Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 104 references

Quantum fluctuation-driven transport crossover between two liquid states in distinguishable helium-4

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In distinguishable helium-4, nuclear quantum fluctuations alone turn the liquid gas-like on cooling—superdiffusion, ultralow viscosity, and a second Frenkel line, with no superfluidity.

desk verdict Plausible and interesting qualitative crossover, but every exciting number rides on an unvalidated centroid approximation, so treat the magnitudes as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23127 v1 pith:Z6J4HJE4 submitted 2026-07-25 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

Mika Tanabe , Momoko Tsujimoto , Kenichi Kinugawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph MSC 82D1582C31
keywords distinguishablehelium-4nuclearquantumeffectstransportcrossoversecondFrenkellinecentroidmoleculardynamicsliquidwithoutsuperfluidityStokes-Einsteinbreakdownshearviscosityminimum
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 simulates helium-4 whose atoms obey Boltzmann statistics (distinguishable, no exchange) and finds two liquid states separated by a continuous crossover. At higher temperatures, the low quantum-dispersion liquid (LQDL) behaves like an ordinary liquid: oscillatory velocity autocorrelation, Stokes-Einstein relation, Prandtl number below one. On cooling below roughly 0.5 K, nuclear quantum delocalization strengthens and the liquid enters the high quantum-dispersion liquid (HQDL), which paradoxically behaves like a gas: superdiffusive motion, monotonic velocity autocorrelation decay, one of the lowest shear viscosities reported for any atomic liquid, and breakdown of the Stokes-Einstein relation. The crossover shows up as minima in shear and kinematic viscosity, thermal conductivity, and thermal diffusivity, and defines a second Frenkel line in the subcritical regime, distinct from the supercritical one driven by thermal motion. The claim is that quantum fluctuations alone—not Bose exchange or superfluidity—can produce gas-like fluidity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the atomic necklace of path-integral centroid molecular dynamics: each atom is a ring polymer whose spatial delocalization is quantified by the quantum wavelength λ_quantum ≈ 2R_g, with expansion factor α_λ = λ_quantum/λ_dB. The transport coefficients (self-diffusion, shear viscosity, thermal conductivity, and derived kinematic viscosity, thermal diffusivity, Prandtl number) are computed via the centroid approximation to the Green–Kubo formula, where canonical correlation functions of stress and energy current are replaced by centroid-variable correlations. The crossover is diagnosed by the shape of the normalized velocity autocorrelation function (oscillatory vs. monot

What would settle it

Perform a benchmark simulation of distinguishable 4He at 0.1–0.3 K and 1–10 bar using a method that does not rely on the centroid approximation for nonlinear operators—for example, a ring-polymer approach with an energy-current estimator based on the intermediate scattering function—and check whether the VAF remains monotonic, γ > 1, and η_s ≈ 10⁻⁷ Pa·s. Alternatively, measure diffusion and viscosity of 4He confined in extremely narrow nanopores where exchange is suppressed; if the predicted superdiffusion and viscosity minimum do not appear, the centroid approximation is the likely culprit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that distinguishable helium-4, modeled without Bose exchange, exhibits a transport crossover upon cooling rather than simply becoming more solid-like. In the HQDL state below about 0.5 K, the velocity autocorrelation function decays monotonically instead of oscillating, the mean-square displacement exponent exceeds unity (superdiffusion), the shear viscosity reaches 7.83×10⁻⁷ Pa·s at 0.15 K and 5 bar—below the experimental minimum of the normal-fluid component of He II—and the fractional Stokes-Einstein exponent drops to ξ ≈ 0.23–0.30. These gas-like transport properties arise from nuclear quantum delocalization, which widens the atomic 'necklaces' to quantum wavelen

Load-bearing premise

The key load-bearing assumption is that the centroid approximation to the Green–Kubo formula, which replaces the true canonical correlation functions by centroid-variable correlations for nonlinear stress and energy-current operators, accurately reproduces the long-time decay of these correlation functions at 0.1–0.3 K; the authors state that no rigorous justification exists and validation is only for He I above T_λ and para-hydrogen.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If distinguishable helium-4 is realized (e.g., in nanopore confinement that suppresses exchange), its low-temperature liquid should show the gas-like signatures predicted here: superdiffusion, monotonic VAF, fractional Stokes-Einstein exponent ≈0.2–0.3, and Prandtl number >1.
  • The transport minima found in η_s, λ, ν, and α in the subcritical regime are a new class of minima, distinct from the well-known supercritical ones, and should appear as a 'reentrant gas-like' regime in any sufficiently quantum liquid that does not freeze.
  • The identification of a second Frenkel line extends the liquid–gas dynamical crossover concept to the subcritical low-temperature region, where the driving fluctuation switches from thermal to nuclear quantum.
  • For glassy states, HQDA should be a 'glassy yet fluidic' state: suppressed self-diffusion but viscosity and thermal conductivity close to the liquid values, providing a new criterion for vitrification.
  • A direct comparison with bosonic 4He would isolate the role of Bose exchange: the same ingredients without exchange should produce no superfluid transition and no λ divergence, but retain the low-viscosity HQDL behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's mechanism—quantum delocalization smoothing the effective potential—suggests a testable prediction for other light-atom liquids (e.g., hydrogen or neon isotopes): if zero-point motion is large enough to prevent freezing, they too should exhibit a low-temperature gas-like transport crossover and a second Frenkel line.
  • The fractional Stokes-Einstein exponent ξ≈0.2–0.3 with no dynamical heterogeneity challenges the usual attribution of SE breakdown to heterogeneity; if confirmed, percolated necklace interpenetration would be a new structural route to SE breakdown, possibly relevant to metallic liquids and polymer networks.
  • Because the centroid approximation's validity is empirical, the quantitative claims (e.g., the exact viscosity minimum) could be tested by recomputing with a different dynamical approximation that avoids nonlinear centroid currents; if the monotonic VAF and superdiffusion persist, the crossover is robust.
  • If Bose statistics were switched on, the paper's estimate that the exchange timescale (≈h/(k_B T) ≈ 100 ps at 0.1 K) exceeds all relaxation times (τ_v ≈ 4.4 ps) suggests that transport in real He II below 0.1 K might be viewed as the same quantum-fluctuation-driven fluidity, with superfluidity adding a coherent component rather than being the sole origin.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports extensive path-integral centroid molecular dynamics (CMD) simulations of distinguishable (Boltzmann) 4He over 0.1–3.3 K and 1–60 bar, with transport coefficients obtained from centroid-approximated Green–Kubo formulas. It identifies two liquid states, LQDL and HQDL, and claims that upon cooling the system crosses from a conventional liquid to a gas-like liquid driven solely by nuclear quantum effects. Evidence includes a monotonic centroid VAF in HQDL, MSD exponent γ>1, shear viscosity minimum 7.83×10^-7 Pa·s, fractional Stokes–Einstein exponent ξ≈0.23–0.30, Prandtl number >1, and transport minima in ηs, λ, ν, and α. The authors introduce a 'second Frenkel line' in the subcritical region, distinguished from the supercritical Frenkel line by the driver being quantum rather than thermal fluctuations.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper provides a striking qualitative result: a liquid can become gas-like upon cooling because of nuclear quantum delocalization, without Bose exchange or superfluidity. This would establish an exchange-free reference for interpreting transport anomalies in real and confined 4He. The study is systematic—115 state points, multiple independent observables, error bars from integration-window variation, and favorable comparison to He I in the high-temperature regime—which are genuine strengths. However, the quantitative claims and the very existence of the HQDL transport crossover rest on the centroid approximation for nonlinear correlation functions, which the authors concede is not rigorously justified. The significance is therefore conditional until that approximation is validated in the strongly quantum regime.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (14), Secs. II B, V F, III G–H] All collective transport coefficients (ηs, λ, ν, α, Pr, SE exponent) and the VAF-shape-based second Frenkel line flow through Eq. (14), which replaces canonical Kubo correlations of nonlinear operators—the stress tensor (Eq. 18) and energy current (Eq. 23)—by classical centroid correlations. The authors state in Sec. V F that rigorous justification is unavailable, and exactness for linear operators [13] does not apply here. The cited empirical validation (He I above Tλ [27], para-H2 [25,26]) is in the nearly classical regime, not at 0.1–0.3 K where λ_quantum reaches 6.6 Å and necklaces overlap. No benchmark is provided for the HQDL regime. Moreover, Sec. III H reports that the same scheme overestimates λ relative to experiment even in the validated He I regime, showing the approximation has quantitative error. I request a direct validation at representative HQDL state points, e.g., finit
  2. [Sec. II C, Sec. III E, Sec. IV C] No finite-size or Trotter convergence checks are reported for dynamical quantities; N=256 and Nb=500 are used exclusively. At 0.1 K and 1 bar, λ_quantum=6.6 Å, and the simulation box is only about 23 Å across, so necklace overlap and periodic boundary effects could be severe. The superdiffusive MSD exponent γ is fitted over t=20–60 ps (Sec. III E), and the VAF relaxation time τ_v≈4.4 ps (Sec. IV C) is comparable to the time needed to traverse a significant fraction of the box. The authors should report box lengths and provide N- and Nb-convergence data for the MSD, VAF, and stress autocorrelation at least at the 0.1 K, 1 bar and 5 bar state points.
  3. [Sec. V B, Table III, Fig. 2] The second Frenkel line is defined only by a qualitative change in the VAF from oscillatory to monotonic decay. No numerical criterion, uncertainty, or reproducible algorithm is given for T_F2, yet the line is drawn in Fig. 2 and used as a central diagnostic. The authors should specify a quantitative operational definition—e.g., the first zero of C_v(t), a threshold on the depth of the first minimum of the normalized VAF, or a fit parameter—and show the crossover points and their scatter. Without this, the existence and location of the second Frenkel line cannot be independently assessed.
  4. [Sec. III A, Figs. 4–10] The NVE simulations are labeled by the nominal pressure of the preceding NPT run, but Sec. III A explicitly states that the average pressure in the NVE runs deviates significantly for some state points. The isobaric temperature dependences in Figs. 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and the extracted minima and crossover temperatures therefore mix different actual pressures. The authors should report the actual NVE pressures (or densities) for each state point and quantify the deviation, or replot the data against density. As it stands, the minima claimed at '1 bar' or '5 bar' may be shifted by the pressure drift.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The partition function includes a 1/N! factor while the text repeatedly calls the particles 'distinguishable.' If the 1/N! is retained as the Gibbs-correction factor for Boltzmann statistics, this should be stated explicitly, since for truly distinguishable particles the factor should be absent (it cancels in the transport averages but is conceptually confusing).
  2. [Throughout] The notation 'P r' and 'V AF' appears with extra spaces; it should read 'Pr' and 'VAF' consistently. Also, Table I uses 'P r <1' without space.
  3. [Sec. IV A] The thermal diffusivity α uses C_P obtained from fitted enthalpy–temperature curves (Figs. S6–S7), but the fitting procedure and its uncertainty are not described. Since Pr = ηs C_P / λ depends on C_P, the error in C_P should be propagated into Pr and the stated crossover.
  4. [Sec. III B] The comparison with Nakayama et al. [49] is plausible but under-supported: only two NVT temperatures and one NPT gas-like run are reported, and the original simulation conditions of [49] are not fully analyzed. The authors should provide a clearer demonstration that the Nakayama conditions lie on the gas side of the coexistence boundary.
  5. [Fig. 2(b)] The 'Frenkel line' in the supercritical region is reproduced from Ref. 15 and not computed here; the caption should state this more prominently, since the reader may otherwise mistake it for a new result of this paper.
  6. [Sec. V A] The order-of-magnitude estimate of the entropy from the KSS bound is clearly flagged as speculative, but it is not central to the paper and could be moved to the Supplementary Material to sharpen the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: transport coefficients are computed from Green-Kubo correlation integrals and state labels from independent static criteria; the centroid approximation is a validity caveat, not a circular input.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is not circular. Transport coefficients are obtained by time-integrating separately computed centroid correlation functions (Eqs. 15, 20, 25) for 115 state points; no coefficient is fitted to the phenomenon it is later said to explain. The LQDL/HQDL labels are assigned in Sec. II C and Suppl. S1 using static criteria (g_cc penetration and αλ behavior established in Ref. 14), not using the dynamical properties (VAF shape, γ, ξ, Pr) that are then reported as independent characterizations. The 'second Frenkel line' is a definitional boundary (VAF oscillatory-to-monotonic crossover) rather than a prediction, and it is corroborated by transport minima, Prandtl-number crossover, and SE breakdown. The exponents γ and ξ are fitting descriptors of the simulated MSD and fractional SE plots, not fitted inputs that force those outputs. Self-citations to Refs. 14-16 and 25-27 supply prior state classification and method validation; Ref. 14 is used for static state boundaries, while the present transport results are new calculations, and the method's agreement with experimental He I above Tλ is checked here (Fig. 7). The most important caveat—that the centroid approximation Eq. (14) lacks rigorous justification for nonlinear stress/energy-current operators, as the authors concede in Sec. V F—is a correctness/validation risk for the quantitative values in the unexplored HQDL regime, not a circular equivalence between input and output. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chain of modeling choices: the path-integral representation (standard), the Aziz pair potential, the centroid approximation for time correlation functions, the 256-atom cell, N_b = 500, and state-classification rules inherited from Ref. 14. The only fitted numbers are the exponents γ and ξ and the operational threshold/cutoff choices; the paper labels the derived regimes 'gas-like' and 'liquid-like' on the basis of these characterizations. No new physical entities beyond the phenomenological 'second Frenkel line' are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Liquid/glass diffusion threshold = 2.0 × 10^-10 m^2 s^-1
    Operational cutoff for classifying a state as liquid vs glass (Sec. II C, Sec. S1); chosen ad hoc, affects which state points enter the transport analysis.
  • Green-Kubo integration cutoff = 3 ps
    Uniform upper limit for viscosity and thermal-conductivity integrals (Figs. 7, 9); authors note possible systematic underestimation and estimate errors from 2–4 ps variation.
  • MSD power-law exponent γ = γ > 1 for HQDL; γ ≈ 1 for LQDL
    Least-squares fit over 20–60 ps (Sec. III E); used as evidence of superdiffusion; no error bars.
  • Fractional SE exponent ξ = 0.23–0.30 (HQDL), 0.83–1.0 (LQDL)
    Fit to D vs η_s/T data (Sec. IV B, Table S1); used to claim SE breakdown; no uncertainties.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Centroid approximation in Eq. (14) is accurate for the nonlinear stress and energy-current operators.
    Stated in Sec. V F that rigorous justification is 'generally not available'; validity rests on agreement with experiments for He I and para-H2 from prior self-cited work.
  • domain assumption Aziz HFD-B3-FCI1 pair potential describes He-He interactions in this regime.
    Standard potential (Ref. 46) used without re-derivation; accuracy at 0.1 K–3.3 K and 1–60 bar assumed.
  • domain assumption Path-integral discretization with N_b = 500 is converged for static and dynamical properties.
    N_b = 500 adopted from Ref. 14; no convergence check reported in this paper.
  • domain assumption 256-atom periodic cell is large enough for the long-time correlation and MSD tails.
    No finite-size scaling; superdiffusion and slow VAF decay in HQDL could be box-size dependent.
  • ad hoc to paper State identification criteria from Ref. 14 transfer to NVE simulations.
    LQDL/HQDL labels rely on αλ and gcc criteria from prior work; Sec. III A notes some states reclassify upon ensemble switching.
invented entities (1)
  • Second Frenkel line (T_F2) independent evidence
    purpose: A boundary on the P-T plane at which the centroid VAF changes from oscillatory to monotonic, marking a low-temperature liquid-like to gas-like transport crossover driven by nuclear quantum fluctuations.
    New concept introduced in Sec. V B and Fig. 15. It is falsifiable in principle: it predicts transport minima at slightly lower temperatures and could be sought in other strongly quantum, non-freezing liquids; currently it is identified solely from the same simulation data it is used to interpret.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum fluctuation-driven transport crossover between two liquid states in distinguishable helium-4." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z6J4HJE4

@misc{pith2026260723127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum fluctuation-driven transport crossover between two liquid states in distinguishable helium-4},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z6J4HJE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23127}
}
read the original abstract

We show the emergence of a quantum fluctuation-driven transport crossover between two liquid states in distinguishable helium-4 obeying Boltzmann statistics, in the absence of atomic exchange. Using path integral centroid molecular dynamics simulations over 0.1-3.3 K and 1-60 bar, we investigate the transport properties of two distinct liquid states: the low quantum-dispersion liquid (LQDL) and the high quantum-dispersion liquid (HQDL). While LQDL exhibits conventional liquid behavior consistent with the Stokes-Einstein (SE) relation, HQDL emerges at lower temperatures and displays anomalous gas-like transport characterized by superdiffusion and ultralow viscosity, accompanied by a breakdown of the SE relation. This counterintuitive emergence of gas-like dynamics upon cooling reflects the dominant role of nuclear quantum fluctuations, in contrast to thermal fluctuations at higher temperatures. Across the LQDL-HQDL boundary, we identify a transport crossover marked by a qualitative change in the velocity autocorrelation function (VAF), a transition in the Prandtl number, and the emergence of transport minima in shear and kinematic viscosities, thermal conductivity, and thermal diffusivity. These minima reflect a crossover from liquid-like to gas-like transport upon cooling in the low-temperature subcritical region, in addition to the universal transport minima observed in the supercritical regime. The transition from oscillatory to monotonic VAF defines a second Frenkel line, distinct from the conventional Frenkel line observed in the supercritical region. LQDL is a heat-transport-dominated dissipative fluid, whereas HQDL is a momentum-dominated inertial fluid. These results demonstrate that nuclear quantum fluctuations alone induce gas-like liquid behavior and provide a unified picture of transport phenomena in distinguishable helium-4 without superfluidity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. State diagrams of distinguishable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Normalized centroid velocity autocorrelation func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Temperature dependence of the self-diffusion coeffi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Temperature dependence of the power-law exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Off-diagonal stress autocorrelation functions of dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Temperature dependence of the shear viscosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Energy current autocorrelation functions of distin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Temperature dependence of (a) the kinematic viscosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Temperature dependence of the Prandtl number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Fractional Stokes–Einstein relation for LQDL (blue), LQDA (cyan), HQDL (red), and HQDA (magenta). The dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Apparent hydrodynamic diameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Comparison of relaxation times for three correlation functions of distinguishable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Schematic pressure-temperature diagram and corresponding transport crossovers of distinguishable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references

  1. [13]

    Jang and G

    S. Jang and G. A. Voth, J. Chem. Phys.111, 2357 (1999)

    1999

  2. [27]

    Imaoka and K

    H. Imaoka and K. Kinugawa, Chem. Phys. Lett.671, 174 (2017)

    2017

  3. [1]

    London, Nature141, 643 (1938)

    F. London, Nature141, 643 (1938)

    1938

  4. [2]

    London, Phys

    F. London, Phys. Rev.54, 947 (1938)

    1938

  5. [3]

    Wilks,An Introduction to Liquid Helium, Oxford Li- brary of the Physical Sciences (Clarendon, Oxford, UK, 1970)

    J. Wilks,An Introduction to Liquid Helium, Oxford Li- brary of the Physical Sciences (Clarendon, Oxford, UK, 1970)

    1970

  6. [4]

    Wilks,The Properties of Liquid and Solid Helium (Clarendon, Oxford, UK, 1970)

    J. Wilks,The Properties of Liquid and Solid Helium (Clarendon, Oxford, UK, 1970)

    1970

  7. [5]

    R. P. Feynman,Statistical Mechanics(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1972)

    1972

  8. [6]

    R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev.94, 262 (1954)

    1954

Show all 104 references
  1. [7]

    Boninsegni, L

    M. Boninsegni, L. Pollet, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svis- tunov, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 025302 (2012)

    2012

  2. [8]

    Cao and G

    J. Cao and G. A. Voth, J. Chem. Phys99, 10070 (1993)

    1993

  3. [9]

    Cao and G

    J. Cao and G. A. Voth, J. Chem. Phys100, 5093 (1994)

    1994

  4. [10]

    Cao and G

    J. Cao and G. A. Voth, J. Chem. Phys100, 5106 (1994)

    1994

  5. [11]

    Cao and G

    J. Cao and G. A. Voth, J. Chem. Phys101, 6157 (1994)

    1994

  6. [12]

    Cao and G

    J. Cao and G. A. Voth, J. Chem. Phys101, 6168 (1994)

    1994

  7. [14]

    Tsujimoto and K

    M. Tsujimoto and K. Kinugawa, J. Chem. Phys.161, 044501 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Takemoto and K

    A. Takemoto and K. Kinugawa, J. Chem. Phys.149, 204504 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Kinugawa and A

    K. Kinugawa and A. Takemoto, J. Chem. Phys.154, 224503 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    LDA” and “HDA,

    In Ref. 16, these phases were abbreviated as “LDA” and “HDA,” respectively. However, these abbreviations may be confused with the low- and high-density amorphous states of classical systems (e.g., water [18]). To avoid this ambiguity, we adopt the abbreviations LQDA and HQDA, ...

  11. [18]

    Mishima and H

    O. Mishima and H. G. Stanley, Nature396, 329 (1998)

    1998

  12. [19]

    P. H. Poole, T. Grande, C. A. Angell, and P. F. McMil- lan, Science275, 322 (1997)

    1997

  13. [20]

    Katayama, Y

    Y. Katayama, Y. Inamura, T. Mizutani, M. Yamakata, W. Utsumi, and O. Shimomura, Science306, 848 (2004). 27

    2004

  14. [21]

    T. E. Markland, J. A. Morrone, B. J. Berne, K. Miyazaki, E. Rabani, and D. R. Reichman, Nat. Phys.7, 134 (2011)

    2011

  15. [22]

    T. E. Markland, J. A. Morrone, K. Miyazaki, B. J. Berne, D. R. Reichman, and E. Rabani, J. Chem. Phys. 136, 074511 (2012)

    2012

  16. [23]

    W. A. Phillips, J. Low Temp. Phys.7, 351 (1972)

    1972

  17. [24]

    P. W. Anderson, B. I. Halperin, and C. M. Varma, Phi- los. Mag.25, 1 (1972)

    1972

  18. [25]

    Yonetani and K

    Y. Yonetani and K. Kinugawa, J. Chem. Phys.119, 9651 (2003)

    2003

  19. [26]

    Yonetani and K

    Y. Yonetani and K. Kinugawa, J. Chem. Phys.120, 10624 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    I. R. Craig and D. E. Manolopoulos, J. Chem. Phys121, 3368 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Habershon, D

    S. Habershon, D. E. Manolopoulos, T. E. Markland, and T. F. Miller III, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem.64, 387 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    B. J. Sutherland, W. H. D. Moore, and D. E. Manolopoulos, J. Chem. Phys154, 174104 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Kinugawa, Chem

    K. Kinugawa, Chem. Phys. Lett.292, 454 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    F. J. Bermejo, K. Kinugawa, C. Cabrillo, S. M. Benning- ton, B. F ˚ ak, M. T. Fern´ andez-D ´ ıaz, P. Verkerk, J. Daw- idowski, and R. Fern´ andez-Perea, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 5359 (2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

    Miura, S

    S. Miura, S. Okazaki, and K. Kinugawa, J. Chem. Phys. 110, 4523 (1999)

    1999

  26. [34]

    V. V. Brazhkin, Y. D. Fomin, A. G. Lyapin, V. N. Ryzhov, and K. Trachenko, Phys. Rev. E85, 031203 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    V. V. Brazhkin, Y. D. Fomin, A. G. Lyapin, V. N. Ryzhov, E. N. Tsiok, and K. Trachenko, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 145901 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Kinugawa, P

    K. Kinugawa, P. B. Moore, and M. L. Klein, J. Chem. Phys.106, 1154 (1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    Chandler and P

    D. Chandler and P. G. Wolynes, J. Chem. Phys.74, 4078 (1981)

    1981

  30. [38]

    Rubinstein and R

    M. Rubinstein and R. H. Colby,Polymer Physics(Ox- ford University Press, NY, 2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    Frenkel and B

    D. Frenkel and B. Smit,Understanding Molecular Sim- ulation: From Algorithm to Applications(Academic Press, NY, 2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs,Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals(McGraw-Hill, NY, 1965)

    1965

  33. [41]

    G. J. Martyna, M. L. Klein, and M. E. Tuckerman, J. Chem. Phys.97, 2635 (1992)

    1992

  34. [42]

    D. J. Tobias, G. J. Martyna, and M. L. Klein, J. Phys. Chem.97, 12959 (1993)

    1993

  35. [43]

    G. J. Martyna, M. E. Tuckerman, D. J. Tobias, and M. L. Klein, Mol. Phys.87, 1117 (1996)

    1996

  36. [44]

    R. Kubo, M. Toda, and N. Hashitsume,Statistical Physics II.(Springer, Berlin, 1991)

    1991

  37. [45]

    Zwanzig and R

    R. Zwanzig and R. D. Mountain, J. Chem. Phys.43, 4464 (1965)

    1965

  38. [46]

    R. A. Aziz, A. R. Janzen, and M. R. Moldover, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1586 (1995)

    1995

  39. [47]

    C. A. Swenson, Phys. Rev.79, 626 (1950)

    1950

  40. [48]

    Beamish and S

    J. Beamish and S. Balibar, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 045002 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Nakayama and N

    A. Nakayama and N. Makri, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.102, 4230 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    Kim and M

    E. Kim and M. H. W. Chan, Science305, 1941 (2004)

    1941

  43. [51]

    R. J. Donnelly and C. F. Barenghi, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data27, 1217 (1998)

    1998

  44. [52]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Statistical Physics, 3rd ed. (Pergamon, Oxford, UK, 1980) revised and enlarged by E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii

    1980

  45. [53]

    Bernu, J

    B. Bernu, J. P. Hansen, Y. Hiwatari, and G. Pastore, Phys. Rev. A36, 4891 (1987)

    1987

  46. [54]

    Rahman, Phys

    A. Rahman, Phys. Rev.136, A405 (1964)

    1964

  47. [55]

    W. Kob, C. Donati, S. J. Plimpton, P. H. Poole, and S. C. Glotzer, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 2827 (1997)

    1997

  48. [56]

    S. Goto, K. Kim, and N. Matsubayashi, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 124901 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    S. Goto, K. Kim, and N. Matsubayashi, ACS Polym. Au3, 437 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    E. W. Lemmon, I. H. Bell, M. L. Huber, and M. O. McLinden, Thermophysical properties of fluid systems, inNIST Chemistry Web Book, NIST Standard Refer- ence Database Number 69, edited by P. J. Linstrom and W. G. Mallard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersb...

    2025

  51. [59]

    Eyring, J

    H. Eyring, J. Chem. Phys.4, 283 (1936)

    1936

  52. [60]

    M. D. Ediger, C. A. Angell, and S. R. Nagel, J. Phys. Chem.100, 13200 (1996)

    1996

  53. [61]

    C. A. Angell, Science267, 1924 (1995)

    1924

  54. [62]

    P. G. Debenedetti and F. H. Stillinger, Nature410, 259 (2001)

    2001

  55. [63]

    S. A. Khrapak and B. A. Klumov, Phys. Plasmas27, 024501 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    J. C. Dyre, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 953 (2006)

    2006

  57. [65]

    Bolmatov, V

    D. Bolmatov, V. V. Brazhkin, and K. Trachenko, J. Appl. Phys.113, 103514 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    Trachenko and V

    K. Trachenko and V. V. Brazhkin, Sci. Adv.6, eaba3747 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Trachenko, Rep

    K. Trachenko, Rep. Prog. Phys.86, 112601 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Ohtori, S

    N. Ohtori, S. Miyamoto, and Y. Ishii, Phys. Rev. E95, 052122 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    S. R. Becker, P. H. Poole, and F. W. Starr, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 055901 (2006)

    2006

  62. [70]

    K. R. Harris, J. Chem. Phys.131, 054503 (2009)

    2009

  63. [71]

    K. R. Harris, J. Chem. Phys.132, 231103 (2010)

    2010

  64. [72]

    K. R. Harris, J. Phys. Chem. B114, 9572 (2010)

    2010

  65. [73]

    Kawasaki and K

    T. Kawasaki and K. Kim, Sci. Adv.3, e1700399 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    S. Pan, Z. W. Wu, W. H. Wang, M. Z. Li, and L. Xu, Sci. Rep.7, 39938 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    S. Wei, Z. Evenson, M. Stolpe, P. Lucas, and C. A. Angell, Sci. Adv.4, eaat8632 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    Yamakawa,Theory of Polymer Solutions(Harper and Row, NY, 1971)

    H. Yamakawa,Theory of Polymer Solutions(Harper and Row, NY, 1971)

    1971

  69. [77]

    G. H. Fredrickson,The Equilibrium Theory of Inho- mogeneous Polymers(Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2006)

    2006

  70. [78]

    P. K. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 111601 (2005)

    2005

  71. [79]

    Schafer and D

    T. Schafer and D. Teaney, Rep. Prog. Phys.72, 126001 (2009)

    2009

  72. [80]

    Pastore, T

    R. Pastore, T. Kikutsuji, F. Rusciano, N. Matsubayashi, K. Kim, and F. Greco, J. Chem. Phys.155, 114503 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    S. Pan, S. Feng, J. Qiao, X. Niu, W. Wang, and J. Qin, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.19, 22094 (2017)

    2017

  74. [82]

    B. E. Poling, J. M. Prausnitz, and J. P. O’Connell,The Properties of Gases and Liquids, 5th ed. (McGraw-Hill, NY, 2001). 28

    2001

  75. [83]

    E. R. Dobbs,Helium Three(Oxford University Press, NY, 2000)

    2000

  76. [84]

    E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii,Physical Kinetics, Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 10 (Pergamon Press, 1981)

    1981

  77. [85]

    Chapman and T

    S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling,The Mathematical The- ory of Non-Uniform Gases, 3rd ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, NY, 1970)

    1970

  78. [86]

    Trachenko, M

    K. Trachenko, M. Baggioli, K. Behnia, and V. V. Brazhkin, Phys. Rev. B103, 014311 (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    Trachenko,Theory of liquids(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2023)

    K. Trachenko,Theory of liquids(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    Trachenko, J

    K. Trachenko, J. Phys. Condens. Matter37, 189401 (2025)

    2025

  81. [89]

    Trachenko, J

    K. Trachenko, J. Phys. Condens. Matter35, 085101 (2023)

    2023

  82. [90]

    Trachenko, Phys

    K. Trachenko, Phys. Rev. E109, 034122 (2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    Shirahama, K

    K. Shirahama, K. Yamamoto, and Y. Shibayama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.77, 111011 (2008)

    2008

  84. [92]

    Shirahama, K

    K. Shirahama, K. Yamamoto, and Y. Shibayama, Low Temp. Phys.34, 273 (2008)

    2008

  85. [93]

    Yamamoto, H

    K. Yamamoto, H. Nakashima, Y. Shibayama, and K. Shirahama, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 075302 (2004)

    2004

  86. [94]

    Yamamoto, Y

    K. Yamamoto, Y. Shibayama, and K. Shirahama, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 195301 (2008)

    2008

  87. [95]

    Yamamoto, Y

    K. Yamamoto, Y. Shibayama, and K. Shirahama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.77, 013601 (2008)

    2008

  88. [96]

    Taniguchi, Y

    J. Taniguchi, Y. Aoki, and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. B82, 104509 (2010)

    2010

  89. [97]

    Taniguchi, R

    J. Taniguchi, R. Fujii, and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. B84, 134511 (2011)

    2011

  90. [98]

    Taniguchi, K

    J. Taniguchi, K. Demura, and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. B 88, 014502 (2013)

    2013

  91. [99]

    Pollet, M

    L. Pollet, M. Boninsegni, A. B. Kuklov, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 135301 (2007)

    2007

  92. [100]

    Boninsegni, N

    M. Boninsegni, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 105301 (2006)

    2006

  93. [101]

    Scandolo, Proc

    S. Scandolo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.100, 3051 (2003)

    2003

  94. [102]

    S. A. Bonev, E. Schwegler, T. Ogitsu, and G. Galli, Nature431, 669 (2004)

    2004

  95. [103]

    M. A. Morales, C. Pierleoni, E. Schwegler, and D. M. Ceperley, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.107, 12799 (2010)

    2010

  96. [104]

    Zaccone and K

    A. Zaccone and K. Trachenko, Ann. Phys.452, 169272 (2023). ==================== 1 Supplementary Material Quantum fluctuation-driven transport crossover between two liquid states in distinguishable helium-4 Mika Tanabe, Momoko Tsujimoto, and Kenichi Kinugawa Department of Chemi...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.