycles, almost every orbit is recurrent, and the escaping set is Lebesgue-null. Quantally, with $(p,q)$-resonance $\pi^2 T/(AB)=p/q$, the one-period propagator reduces to finite $q\times q$ Floquet matrices, so the energy after $N$ periods is exactly quadratic in $N$ with nonnegative leading coefficient, and the quasi-energy spectrum consists of at most $q$ absolutely continuous components given by eigenphases of the Floquet matrix. The authors present the classical and quantum behaviors as substantially different: an exceptionally rare classical acceleration event becomes the generic quantum behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The classical recurrence theorem rests on the claim that the base motion on an irrational invariant circle is ergodic, meaning its time averages equal spatial averages over a rearranged set of intervals; the proof of that claim stops at minimality and never establishes the stronger unique ergodicity that the zero-average-cocycle recurrence argument would need.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the original parameter choice $A=1/\sqrt2$, $B=\sqrt2$, $T=1$, the escaping orbits form a null set and almost every orbit returns to its initial momentum infinitely often.
  • For every integer $q\ge1$ with $(B-A)/A=q$, the same dichotomy holds: classical recurrence almost everywhere, with all escaping and bounded orbits located on rational invariant circles by the period-momentum-change criterion $\Delta\eta(\tau_0)>0$ or $=0$.
  • In the quantum model at $(p,q)$-resonance, generic initial states have quadratic energy growth, so quantum acceleration is not confined to the special $1:1$ resonance studied previously.
  • The quasi-energy spectrum has at most $q$ absolutely continuous components; if the Floquet eigenphases are non-degenerate, acceleration is accompanied by continuous spectrum, while total degeneracy would reduce the spectrum to pure point and bound the energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the kernel of the quadratic form $a$ should exactly identify the non-accelerating quantum states; studying the degeneracy locus of the Floquet eigenphases $\xi_j(x)$ would give a complete classification of which initial waves escape quantum acceleration.
  • If the ergodicity gap in the proof of Proposition 2.10 can be repaired by an extra unique-ergodicity argument, the classical recurrence theorem would follow as stated; if not, the first failure should appear in the Birkhoff sums of $\eta$ on some irrational invariant circle, which is numerically checkable for small $q$.
  • A testable transition suggested by the paper's final discussion is that, as $\pi^2 T/(AB)$ moves from a rational resonance to Diophantine or Liouville values, the absolutely continuous quasi-energy spectrum may break into singular continuous or pure point components; computing the Floquet matrices at nearby rational approximants could reveal the crossover.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a piecewise linear Fermi–Ulam accelerator in both classical and quantum settings. For the classical model, under the resonance condition (B−A)/A = q, the authors derive adiabatic normal forms, exhibit invariant circles, and recast the restricted dynamics as a skew product over an interval exchange map. They then claim that the escaping set is a null set on the phase cylinder and that almost every orbit returns to its initial momentum level infinitely often. For the quantum model, under the resonance condition π²T/(AB) = p/q, they represent the Floquet evolution by finite q×q matrices, claim an exact quadratic energy formula E(N) = aN²+bN+c with a≥0, and describe the quasi-energy spectrum as absolutely continuous with finitely many components. The paper also gives an algorithm to locate escaping and bounded orbits on rational invariant circles, with examples covering Ulam's original parameters and Šeba's quantum resonance case.

Significance. If correct, the results would resolve an old question of Ulam for the classical piecewise linear accelerator and provide one of the few rigorous examples of quantum acceleration contrasting with classical recurrence. The technical apparatus—adiabatic coordinates, invariant circles, the skew-product reduction of the classical map, and the reduction of the quantum Floquet operator to finite matrices—is substantial and could be of independent use. The explicit computations for q=1 and (p,q)=(1,1),(1,2) also give useful benchmarks. However, the main theorems currently have serious gaps: the exact quadratic formula in the quantum theorem is not established, and the ergodicity premise for the classical recurrence theorem is proved only via an invalid inference from minimality. The paper therefore presents a strong set of ideas, but not yet a sound proof of its headline claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Theorem 2 (Eqs. (38)–(42))] Theorem 2 claims the exact formula E(N) = aN²+bN+c with constants a,b,c. The proof does not establish this. In the expansion before Eq. (40), the term −(iN/q)⟨QΛ^N Q^{-1}Φ, Q′ diag(ξ′ e^{iNξ}) Q^{-1}Φ⟩ cannot be reduced to a constant: after moving Q to the left it becomes ∫Σ_{j,k} e^{iN(ξ_k−ξ_j)} (Q^{-1}Φ)ⱼ (Q*Q′)ⱼₖ ξ′ₖ (Q^{-1}Φ)ₖ dx, and Q*Q′ is generically non-diagonal, so this term contains oscillatory factors e^{iN(ξ_k−ξ_j)}. Consequently the coefficient b in Eq. (41) retains both Λ^N and an explicit N, and the coefficient c in Eq. (42) also depends on N; they are not constants. The proof at most yields E(N) = aN² + O(N) with a≥0. Moreover, the advertised 'quadratic energy growth in general' would further require a>0 on a dense set of initial waves, which is not proved for general (p,q). Since Theorem 2 is the central quantum result, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [§2.3.1, Proposition 2.10] The proof of Proposition 2.10 concludes that h is ergodic from its minimality, stating: 'since h preserves the measure Leb ⊗ Count, by considering the ergodic decomposition and using the minimality, one can easily obtain the ergodicity.' This implication is invalid in general: minimality of a topological dynamical system does not imply ergodicity of a particular invariant measure, because a minimal system can have multiple ergodic components. The authors even disclaim unique ergodicity in the following sentence. Since Proposition 2.10 is the only support for Proposition 2.9's assertion that the base map F is ergodic, and Theorem 1 uses Atkinson's recurrence theorem for zero-average cocycles over an ergodic base, the classical recurrence conclusion is not established as written. A direct proof or a suitable citation for ergodicity of this specific finite extension is needed.
  3. [§3.3, Theorem 3] The proof of Theorem 3 is only formal. The trial states ψ_j(x0) in Eq. (45) are delta distributions, not elements of L²(0,1), and no limiting or spectral-measure argument shows that the resulting ρ_j(x0) exhaust the quasi-energy spectrum of the Floquet operator. The assertion that the spectral components are absolutely continuous unless ξ_j(x) ≡ ξ_j is not proven; absolute continuity requires an argument that the map x ↦ ξ_j(x) is nonconstant on a set of full measure and that no singular continuous part appears, neither of which is supplied. Because the quasi-energy spectrum description is one of the paper's advertised main results, this gap is load-bearing.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (37)] The energy integral in Eq. (37) is written as ∫₀¹ over x, but the arguments x+2m/q can lie outside [0,1]. Although an extension of φ by symmetry and periodicity is described earlier, the energy formula should explicitly state that the integrals and inner products are taken on the extended domain.
  2. [§2.3, proof of Proposition 2.9] The proof begins with 'We fix D∉Q' and then switches to D∈(m/q,(m+1)/q) without restating that D is in the complement of the rationals; this makes the treatment of rational D implicit and slightly confusing.
  3. [§2.3, Example 2.12] The sets C^{0,0}_{1/2,n} used in Example 2.12 are not defined in the text for this example; the notation is introduced for general C^{m,s}_{D,n} in the proof of Proposition 2.7, but the correspondence for q=1 and D=1/2 should be spelled out explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; load-bearing inputs are external theorems and explicit model assumptions, with any gaps being correctness issues rather than self-referential reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Classical recurrence (Theorem 1) starts from the adiabatic normal forms (Proposition 2.2), derives invariant circles and the skew-product structure (Proposition 2.7) under the resonance condition (B-A)/A=q, and then invokes the external ergodicity criterion of Ferenczi-Hubert [18] plus Atkinson's zero-average cocycle recurrence theorem [3]. Although the proof of Proposition 2.10 concludes ergodicity from minimality, which is a genuine mathematical gap, this is an invalid inference rather than a reduction of the conclusion to an input; the paper even states it does not claim unique ergodicity. Similarly, the quantum theorem derives E(N) by an explicit expansion of the exact Floquet propagator; the claimed exact polynomial form with constant b,c is not established because the displayed formulas (41)-(42) contain N-dependent oscillatory terms, but this is a correctness flaw, not a circularity: no parameter is fitted to reproduce E(N), and the quadratic coefficient a is a separately computed positive semidefinite expression. The one self-citation in the proof of Theorem 1, [57, Corollary 6], is used to identify the escaping set with the transient part; it is a published external lemma rather than an unverified premise adopted solely to force the conclusion. Definitions of resonance are physical parameter conditions, not restatements of the target theorems. Consequently no step reduces by construction or by self-citation to its own inputs.

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

The central results do not fit any data. The paper introduces no new physical entity. Its proofs rely on the standard Fermi-Ulam model, on a large-energy adiabatic reduction, on an ergodicity assertion that is not fully proved, and on a distributional gauge transformation for the quantum problem. The quantum finite-matrix reduction also assumes the odd periodic extension is dynamically compatible. None of these is a fitted parameter.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Collision model: point particle, elastic collisions, infinitely heavy walls, piecewise linear wall motion l(t) with l''=0 away from two kinks.
    Standard Fermi-Ulam model, stated at the start of Section 2, equations (1) and the definition of l(t).
  • domain assumption Adiabatic coordinates and normal forms (Lemma 2.1, Proposition 2.2) describe the dynamics exactly for large I, and the escaping set of the full flow equals that of the large-energy map P by the transient property.
    Cites [14, Lemma 4.3] and [57, Corollary 6]; Remark 2.3 states validity only for large energies.
  • domain assumption The base map F on an irrational invariant circle is ergodic.
    Proposition 2.9 attempts a proof, but the proof infers ergodicity from minimality without a general theorem connecting the two; the recurrence theorem therefore depends on this unproved premise.
  • domain assumption The moving-wall Schrödinger equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions is equivalent, after stopping the wall, to the fixed-domain equation (27) with delta-kick potential x^2 (J1 δ - J2 δ).
    Section 3.1.1 derivations, equations (24)-(27); the delta-kick form uses distributional l'' and inherits the gauge from [53].
  • domain assumption The odd 2-periodic extension of an initial wave on (0,1) to R commutes with the evolution of (27).
    Stated without proof in Section 3.1.3 just before equation (33); required for the finite-dimensional Floquet matrix reduction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the original Ulam's problem and its quantization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3I3Z5X7V

@misc{pith2026250601684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the original Ulam's problem and its quantization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3I3Z5X7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01684}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we show that under general resonance the classical piecewise linear Fermi-Ulam accelerator behaves substantially different from its quantization in the sense that the classical accelerator exhibits typical recurrence and non-escaping while the quantum version enjoys quadratic energy growth in general. We also describe a procedure to locate the escaping orbits, though exceptionally rare in the infinite-volume phase space, for the classical accelerators, which in particular include Ulam's very original proposal and the linearly escaping orbits therein in the existing literature, and hence provide a complete (modulo a null set) answer to Ulam's original question. For the quantum accelerators, we reveal under resonance the direct and explicit connection between the energy growth and the shape of the quasi-energy spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The original piecewise linear Fermi-Ulam model The goal of this section is to show in Theorem 1 that under general resonance (as in Definition 2.5) the classical accelerators exhibit typical recurrence and the escaping orbits constitute a zero-measure set on the phase space of infinite volume. We also provide an explicit procedure for how to locate these exceptionally rare escaping orbits in the classical Fermi-Ulam… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Poincar´e sections and the adiabatic normal forms By Lemma 2.1, pθn, Inq P f ´1R0 with n “ rI0pθT ´ θ0qs. Then ¯τ “ In`1pθn`1 ´ θT q, ¯I “ In`1. Our goal is to derive formulas of ¯τ, ¯I in terms of τ, I. For tn`1 P pT, 2Tq, lptn`1q “ A ` kptn`1 ´ Tq, vn`1 “ vn ´ 2k, so we have (6) $ & % τ¯ “ In`1 2T ż 1 0 ds lpsq 2 “ In`1 2T tn`1 ´ T Aln`1 ¯I “ T pln`1vn`1 ` ln`1 9 ln`1q “ T ln`1pvn`1 ` kq “ T ln`1pvn ´ kq , whi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Continuity components C m,s D,n, D ą pm ` 1 2 q{q For an atypical circle Cm{q (m “ 0, 1, ¨ ¨ ¨ , q´1), the 0th component C 0 m{q vanishes and we have only the remaining q ` 1 components C s m{q with s “ 1, ¨ ¨ ¨ , q ` 1. No secondary cut is required for atypical circles. Proposition 2.7 (Skew product structure). Fix q P N. Assume that the parameters pA, Bq are in q-resonance as in Definition 2.5. Then the map P rest… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arnold and V

    M. Arnold and V. Zharnitsky. Pinball dynamics: unlimited energy growth in switching Hamil- tonian systems. Comm. Math. Phys. , 338(2):501–521, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt. Cavity optomechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86:1391, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Atkinson

    G. Atkinson. Recurrence of co-cycles and random walks. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 13(3):486– 488, 1976

    work page 1976

  4. [4]

    Bambusi, B

    D. Bambusi, B. Gr´ ebert, A. Maspero, and D. Robert. Growth of Sobolev norms for abstract linear Schr¨ odinger equations.J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 23(2):557–583, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    G. Bastard. Wave Mechanics Applied to Semiconductor Heterostructures . Springer, 1988

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    Stability theory of differential equations

    Richard Bellman. Stability theory of differential equations. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York-Toronto-London, 1953

    work page 1953

  7. [7]

    Bourgain

    J. Bourgain. Green ’s function estimates for lattice Schr¨ odinger operators and applications, volume 158 of Annals of Mathematics Studies . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Burq and M

    N. Burq and M. Zworski. Bouncing ball modes and quantum chaos. SIAM Rev., 47(1):43–49, 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Casati, B

    G. Casati, B. V. Chirikov, F. M. Izraelev, and J. Ford. Stochastic behavior of a quantum pendulum under a periodic perturbation. In Stochastic behavior in classical and quantum Hamiltonian systems (Volta Memorial Conf., Como, 1977) , volume 93 of Lecture Notes in Phys., pages ...

    1977

  2. [10]

    A. M. Chang, H. U. Baranger, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, and T. Y. Chang. Non-gaussian distribution of coulomb blockade peak heights in quantum dots. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 76:1695– 1698, Mar 1996

    1996

  3. [11]

    de Simoi

    J. de Simoi. Stability and instability results in a model of Fermi acceleration.Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 25(3):719–750, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    de Simoi and D

    J. de Simoi and D. Dolgopyat. Dynamics of some piecewise smooth Fermi–Ulam models. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 22(2):026124, 2012. 32 CHANGGUANG DONG ˚, JING ZHOU:

    2012

  5. [13]

    S. W. Doescher and M. H. Rice. Infinite square-well potential with a moving wall. American Journal of Physics , 37(12):1246–1249, 1969

    1969

  6. [14]

    Dolgopyat

    D. Dolgopyat. Lectures on bouncing balls. Online notes at http://www-users.math.umd.edu/ ~dolgop/BBNotes.pdf

  7. [15]

    Dolgopyat

    D. Dolgopyat. Bouncing balls in non-linear potentials. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 22(1- 2):165–182, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Dolgopyat

    D. Dolgopyat. Fermi acceleration. In Geometric and probabilistic structures in dynamics , volume 469 of Contemp. Math. , pages 149–166. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Faure, S

    F. Faure, S. Nonnenmacher, and S. de Bi` evre. Scarred eigenstates for quantum cat maps of minimal periods. Comm. Math. Phys. , 239(3):449–492, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    Ferenczi and P

    S. Ferenczi and P. Hubert. Minimality and unique ergodicity of Veech 1969 type interval exchange transformations. Geom. Dedicata, 218(3):Paper No. 77, 24, 2024

    1969

  11. [19]

    E. Fermi. On the origin of the cosmic radiation. Phys. Rev., 75:1169–1174, Apr 1949

    1949

  12. [20]

    Fishman, D

    S. Fishman, D. R. Grempel, and R. E. Prange. Chaos, quantum recurrences, and Anderson localization. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 49:509–512, Aug 1982

    1982

  13. [21]

    G. B. Folland. Harmonic analysis in phase space , volume 122 of Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1989

    1989

  14. [22]

    Gelfreich, V

    V. Gelfreich, V. Rom-Kedar, and D. Turaev. Fermi acceleration and adiabatic invariants for non-autonomous billiards. Chaos, 22(3):033116, 21, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Gelfreich and D

    V. Gelfreich and D. Turaev. Fermi acceleration in non-autonomous billiards. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 41(21):212003, may 2008

    2008

  16. [24]

    Gelfreich and D

    V. Gelfreich and D. Turaev. Unbounded energy growth in hamiltonian systems with a slowly varying parameter. Commun. Math. Phys. , 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    Graffi and K

    S. Graffi and K. Yajima. Absolute continuity of the Floquet spectrum for a nonlinearly forced harmonic oscillator. Comm. Math. Phys. , 215(2):245–250, 2000

    2000

  18. [26]

    Grubelnik, M

    V. Grubelnik, M. Logar, and M. Robnik. Quantum Fermi acceleration in the resonant gaps of a periodically driven one-dimensional potential box. J. Phys. A , 47(35):355103, 17, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Haller, M

    E. Haller, M. Gustavsson, M. J. Mark, J. G. Danzl, R. Hart, G. Pupillo, and H. C. N¨ agerl. Inducing transport in a dissipation-free lattice. Physical Review Letters, 104:200403, 2010

    2010

  20. [28]

    A. Hassell. Ergodic billiards that are not quantum unique ergodic. Ann. of Math. (2) , 171(1):605–618, 2010. With an appendix by the author and Luc Hillairet

    2010

  21. [29]

    Hassell and S

    A. Hassell and S. Zelditch. Quantum ergodicity of boundary values of eigenfunctions. Comm. Math. Phys. , 248(1):119–168, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    H¨ ormander.The analysis of linear partial differential operators

    L. H¨ ormander.The analysis of linear partial differential operators. III . Classics in Mathe- matics. Springer, Berlin, 2007. Pseudo-differential operators, Reprint of the 1994 edition

    2007

  23. [31]

    J. S. Howland. Floquet operators with singular spectrum. I, II. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Phys. Th´ eor., 50(3):309–323, 325–334, 1989

    1989

  24. [32]

    J. S. Howland. Floquet operators with singular spectrum. III. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Phys. Th´ eor., 69(2):265–273, 1998

    1998

  25. [33]

    F. M. Izra ˘ilev and D. L. ˇSepeljanski˘i. Quantum resonance for the rotator in a nonlinear periodic field. Teoret. Mat. Fiz., 43(3):417–428, 1980

    1980

  26. [34]

    J. V. Jose and R. Cordery. Study of a lattice gauge theory without fermions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 56:290, Jan 1986

    1986

  27. [35]

    Karagulyan and J

    D. Karagulyan and J. Zhou. Exponential Fermi acceleration in a switching billiard. Comm. Math. Phys. , 397(2):901–935, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    G. Karner. The simplified Fermi accelerator in classical and quantum mechanics. J. Statist. Phys., 77(3-4):867–879, 1994

    1994

  29. [37]

    J. P. Keating. The cat maps: quantum mechanics and classical motion. Nonlinearity, 4(2):309–341, 1991

    1991

  30. [38]

    Kunze and R

    M. Kunze and R. Ortega. Escaping orbits are rare in the quasi-periodic fermi–ulam ping-pong. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems , 40(4):975–991, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Laederich and M

    S. Laederich and M. Levi. Invariant curves and time-dependent potentials. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems , 11(2):365–378, 1991

    1991

  32. [40]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland. Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions. Reviews of Modern Physics , 75:281, 2003

    2003

  33. [41]

    A. J. Lichtenberg, M. A. Lieberman, and R. H. Cohen. Fermi acceleration revisited. Phys. D, 1(3):291–305, 1980. ON THE ORIGINAL ULAM’S PROBLEM AND ITS QUANTIZATION 33

    1980

  34. [42]

    Lindenstrauss

    E. Lindenstrauss. Invariant measures and arithmetic quantum unique ergodicity. Ann. of Math. (2) , 163(1):165–219, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Liu and X

    J. Liu and X. Yuan. Spectrum for quantum Duffing oscillator and small-divisor equation with large-variable coefficient. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 63(9):1145–1172, 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    Masuda and K

    S. Masuda and K. Nakamura. Fast forward of quantum dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 466:1135, 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    J. M. Pirkkalainen, E. Damsk¨ agg, M. Brandt, F. Massel, and M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a. Hybrid op- tomechanics for quantum technologies. Nature Communications, 6:6981, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    L. D. Pustylnikov. Stable and oscillating motions in nonautonomous dynamical systems. II. Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obˇ sˇ c., 34:3–103, 1977

    1977

  39. [47]

    L. D. Pustylnikov. On Ulam’s problem. Theoret. and Math. Phys. , 57:1035–1038, 1983

    1983

  40. [48]

    L. D. Pustylnikov. Existence of invariant curves for maps close to degenerate maps, and a solution of the Fermi–Ulam problem. Mat. Sb. , 185:113–124, 1994

    1994

  41. [49]

    Rudnick and P

    Z. Rudnick and P. Sarnak. The behaviour of eigenstates of arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds. Comm. Math. Phys. , 161(1):195–213, 1994

    1994

  42. [50]

    K. Shah, D. Turaev, and V. Rom-Kedar. Exponential energy growth in a Fermi accelerator. Phys. Rev. E , 81:056205, May 2010

    2010

  43. [51]

    E. M. Stein. Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscillatory inte- grals, volume 43 of Princeton Mathematical Series . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993. With the assistance of Timothy S. Murphy, Monographs in Harmonic Analysis, III

    1993

  44. [52]

    S.M. Ulam. On some statistical properties of dynamical systems. In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 3: Contributions to Astronomy, Meteorology, and Physics, pages 315–320, Berkeley, Calif., 1961. University of Cali...

    1961

  45. [53]

    P. ˇSeba. Quantum chaos in the Fermi-accelerator model. Phys. Rev. A (3) , 41(5):2306–2310, 1990

    1990

  46. [54]

    Zharnitsky

    V. Zharnitsky. Instability in Fermi-Ulam ping-pong problem. Nonlinearity, 11(6):1481–1487, nov 1998

    1998

  47. [55]

    Zharnitsky

    V. Zharnitsky. Invariant curve theorem for quasiperiodic twist mappings and stability of motion in the Fermi-Ulam problem. Nonlinearity, 13(4):1123–1136, 2000

    2000

  48. [56]

    J. Zhou. A rectangular billiard with moving slits. Nonlinearity, 33(4):1542–1571, Feb 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    J. Zhou. A piecewise smooth fermi–ulam pingpong with potential. Ergodic Theory and Dy- namical Systems, page 1–24, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

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