The optical Bloch equation for the finite-temperature fluctuations

Weitao Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 17 references

The optical Bloch equation for the finite-temperature fluctuations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Adding quantum-fluctuation and thermal-fluctuation shifts to the density matrix yields optical Bloch equations that describe finite-temperature time evolution, with zero-temperature spontaneous decay as a limit.

desk verdict A self-contained but conditional re-derivation of the standard thermal optical Bloch equations; the final equations are right, the load-bearing deletion step is frankly an assumption, and Eq. (35) contains an algebra error. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04112 v3 pith:Y7AVNYGT submitted 2025-06-04 quant-ph

Weitao Liu This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords opticalBlochequationsfinite-temperaturefluctuationsquantumthermalspontaneousemissiontwo-levelsystemdensitymatrixequilibration

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

At finite temperature a two-level atom is subject to two kinds of incoherent perturbation: quantum vacuum fluctuations and thermal fluctuations. This paper claims that both can be represented as density-matrix shifts, and that adding them to the coherent drive shift gives optical Bloch equations that describe time-dependent processes at finite temperature. The central result is Eqs. (27)-(28), where the quantum-fluctuation shift is built by deleting terms that would describe spontaneous absorption and the thermal-fluctuation shift is weighted by the Bose-Einstein occupation. If the equations are right, spontaneous decay is the zero-temperature limit of a more general equilibration, and the steady state of a coherently driven system at finite temperature follows the Fermi-Dirac distribution.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the small-time density-matrix shift obtained from a $2\times2$ transfer matrix whose off-diagonal entry is the first-order transition amplitude $A(\Delta t,t,\omega,\epsilon)$. Frequency integration with the residue theorem keeps only the $|A|^2$ terms, which become of order $\Delta t$ after integration because perturbations in a frequency window $2\pi/\Delta t$ contribute. The quantum-fluctuation shift is then defined by deleting the terms proportional to $A a_2$ or $A^* a_2^*$ that would describe spontaneous absorption, and the thermal-fluctuation shift multiplies the same incoherent shift by the Bose-Einstein occupation number $1/(e^{\beta\omega}-1)$. Equation (27) adds the coherent, quantum, and thermal shifts; dividing by $\Delta t$ yields the optical Bloch equations, Eq. (28).

What would settle it

A clean falsifier is to measure the long-time excited-state population of a single two-level system in a thermal environment: with no coherent drive the equations predict $\rho_{11}(+\infty)=1/(e^{\beta\Delta E}+1)$, so observing a systematically different temperature dependence of the equilibrated population would show that Eq. (28) is not the right evolution law.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the irreversible evolution of a two-level system at finite temperature is obtained by decomposing the change in the density matrix into three additive shifts, $\Delta\rho_{\mathrm{CP}}+\Delta\rho_{\mathrm{QF}}+\Delta\rho_{\mathrm{TF}}$, each derived from the same transfer-matrix mechanism. The coherent shift comes from a monochromatic drive; the quantum-fluctuation shift is produced by removing, from the second-order expansion, the terms that would transfer population from ground to excited state without a real photon, leaving spontaneous emission only; and the thermal-fluctuation shift is the same incoherent evolution weighted by the Bose-Einstein factor $1/(e^{\beta\omega}-1)$. The resulting optical Bloch equations give a deexcitation rate $2\pi |c|^2 n(\Delta E)$, in agreement with the standard spontaneous-decay result, and a decoherence rate half as large. In the zero-temperature limit they reduce to spontaneous deexcitation; at finite temperature they drive the system to a Fermi-Dirac equilibrium, and under a resonant coherent drive the steady excitation probability approaches $1/2$ for strong driving.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quantum-fluctuation shift is correctly defined by manually deleting the terms that would describe spontaneous absorption; if that deletion cannot be justified from the underlying Hamiltonian, the dissipative terms and therefore the finite-temperature Bloch equations do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Spontaneous deexcitation appears as the zero-temperature limit of finite-temperature equilibration, recovering the standard decay rate $2\pi |c|^2 n(\Delta E)$.
Coherence decays at exactly half the population decay rate, a ratio that is directly observable in damped Rabi or free-induction experiments.
A two-level system in a thermal bath equilibrates to a Fermi-Dirac occupation $1/(e^{\beta\Delta E}+1)$, not to an equal mixture or a Bose-Einstein occupation.
With a strong resonant coherent drive, the long-time excitation probability approaches $1/2$; at lower drive strengths the steady state is the formula in Eq. (35), and the Rabi oscillation is increasingly damped as temperature rises.

Reading between the lines

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

Going beyond the paper, the additive decomposition in Eq. (27) suggests a phenomenological route to finite-temperature master equations for multi-level systems, with Pauli blocking imposed on top of independent two-level channels.
The equations assume the reservoir is unmodified by the emissions and absorptions it causes; a natural test is to couple Eq. (28) to a back-action-corrected bath and check whether the Fermi-Dirac steady state survives.
Because the coherent, quantum, and thermal shifts enter separately, damped Rabi oscillations measured in trapped-ion or solid-state qubit experiments could be fitted to extract the dephasing-to-decay ratio at finite temperature.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a pedagogical re-derivation of the thermal optical Bloch equations for a two-level system, and it is honest about its main weakness. The final dissipative terms (28a)-(28d) are the standard thermal Lindblad form, with Gamma = 2 pi |c|^2 n(Delta E) and the Bose factor, so the physics is right. What the paper adds is a self-contained route to those equations using frequency integrals and density-matrix shifts, plus a clean labeling of vacuum vs thermal fluctuation contributions. The numerical checks in Sec. III are consistent and correctly show Fermi-Dirac equilibration and damped Rabi oscillations.

The soft spot is real and it is in the center of the derivation. In Sec. II.B and Appendix C the author deletes by hand every term proportional to A a2 or A* a2* from the density-matrix shift, invoking Feynman diagrams to exclude spontaneous absorption. That step is not derived from the symmetric Hamiltonian (4); it is imposed. The paper says as much in the introduction ('I assume the answer to be true') and in the conclusion ('with the assumption that the quantum fluctuation does not excite the ground state'). So the derivation of the dissipative part is conditional: if that deletion is accepted, the rest follows; if not, the route to the OBE collapses. It is fair to call this an assumption rather than a derivation, and a referee should ask for a microscopic justification or a clear statement that this is a phenomenological input.

There is also a concrete algebra slip: solving (34a)-(34b) for the steady state gives rho_11(infinity) = [gamma (e^{beta omega}-1)^2 + (e^{beta omega}+1)] / [2 gamma (e^{beta omega}-1)^2 + (e^{beta omega}+1)^2], not the printed Eq. (35). The difference matters for intermediate gamma; the large-gamma limit 1/2 is unaffected.

The citation pattern is thin on the standard master-equation literature (Lindblad, Carmichael, Breuer-Petruccione are absent), and the paper does not compare its decomposition with the usual system-reservoir derivation. That means 'new result' is not the right category; the novelty is pedagogical and organizational.

Who is this for: a reader who wants a from-scratch, single-particle derivation of the thermal OBE without reservoir formalism, and who is willing to accept the exclusion of spontaneous absorption as a physical input. That reader gets a clear, correct destination. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, but it needs the assumption framed as an assumption, the steady-state formula fixed, and the standard literature engaged before it can be published.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a derivation of finite-temperature optical Bloch equations for a two-level system by combining three density-matrix shifts: a quantum-fluctuation shift, a thermal-fluctuation shift, and a coherent-perturbation shift. These are assembled in Eq. (27) and differentiated to obtain Eqs. (28a)-(28d), which are the claimed central result. The numerical sections integrate these equations to show spontaneous decay toward a Fermi-Dirac steady state and damped Rabi oscillations. The author explicitly acknowledges in the conclusion that the quantum-fluctuation shift is derived under the assumption that quantum fluctuations do not excite the ground state, and the introduction states that the equilibration behavior is assumed before the equations are constructed.

Significance. The final optical Bloch equations are the standard thermal Lindblad equations for a two-level system, so the physical content is not new. If the derivation were fully rigorous, the paper would offer an elementary route to these equations and would correctly reproduce the Weisskopf-Wigner decay rate and the half-decay decoherence rate. The paper is honest about its main assumption, and the numerical curves are consistent with known damped Rabi behavior. However, the load-bearing step of the derivation, the manual deletion of spontaneous-absorption terms, is not derived from the Hamiltonian, and the numerical results are self-consistent integrations of the constructed equations rather than independent checks. The contribution is therefore primarily pedagogical and would be acceptable only after the missing derivation is supplied or the status of the assumption is substantially clarified.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II.B, Eqs. (15)-(18) and Appendix C] The central derivation of the dissipative terms is incomplete. Equation (4) is a Hermitian, symmetric perturbation, so it cannot by itself produce the asymmetric spontaneous-emission map in Eqs. (18a)-(18d). In Appendix C the terms proportional to A a2 and A* a2* are removed manually, and the conclusion states that this removal is based on the assumption that the quantum fluctuation does not excite the ground state. No reservoir Hamiltonian, initial vacuum state, or microscopic calculation is supplied that would make this deletion a consequence of the model. Since Eqs. (19) and then (27)-(28) rest directly on this step, the derivation of the optical Bloch equations is conditional. The author should either derive the spontaneous-emission terms from an explicit reservoir model or clearly present the deletion as an additional postulate, not as a result of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (4).
[Sec. III and Introduction, circularity concern] The numerical section cannot validate the core assumption because the assumption is built into the equations. The introduction says 'I assume the answer to be true' and then states that numerical realization is used to check the assumption, but Fig. 2 simply integrates Eqs. (27)-(28), whose thermal rates were chosen so that the steady state satisfies the detailed-balance ratio W_down/W_up = exp(beta*omega). The resulting Fermi-Dirac populations in Sec. III.A are therefore a consistency check, not an independent verification. The text should be revised to say this explicitly, for example by noting that the numerical results confirm the internal consistency of the model rather than test its physical validity.
[Sec. III.B, Eq. (35)] The steady-state expression in Eq. (35) is incorrect. Solving Eqs. (34a)-(34b) gives rho_11(+infinity) = [gamma*(exp(beta*omega)-1)^2 + exp(beta*omega)+1] / [2*gamma*(exp(beta*omega)-1)^2 + (exp(beta*omega)+1)^2]. The printed formula has an extra factor of 2 attached to the exp(beta*omega)+1 terms in both numerator and denominator. The qualitative conclusion that rho_11 tends to 1/2 for large gamma remains true for the corrected expression, but the equation should be corrected in a revision.
[Sec. II.A, Eq. (9)] The step from the first-order solution in Eq. (8) to the exponential transfer matrix in Eq. (9) is stated rather than derived. The exponential is introduced to preserve unitarity while allowing back-and-forth transitions, but no argument is given that the resummation is consistent with the Schrödinger equation beyond first order. Since the subsequent density-matrix shifts are obtained by expanding this exponential to second order in A, the final equations may not depend on the resummation, but this should be shown explicitly rather than left as an assumption.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (25d)] In Eq. (25d), the notation |B(Delta t,t,omega,)|^2 should read |B(Delta t,t,omega)|^2; there is a stray comma inside the absolute value.
[Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] In the last line of Eq. (C4), the final term is written as +i*rho_21(t)*A*(Delta t,t,omega,epsilon), but the preceding line has +4i*rho_21*A, so the last term should be +i*rho_21(t)*A(Delta t,t,omega,epsilon).
[Eq. (34a)] Equation (34a) is ambiguous as typeset: the expression (e^{beta*omega}+1)*rho_11(+infinity) - 1 should be enclosed in brackets before division by e^{beta*omega}-1, so that the intended numerator is clear.
[Introduction] There is a typo in the Introduction: 'the earlist research' should be 'the earliest research'.
[General positioning] The paper would be much easier to evaluate if it explicitly compared Eqs. (28a)-(28d) with the standard Lindblad master equation for a two-level system and cited a standard reference, such as Breuer and Petruccione's textbook. This would clarify the claimed novelty and allow readers to see immediately that the final equations are the known thermal optical Bloch equations.
[Appendix A, heading] The heading 'Zero-dimensional Weisskopf-Wigner theory' is confusing because the model in Eq. (A1) contains a continuum of field modes; the label 'zero-dimensional' does not describe the model as written.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The dissipative optical Bloch equations are obtained by manually deleting 'spontaneous absorption' terms from the symmetric unitary shift, so the central equilibration result is partly true by construction; the numerical section then integrates those constructed equations as a self-consistency check.

self definitional [Sec. II.B, Eq. (18) and Appendix C; summarized in the Conclusion]
"The reasonable modification is to disable the terms with the spontaneous absorption in Eq. (15), which includes the product A(∆t,t,ω,ǫ)a2 or A∗(∆t,t,ω,ǫ)a∗2 ... To derive the shift by the quantum fluctuation, it is necessary to expand Eq. (13) to the second order. Then the terms include spontaneous absorptions are manually removed in the derivation."

The Hamiltonian Eq. (4) couples the two levels symmetrically, and the unmodified second-order shift Eq. (15) integrates to the symmetric rates Eq. (17), which would drive both occupation probabilities to 1/2. The paper removes by hand every term containing A a2 or A* a2*—exactly the terms that allow the ground state to be excited—and defines the remainder as the quantum-fluctuation shift Δρ_QF. The resulting Eqs. (18)–(19) are therefore not derived from Eq. (4) but are Eq. (15) minus the upward-transition terms. The one-way spontaneous-emission direction that produces the dissipative optical Bloch equations Eqs. (27)–(28) is thus inserted as the definition of Δρ_QF, so the central deexcitation/equilibration behavior is true by construction rather than by derivation.
other [Sec. I (introductory assumption) and Sec. III (numerical realization)]
"In this article, at first, I assume the answer to be true. Then the mathematical expressions of the fluctuations of these 2 types are constructed in the framework of quantum mechanics. At last, numerical realization of the mathematical expressions are used to check the assumption."

The paper's check of its central assumption is self-consistent rather than independent. The numerical results in Sec. III are obtained by iterating Eq. (27), whose dissipative part was already constructed after assuming that the fluctuations equilibrate the system and after deleting the spontaneous-absorption terms in Sec. II.B. Showing that these equations integrate to the Fermi-Dirac steady state (Fig. 2) only demonstrates that the constructed Liouvillian has the property put into it; it cannot certify the deletion step that is the actual source of the dissipative dynamics.

full rationale

The central derivation is only partially self-contained. The load-bearing step is in Sec. II.B/Appendix C, where the quantum-fluctuation shift Δρ_QF is obtained from the unitary symmetric shift Eq. (15) by manually deleting every term proportional to A(∆t,t,ω,ǫ)a2 or A*(∆t,t,ω,ǫ)a2*, i.e., the terms that would let the ground state be excited. The paper is transparent that this is an assumption ('spontaneous absorptions do not exist'), but it is an assumption, not a consequence of the Hamiltonian Eq. (4), which is symmetric in absorption and emission. Since Eq. (18) is Eq. (15) minus the upward-transition terms, the resulting one-way dissipative map—and hence the thermal equilibration in the final optical Bloch equations—is built in by construction. The numerical section does not break this circularity, because the paper states that it first assumes the answer to be true, constructs the fluctuation shifts from that assumption, and then integrates Eq. (27); the equilibration seen in Fig. 2 is a consistency property of the constructed equations, not an independent test. Offsetting factors: the author openly acknowledges the assumption; the final deexcitation rate agrees with the Weisskopf-Wigner theory and the final equations match the standard thermal Lindblad form; and there is no load-bearing self-citation. The circularity is therefore partial but central, giving a score of 6 rather than a higher score.

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

The derivation rests on the listed axioms. There are no fitted free parameters and no new physical entities are postulated. The most fragile element is the first axiom, which inserts the absence of spontaneous absorption by hand.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Spontaneous absorption does not exist; quantum fluctuations only deexcite the system.
Stated in Sec. II.B and used to delete terms in Eq. (15). Motivated by QED but not derived from the model Hamiltonian Eq. (4).
domain assumption The fluctuations are not changed during the back-and-forth emission and absorption processes (undepleted, Markovian bath).
Stated explicitly in the Conclusion and used throughout to treat each frequency mode independently.
domain assumption Thermal fluctuations obey the Bose-Einstein distribution N_B(ω)=1/(e^{βω}-1).
Used in Eq. (22) to weight the thermal perturbation modes. Input from equilibrium statistical mechanics.
ad hoc to paper The first-order perturbative solution can be exponentiated to give a unitary transfer matrix (Eq. 9).
Eq. (9) is an ansatz to maintain unitarity while allowing multiple transitions; it is not derived from the Schrödinger equation.
standard math The residue theorem and the vanishing of the integrands at infinity are valid for the frequency integrations.
Used in Appendix B to evaluate the integrals over frequency. Standard complex analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The optical Bloch equation for the finite-temperature fluctuations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y7AVNYGT

@misc{pith2026250604112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The optical Bloch equation for the finite-temperature fluctuations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y7AVNYGT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04112}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, I analyze the quantum fluctuations and the thermal fluctuations in the framework of quantum mechanics. Being recognized as incoherent perturbations with different features, fluctuations of these two types lead to dissipative terms in the optical Bloch equations. The method allows one to use the optical Bloch equation to analyze time-dependent processes in the finite-temperature fluctuations. The numerical results show that the deexcitation is the limit of the equilibration at zero temperature. The impact of the fluctuations on the coherent excitations are also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04112 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Deexcitation in zero and finite temperature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Excitation probability of the coherent perturbatio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The integral path for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

(B1) is converted into I[ω, ∆E,t,f (ω)] = ∮ C dωf (ω) e−i(ω−∆E)t ω − ∆E +iǫ, (B2) where the contour C is plotted in Fig

in the cases of thermal ﬂuctuations, this assumption is always valid within the discussion in the article), the integration Eq. (B1) is converted into I[ω, ∆E,t,f (ω)] = ∮ C dωf (ω) e−i(ω−∆E)t ω − ∆E +iǫ, (B2) where the contour C is plotted in Fig. 4. According to the residue theorem, ∆E −iǫ ω FIG. 4. The integral path for I1. I[ω, ∆E,t,f (ω)] = − 2πif (ω...

work page
[2]

Short, and Andreas Winter

Noah Linden, Sandu Popescu, Anthony J. Short, and Andreas Winter. Quantum mechanical evolution towards thermal equilibrium. Phys. Rev. E , 79:061103, Jun 2009

work page 2009
[3]

Weisskopf and E

V. Weisskopf and E. Wigner. ¨Uber die nat¨ urliche lin- ienbreite in der strahlung des harmonischen oszillators. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 65(1):18–29, 1930

work page 1930
[4]

Feynman and F.L

R.P. Feynman and F.L. Vernon. The theory of a gen- eral quantum system interacting with a linear dissipative system. Annals of Physics , 281(1):547–607, 2000

work page 2000
[5]

H. Nyquist. Thermal Agitation of Electric Charge in Conductors. Phys. Rev. , 32:110–113, Jul 1928

work page 1928
[6]

J. Weber. Quantum Theory of a Damped Electrical Os- cillator and Noise. Phys. Rev. , 90:977–982, Jun 1953

work page 1953
[7]

Callen and Theodore A

Herbert B. Callen and Theodore A. Welton. Irreversibil- ity and Generalized Noise. Phys. Rev. , 83:34–40, Jul 1951

work page 1951
[8]

J. Weber. Fluctuation Dissipation Theorem. Phys. Rev., 101:1620–1626, Mar 1956

work page 1956

Show all 17 references

[9]

Cavaletto, Christoph H

Chunhai Lyu, Stefano M. Cavaletto, Christoph H. Keitel, and Zolt´ an Harman. Interrogating the temporal coher- ence of euv frequency combs with highly charged ions. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 125:093201, Aug 2020

2020
[10]

Highly nonlinear light-nucleus interaction

Hanxu Zhang, Tao Li, and Xu Wang. Highly nonlinear light-nucleus interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 133:152503, Oct 2024

2024
[11]

Isomer production by mul- tiphoton excitation

Weitao Liu and Yuanbin Wu. Isomer production by mul- tiphoton excitation. Phys. Rev. C, 111:054316, May 2025

2025
[12]

Bilous, Benedict Seiferle, Simon Stellmer, Johannes Weitenberg, Peter G

Lars von der Wense, Pavlo V. Bilous, Benedict Seiferle, Simon Stellmer, Johannes Weitenberg, Peter G. Thirolf, Adriana P´ alﬀy, and Georgy Kazakov. The theory of di- rect laser excitation of nuclear transitions. The European Physical Journal A , 56(7):176, 2020

2020
[13]

Einstein and P

A. Einstein and P. Ehrenfest. Zur Quantentheorie des Strahlungsgleichgewichts. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik , 19(1):301–306, Dec 1923

1923
[14]

M. E. Peskin and D.V. Schroeder. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory . Westview Press, 1995

1995
[15]

Benjamin X. K. Chng, Wenxiang Ying, Yifan Lai, A. Nickolas Vamivakas, Steven T. Cundiﬀ, Todd D. Krauss, and Pengfei Huo. Mechanism of molecular po- lariton decoherence in the collective light-matter cou- plings regime. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. , 15(47):11773–11783, November 2024

2024
[16]

Quantum theory of collective strong coupling of molecular vibrations with a microcavity mode

Javier del Pino, Johannes Feist, and Francisco J Garcia- Vidal. Quantum theory of collective strong coupling of molecular vibrations with a microcavity mode. New Jour- nal of Physics , 17(5):053040, may 2015

2015
[17]

Com- ment on ‘quantum theory of collective strong coupling of molecular vibrations with a microcavity mode’

Luis A Mart ´ ınez-Mart ´ ınez and Joel Yuen-Zhou. Com- ment on ‘quantum theory of collective strong coupling of molecular vibrations with a microcavity mode’. New Journal of Physics , 20(1):018002, jan 2018

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

(B1) is converted into I[ω, ∆E,t,f (ω)] = ∮ C dωf (ω) e−i(ω−∆E)t ω − ∆E +iǫ, (B2) where the contour C is plotted in Fig

in the cases of thermal ﬂuctuations, this assumption is always valid within the discussion in the article), the integration Eq. (B1) is converted into I[ω, ∆E,t,f (ω)] = ∮ C dωf (ω) e−i(ω−∆E)t ω − ∆E +iǫ, (B2) where the contour C is plotted in Fig. 4. According to the residue theorem, ∆E −iǫ ω FIG. 4. The integral path for I1. I[ω, ∆E,t,f (ω)] = − 2πif (ω...

work page

[2] [2]

Short, and Andreas Winter

Noah Linden, Sandu Popescu, Anthony J. Short, and Andreas Winter. Quantum mechanical evolution towards thermal equilibrium. Phys. Rev. E , 79:061103, Jun 2009

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Weisskopf and E

V. Weisskopf and E. Wigner. ¨Uber die nat¨ urliche lin- ienbreite in der strahlung des harmonischen oszillators. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 65(1):18–29, 1930

work page 1930

[4] [4]

Feynman and F.L

R.P. Feynman and F.L. Vernon. The theory of a gen- eral quantum system interacting with a linear dissipative system. Annals of Physics , 281(1):547–607, 2000

work page 2000

[5] [5]

H. Nyquist. Thermal Agitation of Electric Charge in Conductors. Phys. Rev. , 32:110–113, Jul 1928

work page 1928

[6] [6]

J. Weber. Quantum Theory of a Damped Electrical Os- cillator and Noise. Phys. Rev. , 90:977–982, Jun 1953

work page 1953

[7] [7]

Callen and Theodore A

Herbert B. Callen and Theodore A. Welton. Irreversibil- ity and Generalized Noise. Phys. Rev. , 83:34–40, Jul 1951

work page 1951

[8] [8]

J. Weber. Fluctuation Dissipation Theorem. Phys. Rev., 101:1620–1626, Mar 1956

work page 1956