Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Multipole nuclear shielding factors of hydrogen atom confined by a spherical cavity

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a hydrogen atom in a shrinking box, all multipole nuclear shielding factors fall linearly to zero.

desk verdict Solid first report of higher-pole shielding factors with clean dipole benchmarks, but the 'converged to the last digit' claim needs a real truncation study. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17317 v1 pith:J5MJP6HD submitted 2025-04-24 physics.atom-ph

Yu Qing Dai , Zhi Ling Zhou , Henry E. Montgomery , Jr. , Yew Kam Ho , Aihua Liu , Li Guang Jiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords nuclearshieldingfactorssphericallyconfinedhydrogenatommultipolesum-over-statesmethodgeneralizedpseudospectralvariationalperturbationtheorysmall-confinementlimitone-electronatoms
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

This paper computes how strongly a hydrogen atom crammed inside a spherical cavity screens the electric field at its own nucleus. It applies a sum-over-states formula, backed by a pseudospectral solution of the confined atom, to obtain dipole, quadrupole, octupole, and hexadecapole nuclear shielding factors for the ground state. The dipole results match earlier calculations, the higher-pole values are new, and all four follow a simple linear law: as the cavity radius goes to zero, each shielding factor is proportional to the radius. The paper also develops a compact variational perturbation approximation that needs only radial expectation values and reproduces the free-atom shielding factors exactly at second order.

What carries the argument

The two engines are: (i) the sum-over-states formula for the $2^k$-pole shielding factor, which expresses $\gamma^{(k)}$ as twice a sum over intermediate eigenstates of products of radial transition matrix elements and angular factors, so no perturbed wavefunction is ever built; and (ii) a variational perturbation approximation that projects the first-order correction onto a small reduced basis, turning the shielding factor into ratios of radial expectation values of the ground state. The confined-atom eigenstates themselves come from a generalized pseudospectral method, a collocation scheme on a mapped radial grid that returns bound and pseudo-continuum states. The combination lets Table I be produced without explicitly solving any perturbed equation.

What would settle it

At an intermediate confinement radius such as $r_{\rm max}=5$, recompute $\gamma^{(2)}$, $\gamma^{(3)}$, and $\gamma^{(4)}$ by directly integrating the first-order perturbed radial equations on a dense grid without truncating an intermediate-state sum, and compare with Table I; disagreement beyond the reported precision would show the sum-over-states truncation is not converged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $2^k$-pole nuclear shielding factors $\gamma^{(k)}(r_{\rm max})$ for $k=1,2,3,4$ of the ground state of a hydrogen atom in an impenetrable spherical box are now known to high precision. Table I reports values converged to the last reported digit, including quadrupole, octupole, and hexadecapole entries reported for the first time. The paper further establishes that in the small-box limit every multipole shielding factor obeys $\gamma^{(k)}(r_{\rm max}) \propto r_{\rm max}$, independent of the pole order. For the free atom the second-order variational perturbation formula gives the exact values $\gamma^{(k)}(\infty) = 2/[k(k+1)]$. All of this is obtained without constructing perturbed wavefunctions, using only transition matrix elements or radial expectation values of unperturbed states.

Load-bearing premise

The tabulated shielding factors are presented as converged because the finite set of 100 pseudospectral states stands in for the full infinite set of bound and continuum states; if that replacement misses part of the continuum for higher multipoles at intermediate box sizes, the new entries could carry errors beyond the last digit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Table I provides the first reference values for the quadrupole, octupole, and hexadecapole nuclear shielding factors of a spherically confined hydrogen atom.
  • The dipole entries agree with previous calculations, so the new higher-pole entries inherit the same validation chain.
  • In the small-box limit every multipole shielding factor vanishes as $\gamma^{(k)}(r_{\rm max}) \propto r_{\rm max}$, regardless of the pole order.
  • The second-order variational approximation reproduces the exact free-atom values $\gamma^{(k)}(\infty)=2/[k(k+1)]$ for all $k$.
  • The variational perturbation method converges at an approximately exponential rate with the order $J$ at fixed intermediate radii, with higher-pole terms converging more slowly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not pursued in the paper: the same machinery, with rescaled nuclear charge, should give shielding factors for hydrogen-like ions with $Z>1$ inside a cavity, and the small-box linear law should survive that rescaling.
  • Not pursued in the paper: because the variational approximation needs only ground-state radial expectation values, it offers a practical route to shielding estimates for model confined atoms, such as quantum dots, where a compact ground-state wavefunction is known.
  • Not pursued in the paper: the numerical small-box slopes are consistent with the particle-in-a-box wavefunction, and deriving the exact slope as a function of $k$ would turn the observed linear law into a closed-form asymptotic statement.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops two methods for computing multipole nuclear shielding factors of one-electron atoms confined in a spherical cavity: a sum-over-states method built on generalized pseudospectral (GPS) eigenstates, and a Hylleraas variational perturbation theory (VPT) approximation expressed entirely through ground-state radial expectation values. These methods are applied to the ground state of the confined hydrogen atom. The central numerical result is Table I, which reports dipole, quadrupole, octupole, and hexadecapole shielding factors, with the quadrupole, octupole, and hexadecapole values presented as new. The paper also establishes that the second-order VPT approximation exactly reproduces the known free-atom values of Dalgarno (Eq. 38), that the dipole value at rmax=2 reproduces Laughlin's closed form (Eq. 43), and that all computed multipole shielding factors obey the linear small-confinement law of Eq. (44).

Significance. If the numerical convergence claim is substantiated, this paper provides the first reported quadrupole, octupole, and hexadecapole nuclear shielding factors for the spherically confined hydrogen atom, together with a compact variational framework that reduces the calculation to radial expectation values. The algebraic derivation of the sum-over-states expression and the VPT formulas is a genuine extension of existing dipole-only treatments. The paper's strengths include the exact second-order reproduction of the free-atom values, the agreement with three independent previous dipole calculations, the reproduction of Laughlin's rmax=2 analytic value, and a simple explanation of the linear small-box law using the particle-in-a-box model. The primary new content, however, is the numerical table for higher multipoles, and the reliability of those entries depends on the convergence of the truncated sum in Eq. (18).

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Table I and Eq. (18)] The assertion in Sec. III that "All results shown in Table I are converged to the last reported digit" is not supported by any systematic truncation study. Equation (18) is formally an infinite sum over intermediate eigenstates, and the calculation replaces it with the N=100 GPS states described in Sec. II.B. The validations quoted in the text, namely the free-atom limit of Eq. (38) and Laughlin's rmax=2 closed form of Eq. (43), concern only the dipole channel and only special values of rmax, so they do not certify the k=3 and k=4 columns at intermediate confinement radii. Please add a convergence study in N and L (for example, a table of gamma^(k) at representative rmax for N=50, 100, and 200, and similar L variation), or provide an independent Sternheimer-style calculation for the higher multipoles.
  2. [Table I] Table I reports up to 20 significant digits, which exceeds the roughly 15-16 digits available in standard double-precision arithmetic. The wording "converged to the last reported digit" is therefore stronger than the numerics described can certify. Please specify the arithmetic precision used and report only digits that are stable under variation of the numerical parameters, or explain explicitly how the final digits were obtained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The table contains a stray line "1.000000000c,1.000000000d" in the rmax=18 block, and the footnote apparatus around Laughlin's values is confusing; the table formatting should be cleaned up.
  2. [Table I, rmax=3] At rmax=3, the present dipole value 7.68804202(-1) differs from Laughlin's numerical value 7.68804022(-1) by about 2e-7; the sentence claiming "complete agreement with all previous numerical calculations" should state the comparison tolerance explicitly.
  3. [Figs. 2-6] The axis labels in Figures 2 through 6 appear corrupted in the manuscript text, with literal /sXX sequences displayed; the final version must contain readable axis labels.
  4. [Eqs. (47)-(48)] The relation between Laughlin's small-box coefficient 0.33333 and the VPT coefficients 0.30625 and 0.33943 deserves a sentence, since readers may otherwise wonder why the two VPT approximations bracket the exact linear law.
  5. [Sec. III, Eq. (50)] The claimed exponential convergence of the VPT approximation is inferred from a single confinement radius (rmax=5) and from visual inspection of Fig. 6; providing the numerical values of epsilon(J) for J=1,...,10 would make the statement verifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multipole shielding factors are computed from an independent sum-over-states formula, cross-checked against external analytic and numerical benchmarks, with no fitted inputs feeding the claimed predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities, the 2k-pole nuclear shielding factors γ(k), are computed directly from the sum-over-states expression in Eq. (18), which requires only matrix elements of r^k P_k(cosθ) and r^-(k+1) P_k(cosθ) between unperturbed eigenstates obtained from the generalized pseudospectral method. No tabulated γ(k) value is used as an input anywhere in the derivation. The Hylleraas VPT approximations in Eqs. (34) and (35) are derived analytically from the variational principle using only radial expectation values of the ground state, with no fitted parameters. The free-atom limit is validated against Dalgarno's independent exact result, Eq. (38), and the rmax = 2 dipole value is validated against Laughlin's independent closed form, Eq. (43), both external to the numerical calculation. The small-rmax linear law, Eq. (44), is derived from the VPT formulas together with the particle-in-a-spherical-box expectation values of Eq. (46), and is then compared with the numerical data rather than extracted from them. The dipole results are benchmarked against several independent previous calculations. The authors' self-citations to prior GPS-based work describe the numerical method but are not used to justify the central physical claims; no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors is invoked to force the present conclusions. The only caveat is that the claim that Table I is converged to the last reported digit lacks a systematic N/truncation study, especially for the higher-pole entries, but this is a numerical verification concern, not a circularity of the derivation. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical model parameters are fitted to the shielding factors. The central formulas are parameter-free for hydrogen; only numerical discretization parameters (N, L) are chosen by hand. The strongest external anchors are Dalgarno's free-atom result Eq. (38), Laughlin's rmax=2 closed form Eq. (43), and prior dipole tables.

free parameters (2)
  • GPS mapping parameter L = 100 (free case), 10 rmax (confined case)
    Eq. (21). A hand-chosen numerical parameter controlling grid distribution; not fitted to shielding data, but the paper gives no systematic L-convergence table.
  • GPS grid size N = 100
    Discretization order used for all results; convergence to the last reported digit is asserted, not demonstrated with a grid study.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The external charge Z' is placed far enough (r' >> r) that the multipole expansion in Eq. (4) converges, and only the first-order term in Z' is kept.
    Used to derive Eqs. (5), (11), and (14). This is the standard Sternheimer shielding-factor idealization.
  • domain assumption The confining cavity is an impenetrable spherical wall: Dirichlet boundary condition at rmax with Coulomb potential -Z/r inside (Eq. 3).
    Defines the model; any wall penetration or exterior potential would change all shielding factors.
  • domain assumption The GPS-discretized spectrum is a near-complete orthonormal set for the sum-over-states expression Eq. (18).
    Table I is obtained with N=100 GPS states; completeness of the pseudo-continuum is assumed and only indirectly validated.
  • standard math The Hylleraas variational basis xi_p = r^k P_k(cos theta) r^(p-1) psi_0 (Eq. 29) spans the first-order perturbed wave function subspace.
    Underlies the matrix formulas Eqs. (30)-(33). The paper cites the Hylleraas variational principle; for hydrogenic systems this is standard.
  • domain assumption For rmax to 0, the ground state approaches the particle-in-a-spherical-box wave function of Eq. (45).
    Used to derive the linear law Eq. (44) and the approximate slopes in Eq. (48). The numerical data support the scaling but the model is asymptotic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multipole nuclear shielding factors of hydrogen atom confined by a spherical cavity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5MJP6HD

@misc{pith2026250417317,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multipole nuclear shielding factors of hydrogen atom confined by a spherical cavity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5MJP6HD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17317}
}
read the original abstract

Nuclear shielding factor is an important quantity to describe the response of an atom under the perturbation of an external field. In this work, we develop the sum-over-states numerical method and the Hylleraas variational perturbation approximation to calculate the multipole nuclear shielding factors for general one-electron systems and apply them to the model of the hydrogen atom confined by a spherical cavity. The generalized pseudospectral method is employed to solve the eigenstates of the unperturbed atom. The obtained dipole nuclear shielding factors are in good agreement with previous calculations and the higher-pole results are reported for the first time. The asymptotic behaviors of the multipole nuclear shielding factors in both the large- and small-confinement limits are analyzed with the assistance of variational perturbation theory. The free-atom values can be exactly reproduced by the second-order perturbation approximation and all multipole nuclear shielding factors in the small-confinement limit tend to zero by a linear law. The variational perturbation method manifests exponential convergence with increasing the order of approximation. The numerical and approximate methods developed in this work together pave the way for further investigation of the multipole nuclear shielding factors for general atomic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17317 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the coordinate system in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Variation of the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Asymptotic behavior of the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Relative errors of the VPT approximations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mitroy, M

    J. Mitroy, M. S. Safronova, and C. W. Clark, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 43, 202001 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    R. M. Sternheimer, Phys. Rev. 96, 951 (1954)

    work page 1954

  3. [3]

    V. G. Kaveeshwar, A. Dalgarno, and R. P. Hurst, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 2, 984 (1969)

    work page 1969

  4. [4]

    Fowler, Mol

    P. Fowler, Mol. Phys. 53, 865 (1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    Dalgarno, Adv

    A. Dalgarno, Adv. Phys. 11, 281 (1962)

    work page 1962

  6. [6]

    Schwerdtfeger and J

    P. Schwerdtfeger and J. K. Nagle, Mol. Phys. 117, 1200 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    K. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Fan, H.-Y. Zhao, L. Miao, G.-J. Yin, R. Moro, and L. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. D 75, 46 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    W. P. Earwood and S. R. Davis, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 144, 101490 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Cohen and G

    M. Cohen and G. W. F. Drake, Proc. Phys. Soc. 92, 23 (1967)

    1967

  2. [10]

    R. M. Sternheimer, Phys. Rev. A 6, 1702 (1972)

    1972

  3. [11]

    R. M. Sternheimer, Phys. Rev. A 9, 1783 (1974)

    1974

  4. [12]

    D. Kolb, W. R. Johnson, and P. Shorer, Phys. Rev. A 26, 19 (1982)

    1982

  5. [13]

    A. A. Devi and K. D. Sen, Phys. Rev. A 38, 4330 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    Komasa, Phys

    J. Komasa, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012506 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Jask´ olski, Phys

    W. Jask´ olski, Phys. Rep.271, 1 (1996)

    1996

  8. [16]

    A. L. Buchachenko, J. Phys. Chem. B 105, 5839 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    V. K. Dolmatov, A. S. Baltenkov, J. P. Connerade, and S. T. Manson, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 70, 417 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    A. N. Sil, S. Canuto, and P. K. Mukherjee, Adv. Quantum Chem. 58, 115 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    R. K. Janev, S. B. Zhang, and J. G. Wang, Matter Radiat. Extrem. 1, 237 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Vasudevan, R

    D. Vasudevan, R. R. Gaddam, A. Trinchi, and I. Cole, J. Alloys Comp. 636, 395 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Ley-Koo, Rev

    E. Ley-Koo, Rev. Mex. Fis. 64, 326 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Aquilanti, H

    V. Aquilanti, H. E. Montgomery, C. N. Ramachandran, and N. Sathyamurthy, Eur. Phys. J. D 75, 187 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    to study the spectrum of the hydrogen atom under high pressure and then was applied by Sommerfeld and Welker [24] to account for the delocalization of electronic wave functions in solids. Since then, this model atom has been extensively investigated by many authors focusing on...

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Michels, J

    A. Michels, J. De Boer, and A. Bijl, Physica 4, 981 (1937)

    1937

  17. [25]

    Sommerfeld and H

    A. Sommerfeld and H. Welker, Ann. Phys. 424, 56 (1938)

    1938

  18. [26]

    V. C. Aguilera-Navarro, J. F. Gomes, A. H. Zimerman, and K. Ley-Koo, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.16, 2943 (1983)

    1983

  19. [27]

    Banerjee, K

    A. Banerjee, K. D. Sen, J. Garza, and R. Vargas, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 4054 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    K. D. Sen, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 194324 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    Aquino, G

    N. Aquino, G. Campoy, and H. E. Montgomery, Jr., Int. J. Quantum Chem. 107, 1548 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    A. K. Roy, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 115, 937 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    R. M. Yu, L. R. Zan, L. G. Jiao, and Y. K. Ho, Few-Body Syst. 58, 152 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Aquino and R

    N. Aquino and R. A. Rojas, Few-Body Syst. 61, 16 (2020). 12

    2020

  25. [33]

    Z. L. Zhou, R. Y. Zheng, L. G. Jiao, A. Liu, H. E. Montgomery, Jr., and Y. K. Ho, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 123, e27085 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Stevanovi´ c, J

    L. Stevanovi´ c, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.43, 165002 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Cabrera-Trujillo and S

    R. Cabrera-Trujillo and S. A. Cruz, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012502 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Mart´ ınez-Flores and R

    C. Mart´ ınez-Flores and R. Cabrera-Trujillo, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 51, 055203 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    E. V. Lude˜ na, J. Chem. Phys.66, 468 (1977)

    1977

  30. [38]

    K. D. Sen, B. Mayer, P. C. Schmidt, J. Garza, R. Vargas, and A. Vela, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 90, 491 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Aquino and R

    N. Aquino and R. A. Rojas, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 015401 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Z. L. Zhou, L. G. Jiao, A. Liu, Y. C. Wang, H. E. Montgomery, Jr., Y. K. Ho, and S. Fritzsche, Eur. Phys. J. D 77, 78 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    K. D. Sen, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 074110 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    S. H. Patil, K. D. Sen, N. A. Watson, and H. E. Montgomery, Jr., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 40, 2147 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Aquino, A

    N. Aquino, A. Flores-Riveros, and J. F. Rivas-Silva, Phys. Lett. A 377, 2062 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    L. G. Jiao, L. R. Zan, Y. Z. Zhang, and Y. K. Ho, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 117, e25375 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Waugh, A

    S. Waugh, A. Chowdhury, and A. Banerjee, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 43, 225002 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    H. E. Montgomery, Jr. and K. D. Sen, Phys. Lett. A 376, 1992 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Y. Y. He, L. G. Jiao, A. Liu, Y. Z. Zhang, and Y. K. Ho, Eur. Phys. J. D 75, 126 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Mukherjee, C

    N. Mukherjee, C. N. Patra, and A. K. Roy, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012803 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Mukherjee, C

    N. Mukherjee, C. N. Patra, and A. K. Roy, Phys. Rev. A 106, 032812 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Bhattacharyya, P

    S. Bhattacharyya, P. K. Mukherjee, and B. Fricke, Phys. Lett. A 384, 126115 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Bhattacharyya, P

    S. Bhattacharyya, P. K. Mukherjee, and B. Fricke, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 120, e26422 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    B. L. Burrows and M. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 72, 032508 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    Laughlin, Adv

    C. Laughlin, Adv. Quantum Chem. 57, 203 (2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    H. E. Montgomery, Jr. and V. I. Pupyshev, Phys. Scr. 92, 015401 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    E. A. Hylleraas, Z. Phys. 65, 209 (1930)

    1930

  48. [56]

    H. E. Montgomery, Jr. and V. I. Pupyshev, Eur. Phys. J. H 38, 519 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    H. E. Montgomery, Jr. and V. I. Pupyshev, Phys. Scr. 95, 015402 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    W. H. Xia, Z. L. Zhou, L. G. Jiao, A. Liu, H. E. Montgomery, Jr., Y. K. Ho, and S. Fritzsche, Phys. Rev. E 108, 035305 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    P. W. Langhoff and R. P. Hurst, Phys. Rev. 139, A1415 (1965)

    1965

  52. [60]

    Yao and S.-I

    G. Yao and S.-I. Chu, Chem. Phys. Lett.204, 381 (1993)

    1993

  53. [61]

    Chu and D

    S.-I. Chu and D. A. Telnov, Phys. Rep. 390, 1 (2004)

    2004

  54. [62]

    Canuto, M

    C. Canuto, M. Y. Hussaini, A. Quarteroni, and T. A. Zang, Spectral Methods: Fundamentals in Single Do- mains (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006)

    2006

  55. [63]

    J. Shen, T. Tang, and L.-L. Wang, Spectral Methods: Algorithms, Analysis and Applications (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    Deloff, Ann

    A. Deloff, Ann. Phys. 322, 1373 (2007)

    2007

  57. [65]

    K. D. Sen and A. K. Roy, Phys. Lett. A 357, 112 (2006)

    2006

  58. [66]

    L. Zhu, Y. Y. He, L. G. Jiao, Y. C. Wang, and Y. K. Ho, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 120, e26245 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Y. Y. He, Z. L. Zhou, L. G. Jiao, A. Liu, H. E. Montgomery, Jr., and Y. K. Ho, Phys. Rev. E 107, 045201 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    L. G. Jiao, H. H. Xie, A. Liu, H. E. Montgomery, Jr., and Y. K. Ho, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 54, 175002 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    L. Zhu, Y. Y. He, L. G. Jiao, Y. C. Wang, and Y. K. Ho, Phys. Plasmas 27, 072101 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    J. G. Kirkwood, Phys. Z. 33, 57 (1932)

    1932

  63. [71]

    R. A. Buckingham, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 160, 94 (1937)

    1937

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.