Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Paramagnetism in spherically confined charged active matter

T0 review · 3 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 A single classical charged active particle on a sphere is shown to carry a steady paramagnetic moment, bypassing the equilibrium no-magnetization theorem.

desk verdict The equatorial Amperian-loop mechanism is plausible and gives a clean classical paramagnet, but the quantitative laws rest on an unseen supplement and a singular J→0 limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03064 v1 pith:ZWZQYZQD submitted 2025-06-03 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mech

Balázs Németh , Ronojoy Adhikari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords activematterparamagnetismBohr–vanLeeuwentheoremchargedparticleonasphereLangevindynamicsFokker–PlanckequationAmperianloopnonequilibriumsteadystate
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 establishes that a motile charged particle confined to a spherical surface and driven by an active force acquires a nonzero magnetic moment in a uniform magnetic field, and that the response is paramagnetic. The Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem forbids magnetization in classical thermal equilibrium, but the active force maintains a nonequilibrium steady state that bypasses the theorem. The magnetic field breaks the sphere's symmetry and stabilizes an equatorial current loop, which becomes the microscopic carrier of the moment. The paper derives limiting laws for the moment—a linear suppression with temperature at low temperature and a one-over-temperature decay at high temperature—and confirms both by sampling Langevin trajectories. If correct, the result provides a classical, room-temperature analogue of a magnetic spin and a new way to control charged active particles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stochastically stable equatorial Amperian loop: the deterministic attractor of the coupled translational-rotational dynamics, selected by the magnetic field, on which a charged active particle circulates with speed $u=F_A/\gamma_T$ and zero spin. Its magnetic moment $\mu_a = q u R/2$ is the unit against which all thermal effects are measured. The argument is carried by a Fokker–Planck operator written on the phase space $G \times \mathfrak{g}$, where $G=\mathrm{SO}(3)$ is the configuration space of the body frame and $\mathfrak{g}$ its Lie algebra; adding noise to the velocities rather than positions removes coordinate and Ito–Stratonovich ambiguities. Low temperatures are treated by a small-fluctuation expansion around the loop, high temperatures by a closure of a moment hierarchy, both in the limit of zero rotational inertia.

What would settle it

Measure the trajectory of a charged motile particle confined to a spherical liquid interface in a uniform magnetic field: the predicted mean magnetic moment is zero when the active drive is off, and under activity follows $\mu \approx 1 - k_B T/(q u R B)$ at low temperature and $\mu \approx q u R B/(3 k_B T)$ at high temperature; observing zero moment, a negative moment, or a different temperature scaling under activity would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a classical charged active system—one motile particle confined to the surface of a sphere—has a nonzero steady magnetization along an applied uniform magnetic field, and the response is paramagnetic. In the deterministic limit the active force $F_A$ and friction $\gamma_T$ settle the dynamics onto an equatorial limit cycle with speed $u=F_A/\gamma_T$; this cycle is an Amperian loop carrying current $q u/(2\pi R)$ around a circle of radius $R$, giving a magnetic moment $\mu_a = q u R/2$ parallel to the field. With $\mu$ the moment rescaled by $\mu_a$, finite temperature leaves $\mu \approx 1 - k_B T/(q u R B)$ at low temperature and $\mu \approx q u R B/(3 k_B T)$ at high temperature. The paper confirms both limits by numerical Langevin sampling and contrasts the paramagnetic response with the equilibrium zero-magnetization theorem and with quantum diamagnetism.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand or fall on whether the leading-order approximate solutions to the stochastic equations—taken at low and high temperature, and in the limit of zero rotational inertia—faithfully describe the full dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Setting the activity to zero restores the equilibrium Boltzmann distribution and the zero-moment result, so the paramagnetic moment is strictly a nonequilibrium effect.
  • At low temperature the relevant scale is $q u R B$: moments close to the full $\mu_a$ require $k_B T \ll q u R B$, and the linear reduction with temperature is exactly the signature of a classical spin in a field.
  • At high temperature the response follows a $1/k_B T$ law with amplitude $q u R B/3$, the paramagnetic analogue of the classical high-temperature paramagnetic law.
  • The magnetic field can steer the particle through the Lorentz force, offering a torque-free control route for active particles, and slow changes of the field connect to work extraction from the nonequilibrium steady state.
  • The steady magnetic moment equals a long-time average of the line integral of the vector potential along the trajectory, making the magnetization a dynamical measure of irreversibility.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the line-integral representation is a genuine measure of irreversibility, the same mechanism should produce current-induced moments in other compact geometries with broken chiral symmetry, such as active particles on cylinders or tori; this is a testable extension the paper does not pursue.
  • For a dilute collection of $N$ such particles, a noninteracting superposition would give a total moment $N$ times the single-particle value, so a suspension of charged active droplets could show a macroscopic magnetization proportional to activity and field—an experimentally accessible collective consequence implied but not stated by the paper.
  • The analytical limits are taken at zero rotational inertia; whether the paramagnetic response survives in the purely overdamped regime, where the Lorentz force is handled differently in the stationary distribution, is a question the paper leaves open.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript considers a single charged active particle confined to the surface of a sphere, with translational and rotational inertia, subject to thermal noise and a uniform magnetic field. The deterministic dynamics possess an equatorial limit cycle whose circulating current produces a magnetic moment aligned with the field (an 'Amperian loop'). Promoting the equations to Langevin dynamics with fluctuation-dissipation coupling, the authors verify that at zero activity the Gibbs distribution is stationary and the magnetic moment vanishes (Bohr–van Leeuwen), while in the active nonequilibrium steady state the moment is nonzero and paramagnetic. They present two analytical limits: low temperature/strong field, µ ≈ 1 − kBT/(q u R B), and high temperature/weak field, µ ≈ q u R B/(3kBT), with u = FA/γT. Langevin simulations are reported to agree with these limits. The authors propose that this is a classical realization of paramagnetism and discuss experimental feasibility with charged active colloids on emulsion droplets.

Significance. If the quantitative laws are proven, the result is significant: it provides a minimal classical active system that violates the equilibrium Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem's conclusion in a nonequilibrium steady state, with a concrete microscopic mechanism (stochastically stable equatorial Amperian loops) and a Curie-like response. The deterministic limit-cycle analysis is clean and physically transparent, and the geometric Langevin formulation on G × so(3) is a principled way to handle constraints and noise. The authors also correctly recover the equilibrium BvL result as a check. However, the analytical derivations of Eqs. (6) and (7) are not shown in the Letter and are relegated to a placeholder supplemental file; the numerical comparison relies on unpublished finite-J results. The central physical message is plausible, but the quantitative claims are not currently verifiable from the manuscript alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [High temperatures and weak magnetic fields] Equation (7), the high-temperature Curie-like law µ ≈ q u R B/(3 kBT), is asserted to follow from a Brinkman hierarchy with a closure, but neither the hierarchy nor the closure equations are displayed, and the derivation is deferred to reference [10], which is a placeholder for a supplement that is not included with the preprint. The rotational diffusion coefficient in the Fokker-Planck operator (5), kBT γR/J², diverges in the J → 0 limit in which the result is stated, so the interchange of this limit with the high-temperature expansion must be justified. Without the omitted derivation, the central high-temperature prediction is not established; please include the full calculation and a discussion of the neglected terms.
  2. [Low temperatures and strong magnetic fields] There is an internal inconsistency in the low-temperature result. Equation (6) gives µ ≈ 1 − kBT/(q u R B), but the preceding sentence reports ⟨z²⟩ = kBT R/(q B u). For a circular loop at latitude with z² ≪ R², the projected-area argument gives µ = cos λ ≈ 1 − z²/(2R²), i.e., 1 − kBT/(2 q u R B). Moreover, the text states that this response is identical to the low-temperature limit of a classical spin of moment µa = q u R/2, which would give µ ≈ 1 − kBT/(µa B) = 1 − 2 kBT/(q u R B). These three statements cannot all be correct; please reconcile Eq. (6) with the stated variance and with the classical-spin analogy.
  3. [Results (Fig. 3)] The claimed agreement between numerical simulations and the analytical limits is presented in Fig. 3, but the caption and text state that the comparison uses 'perturbative calculations at finite rotational inertia' from the missing supplement, because the J = 0 limit is inaccessible in simulations. The finite-J corrections are not shown anywhere in the manuscript, so the reader cannot verify either the analytical curves or the magnitude of the J-dependence. The finite-J results, or at least the leading-order correction, should be included in the Letter or in an accessible supplement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Reference [10]] Reference [10] is a placeholder ("URL-will-be-inserted-by-publisher"); the supplemental material must be made available for review.
  2. [Deterministic dynamics] The statement "Our results do not change qualitatively by making this approximation" (setting ∆m = m) is asserted without analysis; since a ≪ R is the intended regime, a brief justification would suffice.
  3. [Conclusion] In the experimental estimate, the charge q is not specified; the estimate FA a/kBT ≈ 500 would be more complete if the assumed charge (or surface charge density) were stated.
  4. [Irreversibility] The monopole counterexample is stated without derivation; a one-line justification would make the argument complete.
  5. [Equation (8)] The proportionality constant in Eq. (8c) is not specified; it would be helpful for the reader to see the exact relation between the line integral and µ.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No demonstrated circularity: the analytic limits are derived from the displayed Fokker-Planck operator, not fitted; the score reflects the unshown Brinkman closure and placeholder supplement, not an exhibited reduction.

  1. other [Section 'High temperatures and weak magnetic fields', Eq. (7); the derivations are deferred to Supplemental Material [10], a placeholder URL in arXiv v1.]
    "This requires an involved calculation setting up the Brinkman hierarchy [20] for the Fokker-Planck operator (5) and applying a closure. Again in the limit of vanishing rotational inertia, we obtain to leading order in 1/kBT and B [10], µ ≈ quRB/(3kBT)."

    Flagged per the reviewing rule as an omitted proof rather than as a claimed circularity. Eq. (7), the quantitative high-temperature paramagnetic law, is stated to follow from a Brinkman hierarchy 'closure' whose equations are not displayed, with the derivation relegated to the self-authored Supplemental Material [10], which in this arXiv version is only a placeholder URL. Because the closure is unseen, one cannot rule out that the closure condition encodes the answer, and the companion J→0 limit of the FP operator (5), whose rotational-noise term kBT γR/J² ∂²/∂ω² diverges as J→0, is asserted without error bounds.

full rationale

This Letter's derivation chain is largely self-contained, and no step can be exhibited as reducing to its own inputs. The deterministic equations (1)-(4) are displayed, the equatorial attractor v1 = FA/γT ≡ u, v2 = 0, ω = 0 follows by fixed-point analysis, and the Amperian moment µa = quR/2 is obtained by a standard current-times-area argument; u is the body-frame active speed from force balance, not a fitted parameter. The Fokker-Planck operator (5) is written in full, and the equilibrium check µeq = 0 via the Gibbs solution independently reproduces the Bohr-van Leeuwen result. The two quantitative limits, Eq. (6) (van Kampen expansion about the attractor) and Eq. (7) (Brinkman hierarchy with a closure), are the quantitative core of the paper, and both are asserted in the main text with derivations deferred to the self-authored Supplemental Material [10], which in arXiv v1 is only a placeholder URL; the closure conditions and the J→0 interchange are not exhibited. The reviewing rule requires this omitted proof to be flagged and weighed: it prevents full verification of Eqs. (6)-(7) from the preprint alone, but it is not an exhibited reduction-by-construction. No self-citation is load-bearing for the target result: ref [49] supplies the geometric Langevin framework that is re-derived in the displayed operator (5), and the analogy to a classical spin and to Curie's law is presented as a resemblance, not as a source of the derivation. The numerical agreement in Fig. 3 is a consistency check of the same operator by independent trajectory sampling, not a fit. Accordingly, no circular step is identified; the score of 2 is the verifiability allowance for the unseen closure, not a claim of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All model parameters (q, m, J, R, γT, γR, FA, B, T) are inputs, not fitted values; no free parameter is tuned to match the numerical data. The main analytic inputs are the geometric Langevin description, an ergodicity and uniqueness assumption for the NESS, and two uncontrolled closure approximations, which are listed as axioms. No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The geometric Langevin equation (5), with noise added to unconstrained Lie-algebra velocities and obeying the fluctuation-dissipation relation, correctly models thermal fluctuations of the spherical rigid body.
    Invoked in Section 'Stochastic dynamics'; relies on the authors' prior geometric framework [49] and standard stochastic calculus, and is not re-derived in this Letter.
  • domain assumption For each parameter set the dynamics reaches a unique stationary state pSS and is ergodic, so ensemble averages equal long-time trajectory averages.
    Used to identify the FA=0 Gibbs solution and to write Eq. (8); no uniqueness or ergodicity proof is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The low-temperature van Kampen expansion around the equatorial attractor converges, and the high-temperature Brinkman hierarchy closure is valid to leading order.
    These uncontrolled approximations produce Eqs. (6) and (7); their convergence is stated, not demonstrated, in the main text.
  • ad hoc to paper Setting rotational inertia to zero in the analytical limits and neglecting J/(mR^2) in the effective mass does not change the qualitative magnetic response.
    The main text asserts that 'our results do not change qualitatively' but provides no quantitative error estimate; the finite-J comparison used for simulations is only in the supplement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Paramagnetism in spherically confined charged active matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWZQYZQD

@misc{pith2026250603064,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Paramagnetism in spherically confined charged active matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWZQYZQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03064}
}
read the original abstract

The celebrated theorem of Bohr and van Leeuwen guarantees that a classical charged system cannot have a magnetization in thermal equilibrium. Quantum mechanically, however, a diamagnetic response is obtained. In contrast, we show here that a classical charged active system, consisting of a motile particle confined to the surface of a sphere, has a nonzero magnetization and a paramagnetic response. We numerically sample Langevin trajectories of this system and compare with limiting analytical solutions of the Fokker-Planck equation, at small and large temperatures, to find excellent agreement in the magnetic response. Our Letter suggests experimental routes to controlling and extracting work from charged active matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03064 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A charged active particle at position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Typical trajectories of deterministic ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnetic moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL-will-be-inserted-by- publisher] for derivations of theoretical results, details of numerical simulations and a movie of the dynamics, which includes Refs. [48-52]

    work page

  2. [1]

    Bohr, Studies on the electron theory of metals., in Niels Bohr Collected Works – Volume 1 – Early Work (1905 – 1911) , edited by L

    N. Bohr, Studies on the electron theory of metals., in Niels Bohr Collected Works – Volume 1 – Early Work (1905 – 1911) , edited by L. Rosenfeld and J. Rud Nielsen (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1972) pp. 163–393, trans- lation of Ph. D. thesis, University of Copenhagen, 1911

    work page 1905

  3. [2]

    Van Leeuwen, Probl` emes de la th´ eorie ´ electronique du magn´ etisme, Journal de Physique et le Radium2, 361 (1921)

    H.-J. Van Leeuwen, Probl` emes de la th´ eorie ´ electronique du magn´ etisme, Journal de Physique et le Radium2, 361 (1921)

    work page 1921

  4. [3]

    R. E. Peierls, Surprises in Theoretical Physics, Princeton Series in Physics (Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1979)

    work page 1979

  5. [4]

    Landau, Diamagnetismus der Metalle, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 64, 629 (1930)

    L. Landau, Diamagnetismus der Metalle, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 64, 629 (1930)

    work page 1930

  6. [5]

    W. Fei, M. M. Driscoll, P. M. Chaikin, and K. J. M. Bishop, Magneto-capillary dynamics of amphiphilic Janus particles at curved liquid interfaces, Soft Matter 14, 4661 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Kumar and K

    N. Kumar and K. Vijay Kumar, Classical Langevin dy- namics of a charged particle moving on a sphere and dia- magnetism: A surprise, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 86, 17001 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    Pradhan and U

    P. Pradhan and U. Seifert, Nonexistence of classical dia- magnetism and nonequilibrium fluctuation theorems for charged particles on a curved surface, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 89, 37001 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    H.-M. Chun, X. Durang, and J. D. Noh, Emergence of nonwhite noise in Langevin dynamics with magnetic Lorentz force, Physical Review E 97, 032117 (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    H. D. Vuijk, J. M. Brader, and A. Sharma, Anomalous fluxes in overdamped Brownian dynamics with Lorentz force, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Ex- periment 2019, 063203 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Poincar´ e, Sur une forme nouvelle des ´ equations de la M´ ecanique, C

    H. Poincar´ e, Sur une forme nouvelle des ´ equations de la M´ ecanique, C. R. Acad. Sci.132, 369 (1901)

    1901

  4. [12]

    J. E. Marsden and T. S. Ratiu, Introduction to Mechan- ics and Symmetry: A Basic Exposition of Classical Me- chanical Systems, 2nd ed., Texts in applied mathematics No. 17 (Springer, New York, 2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Sknepnek and S

    R. Sknepnek and S. Henkes, Active swarms on a sphere, Physical Review E 91, 022306 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Henkes, M

    S. Henkes, M. C. Marchetti, and R. Sknepnek, Dynamical patterns in nematic active matter on a sphere, Physical Review E 97, 042605 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Muhsin, M

    M. Muhsin, M. Sahoo, and A. Saha, Orbital magnetism of an active particle in viscoelastic suspension, Physical Review E 104, 034613 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    C. W. Gardiner, Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences , 4th ed., Springer Series in Synergetics No. 13 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Hairer, C

    E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. Wanner, Geometric Nu- merical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for 6 Ordinary Differential Equations, Springer Series in Com- putational Mathematics No. 31 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    S. A. Chin, Symplectic and energy-conserving algorithms for solving magnetic field trajectories, Physical Review E 77, 066401 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    N. G. van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry, 3rd ed., North-Holland Personal Library (El- sevier, 2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    Brinkman, Brownian motion in a field of force and the diffusion theory of chemical reactions, Physica 22, 29 (1956)

    H. Brinkman, Brownian motion in a field of force and the diffusion theory of chemical reactions, Physica 22, 29 (1956)

    1956

  13. [21]

    Langevin, Sur la th´ eorie du magn´ etisme, Journal de Physique Th´ eorique et Appliqu´ ee4, 678 (1905)

    P. Langevin, Sur la th´ eorie du magn´ etisme, Journal de Physique Th´ eorique et Appliqu´ ee4, 678 (1905)

    1905

  14. [22]

    J. H. Van Vleck, The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities (Oxford University Press, 1965)

    1965

  15. [23]

    Lee and C

    S. Lee and C. Kwon, Nonequilibrium driven by an exter- nal torque in the presence of a magnetic field, Physical Review E 99, 052142 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    H. D. Vuijk, J. U. Sommer, H. Merlitz, J. M. Brader, and A. Sharma, Lorentz forces induce inhomogeneity and flux in active systems, Physical Review Research 2, 013320 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Abdoli, H

    I. Abdoli, H. D. Vuijk, R. Wittmann, J. U. Sommer, J. M. Brader, and A. Sharma, Stationary state in Brownian systems with Lorentz force, Physical Review Research 2, 023381 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Abdoli, E

    I. Abdoli, E. Kalz, H. D. Vuijk, R. Wittmann, J.-U. Som- mer, J. M. Brader, and A. Sharma, Correlations in mul- tithermostat Brownian systems with Lorentz force, New Journal of Physics 22, 093057 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Matevosyan and A

    A. Matevosyan and A. E. Allahverdyan, Nonequilibrium, weak-field-induced cyclotron motion: A mechanism for magnetobiology, Physical Review E 104, 064407 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Muhsin and M

    M. Muhsin and M. Sahoo, Inertial active Ornstein- Uhlenbeck particle in the presence of a magnetic field, Physical Review E 106, 014605 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Muhsin, F

    M. Muhsin, F. Adersh, and M. Sahoo, Active magneto gyrator: Memory-induced trapped diamagnetism, Phys- ical Review E 111, 015411 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    W. Wang, L. A. Castro, M. Hoyos, and T. E. Mallouk, Autonomous motion of metallic microrods propelled by ultrasound, ACS Nano 6, 6122 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    L. K. Davis, K. Proesmans, and ´E. Fodor, Active matter under control: insights from response theory, Physical Review X 14, 011012 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Tierno, R

    P. Tierno, R. Golestanian, I. Pagonabarraga, and F. Sagu´ es, Controlled swimming in confined fluids of magnetically actuated colloidal rotors, Physical Review Letters 101, 218304 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Guillamat, J

    P. Guillamat, J. Ign´ es-Mullol, and F. Sagu´ es, Control of active liquid crystals with a magnetic field, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 5498 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Mandal, G

    P. Mandal, G. Patil, H. Kakoty, and A. Ghosh, Magnetic Active Matter Based on Helical Propulsion, Accounts of Chemical Research 51, 2689 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    A. F. Demir¨ ors, M. T. Akan, E. Poloni, and A. R. Stu- dart, Active cargo transport with Janus colloidal shuttles using electric and magnetic fields, Soft Matter 14, 4741 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Bente, A

    K. Bente, A. Codutti, F. Bachmann, and D. Faivre, Bio- hybrid and Bioinspired Magnetic Microswimmers, Small 14, 1704374 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Matsunaga, J

    D. Matsunaga, J. K. Hamilton, F. Meng, N. Bukin, E. L. Martin, F. Y. Ogrin, J. M. Yeomans, and R. Golestanian, Controlling collective rotational patterns of magnetic ro- tors, Nature Communications 10, 4696 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    The latter suggests that nonequilibrium work can be extracted from the system using suitable cyclic, and not necessarily adiabatic, time-dependent magnetic fields [31, 40, 41]

    and a frequency-dependent paramagnetic response [39]. The latter suggests that nonequilibrium work can be extracted from the system using suitable cyclic, and not necessarily adiabatic, time-dependent magnetic fields [31, 40, 41]. This further suggests interesting connections ...

  31. [39]

    Th´ ery, A

    A. Th´ ery, A. Chamolly, and E. Lauga, Controlling Con- fined Collective Organization with Taxis, Physical Re- view Letters 132, 108301 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Baiesi, C

    M. Baiesi, C. Maes, and B. Wynants, Fluctuations and response of nonequilibrium states, Physical Review Let- ters 103, 010602 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Fodor and M

    ´E. Fodor and M. E. Cates, Active engines: Thermody- namics moves forward, Europhysics Letters 134, 10003 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Abdoli, R

    I. Abdoli, R. Wittmann, J. M. Brader, J.-U. Sommer, H. L¨ owen, and A. Sharma, Tunable Brownian magneto heat pump, Scientific Reports 12, 13405 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    A. M. Jayannavar and M. Sahoo, Charged particle in a magnetic field: Jarzynski equality, Physical Review E75, 032102 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    Saha and A

    A. Saha and A. M. Jayannavar, Nonequilibrium work distributions for a trapped Brownian particle in a time- dependent magnetic field, Physical Review E 77, 022105 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    J. I. Jim´ enez-Aquino, Work-fluctuation theorem for a charged harmonic oscillator, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 44, 295002 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 126001 (2012)

    U. Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation the- orems and molecular machines, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 126001 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Lauga, W

    E. Lauga, W. R. DiLuzio, G. M. Whitesides, and H. A. Stone, Swimming in circles: motion of bacteria near solid boundaries, Biophysical Journal 90, 400 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Liebchen and D

    B. Liebchen and D. Levis, Chiral active matter, Euro- physics Letters 139, 67001 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    G. A. Pavliotis, Stochastic Processes and Applications: Diffusion Processes, the Fokker-Planck and Langevin Equations, Texts in Applied Mathematics,, Vol. 60 (Springer, New York, 2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    N´ emeth and R

    B. N´ emeth and R. Adhikari, Intrinsic Langevin dy- namics of rigid inclusions on curved surfaces (2024), arXiv:2405.07539 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    O’Byrne and M

    J. O’Byrne and M. E. Cates, Geometric theory of (ex- tended) time-reversal symmetries in stochastic processes: I. Finite dimension, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2024, 113207 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Gopal, Control Systems: Principles and Design , 2nd ed

    M. Gopal, Control Systems: Principles and Design , 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    Czopnik and P

    R. Czopnik and P. Garbaczewski, Brownian motion in a magnetic field, Physical Review E 63, 021105 (2001)

    2001

Pith tools

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