Phonon Gravity, Non-equilibrium QFT, and the Tolman Thermal Equivalence Principle

Alyx Jourjine

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Phonon Gravity, Non-equilibrium QFT, and the Tolman Thermal Equivalence Principle

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A position-dependent temperature is promoted to a field that multiplies the Hamiltonian, and its extremum yields a steady-state heat equation, a microscopic Fourier law, and a flat-space-to-curved-space equivalence.

desk verdict The variational temperature equation is asserted rather than derived, so the paper's central claims do not hold as stated; still, the Tolman-correspondence idea is worth a serious referee's look. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00396 v2 pith:CIOHCTNK submitted 2019-09-01 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elgr-qc

Alyx Jourjine This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elgr-qc MSC 81T2081T2882C1082C70

keywords non-equilibriumquantumfieldtheoryclosedtimepathmethodthermalHamiltoniantemperaturemicroscopicFourierlawheatequationTolmanequivalenceprinciplethermoelectriceffect

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 argues that steady states with a spatially varying temperature can be handled by the standard closed-time-path formalism if the constant inverse temperature is promoted to a field $\beta(x)$ and multiplies the zero-temperature Hamiltonian density on the imaginary-time stretch of the contour. The two Hamiltonians, $H$ and $H_\beta$, are required to commute under boundary conditions that kill total particle, spin, charge influx and forbid electric-field pumping. Varying the averaged thermal Hamiltonian with respect to $\beta(x)$ then gives a second-order equation for the temperature field; linearizing it yields the steady-state heat equation, and recasting that equation gives a microscopic Fourier law for fermions with the conductivity expressed as a quantum-statistical average. In the relativistic case the multiplicative coupling alone gives a trivial equation, so a phonon term is added, and that term is shown to be the integrated curvature scalar of the metric $ds^2 = c^2 \beta^2 dt^2 - dx^2$. The result is a proposed Tolman thermal equivalence principle: a non-equilibrium fermion system in flat space corresponds to an equilibrium fermion system in a static curved spacetime whose time direction is rescaled by the inverse temperature.

What carries the argument

The central object is the thermal Hamiltonian $H_\beta = \int \beta(x)\,\mathcal{H}(x)\,d^3x$, which couples the inverse-temperature field to the zero-temperature Hamiltonian density multiplicatively on the imaginary-time leg of the closed contour. The argument is carried by three steps: the commutator condition $[H,H_\beta]=0$ (enforced by boundary conditions so the two Hamiltonians share eigenstates); the variational condition $\delta\langle H_{\rm th}\rangle/\delta\beta = 0$ (stated as a maximum, because temperature must be positive), which converts the Hamiltonian into a second-order differential equation for $\beta$; and, for the relativistic case, a phonon scalar field whose O(3)-symmetric coupling supplies the missing Laplacian term. That phonon term is then recognized as the integrated curvature scalar of the metric $ds^2 = c^2 \beta^2 dt^2 - dx^2$, which is what turns the thermal problem into a gravitational one.

What would settle it

Apply the method to a clean non-relativistic fermion sample with a maintained temperature gradient and negligible phonon losses, compute the predicted steady-state temperature profile from the linearized heat equation with independently measured density and potential-energy averages, and compare with a scanning thermometry measurement; a systematic mismatch falsifies the variational principle. A second check is to compute $[H,H_\beta]$ in a simple interacting fermion model with the paper's boundary conditions: if the commutator fails to vanish even after averaging, the shared-eigenstate premise is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a thermal Hamiltonian $H_\beta = \int \beta(x)\,\mathcal{H}(x)\,d^3x$, used on the imaginary-time part of the closed contour, carries the full steady-state problem, provided $[H,H_\beta]=0$ is imposed through boundary conditions. After a nonrelativistic reduction of the Dirac Hamiltonian, the averaged thermal Hamiltonian is a functional of $\beta$ whose maximum, $\delta\langle H_{\rm th}\rangle/\delta\beta = 0$, produces the microscopic steady-state heat equation for nonrelativistic fermions; small temperature deviations turn it into a Laplace-like equation sourced by the average energy, from which a microscopic Fourier law is extracted with a conductivity given by an averaged fermion-density operator. For the relativistic case, the same multiplicative coupling yields a trivial temperature equation, so the paper augments $H_\beta$ with a phonon Hamiltonian; the phonon contribution is identified with the integrated curvature scalar of the metric $ds^2 = c^2 \beta^2 dt^2 - dx^2$, making the total thermal Hamiltonian $\lambda R + H_g$, where $H_g$ is the zero-temperature Hamiltonian of a quantum spinor field in that static gravitational background. This is the Tolman thermal equivalence principle: steady non-equilibrium at zero gravity with a temperature field is the same Hamiltonian system as thermal equilibrium in a curved spacetime with time rescaled by $\beta$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the unproved variational assertion that the steady state is the maximum of the averaged thermal Hamiltonian with respect to $\beta(x)$ (equation 22), together with the boundary-condition-enforced assumption that $H$ and $H_\beta$ share eigenstates; if either premise gives way, the heat equation, the Fourier law, and the gravity correspondence all collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A steady-state fermion system with a temperature gradient can be treated by equilibrium closed-time-path diagrammatics, so thermoelectric transport at nonuniform temperature no longer needs the local-equilibrium distribution as an ad hoc input.
Once the variational principle is accepted, the temperature field is not free: it is determined by a second-order equation whose source is the local average kinetic and potential energy, so the internal temperature profile of a material is a calculable prediction from its electronic structure.
The same derivation yields a microscopic Fourier law in which the thermal conductivity is a quantum-statistical average of the fermion density operator, replacing the phenomenological conductivity parameter in the steady-state regime.
In relativistic settings the multiplicative coupling is insufficient on its own; phonons must be included, and their inclusion leads to a relativistic steady-state heat equation whose source is the average energy density.
The metric identity $ds^2 = c^2 \beta^2 dt^2 - dx^2$ provides a dictionary between heat transport in flat spacetime and particle dynamics in a static gravitational field, so heat-flow phenomena in materials and gravitational phenomena share one Hamiltonian form.

Reading between the lines

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

If a derivation of $\delta\langle H_{\rm th}\rangle/\delta\beta=0$ from the underlying quantum dynamics is found (for instance as a stationary-phase or maximum-entropy limit of the closed contour), the same recipe would yield temperature equations for bosonic, superconducting, or spin systems without further assumptions.
The phonon-gravity identification suggests a testable dictionary: a steep temperature gradient in a crystal is equivalent to a strongly curved spatial geometry for the quasiparticles, so one could look for gravitational-lensing-like corrections to phonon or electron trajectories in nanoscale temperature gradients.
Nothing in the paper fixes how the variational principle should extend away from steady states; whether it holds on each time slice of a genuinely time-dependent process is an open question, so the method's predictive power outside stationarity remains a natural next target.
One direct application the author leaves implicit is nanoscale thermal imaging: equations (34)-(35) predict the steady temperature profile from independently measured density and energy averages, a profile that contactless thermometry could probe.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper extends the Luttinger and Eich-et-al program by coupling the Hamiltonian density multiplicatively to an inverse-temperature field and then using a variational principle on the averaged thermal Hamiltonian to obtain a steady-state heat equation and a microscopic Fourier law. The core result, though, is not actually derived. Equation (22), the stationarity condition δ⟨H_th^β⟩/δβ = 0, is introduced as "clearly" the extremum condition, with the maximum justified by positivity of temperature. That justification does not work: for positive local energy density the functional is unbounded above in β, and the literal functional derivative before integrating by parts is a local energy-density operator, not the second-order temperature operator of Eq (25). The surface terms dropped in going to χ = ln β are not variational boundary terms. Since the heat equation, the Fourier law, and the phonon-modified relativistic equation all ride on this step, the central derivation is unsupported.

What the paper does well: the multiplicative coupling is a legitimate continuation of an established line of work, and the Foldy–Wouthuysen reduction gives an explicit nonrelativistic thermal Hamiltonian with a modified gauge invariance. The phonon-gravity correspondence—identifying the phonon term with a curvature integral for the metric ds² = c²β²dt² − dx²—is genuinely suggestive, and I do not recall seeing it put quite that way. The paper is also honest in places: it openly says the relativistic coupling is linear and needs the phonon contribution, and it cites the relevant thermal-DFT literature.

The soft spots beyond (22): the transition from (24) to (25) ("after averaging we obtain") hides a nontrivial manipulation; the boundary conditions in (8) are chosen to make the commutator vanish and are not independently justified as a definition of the steady state; and the phonon term (27) is introduced by symmetry plus the requirement that the relativistic equation be second order. That makes the later Fourier law (36)–(37) forced by the chosen functional, not a first-principles prediction. These are not minor quibbles—they are load-bearing—but they are not signs of incoherence; the paper reads like a speculative proposal that has oversold its derivation.

I would send this to a serious referee rather than desk-reject. The variational principle is a real idea that either needs a derivation from the underlying dynamics or an honest reframing as a conjecture, and the Tolman correspondence deserves a close look. But as it stands, the central claim is not established, and any acceptance would require major revision.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an extension of the Keldysh formalism to steady states with a spatially varying temperature field by coupling the zero-temperature Hamiltonian density multiplicatively to the inverse temperature β(x). It claims that the resulting thermal Hamiltonian commutes with the original Hamiltonian under suitable boundary conditions, that a variational principle over β yields a microscopical heat equation, and that this leads, together with an added phonon term, to a microscopic Fourier law for fermions. The paper further identifies a correspondence between the nonequilibrium thermal Hamiltonian and the equilibrium Hamiltonian in a metric with time rescaled by β, which it calls the Tolman thermal equivalence principle.

Significance. If the variational principle and the derivations were sound, this would be a noteworthy contribution to nonequilibrium quantum field theory and to a gravity-thermal correspondence. The proposed thermal Hamiltonian and the Tolman analogy are conceptually appealing, and the paper is clearly directed at an important open problem. However, the central variational postulate is asserted rather than derived, the step from the thermally reduced Hamiltonian to the temperature equation is not shown, the phonon contribution is introduced as a phenomenological ansatz, and the curvature identity used for the proposed correspondence is incorrect. The manuscript therefore does not currently deliver the claimed first-principles derivation.

major comments (5)

[§3, Eq. (22)] The variational principle δ⟨H_th^β⟩/δβ = 0 is introduced as self-evident, but no justification is provided from the Keldysh construction or from the quantum dynamics. The assertion that the extremum is a maximum because temperature must be positive is not a valid argument: for a positive local energy density the functional is unbounded above in β, so a maximum does not exist. Since Eqs. (25), (26), (30), (31), (36), and (37) all follow from this postulate, the central derivation is unsupported without a proof of the variational principle.
[§3, Eqs. (24)–(25)] The step from Eq. (24) to Eq. (25) is not shown. In particular, obtaining a second-order differential operator from the functional derivative with respect to β requires an integration by parts, and the surface terms discarded when defining χ = ln β are not variational boundary terms; varying β inside them contributes to the Euler–Lagrange equation. The averaging procedure is also unspecified: if the average is taken for a given β profile, the left side of Eq. (22) is a local energy density rather than a differential operator before the omitted integration by parts. The explicit variation and a justification of the boundary treatment are needed.
[§3, Eqs. (27)–(31)] The phonon Hamiltonian H_Φ = λ∫β²(∂Φ)² d³x is introduced by naturalness and to ensure that the steady-state heat equation is second order. The parameter λ is undetermined, and the functional form is not derived from phonon dynamics. Consequently the relativistic temperature equation (30) and the Fourier law (36)–(37) depend on a phenomenological ansatz rather than following from first principles as claimed.
[§2, Eqs. (3), (8)] The commutator condition [H, H_β] = 0 is imposed to ensure common eigenstates, but the boundary conditions (8) that enforce it are not shown to be compatible with arbitrary nonconstant temperature profiles β(x). The surface term ∫β J^k dS_k = 0 is a nontrivial constraint on the allowed β and on the currents, and the class of admissible profiles is never characterized. Without this characterization, the steady-state construction is incomplete.
[§3, Eq. (41)] The claimed identity ∫d³x√g R = (1/2)∫d³x(∇β)² for the metric (40) is incorrect. A standard computation for the metric ds² = c²β²dt² − dx² gives R = ∇²β/β, so √g R = cβR = c∇²β, whose integral reduces to a surface term, not (1/2)(∇β)². As a result, the representation of the phonon contribution as a curvature integral in Eq. (42) is not established, and the 'phonon gravity' correspondence is not justified.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typos, including 'Lüttinger' for 'Luttinger' and 'slight of hand' for 'sleight of hand'.
[Abstract and §3] The abstract states that the heat equation is derived 'for the relativistic and the non-relativistic cases', but Section 3 explains that the relativistic case yields a trivial equation unless a separate phonon term is added; the wording should be corrected to avoid overstating the result.
[§2, Eq. (4)] The notation for the one-particle Hamiltonian Ĥ is used both as an operator in Eq. (4) and in the anticommutator in Eq. (6); the domain and the relation between the second-quantized Hamiltonian density and Ĥ should be clarified.
[Introduction] Reference [28] appears unrelated to the stellar-evolution context in which it is cited; if it is intended to support the statement about relativistic temperature gradients in stars, a more specific citation is needed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Central heat equation is a variational stationarity condition of the paper's own thermal Hamiltonian; Fourier law is a rewrite of that engineered equation.

self definitional [Section 3, after Eq (21); Eqs (22) and (25)]
"The dependence allows us to derive the needed equation for the temperature field by demanding that for given boundary conditions the average of the thermal Hamiltonian βthH attains its maximum value. Clearly, the extremum must be a maximum, for temperature must be positive."

H_β is defined in Eq (2) by coupling the zero-temperature Hamiltonian density multiplicatively to the same β(x) whose equation is sought, and H_th^β in Eq (19) inherits that β-dependence. Eq (22) then imposes δ⟨H_th^β⟩/δβ=0. This is the Euler-Lagrange equation of the paper's own functional, not a consequence of the Keldysh path construction; the second-order form (25) appears only after the change χ=ln β and after surface terms are discarded. Since every subsequent result (heat equation, Fourier law, Tolman metric) uses Eq (22), the central derivation is the stationarity condition of its own input by construction.
renaming known result [Section 3, Eqs (34)-(37)]
"For the steady state case with 0=E we now can extract from (34) the microscopical steady state Fourier law Q = -κ∇θ, where the heat conductivity is given by the quantum-statistical average of the electron density operator."

Equation (34) is not derived from independent dynamics: it is the non-relativistic, linearized form of the temperature equation generated by the variational step (22) plus the phonon Hamiltonian (27), which was chosen specifically because 'the heat equation for the steady state is the second order differential equation.' Writing its homogeneous part as ∇·(κ∇θ)=0 and defining κ as the coefficient in (37) is a relabeling of that engineered equation. The Fourier law is therefore equivalent to the input functional by construction, not a new microscopic prediction.

full rationale

The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation: the references are external (Keldysh, Luttinger, Tolman, Obukhov et al., etc.), and none of the central claims is carried by the author's own prior work. The circularity lies elsewhere, in the construction of the derivation itself. Eq (22) imposes extremality of the very thermal Hamiltonian that was built by coupling the zero-temperature Hamiltonian density to the temperature field β(x); the steady-state heat equation Eq (25) is therefore the stationarity condition of the paper's own input functional, not an independent consequence of the Keldysh dynamics. The same problem reappears in the relativistic extension: the phonon Hamiltonian is added because the heat equation is known to be second order, and then the 'microscopical Fourier law' is extracted by rewriting the homogeneous part of that engineered equation with a defined coefficient κ. Thus the central predictions—heat equation, Fourier law, and phonon-modified relativistic equation—reduce by construction to the chosen variational ansatz and the chosen phonon ansatz. The Tolman correspondence is explicitly speculative and does not add independent circularity, while the Foldy-Wouthuysen algebra and metric computations are nontrivial; nevertheless the main derivation is forced by the paper's own definitions, giving a circularity score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core derivation adds a variational principle and a phenomenological phonon coupling as new inputs. These are not derived from the Keldysh path integral; they are chosen so that a second-order heat equation emerges. The claimed first-principles status is therefore weakened: the result is contingent on an ad hoc extremum postulate.

free parameters (2)

lambda = undetermined
Phenomenological phonon coupling in Eq (27)-(29); the paper states it must be determined from detailed phonon dynamics.
T0 (reference temperature) = arbitrary
Introduced to make beta(x)=T0/T(x) dimensionless; a scale choice not fixed by the theory.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Hamiltonians are derived from the general-relativistic symmetric energy-momentum tensor, making them unique.
Section 2: 'we will assume here that all Hamiltonians are derived from the corresponding general-relativistic symmetric energy-momentum tensors'.
domain assumption Eigenstates of H_beta are the same as those of H, so [H,H_beta]=0.
Section 2, text before Eq (3): 'it is natural to assume that the eigenstates of H_beta are the same as for H'. Enforced via boundary conditions (8).
ad hoc to paper The temperature field extremizes the average thermal Hamiltonian: delta<H_beta>/delta beta=0, with the extremum a maximum.
Eq (22) and surrounding text; no derivation from dynamics or statistical mechanics is given.
ad hoc to paper Phonon contribution to the thermal Hamiltonian has the form H_Phi = lambda integral beta^2 (partial Phi)^2 d^3x.
Eq (27)-(29), introduced as 'appears to be natural' and 'essentially unique' based on O(3) symmetry and the desire for a second-order equation.
standard math Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation is valid for reducing the relativistic thermal Hamiltonian to non-relativistic form.
Section 3, Eq (19); standard method cited to [25].
domain assumption Tolman relation T = sqrt(g_00) T0 holds for equilibrium in a static gravitational field.
Section 3, around Eq (39)-(40); cited to [22].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phonon Gravity, Non-equilibrium QFT, and the Tolman Thermal Equivalence Principle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIOHCTNK

@misc{pith2026190900396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phonon Gravity, Non-equilibrium QFT, and the Tolman Thermal Equivalence Principle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIOHCTNK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00396}
}

read the original abstract

We describe an extension of the Keldysh method for fermions from constant temperature to steady state case with spatially varying temperature field.This is done with the use on the imaginary section of the Keldysh path of a thermal Hamiltonian obtained from the zero temperature relativistic Hamiltonian by coupling its density multiplicatively to the temperature field. We show that the two Hamiltonians commute, provided appropriate boundary conditions are imposed. A microscopical equation on the temperature field and the corresponding microscopical Fourier law of heat transfer are derived for the relativistic and the non-relativistic cases. We discuss application of the proposed method to the thermoelectric effect and point out a remarkable correspondence between the non-equilibrium thermal Hamiltonian and the zero temperature fermionic Hamiltonian in general relativity for the metric obtained from the Minkowski metric by rescaling time with the inverse temperature.Our results suggest the existence of the correspondence principle between gravitating equilibrium and non-gravitating non-equilibrium quantum field theories, which we call the Tolman thermal equivalence principle in honor of his pioneering work.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47 (1964) 1515

work page 1964
[2]

L. V. Keldysh, Soviet Physics JETP 20 (1965) 1018

work page 1965
[3]

Fourier's Law: a Challenge for Theorists

F. Bonetto, J. L. Lebowitz, L. Rey-Bellet, arXiv:math-ph/0002052

work page Pith review arXiv
[4]

Fourier's Law from Closure Equations

J. Bricmont, arXiv:math-ph/0609002

work page Pith review arXiv
[5]

How can we derive Fourier's Law from quantum mechanics? Exact master equation analysis

L. Wu and D. Segal, arXiv:0711.4599. 16

work page Pith review arXiv
[6]

Emergence of the Macroscopic Fourier Law from the Microscopic Wave Equation of Diffusive Medium

E. Granot, N. Cohen and S. Sternklar, arXiv:0812.5109

work page Pith review arXiv
[7]

A mechanical model for Fourier's law of heat conduction

D. Ruelle, arXiv:1102.5488

work page Pith review arXiv
[8]

Heat transport through a quantum Brownian harmonic chain beyond the weak-coupling regime: An exact treatment

I. Kim, arXiv:1304.1283

work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 29 references

[9]

G. M. Kremer, arXiv:1404.7083

arXiv
[10]

Maassen and M

J. Maassen and M. Lundstrom, arXiv:1408.1631

arXiv
[11]

J.-P. M. Pieraud and N. G. Hadjiconstantinou, arXiv:1508.04694

arXiv
[12]

A. M. Krivtsov, arXiv:1509.02506

arXiv
[13]

Gilbert, arXiv:1703.01240

T. Gilbert, arXiv:1703.01240

arXiv
[14]

Zhao and W

H. Zhao and W. Wang, arXiv:1712.00172

arXiv
[15]

S. Inui, C. A. Stafford, and J. P. Bergfeld, arXiv:1712.05867
[16]

C. Hua, L. Lindsay, X. Chen, and A. J. Minnich, arXiv:1902.10020

1902 arXiv
[17]

van Leeuwen, Phys

R. van Leeuwen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 1280

1998
[18]

F. G. Eich, M. Di Ventra, and G. Vignale, arXiv:1308.2311

arXiv
[19]

F. G. Eich, A. Principi, M. Di Ventra, and G. Vignale, arXiv:1407.2061

arXiv
[20]

F. G. Eich, M. Di Ventra, and G. Vignale, arXiv:1607.05464

arXiv
[21]

Luttinger, Phys

J.M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. 135 (1964) A1505

1964
[22]

R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 35 (1930) 904; R. C. Tolman and P. Ehrenfest, Phys. Rev. 36 (1930) 1791

1930
[23]

Carsten Timm, Private communication, 2014

2014
[24]

Eyring, D

H. Eyring, D. Henderson, B. J. Stover, and E.M Eyring, Statistical Mechanics and Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, 1964

1964
[25]

Itzikson and J.-B

C. Itzikson and J.-B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory, Ch.2, Dover Publications, New York, 2005

2005
[26]

Y. N. Obukhov, A. J. Silenko, and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 084014

2013
[27]

M. J. Hyrkas, D. Karlsson, and R. van Leeuwen, arXiv:1905.04290

1905 arXiv
[28]

K Yanagi, arXiv:2003.08199

2003 arXiv
[29]

Davis, arXiv:1907.11263

S. Davis, arXiv:1907.11263

1907 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47 (1964) 1515

work page 1964

[2] [2]

L. V. Keldysh, Soviet Physics JETP 20 (1965) 1018

work page 1965

[3] [3]

Fourier's Law: a Challenge for Theorists

F. Bonetto, J. L. Lebowitz, L. Rey-Bellet, arXiv:math-ph/0002052

work page Pith review arXiv

[4] [4]

Fourier's Law from Closure Equations

J. Bricmont, arXiv:math-ph/0609002

work page Pith review arXiv

[5] [5]

How can we derive Fourier's Law from quantum mechanics? Exact master equation analysis

L. Wu and D. Segal, arXiv:0711.4599. 16

work page Pith review arXiv

[6] [6]

Emergence of the Macroscopic Fourier Law from the Microscopic Wave Equation of Diffusive Medium

E. Granot, N. Cohen and S. Sternklar, arXiv:0812.5109

work page Pith review arXiv

[7] [7]

A mechanical model for Fourier's law of heat conduction

D. Ruelle, arXiv:1102.5488

work page Pith review arXiv

[8] [8]

Heat transport through a quantum Brownian harmonic chain beyond the weak-coupling regime: An exact treatment

I. Kim, arXiv:1304.1283

work page Pith review arXiv