Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Microscopic Origins of Conformable Dynamics: From Disorder to Deformation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The conformable derivative $T^{1-\mu}d\psi/dT$ is the adiabatic form of coarse-grained Ginzburg-Landau dynamics with quenched disorder, so $\mu$ is a physical exponent set by disorder and transport.

desk verdict The paper's central derivation has contradictory μ definitions and an invalid adiabatic limit, so the conformable structure is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04078 v1 pith:6EABTLDO submitted 2025-07-05 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.othermath-phmath.MPphysics.class-ph

José Weberszpil This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.othermath-phmath.MPphysics.class-ph MSC 82B2682B2782C3126A3382D30
keywords conformablederivativetime-dependentGinzburg-Landauquencheddisordermemorykernelanomalousrelaxationcriticaldynamicsnonextensivethermodynamicspower-lawcorrelations
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 seeks to show that the conformable derivative, defined by $D_T^{(\mu)}\psi = T^{1-\mu}d\psi/dT$, is not merely a phenomenological operator but the adiabatic limit of a coarse-grained microscopic dynamics. Starting from a spatially resolved time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation whose kinetic coefficient has the form $\Gamma(r,T)=\Gamma_0 T^{1-\mu} f(r)$, the paper averages over quenched disorder and obtains a non-Markovian memory term with kernel $K(\tau)\sim\tau^{\mu-1}$. In the slow-temperature-drive limit this convolution collapses, leaving exactly $T^{1-\mu}d\psi/dT\sim\langle\delta F/\delta\psi\rangle$. If the derivation is correct, the exponent $\mu$ stops being a free fitting parameter: it encodes critical exponents, barrier statistics, and disorder correlations, and conformable calculus becomes a physically grounded intermediate between classical and fractional dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the decomposition of the local kinetic coefficient and thermodynamic force into spatial means plus fluctuations, followed by the factorization lemma stated in Eq. (67). That lemma lets the disorder-fluctuation term be rewritten as a convolution with $K(\tau)\equiv\langle\delta\Gamma(r)G(r,\tau)\rangle$, where $G(r,\tau)$ is a local causal response function. The power-law form of the kernel is obtained by averaging local exponential relaxation over a scale-free disorder distribution $P(f)\sim f^{-\alpha}$, and the adiabatic peaking of the kernel then converts the non-Markovian equation into the conformable form $T^{1-\mu}d\psi/dT\sim\langle\delta F/\delta\psi\rangle$.

What would settle it

Compute the two sides of Eq. (67) in a numerical simulation of the disordered time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation with prescribed $P(f)\sim f^{-\alpha}$; if the correlation between $\delta\Gamma(r)G(r,\tau)$ and the averaged thermodynamic force is nonzero at any delay, the factorization lemma fails and the derived memory-kernel and conformable structure do not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that conformable relaxation dynamics emerge from microscopic disorder rather than being imposed. The argument starts with a local order-parameter dynamics $\partial_t\psi = -\Gamma(r,T)\,\delta F/\delta\psi$, with $\Gamma(r,T)=\Gamma_0 T^{1-\mu}f(r)$ and scale-free quenched disorder $P(f)\sim f^{-\alpha}$. Spatial averaging of the product $\Gamma\,\delta F/\delta\psi$ produces a fluctuation-fluctuation correlation that, through a factorization lemma, becomes a convolution with a memory kernel $K(\tau)=\langle\delta\Gamma(r)G(r,\tau)\rangle$. Averaging local exponential responses over the power-law disorder distribution gives $K(\tau)\sim\tau^{\mu-1}$, and in the adiabatic limit the convolution becomes effectively local, yielding the conformable structure $T^{1-\mu}d\psi/dT\sim\langle\delta F/\delta\psi\rangle$. The paper also connects $\mu$ to nonextensive thermodynamics through $\mu=1/(q-1)$, so that a single deformation parameter links disorder statistics, memory, and generalized entropy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the averaged thermodynamic force is statistically independent of both the local kinetic-coefficient fluctuations and the local response function; the paper states this factorization in its Lemma (Eq. (67)) without deriving it, and without it the memory kernel cannot be written as a convolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, conformable derivative models for critical relaxation have a first-principles basis: the exponent $\mu$ can be estimated from measured transport coefficients and disorder correlations rather than fitted.
  • The derivation predicts that memory kernels in disordered critical systems decay as power laws with exponent $\mu-1$, so measured relaxation spectra should show $\tau^{\mu-1}$ tails controlled by the barrier-distribution exponent.
  • In the adiabatic limit, memory effects are absorbed into an effective kinetic coefficient with the same $T^{1-\mu}$ scaling, so slow thermal sweeps near criticality can be described by the local conformable equation without explicitly carrying the convolution.
  • The relation $\mu=1/(q-1)$ connects the deformation parameter to nonextensive entropy, making the conformable framework a dynamical complement to generalized thermodynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same spatial-average-and-factorize route would likely apply to other multiplicative-noise relaxational dynamics, so the cleanest extension is to test whether an independence lemma analogous to Eq. (67) survives outside the Ginzburg-Landau setting.
  • A lattice simulation of the disordered time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation with prescribed $P(f)$ could directly measure $K(\tau)=\langle\delta\Gamma(r)G(r,\tau)\rangle$ and check the predicted $\tau^{\mu-1}$ form, which the paper does not provide.
  • If the mapping to nonextensive thermodynamics is confirmed, fitting conformable relaxation to heat-capacity or neutron-scattering data would give a direct experimental read on the nonextensive parameter of a disordered material.
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 manuscript claims to derive conformable derivative dynamics from a microscopic disordered Ginzburg-Landau model. It starts from a local kinetic coefficient Γ(r,T)=Γ0T^{1−μ}f(r), spatially averages the resulting dynamics, and argues that quenched disorder produces a power-law memory kernel K(τ)∼τ^{μ−1}. In the adiabatic limit, this kernel is then claimed to reduce to the conformable structure T^{1−μ}dψ/dT∼⟨δF/δψ⟩. The paper also relates μ to critical exponents, barrier distributions, and Tsallis nonextensivity, and presents this as a first-principles foundation for conformable calculus.

Significance. If the derivation were valid, this would be a valuable contribution: it would connect a phenomenological operator, the conformable derivative, to concrete microscopic mechanisms (quenched disorder, critical slowing down, barrier statistics) and would unify several strands of the author's prior work on deformed derivatives and nonextensive thermodynamics. The manuscript is ambitious and transparently lays out its calculation steps, including explicit formulas for the memory kernel and the effective kinetic coefficient. However, the central derivation contains internal inconsistencies that are load-bearing: the mean-field exponent is miscomputed, the two identifications of the memory-kernel exponent contradict each other, the effective kinetic coefficient Γeff diverges for the stated parameter ranges, and the final 'emergence' step postulates the deformed time-temperature relation it claims to derive. These are not presentation issues; they invalidate the paper's main claim as it stands.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III.A, Eqs. (9)–(13)] The definition μ=ν(z−2)−γ in Eq. (13), combined with the quoted mean-field values ν=1/2, z=2, γ=1 from Eq. (10), gives μ=−1, not μ=0. The text immediately below Eq. (13) classifies μ=0 as mean-field dynamics, and Eq. (11) states Γ(T)∝T for the same mean-field case, which would correspond to μ=0 under Γ(T)∝T^{1−μ}. The two statements are mutually inconsistent. Because this μ classification is used throughout the paper to interpret physical examples and to connect μ to the disorder exponent via Eq. (103), this sign error is not a typographical nuance but a load-bearing inconsistency.
  2. [§VI.F and §VI (Adiabatic Limit), Eqs. (85), (103)–(108)] The paper derives K(τ)∝τ^{α−2} from the disorder-averaging calculation in Eq. (85), with 1<α<2, and then states 'Comparing this with the main text relation K(τ)∼τ^{μ−1}, we obtain the identification μ=α−1.' However, in the self-consistency subsection, Eqs. (103) and (105) impose α=1−μ to recover K(τ)∝τ^{μ−1}. The two relations μ=α−1 and α=1−μ are compatible only for the special value μ=1/2. The claimed link between the disorder-statistics exponent and the conformable deformation exponent is therefore internally inconsistent, and the central identification K(τ)∼τ^{μ−1} is not established by the paper's own calculations.
  3. [§VI (Adiabatic Limit), Eqs. (89)–(92) and (111)] The adiabatic replacement of the convolution by Γeff(T)⟨δF/δψ(t)⟩ requires that K(τ) decay faster than the variation of ψ and that Γeff(T)=∫0∞K(τ)dτ converge. For the stated physical range μ∈(0,1], the kernel K(τ)∝τ^{μ−1} has exponent μ−1∈(−1,0], so the integral diverges logarithmically at μ=1 and as a power law for μ<1. The alternative form K(τ)∝τ^{α−2} with 1<α<2 has exponent in (−1,0) and likewise gives a divergent Γeff. Thus Γeff(T) is not defined and the local-in-time approximation in Eqs. (89) and (111) is not justified. The power-law kernel also does not satisfy the stated 'decays much faster than ψ varies' condition. This invalidates the adiabatic step that is the paper's route to the conformable equation.
  4. [§VI.A, Eq. (67)] The factorization lemma is asserted rather than derived. It requires that the macroscopic thermodynamic force ⟨δF/δψ(t−τ)⟩ be statistically independent of both δΓ(r) and G(r,τ). But the local response function defined in Eq. (73), G(r,τ)=exp(−τΓ0T^{1−μ}f(r)), is an explicit function of the same random field f(r) that defines δΓ(r) in Eq. (71). Hence δΓ(r) and G(r,τ) are strongly correlated, and the factorization ⟨δΓ(r)G(r,τ)⟨δF/δψ(t−τ)⟩⟩=⟨δΓ(r)G(r,τ)⟩⟨δF/δψ(t−τ)⟩ has no justification. Without this step, the entire memory-kernel construction in Eq. (70), and everything that follows from it, loses its derivation.
  5. [§VI, Eq. (99)] The relation dT/dt∝T^{μ−1} is introduced as a 'deformed scaling relation' without derivation from the microscopic dynamics. This postulate is exactly the ingredient needed to convert the time-evolution equation into the conformable form T^{1−μ}dψ/dT. Consequently the claimed emergence of the conformable structure is circular: the deformed time-temperature relation is assumed, not obtained from the disorder-averaging or the adiabatic limit. The paper needs either a derivation of Eq. (99) from the model or an explicit statement that this relation is an additional physical assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II, Eq. (1) vs §III, Eq. (4)] The paper introduces a coupling field g(r,T)=g0(T)(1+η(r)T^{1−μ}) and a kinetic coefficient Γ(r,T)=Γ0T^{1−μ}f(r), but never clarifies the relation between η(r) and f(r) or between the disorder correlation exponent 2μ−2 in Eq. (2) and the power-law distribution P(f)∼f^{−α} in Eq. (76). These are different disorder models that are implicitly identified through the same symbol μ.
  2. [§V.B, Eqs. (57) and (65)] The assumption ⟨δ(δF/δψ)(r,t)⟩=0 in Eq. (57) is not obviously consistent with the later representation in Eq. (65), where δ(δF/δψ)(r,t) is a convolution of G(r,τ) with the generally nonzero mean ⟨δF/δψ(t−τ)⟩; the paper should clarify whether the zero-mean condition refers to a different statistical ensemble or to a separate fluctuation component.
  3. [Throughout] The section numbering is inconsistent: both 'VI. Emergence of Memory Kernel' and 'VI. Adiabatic Limit' appear, so the adiabatic section should be renumbered, and the duplicated paragraph 'In this regime, In this regime' on page 23 should be corrected.
  4. [Table I, p. 24] The row 'Relaxation time: strongly T-dependent via T^{μ−1}' appears to have the exponent reversed relative to the paper's own kinetic coefficient T^{1−μ}; this should be fixed for consistency.
  5. [References] Several references are cited in contexts that suggest they support specific derivations, but [3], [4], [10], and [14] are standard textbooks or reviews; the paper would benefit from more specific page or equation citations. The high number of self-citations in the conformable-sections narrative also deserves a brief statement of what is new relative to [5,6,24–26].

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The conformable prefactor T^{1−μ} is assumed at the start (Eq. 4) and then returned as the 'derived' operator (Eq. 102); Eq. (99) and the α=1−μ self-consistency condition impose the target exponent, so the central claim is an input rather than a prediction.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (4) / Sec. II and Eqs. (101)-(102) / Sec. VI 'Adiabatic Limit']
    "To capture this, we adopt a generalized form: Γ(r, T) = Γ0 T 1−µf (r), where the deformation exponent,µ, governs the temperature scaling andf (r) represents quenched spatial heterogeneity (encoding quenched disorder) normalized such that⟨f (r)⟩ = 1. This formulation serves as a microscopic foundation for the conformable dynamics observed at larger scales."

    The paper's target is the conformable derivative D_T^{(μ)}ψ := T^{1−μ} dψ/dT (Eq. 102). That exact prefactor T^{1−μ} is inserted by hand into the kinetic coefficient in Eq. (4) before any averaging or adiabatic step. The later 'derivation' of Γ ~ T^{1−μ} from P(E) ~ E^{−μ} uses the same symbol μ in the assumed barrier distribution, so the temperature scaling that 'emerges' is the input exponent renamed. The final deformed structure is literally the same expression that was adopted at the start.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Eqs. (98)-(102), Sec. VI 'Adiabatic Limit']
    "To model anomalous relaxation behavior near the critical point, we introduce a deformed scaling relation between time t and temperature T of the form: dT dt ∝ T µ−1, which reflects anomalous relaxation structure, memory effects, or fractal characteristics of the medium, where µ ∈ (0, 1] is a deformation parameter. ... the equation simplifies to: dψ dT ∼ 1 T 1−µ ⟨δF δψ⟩. Rewriting, we obtain the deformed structure: T 1−µ dψ dT ∼ ⟨δF δψ⟩."

    Equation (99) is not derived from the preceding dynamics; it is a postulated relation between t and T. Together with the already-assumed Γ ∝ T^{1−μ}, it is exactly the relation needed to convert the time-dependent TDGL equation into the conformable form T^{1−μ} dψ/dT. The 'simplification' to Eq. (100) is asserted, not obtained by a limit, and Eq. (100) is the desired conformable operator. Thus the conclusion is installed in the ansatz rather than predicted by the calculation.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Eqs. (103)-(107), Sec. VI 'Self-Consistency Condition']
    "Self-Consistency Condition We started with temperature dependenceT 1−µ in Γ(r, T). The final adiabatic equation must preserve this structure: T 1−µ dψ dT ∼ ⟨δF δψ⟩. (104) For the memory effects to be consistent with the original temperature scaling, we need: α = 1 − µ. (105) Therefore, K(τ ) ∝ τ −α = τ −(1−µ) = τ µ−1. (106) To match the original temperature dependenceT 1−µ, we require: α = 1 − µ ⇒ K(τ) ∝ τ µ−1. (107)"

    This is an explicit fitting of the disorder exponent α to the target exponent μ. The paper's own disorder-statistics calculation, Eq. (85), gave K(τ) ~ τ^{α−2} with 1<α<2, and the previous comparison set μ = α−1. The 'self-consistency' condition α = 1−μ is a different relation and is incompatible with μ = α−1 except at μ=0; the step τ^{−α} = τ^{−(1−μ)} = τ^{μ−1} silently discards the τ^{α−2} result. The kernel exponent is therefore imposed by requiring the final equation to have the conformable form, not computed from independent disorder statistics.

full rationale

The central claim—that conformable dynamics T^{1−μ} dψ/dT emerge from a microscopic GL theory with disorder—reduces by construction. Eq. (4) already places the conformable prefactor T^{1−μ} in the kinetic coefficient, and Eqs. (101)-(102) return the same prefactor as the 'derived' operator. The intervening barrier-distribution argument selects P(E) ~ E^{−μ} with the same μ, so it does not independently determine the deformation parameter. The adiabatic step adds a second fitted input: Eq. (99) postulates dT/dt ∝ T^{μ−1}, which is the time-temperature relation needed to make the conformable form appear, and the 'self-consistency' condition fixes the disorder exponent α so that K(τ) ~ τ^{μ−1}. The paper also asserts the convolution ansatz, Eq. (65), and the factorization lemma, Eq. (67), rather than deriving them; these assumptions are load-bearing but are not themselves the conformable target, so they are a correctness risk rather than the main circularity. The adiabatic replacement is additionally invalid as stated: for μ ∈ (0,1] the derived kernel K(τ) ~ τ^{μ−1} has a divergent integral, so Γeff(T) = ∫ K(τ)dτ is infinite and Eq. (89)/(111) cannot define a local effective coefficient. Self-citations to the author's prior work are present but are not the source of the circularity; no uniqueness theorem is invoked. Overall score 8: the conformable prefactor and its exponent are inputs by definition, even though the spatial-averaging machinery does produce a genuine, if non-integrable, memory-kernel term.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The paper's new content is a proposed derivation route, but the route relies on several unproved or inconsistent assumptions, with mu, alpha, and q acting as de facto free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • mu (deformation exponent) = undefined; claimed to be tied to critical exponents, disorder exponent, and Tsallis q through mutually inconsistent…
    Introduced in Eq. (1) and Eq. (4) as the temperature-scaling exponent and disorder exponent. The paper claims it is not free, but gives conflicting derivations (Eq. 13 vs Eq. 11 vs Section IV.B) and ultimately treats it as an effective label.
  • alpha (disorder distribution exponent) = set equal to 1-mu by self-consistency
    The exponent in P(f) proportional to f^(-alpha) is a free modeling choice. The paper later forces alpha = 1-mu to match the desired T^(1-mu) scaling, which is a parameter fitted to the target result.
  • q (Tsallis nonextensivity parameter) = q = 1 + 1/mu
    The Tsallis parameter is introduced to recast the barrier distribution. It is not independently measured, and the relation to mu is an identification, not a derivation.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The kinetic coefficient has the exact form Gamma(r,T) = Gamma0 T^(1-mu) f(r) with a single temperature exponent mu.
    Postulated in Eq. (4). The derivations from critical scaling and barrier distributions are incomplete or inconsistent, so this is an input rather than a result.
  • ad hoc to paper The disorder correlation function exponent is 2mu-2, chosen to match the temperature scaling.
    Section II.A states the exponent emerges from self-consistency but provides no calculation. The form is selected to make the conformable parameter mu appear in spatial correlations.
  • domain assumption Statistical independence of <deltaF/deltapsi(t-tau)> from deltaGamma(r) and G(r,tau) in the factorization lemma.
    Section VI (Eq. 67) uses this independence to factor the noise-response average. It is asserted without proof and is essential for the memory kernel.
  • ad hoc to paper The deformed scaling dT/dt proportional to T^(mu-1).
    Introduced in Section VI (Eq. 99) to convert time dynamics into temperature dynamics. Without this choice the algebraic path to the conformable derivative does not close.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic limit with kernel decaying much faster than psi and integrable K(tau).
    Section VI requires K(tau) to be sharply peaked near tau = 0, but the derived power-law kernel tau^(mu-1) is non-integrable for mu > 0, so the assumption is inconsistent with the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic Origins of Conformable Dynamics: From Disorder to Deformation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EABTLDO

@misc{pith2026250704078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic Origins of Conformable Dynamics: From Disorder to Deformation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EABTLDO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04078}
}
read the original abstract

Conformable derivatives have attracted increasing interest for bridging classical and fractional calculus while retaining analytical tractability. However, their physical foundations remain underexplored. In this work, we provide a systematic derivation of conformable relaxation dynamics from microscopic principles. Starting from a spatially-resolved Ginzburg-Landau framework with quenched disorder and temperature-dependent kinetic coefficients, we demonstrate how spatial heterogeneity and energy barrier distributions give rise to emergent power-law memory kernels. In the adiabatic limit, these kernels reduce to a conformable temporal structure of the form T^{1-\mu}\,d\psi/dT. The deformation parameter \mu is shown to be connected to experimentally measurable properties such as transport coefficients, disorder statistics, and relaxation time spectra. This formulation also reveals a natural link with nonextensive thermodynamics and Tsallis entropy. By unifying memory effects, anomalous relaxation, and spatial correlations under a coherent physical mechanism, our framework transforms conformable derivatives from heuristic tools into physically grounded operators suitable for modeling complex critical dynamics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Critical slowing down, via the temperature exponent1 − µ,

    work page

  2. [2]

    NearTc, we have: ρs(T ) ∝ (Tc − T ), σ n(T ) ≈ const, (15) which leads to: Γ(T ) ∝ (Tc − T )−1 ⇒ µ = 1 2

    In thin superconducting systems, the kinetic coefficient scales as: Γ(T ) ∝ σn(T ) ρs(T ) , (14) where σn is the normal-state conductivity andρs is the superfluid stiffness. NearTc, we have: ρs(T ) ∝ (Tc − T ), σ n(T ) ≈ const, (15) which leads to: Γ(T ) ∝ (Tc − T )−1 ⇒ µ = 1 2 . (16) Magnetic Systems (µ ≈ 0) In many magnetic systems, the magnon diffusion...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Spatial disorder, via the modulation functionf (r),

    work page

  4. [4]

    Altogether, this framework unifies microscopic disorder and statistical nonlinearity into a coherent physical de- scription of relaxation in heterogeneous media

    Nonextensive statistical mechanics, via the relationµ = 1/(q − 1), connecting microscopic energy landscapes to macroscopic kinetic laws. Altogether, this framework unifies microscopic disorder and statistical nonlinearity into a coherent physical de- scription of relaxation in heterogeneous media. When spatial correlations are included and the kinetic equ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    forgotten’

    Resulting Equation Combining these results, the spatially averaged dynamic equation becomes: ∂ψ ∂t = −⟨Γ⟩ δF δψ − δΓ(r) δ δF δψ (r, t) . (63) This shows that the average evolution consists of a classical Ginzburg-Landau term plus a correction arising from disorder and fluctuation correlations. The latter will be the source of memory kernels in the next st...

    work page

  6. [6]

    remembers

    The temperature T (t) evolves slowly in time. 2. The memory kernelK(τ ) decays much faster than the rate at which ψ(t) varies. Under these conditions, the convolution integral becomes effectively local in time. That is, since the kernelK(τ ) decays rapidly, the dominant contribution to the integral comes from a narrow neighborhood aroundτ = 0. Thus, the m...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Scale-free disorder: The spatial variations in relaxation dynamics are assumed to lack a characteristic length scale, yielding self-similar structure

    work page

  8. [8]

    Broad relaxation spectrum: This spatial heterogeneity leads to a power-law distribution of local relaxation times

    work page

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Scaling analysis: Applying temporal scaling to the memory kernel reveals the emergent power-law dependence K(τ ) ∝ τ µ−1

  2. [10]

    Self-consistency: Thederivedmemoryexponentisnotarbitrarybutisdirectlylinkedtotheoriginaltemperature- dependent kinetics, specifically the exponentµ. Thus, the emergence of a memory kernel withK(τ ) ∝ τ µ−1 is both mathematically inevitable, given the starting assumptions, and ...

  3. [11]

    Khalil, M

    R. Khalil, M. A. Horani, A. Yousef, and M. Sababheh, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics264, 65 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Abdeljawad, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics279, 57 (2015)

    T. Abdeljawad, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics279, 57 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    S. C. Chung,Introduction to Quantum Mechanics in Chemistry, Materials Science, and Biology (CRC Press, 2015), ISBN 978-1466570298

    2015

  6. [14]

    P. W. Anderson, Basic Notions of Condensed Matter Physics (Westview Press, 2016), 2nd ed., ISBN 978-0813346312, updated edition of the classic work originally published in 1984

    2016

  7. [15]

    Weberszpil and J

    J. Weberszpil and J. A. Helayël-Neto, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications436, 399 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Weberszpil and J

    J. Weberszpil and J. A. Helayël-Neto, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications450, 217 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Rosa and J

    W. Rosa and J. Weberszpil, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals117, 137 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Liang, W

    Y. Liang, W. Xu, W. Chen, and J. Weberszpil, Fractals27, 1950083 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    C. F. d. L. Godinho, N. Panza, J. Weberszpil, and J. Helayël-Neto, Europhysics Letters129, 60001 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Reviews of Modern Physics49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  13. [21]

    M. E. Fisher and M. N. Barber, Physical Review Letters28, 1516 (1972)

    1972

  14. [22]

    Privman,Finite Size Scaling and Numerical Simulation of Statistical Systems (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990), ISBN 981-02-0403-1

    V. Privman,Finite Size Scaling and Numerical Simulation of Statistical Systems (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990), ISBN 981-02-0403-1

    1990

  15. [23]

    A. B. Harris, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics7, 1671 (1974)

    1974

  16. [24]

    Metzler and J

    R. Metzler and J. Klafter, Physics Reports339, 1 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Berne and R

    B. Berne and R. Pecora,Dynamic Light Scattering: With Applications to Chemistry, Biology, and Physics (Wiley, 1976)

    1976

  18. [26]

    Mezei, Zeitschrift fÃŒr Physik A Atoms and Nuclei255, 146 (1980)

    F. Mezei, Zeitschrift fÃŒr Physik A Atoms and Nuclei255, 146 (1980)

    1980

  19. [27]

    Booth et al., Review of Scientific Instruments68, 2596 (1997)

    J. Booth et al., Review of Scientific Instruments68, 2596 (1997). 25

    1997

  20. [28]

    Oswald and P

    P. Oswald and P. Pieranski,Nematic and Cholesteric Liquid Crystals: Concepts and Physical Properties Illustrated by Experiments (CRC Press, 2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    Yeh and M

    N.-C. Yeh and M. Tinkham, Physical Review B39, 9708 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (Dover Publications, 2004), 2nd ed

    M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (Dover Publications, 2004), 2nd ed

    2004

  23. [31]

    D. L. Mills, Physical Review B43, 8626 (1991)

    1991

  24. [32]

    Rubinstein and R

    M. Rubinstein and R. H. Colby,Polymer Physics (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    Weberszpil and W

    J. Weberszpil and W. Chen, Entropy19, 407 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Sotolongo-Costa and J

    O. Sotolongo-Costa and J. Weberszpil, Brazilian Journal of Physics51, 635 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    W. Xu, W. Chen, Y.-J. Liang, and J. Weberszpil, Thermal Science21, 121 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Weberszpil and O

    J. Weberszpil and O. Sotolongo-Costa, Journal of Advances in Physics13, 4779 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.