Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Coordinate and Momentum Distributions of a Small Composite System

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A movable shell enclosing finitely many particles has exact, mass-dependent coordinate and momentum distributions that reveal the internal structure and produce medium-free chaotic motion.

desk verdict Exact shell distributions and a clean universal RMS formula for a movable container with N internal particles; derivation write-up has a fixable sign error, but the final results and numerics hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27244 v1 pith:NDG4S34I submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.mes-hallmath-phmath.MP

Dmitry Naplekov , Yury Bezruk , Vladimir Yanovsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.mes-hallmath-phmath.MP PACS 05.45.-a
keywords smallsystemsmicrocanonicalensemblecoordinatedistributionmomentummovableshellenergyequipartitionviolationfinitedegreesoffreedomchaoticmotion
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

Small isolated systems with a movable outer shell and a finite number of particles inside cannot be treated with ordinary thermodynamics. This paper derives the exact probability distributions for the shell’s position and its momentum when total energy and total momentum are conserved. The position distribution splits into a finite number of polynomial branches set by the particle masses and can contain flat plateaus; its width is given by a simple universal formula involving only the sum of the squared masses. The momentum distribution is a single power-law function whose exponent counts the internal degrees of freedom and automatically violates energy equipartition. Because one distribution depends on particle number while the other depends on dimensionality, comparing the two tells an observer how many particles are inside and how they move. The same impacts that generate these distributions also drive persistent, Brownian-like wandering of the shell even in perfect vacuum.

What carries the argument

The projected microcanonical density obtained by eliminating two momenta via Laplace transform (or Liouville), which reduces ρ(X) to a pure configuration-volume integral with mass-dependent limits and reduces ρ(P) to an iterated momentum integral that yields the explicit power-law form.

What would settle it

For N>2 non-colliding particles, measure the shell’s long-time position histogram and check whether it collapses onto the predicted multi-branch volume formula (and whether ⟨X²⟩ equals the mass-squared expression) independent of initial conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under conservation of total energy and zero total momentum, the shell coordinate distribution equals the (N−1)-dimensional volume of admissible internal configurations and therefore consists of 2^N−1 polynomial branches whose shapes change with mass ratios, while the shell momentum distribution is exactly proportional to (E_tot − (M+m_tot)P²/(2M m_tot)) raised to the power (DN−3)/2; the resulting mean-square displacement of the shell is universally ⟨X²⟩ = (Σ m_i²) R² / [3(M+m_tot)²].

Load-bearing premise

A typical trajectory is assumed to fill the entire phase-space region allowed by the conserved quantities uniformly; without that filling the analytic histograms would not match the long-time motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shell position statistics alone fix the number and mass ratios of internal particles, independent of motion dimensionality.
  • Shell momentum statistics alone fix the total number of internal degrees of freedom and the reduced mass.
  • Comparing the two distributions therefore diagnoses both particle number and dimensionality of an unseen interior.
  • The shell executes persistent chaotic wandering whose rms width is set solely by internal masses, even in perfect vacuum.
  • Average shell energy is systematically lower than equipartition whenever the shell is heavier than a single internal degree of freedom.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same volume-construction technique should apply to nested shells or to shells free to move in two or three dimensions, yielding higher-dimensional analogues of the branch structure.
  • If the shell is weakly coupled to an external bath, the vacuum rms formula supplies the natural noise floor that must be exceeded before ordinary Brownian motion dominates.
  • Discrete momentum spectra seen for N=2 suggest that few-body integrable shells could be used as calibrated momentum filters in nanoscale devices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies an isolated composite object — a movable 1D shell of mass M containing N internal particles — in the center-of-mass frame with fixed total energy and zero total momentum. From the microcanonical measure projected onto the constraint shell (Eqs. 1–6), the authors derive: (i) the shell coordinate distribution ρ(X) as the volume of admissible internal configurations (Eqs. 7–8), shown to consist of 2^N − 1 polynomial branches with an explicit closed form for N = 3 (Eq. 9) and a simple universal second moment ⟨X²⟩ = (Σmᵢ²)R²/[3(M+m_tot)²] (Eq. 12); (ii) the shell momentum distribution ρ(P) ∝ (E_tot − (M+m_tot)P²/2Mm_tot)^{(DN−3)/2} (Eq. 20), depending only on M, m_tot, and the number of internal degrees of freedom, implying a non-equipartition mean shell energy (Eq. 22). Molecular-dynamics simulations for colliding and non-colliding particles agree with the theory for N > 2, while N = 2 fails reproducibly, signaling an extra integral of motion (Fig. 3). The coordinate/momentum distributions together are proposed as a diagnostic of internal particle number versus dimensionality.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a clean, parameter-free contribution to the statistical mechanics of small systems: exact closed-form marginals under simultaneous energy, momentum, and center-of-mass constraints; a universal RMS formula (Eq. 12) that is independent of individual masses and total energy and is verified against independent random mass draws and time averages (Figs. 5–7); and a concrete, falsifiable diagnostic distinguishing internal particle number from dimensionality. The non-equipartition result (Eq. 22) extends the known non-Maxwellian microcanonical phenomenology (Ray & Graben, Ref. [22]) to a structured composite object of direct relevance to nanopeapods and rotaxanes. The numerical cross-checks are extensive and the N = 2 failure is reported honestly. These strengths make the paper worth publishing once the derivation is repaired.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eq. 6; §V, Eqs. 14–17] Eq. 6 (§III) has the wrong exponent sign. The inverse Laplace transform of Eq. 5 gives L⁻¹[s₁^(−1/2) e^(−B s₁)] = (E−B)^(−1/2)/√π — an inverse square root — whereas Eq. 6 writes the positive square root. Direct delta-function elimination of pᵢ, pⱼ from δ(E−H)δ(P_tot−Σp) confirms the −1/2 exponent: each quadratic root contributes 1/|f′|, yielding [2(E−E₁)(mᵢ+mⱼ)−(P_tot−P₁)²]^(−1/2). The error is not cosmetic: for D=1, N=2, Eq. 6 IS the shell momentum marginal and as printed vanishes at the support boundary, while the paper's own Eq. 20 at D=1, N=2 has exponent −1/2 and diverges there — a direct internal contradiction. The chain Eq. 14 → 16 → 17 corroborates this: the iteration rule (Eq. 16) adds 1/2 per x-integration, so starting from Eq. 14's +1/2 one would reach (N−1)/2 in Eq. 17, not the written N/2−3/2; only the correct −1/2 start closes the chain. The final results (Eqs. 17–22) are c
  2. [§III, Eqs. 2–5] Eqs. 2–5: the Laplace transform in the momentum variable is only formal. Integrating e^(−s₂·p) against the Gaussian energy factor produces e^(+a s₂²), which has no inverse Laplace transform (even as a tempered distribution the step is unjustified). The legitimate route is a Fourier transform in the momentum delta function — which does reproduce the structure of Eq. 5 — or a direct delta-function calculation. The Θ(P(p,q)) factor and the claim that nonnegativity of total momentum holds 'without loss of generality' should also be re-examined in this light. Since the paper advertises exact distributions, the derivation should be made rigorous; the conclusions are unaffected.
  3. [§III–IV; Figs. 3–4] All 'exact' distributions are conditional on the assumption (stated in §IV) that a typical trajectory uniformly fills the constraint shell. For colliding particles this is well supported, but for non-colliding 1D motion with N>2 it is only numerically supported, and the paper itself demonstrates the assumption failing at N=2 within the same model family (Fig. 3). The abstract and conclusions should state explicitly that exactness is conditional on ergodicity on the shell, and the numerical evidence for the absence of extra integrals at N>2 should be strengthened or systematized (e.g., convergence in simulation time, incommensurate vs. near-commensurate mass ratios, or a direct diagnostic such as momentum-set discreteness as used for N=2).
minor comments (6)
  1. [References] Reference [26] (Ramshaw 2025) appears in the bibliography but is never cited in the text (the list jumps [25] → [27,28]). Either cite or remove it.
  2. [Throughout] Several equation cross-references are malformed: 'The distribution 7 is non-zero' (missing 'Eq.'); 'Eq.(12) )'; 'Eq20'; 'Eq.9' appears without space; and there is a doubled period after '2³ − 1 segments. .' in §IV.
  3. [Figs. 6, 8] Fig. 6 caption: 'for cases N = 5(a)' is misprinted as 'or cases'; Fig. 8 caption repeats 'as well as the values of the integrals of motion' twice.
  4. [§V, Eq. 19] Eq. 19 is the D=2 special case of Eq. 20 but this is not stated where Eq. 19 appears; one sentence clarifying that the N y-integrations have already been performed would help the reader follow the exponent bookkeeping.
  5. [§IV, Eq. 8] Typesetting of the max/min expressions in Eq. 8 and the x_Max bounds in §IV ('M ax', 'x{1}_Max') is garbled and should be normalized.
  6. [Front matter] Consider adding a second PACS number (e.g., 05.20.-y, classical statistical mechanics) alongside 05.45.-a.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: shell distributions and RMS follow from conservation laws plus the microcanonical/Liouville measure, verified by independent simulation rather than by fit or self-definition.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: (i) microcanonical density with Etot and Ptot conserved (Eq. 1), projected by eliminating two momenta to Eq. 6; (ii) ρ(X) as the (N−1)-dimensional volume of admissible internal configurations under Xtot=0 and the hard-wall constraints (Eqs. 7–9), independent of the momentum sector; (iii) ρ(P) by sequential momentum integration yielding the power-law form (Eqs. 19–20); (iv) ⟨X²⟩ by direct quadrature of ρ(X), giving the universal mass formula (Eq. 12). None of these steps defines the output in terms of itself, fits a free parameter to data and re-labels it a prediction, or imports a uniqueness theorem that forces the result. Self-citations [36, 37] only supply an analogous Liouville-projection technique already re-derived in §III; the target shell formulas and the RMS law are new and are checked against molecular-dynamics histograms and random-mass ensembles that are not used as inputs. Mathematical slips in the printed Laplace inverse (exponent sign) are correctness defects, not circular reductions. The derivation is therefore self-contained against its own conservation-law premises.

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

The central results rest on standard Hamiltonian/microcanonical machinery plus modeling choices for an ideal confined gas. No numerical constants are fitted to produce the claimed distributions; masses, N, M, R, E_tot are input system parameters. The only load-bearing non-standard step is assuming the microcanonical measure is realized by the dynamics once N>2.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Microcanonical measure on the joint surface of fixed total energy and fixed total momentum, equivalently the projected density obtained via Laplace transform / Liouville (Eqs. 1–6).
    Standard for isolated Hamiltonian systems; used throughout §§III–V.
  • domain assumption All collisions (particle–particle and particle–shell) are perfectly elastic; internal particles form an ideal gas aside from hard collisions.
    Stated in §II; needed so that only E_tot and P_tot (plus X_tot) are the relevant integrals and the dynamics stay Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption A typical trajectory uniformly fills the accessible phase-space region (ergodicity with respect to the conserved quantities).
    Explicitly assumed in §III; validated numerically for N>2, shown false for non-colliding N=2.
  • domain assumption Shell motion is strictly one-dimensional; center-of-mass frame with P_tot=0 and X_tot=0.
    §II setup; reduces the problem and defines the observables ρ(X), ρ(P).
  • ad hoc to paper For N>2, any additional integrals of motion either do not exist or do not alter the shell coordinate and momentum marginals.
    Inferred from numerical agreement in §IV rather than proved; contrasts with the N=2 non-colliding case where an extra integral is demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coordinate and Momentum Distributions of a Small Composite System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDG4S34I

@misc{pith2026260727244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coordinate and Momentum Distributions of a Small Composite System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDG4S34I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27244}
}
read the original abstract

An isolated small system consisting of a movable shell and a finite number of internal particles is considered. Exact distributions of the shell coordinates and momenta are obtained for various types of internal particle motion under the conditions of conservation of the total energy and momentum of the system. The coordinate distribution consists of a finite number of branches and may contain plateau regions. The momentum distribution corresponds to a non-uniform distribution of energy among the degrees of freedom of the system. It is shown that the coordinate distribution depends on the number of internal particles and remains unchanged when the dimensionality of their motion varies, whereas the momentum distribution depends on the number of degrees of freedom. Consequently, comparison of the coordinate and momentum distributions of the shell makes it possible to draw conclusions about the internal structure of the system. The chaotic motion of the shell caused by impacts from the internal particles is analyzed; unlike Brownian motion, it persists even in the absence of an external medium. A universal expression for the root-mean-square deviation of the shell is obtained explicitly, depending on the number of internal particles and their masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27244 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A movable shell with mass of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a,b) Integration domains in the case of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Typical distributions of the shell coordinate (a,b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Standard deviation of the shell for different values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The standard deviation of the shell as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Distributions of the shell momentum in the case of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Thermodynamics from first principles: Correlations and nonextensivity

    Saadatmand, S.N.; Gould, T.; Cavalcanti, E.G.; Vaccar o, J.A. Thermodynamics from first principles: Correlations and nonextensivity. Phys. Rev. E , 101, 060101, (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.101.060101

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.101.060101 2020

  2. [1]

    Gottfried Schill, Catenanes, rotaxanes and knots, Aca- demic Press, 1971, 192 p

    1971

  3. [2]

    I. T. Harrison, S. Harrison, Synthesis of a stable comple x of a macrocycle and a threaded chain, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 89 (22): 5723-5724 (1967) DOI: 10.1021/ja00998a052

    work page doi:10.1021/ja00998a052 1967

  4. [3]

    B. W. Smith, M. Monthioux, and D. E. Luzzi, Encap- sulated C60 in carbon nanotubes, Nature, V.396, P.323- 324, (1998) DOI: 10.1038/24521 12

    doi:10.1038/24521 1998

  5. [4]

    Monthioux, Filling single-wall carbon nan- otubes, Carbon, V.40, 10, P.1809-1823, (2002) DOI:10.1016/S0008-6223(02)00102-1

    M. Monthioux, Filling single-wall carbon nan- otubes, Carbon, V.40, 10, P.1809-1823, (2002) DOI:10.1016/S0008-6223(02)00102-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0008-6223(02)00102-1 2002

  6. [5]

    Yudasaka, K

    M. Yudasaka, K. Ajima, K. Suenaga, T.Ichihashi, A.Hashimoto, S. Iijima, Nano-extraction and nano- condensation for C60 incorporation into single-wall car- bon nanotubes in liquid phases, Chemical Phys. Lett., V. 380, P. 42-46, (2003) DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2003.08.095

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2003.08.095 2003

  7. [6]

    Rols1, J

    S. Rols1, J. Cambedouzou, M. Chorro, H. Schober, V. Agafonov, P. Launois, V. Davydov, A. V. Rakhmanina, H. Kataura5 et al., How Confine- ment Affects the Dynamics of C60 in Carbon Nanopeapods, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 065507, (2008) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.065507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.065507 2008

  8. [7]

    Ryo Kitaura, Hisanori Shinohara, Carbon-Nanotube- Based Hybrid Materials: Nanopeapods, Chem- istry - An Asian Journal, 1, 646-655, (2006) https://doi.org/10.1002/asia.200600162

    work page doi:10.1002/asia.200600162 2006

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    J. Li, H. Shen, Effects of fullerene coalescence on the thermal conductivity of carbon nanopeapods. Molecular Physics, 116(10), 1297-1305, (2018) https://doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2018.1424361

    2018

  2. [9]

    System masses: M = 3 π, m1 = 1, m2 = √ 2, (a,c) m3 = √ 3 and (b,d) m3 = 3 √ 3, shell dimensions R = 10, H = 10

    The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries betwee n the segments of the distribution. System masses: M = 3 π, m1 = 1, m2 = √ 2, (a,c) m3 = √ 3 and (b,d) m3 = 3 √ 3, shell dimensions R = 10, H = 10. 5 of the coordinate in the negative direction. For a fixed position of th...

  3. [10]

    R. P. Berman and A. E. CurzonAuthors, The Size Dependence of the Melting Point of Small Parti- cles of Indium, Canadian Journal of Physics, (1974) https://doi.org/10.1139/p74-125

    1974 doi

  4. [11]

    C. R. M. Wronski, Br. J. Appl. Phys. 18 1731, (1967) DOI 10.1088/0508-3443/18/12/308

    1967 doi

  5. [12]

    S. L. Lai, J. Y. Guo1, V. Petrova, G. Ramanath, and L. H. Allen, Size-Dependent Melting Proper- ties of Small Tin Particles: Nanocalorimetric Mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 99, (1996) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.99

    1996 doi

  6. [13]

    general character

    The simulation parameters are m = 5, M = 0.5, R = 15; collisions between particles were taken into account in the one-dimensional case. general character. In a certain sense, it describes the chaotic motion of a ”Brownian” particle in the absence of a surrounding medium. V. DI...

    2025

  7. [14]

    Buffat and J-P

    Ph. Buffat and J-P. Borel, Size effect on the melting tem- perature of gold particles, Phys. Rev. A 13, 2287, (1976) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.13.2287

    1976 doi

  8. [15]

    Zhang, M

    M. Zhang, M. Yu. Efremov, F. Schiettekatte, E. A. Olson, A. T. Kwan, S. L. Lai, T. Wisleder, J. E. Greene, and L. H. Allen, Size-dependent melt- ing point depression of nanostructures:?Nanocalorimetri c measurements, Phys. Rev. B 62, 10548, (2000) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/...

    2000 doi

  9. [16]

    Couchman and W

    P. Couchman and W. Jesser, Nature 269, 481-483, (1977) DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/269481a0

    1977 doi

  10. [17]

    Losurdo, A

    M. Losurdo, A. Suvorova, S. Rubanov, K. Hingerl, A. S. Brown, Thermally stable coexistence of liquid and solid phases in gallium nanoparticles, Nature Materials, vol- ume 15, pages 995-1002 (2016) DOI: 10.1038/nmat4705

    2016 doi

  11. [18]

    Khshanovska, W

    O. Khshanovska, W. Salamon, A. Kryshtal, Forma- tion and Coexistence of Metastable Phases during So- lidification of Single AuGe Nanoparticles, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Vol 128/Issue 51, (2024) DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c06444

    2024 doi

  12. [19]

    Schmidt, R

    M. Schmidt, R. Kusche, T. Hippler, J. Donges, W. Kronm?ller, von, Bernd Issendorff, H. Haberland, Neg- ative Heat Capacity for a Cluster of 147 Sodium Atoms. Physical Review Letters. 86 (7): 1191-4 (2001). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1191

    2001 doi

  13. [20]

    Tsallis, Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gib bs statistics, J

    C. Tsallis, Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gib bs statistics, J. Stat. Phys., 52, 479-487, (1988). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016429

    1988 doi

  14. [21]

    C.Tsallis, Introduction to Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics-Approaching a Complex World, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Plastino, C

    A.R. Plastino, C. Tsallis, R.S. Wedemann, H.J. Haubold , Entropy Optimization, Generalized Logarithms, and Du- ality Relations, Entropy, 24(12), 1723, (2022). DOI: 10.3390/e24121723

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Ray, H.W

    J.R. Ray, H.W. Graben, Small systems have non- Maxwellian momentum distributions in the microcanon- ical ensemble. Phys. Rev. A , 44, 6905, (1991). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.44.6905

    1991 doi

  17. [25]

    Rom?n, J.A

    F.L. Rom?n, J.A. White, S. Velasco, Microcanonical single-particle distributions for an ideal gas in a grav- itational field. Eur. J., Phys., 16, 83, (1995) DOI 10.1088/0143-0807/16/2/008

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    J.C.Maxwell, On Boltzmann’s Theorem on the Average Distribution of Energy in a System of Material Points, Trans. Camb. Philos. Soc., XII, 547-570, (1879)

  19. [27]

    Niiyama, Y

    T. Niiyama, Y. Shimizu, T. R. Kobayashi, T.Okushima, and K. S. Ikeda. Inhomogeneity of Local Temperature in Small Clusters in Microcanonical Equilibrium. PRL 99, 014102 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.014102

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    J. D. Ramshaw. The classical microcanonical ensem- ble: covariant reformulation and application to small systems. Proc. R. Soc. A 481, 20250235 (2025) 10.1098/rspa.2025.0235

    2025

  21. [29]

    Scalas, A

    E. Scalas, A. T. Gabriel, E. Martin, and G. Germano. Velocity and energy distributions in microcanonical en- sembles of hard spheres. Phys. Rev. E 92, 022140 (2015) 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.022140

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Reformulation of equilib- rium distributions in few-particle systems

    Chang Liu and Ji-Xuan Hou. Reformulation of equilib- rium distributions in few-particle systems. Eur. J. Phys. 46, 055103 (2025) 10.1088/1361-6404/adfbb1

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    Niiyama, Y

    T. Niiyama, Y. Shimizu, T. R. Kobayashi, T.Okushima, and K. S. Ikeda. Effect of translational and angular mo- mentum conservation on energy equipartition in micro- canonical equilibrium in small clusters. Phys. Rev. E 79, 051101 (2009) 10.1103/PhysRevE.79.051101

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    H. Xu, R. Cabriolu, and B. Smit. Effects of De- grees of Freedom on Calculating Diffusion Properties in Nanoporous Materials. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 2826(9) (2022) 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00094

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    T. Hiester. From density to interface fluctuations: The origin of wavelength dependence in surface tension. Phys. Rev. E 78, 061605 (2008) 10.1103/PhysRevE.78.061605

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    Hernandez-Munoz, P

    J. Hernandez-Munoz, P. Tarazona, and E. Chacon. Lay- ering and capillary waves in the structure factor of liquid surfaces. J. Chem. Phys. 157, 154703 (2022) 10.1063/5.0118252

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Fukuto, O

    M. Fukuto, O. Gang, K. J. Alvine, and P. S. Pershan. Capillary wave fluctuations and intrinsic widths of cou- pled fluid-fluid interfaces: An x-ray scattering study of a wetting film on bulk liquid. Phys. Rev. E 74, 031607 (2006) 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.031607

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    V. A. Kuznietsov, M. I. Gorenstein, V. Koch, and V. Vovchenko. Coordinate versus momentum cuts and ef- fects of collective flow on critical fluctuations. Phys. Rev. C 110, 015206 (2024) 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.015206

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Sorensen

    P. Sorensen. Implications of space-momentum correla- tions and geometric fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions. J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 37, 094011(8) (2010) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/9/094011

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    Naplekov, V.V

    D.M. Naplekov, V.V. Yanovsky. Distribution of energy i n 13 the ideal gas that lacks equipartition. Sci. Rep. 13, 3427 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30636-6

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Naplekov, V.V

    D.M. Naplekov, V.V. Yanovsky. Inhomogeneity of the ideal gas of a finite number of particles with angular mo- mentum conservation. Ukr. J. Phys. 69(1), 26 (2024). https://doi.org/10.15407/ujpe69.1.26

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.