Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Lindbladian quantization of mechanical systems with nonholonomic constraints

T0 review · 2 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 By trading a nonholonomic constraint for a large-dissipation limit of a Lindblad master equation, the paper quantizes the Chaplygin sleigh, the skater, and the Suslov problem and shows the constraint emerges as a metastable sector with fluc

desk verdict A clean, honest construction of Lindblad quantizations for nonholonomic systems; the numerics check the semiclassical limit, not the exact Lindblad dynamics, but the paper flags that limitation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26146 v1 pith:KPRMAR5P submitted 2026-07-28 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP

Daniel Schubring , Sriram Ganeshan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP
keywords LindbladmasterequationnonholonomicconstraintsChaplyginsleighSuslovproblemmetastabilityopenquantumsystemssemiclassicallimitquantization
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 argues that nonholonomic mechanical systems—whose velocity constraints cannot be derived from a Hamiltonian—can be quantized by replacing the constraint with strong dissipation in an open quantum system. For the Chaplygin sleigh (and its skater limit) and the Suslov problem, it constructs explicit Lindblad operators whose classical drift damps exactly the forbidden velocity. In the semiclassical limit the master equation reduces to a Fokker–Planck equation whose large-dissipation limit is the standard nonholonomic dynamics; the constraint sector appears as a metastable manifold of the Lindblad generator. The paper verifies the predicted variance relation numerically, showing that a specific combination of momentum fluctuations is pinned to ℏ/4. If correct, this gives a systematic route to quantize a broad class of constrained mechanical systems and to simulate them as open quantum systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the completely positive Lindblad master equation (4) with the dissipator decomposed in equation (5). Its drift term—the anticommutator piece—reproduces the classical friction term 2γ∂_{p_s}(m v_s ρ) at leading order, while the double-commutator piece generates O(ℏ) diffusion. Complete positivity forces this diffusion, so the large-γ limit is not a projection onto the constraint but a metastable sector: the constrained momentum develops fluctuations whose variance is set by ℏ and by the slow dynamics. The metastable-manifold analysis, based on the kernel of the leading-order generator Ĥ₀, yields the explicit form of the constrained state (20) and the variance relation (2

What would settle it

Simulate or solve the exact Wigner-transformed master equation on the discrete p_Φ lattice (without the leading-order derivative expansion) for a state with σ_{pΦ} ~ ℏ and check whether the variance relation (21) still holds; a clear deviation would falsify the metastable-manifold description. Alternatively, in an engineered realization, measure the variance combination in (21) for a strongly angle-localized initial state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a nonholonomic constraint can be realized dynamically: instead of imposing v_s = 0 as a constraint on the Hilbert space, the authors couple the system to a Lindblad dissipator with operators L_a = √D x − (im/(2√D)){sin Φ, v_s} (and analogously for y), whose classical limit is the friction force −2γm v_s. At large γ the forbidden velocity relaxes on a timescale γ⁻¹, while the remaining variables follow the classical nonholonomic trajectory. The generator's spectrum separates into fast modes and a metastable manifold; states in that manifold satisfy the variance relation Var[p_s + ω p_r/(2γ) + ṗ_r(t) p_Φ/(2γ)] ≈ ℏ/4, which is verified by numerical simulation of the ma

Load-bearing premise

The derivations treat the skate's orientation angle as continuous by expanding finite differences in its conjugate momentum to leading order, an approximation valid only when the spread in that momentum is much larger than ℏ; if the spread is of order ℏ, the predicted variance relation and the separation of timescales can break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The master equation provides a concrete simulation scheme: sampled Langevin trajectories reproduce the classical nonholonomic trajectory, so quantum nonholonomic dynamics can be studied numerically for the skater, sleigh, and Suslov systems.
  • The variance relation (21) is an experimentally accessible signature of a quantum nonholonomic constraint: a specific combination of momentum and angular-momentum fluctuations is pinned to ℏ/4 for times up to the metastable lifetime.
  • Because the same construction works for the Chaplygin sleigh and Suslov system, the method should generalize to arbitrary nonholonomic constraints by choosing Lindblad operators that damp the forbidden velocity directions.
  • Complete positivity forces a diffusion term that heats the unconstrained momenta at rate ℏγ⟨p_r²+p_s²⟩; hence the constrained sector is metastable rather than a true stationary state—a feature the paper identifies as central to the quantum realization of constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The construction hints at a general quantization rule for nonholonomic systems: any constraint distribution defined by a set of velocity functions can be realized by Lindblad operators whose classical drift is a positive damping of those functions; the metastable-manifold formalism would then give the quantum fluctuation corrections.
  • A natural next test is to compare this with holonomic constraints: if a similar Lindblad construction works for holonomic constraints, the scheme becomes a unified quantum framework for constrained dynamics; if not, the O(ℏ) diffusion is a distinctive fingerprint of non-integrability.
  • The heating implied by complete positivity sets a finite coherence time for the constrained quantum sector; for molecular machines (e.g., rolling nanomachines), this lifetime could determine whether quantum effects in rolling motion are observable.
  • One could test the prediction by engineering the Lindblad operators in a trapped-ion or cold-atom simulator and measuring the variance of the constrained momentum; the ℏ- and γ-dependence of (21) is specific enough to distinguish this mechanism from ordinary decoherence.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a Lindbladian quantization of nonholonomic mechanical systems, focusing on the Chaplygin sleigh, the skater (a=0), and the Suslov problem. The idea is to realize a non-integrable velocity constraint as the large-dissipation limit of a Markovian open quantum system. The authors choose Lindblad operators (Eq. (6) for the skater/Chaplygin, Eq. (13) for Suslov) such that the classical dissipative drift reproduces the Fokker-Planck equation (3) that regularizes the nonholonomic constraint. Using a partial Wigner transform with a continuum approximation for the angular momentum p_Φ, they derive Fokker-Planck equations (8) and (14). For the skater, they analyze the large-γ metastable manifold, showing that the forbidden momentum is damped on a fast timescale while the slow sector is described by states (20), leading to the variance relation (21). They verify this relation both by metastable perturbation theory and by the exact Ornstein-Uhlenbeck solution of the truncated equation (Appendix F), and by Langevin simulations of the approximate Fokker-Planck equation (Fig. 3). They also provide analogous results for Suslov and the a≠0 Chaplygin sleigh. The paper emphasizes that the construction is a quantization prescription rather than a derivation of nonholonomic mechanics from a fundamental principle.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper offers a concrete, completely positive open-quantum-system realization of nonholonomic constraints, potentially enabling quantum simulation and semiclassical analysis of nonholonomic systems. Its strengths are the explicit Lindblad operators, the careful Wigner-transform derivation, the cross-checking of the variance relation via two analytic methods and numerical simulation, and the honest discussion of limitations (complete positivity forces a diffusion term that heats the system, Eq. (22); weak-noise and continuum approximations are used). The construction is by design—the Lindblad operators are chosen to reproduce the classical drift (7)—so this is a quantization scheme rather than a derivation; the paper should make this framing more explicit. The main weakness is that the numerical evidence tests the approximate Fokker-Planck dynamics rather than the full Lindblad equation, leaving the exact quantum-dynamics status of the central variance relation less directly validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Appendix A, Appendix E, Eq. (21), Fig. 3] The central quantitative prediction (21) is derived using the partial Wigner transform in which the compact angle Φ is treated as continuous and finite-difference operators in p_Φ are expanded to leading derivative order (Appendix A, footnote [38]). This continuum approximation is controlled only for states with σ²_{pΦ} ≫ ℏ². All numerical checks (Figs. 1–3, Appendix E) simulate the Fokker–Planck equation (8) via a Langevin scheme, not the full Lindblad master equation (4). Thus the numerics validate the approximate semiclassical dynamics, not the exact Lindblad evolution. The paper itself notes that 'a number of approximations' were made in §5. To support the claim that the Lindblad superoperators realize the metastable manifold and variance relation for the actual quantum dynamics, the authors should provide either (i) a direct numerical solution of the Lindblad equation (e.g., quantum
  2. [Eqs. (4)–(5)] The master equation (4) includes a γ-dependent counterterm Hamiltonian H_γ, and (5) says that the second term may be canceled by a counterterm in H_γ. However, the paper never writes H_γ explicitly for the skater, Suslov, or Chaplygin examples, nor does it specify the operator ordering of the anticommutator used to define the counterterm. The classical limit (7) is insensitive to this choice, but the exact Lindblad dynamics—and any O(1/γ) corrections to the metastable manifold and to (21)—can depend on it. Since the paper's title and abstract promise 'explicit Lindblad superoperators,' the construction is incomplete until H_γ is given. This is a fixable but essential omission.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Fig. 1 caption] The abstract says 'The master equation is numerically simulated,' and the Fig. 1 caption says 'simulation of the master equation (8).' Equation (8) is, however, the Fokker–Planck approximation, not the full Lindblad equation (4). Please clarify this to avoid misleading readers.
  2. [Eq. (21)] The approximation symbol '≈' in (21) is not quantified in the main text. Appendix F shows corrections at O(γ^{-3}) (Eq. F12). State this order in the main text for precision.
  3. [Footnote [38]] The footnote describes separate interpolation of the integer and half-integer sublattices but does not explain how the two interpolated functions are combined into the single Wigner function used in the Fokker-Planck equation. Please spell out this construction and the sense in which the derivative expansion is valid for arbitrary Wigner functions of the compact variable.
  4. [Around Eq. (8)] The switch to units m=I0=D=1 is made after Eq. (8), but the preceding equations are dimensionful. State explicitly how γ and ℏ are rescaled in these units so the dimensionless parameters are unambiguous.
  5. [Appendix D, Eq. (D4)] The Kossakowski matrix in (D4) is difficult to parse as a single block matrix. Displaying the matrix in labeled blocks or defining the parameters in a table would improve readability.
  6. [Discussion, Eq. (22)] The absence of a stationary state due to the ℏγ diffusion in p_Φ is an important physical limitation. Consider mentioning this caveat explicitly in the abstract or introduction, not only in the Discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Lindblad operators are explicitly constructed to reproduce the known classical drift, and the variance relation (21) is an analytic consequence of the resulting diffusion, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The central construction is openly a design problem: the Lindblad operators in Eqs. (6) and (13) are chosen so that the lowest-order drift reproduces the classical dissipative terms in Eqs. (3) and (12). The paper states directly that the drift terms in (5) have lowest-order transform equal to the classical dissipative drift term, and that this classical drift is thus reproduced. The paper does not present the classical nonholonomic limit as a prediction; it is the input used to fix the Lindblad operators. The contribution lies in the complete positive Lindblad formulation, the metastable-manifold analysis, and the variance relation (21). That relation is derived analytically in Appendix F from the same Fokker-Planck equation that is simulated, so the numerics compare sampling to the analytic formula and do not fit any parameter to the predicted covariance. The continuum approximation for the compact angle variable, described in Appendix A and footnote [38], is a stated approximation with an explicit validity condition on the variance of p_Phi; it is a scope condition that could limit accuracy, but it does not make the derivation circular. Self-citations are limited to background context (e.g., reference [7]) and are not load-bearing. The paper is self-contained against its own analytic and numerical checks, and its central claims are not reduced by construction to their inputs.

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

The construction introduces one bath coefficient (D or κ) per system, plus the large dissipation rate γ, but no new physical entity. The central semiclassical reduction rests on the standard Wigner expansion and the classical infinite-friction realization, both domain assumptions. No fitted parameters appear in the variance prediction (21).

free parameters (3)
  • D (Chaplygin/skater diffusion coefficient)
    Introduced in Eq (6) to set the Lindblad operator scale; has dimensions of action/length² and is set to 1 in dimensionless units. It controls the strength of quantum diffusion in (8) but drops out of the physical ℏ/4 variance relation once physical units are restored.
  • κ (Suslov diffusion coefficient)
    Introduced in Eq (13) analogously to D; units of action; governs the Suslov quantum diffusion in (14).
  • γ (dissipation rate) = 10^2–10^3 in simulations
    Physical large-dissipation parameter whose infinite limit realizes the nonholonomic constraint; predictions are in the γ→∞ expansion, so finite-γ results carry O(1/γ) corrections.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A nonholonomic velocity constraint can be realized as the infinite-friction limit of a dissipative classical dynamics.
    Invoked in the introduction (refs 24,25); the whole Lindbladian route starts from this classical singular limit, so the physical choice of friction realization defines what 'quantizing the constraint' means.
  • standard math Semiclassical Wigner correspondence: commutators → iℏ Poisson brackets, anticommutators → multiplication, up to O(ℏ) corrections.
    Used to derive the drift in Eq (7) and the Fokker-Planck equations (8) and (14); standard Weyl-Wigner calculus.
  • domain assumption The compact angular variable Φ may be handled by a partial Wigner transform whose finite differences in p_Φ are expanded to leading derivative order (σ²_pΦ ≫ ℏ²).
    Appendix A and footnote [38]; needed for Eq (8) and for the metastable analysis (15)-(20).
  • domain assumption The generator's large-γ spectral separation is described by first-order perturbation theory in γ^{-1} on the weak-noise truncated equation (17).
    Section 'The metastable manifold'; unproven spectral gap in the full Lindblad generator is assumed to justify the timescale separation.
  • standard math Kossakowski matrix positivity is the only constraint on diffusion; drift comes from the antisymmetric part of K.
    Appendix D; standard Lindblad/Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lindbladian quantization of mechanical systems with nonholonomic constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KPRMAR5P

@misc{pith2026260726146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lindbladian quantization of mechanical systems with nonholonomic constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KPRMAR5P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26146}
}
read the original abstract

Nonholonomic mechanics describes systems subject to non-integrable velocity constraints, such as rolling bodies and skating motion. These systems generally lack a canonical Hamiltonian formulation, obstructing standard quantization methods. Here we quantize nonholonomic systems as Markovian open quantum systems, with the nonholonomic constraint appearing in a large-dissipation limit. We find explicit Lindblad superoperators that reproduce the classical dynamics of the Chaplygin sleigh and the Suslov problem in the semiclassical limit. The master equation is numerically simulated, and the covariance is shown to satisfy a relation predicted by the theory of metastability in open quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: Schematic of the Chaplygin sleigh and skater geometry. The point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A plot of the unconstrained angular velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Variance of the constrained momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references

  1. [38]

    H. A. Kastrup. Wigner functions for the pair angle and orbital angular momentum.Physical Review A, 94(6):062113, 2016

    2016

  2. [1]

    S. A. Chaplygin. On the theory of motion of nonholo- nomic systems. the reducing-multiplier theorem.Math. 6 Sbornik, 28:303–314, 1911. Originally published in Rus- sian

    1911

  3. [2]

    JA Barth, 1910

    Heinrich Hertz and Hermann von Helmholtz.Die Prinzipien der Mechanik in neuem Zusammenhange dargestellt, volume 3. JA Barth, 1910

    1910

  4. [3]

    S. A. Chaplygin. On the theory of motion of nonholo- nomic systems. the reducing-multiplier theorem.Mat. Sb., 28(2):303–314, 1912. in Russian

    1912

  5. [4]

    Bloch.Nonholonomic Mechanics and Con- trol, volume 24 ofInterdisciplinary Applied Mathematics

    Anthony M. Bloch.Nonholonomic Mechanics and Con- trol, volume 24 ofInterdisciplinary Applied Mathematics. Springer, 2003

    2003

  6. [5]

    Borisov, Ivan S

    Alexey V. Borisov, Ivan S. Mamaev, and Ivan A. Bizyaev. Dynamical systems with non-integrable con- straints, vakonomic mechanics, sub-Riemannian geome- try, and non-holonomic mechanics.Russ. Math. Surv., 72(5):783–840, 2017

    2017

  7. [6]

    Infinite- dimensional and field-theoretic nonholonomic mechanics

    Anthony M Bloch and Dmitry V Zenkov. Infinite- dimensional and field-theoretic nonholonomic mechanics. Regular and Chaotic Dynamics, 30(4):550–565, 2025

    2025

  8. [7]

    Abanov, and Sriram Ganeshan

    Gustavo Machado Monteiro, Alexander G. Abanov, and Sriram Ganeshan. Hamiltonian structure of 2D fluid dy- namics with broken parity.SciPost Phys., 14(5):103, 2023

    2023

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2025

    Mohammad Nabizadeh.Fluid Dynamics: From Geomet- ric Formulations to Structure-Preserving Simulations. PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego, 2025

    2025

  2. [9]

    Infinite- dimensional nonholonomic and vakonomic systems.Jour- nal of Nonlinear Science, 36(3):67, 2026

    Alexander G Abanov and Boris Khesin. Infinite- dimensional nonholonomic and vakonomic systems.Jour- nal of Nonlinear Science, 36(3):67, 2026

    2026

  3. [10]

    A. J. van der Schaft and B. M. Maschke. On the Hamil- tonian formulation of nonholonomic mechanical systems. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 34(2):225–233, 1994

    1994

  4. [11]

    A new perspective on nonholo- nomic brackets and Hamilton-Jacobi theory.J

    Manuel de Le´ on, Manuel Lainz, Asier L´ opez-Gord´ on, and Juan Carlos Marrero. A new perspective on nonholo- nomic brackets and Hamilton-Jacobi theory.J. Geom. Phys., 198:105116, 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    P. A. M. Dirac. Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics. Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 2:129–148, 1950

    1950

  6. [13]

    P. A. M. Dirac.Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2013. Unabridged republica- tion of the 1964 Belfer Graduate School of Science mono- graph

    2013

  7. [14]

    R. J. Eden. The Hamiltonian dynamics of non-holonomic systems.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 205:564–583, 1951

    1951

  8. [15]

    R. J. Eden. The quantum mechanics of non-holonomic systems.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 210:388–406, 1952

    1952

  9. [16]

    Bloch and Alberto G

    Anthony M. Bloch and Alberto G. Rojo. Quantization of a nonholonomic system.Phys. Rev. Lett., 101:030402, 2008

    2008

  10. [17]

    Fernandez and M

    Oscar E. Fernandez and M. L. Radhakrishnan. The quan- tum mechanics of a rolling molecular “nanocar”.Sci. Rep., 8:14878, 2018

    2018

  11. [18]

    Fernandez

    Oscar E. Fernandez. Quantizing Chaplygin Hamiltoniz- able nonholonomic systems.Sci. Rep., 12:9414, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Osgood, Yun Zhao, K

    Yasuhisa Shirai, Andrew J. Osgood, Yun Zhao, K. F. Kelly, and James M. Tour. Directional control in thermally driven single-molecule nanocars.Nano Lett., 5(11):2330–2334, 2005

    2005

  13. [20]

    Rolling a single molecular wheel at the atomic scale.Nat

    Leonhard Grill, Karl-Heinz Rieder, Francesca Moresco, Gwenael Rapenne, Srdjan Stojkovic, Xavier Bouju, and Christian Joachim. Rolling a single molecular wheel at the atomic scale.Nat. Nanotechnol., 2:95–98, 2007

    2007

  14. [21]

    Leigh, Christopher T

    Sundus Erbas-Cakmak, David A. Leigh, Christopher T. McTernan, and Anna L. Nussbaumer. Artificial molecu- lar machines.Chem. Rev., 115(18):10081–10206, 2015

    2015

  15. [22]

    Valery V. Kozlov. Realization of nonintegrable con- straints in classical mechanics.Soviet Physics Doklady, 28:735–737, 1983

    1983

  16. [23]

    V. V. Kozlov. The problem of realizing constraints in dynamics.J. Appl. Math. Mech., 56(5):594–602, 1992

    1992

  17. [24]

    Der Schlitten.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, 13(2):71–76, 1933

    Constantin Carath´ eodory. Der Schlitten.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, 13(2):71–76, 1933

    1933

  18. [25]

    Realizing nonholonomic dynamics as limit of friction forces.Regul

    Jaap Eldering. Realizing nonholonomic dynamics as limit of friction forces.Regul. Chaotic Dyn., 21(4):390–409, 2016

    2016

  19. [26]

    Effective action for dissipative and nonholonomic sys- tems.Phys

    Afshin Besharat, Jury Radkovski, and Sergey Sibiryakov. Effective action for dissipative and nonholonomic sys- tems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132:181601, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Vittorio Gorini, Andrzej Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Su- darshan. Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems.J. Math. Phys., 17(5):821–825, 1976

    1976

  21. [28]

    On the generators of quantum dynam- ical semigroups.Commun

    G¨ oran Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynam- ical semigroups.Commun. Math. Phys., 48(2):119–130, 1976

    1976

  22. [29]

    Oxford University Press, 2002

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione.The The- ory of Open Quantum Systems. Oxford University Press, 2002

    2002

  23. [30]

    In our case this means we are restricted to states with marginal distributionf ms (20)

    of valid density matrices which are in the kernel of the leading-order termsγ ˆH0 in the master equation. In our case this means we are restricted to states with marginal distributionf ms (20). In our original variables, this implies the nontrivial relation for the variance Va...

  24. [31]

    Garrahan

    Katarzyna Macieszczak, M˘ ad˘ alin Gut ¸˘ a, Igor Lesanovsky, and Juan P. Garrahan. Towards a theory of metastability in open quantum dynamics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:240404, 2016

    2016

  25. [32]

    Rose, Igor Lesanovsky, and Juan P

    Katarzyna Macieszczak, Dominic C. Rose, Igor Lesanovsky, and Juan P. Garrahan. Theory of classi- cal metastability in open quantum systems.Phys. Rev. Research, 3:033047, 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    C. W. Gardiner.Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry and the Natural Sciences, volume 13 ofSpringer Series in Synergetics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2 edition, 1985

    1985

  27. [34]

    Fedorov and Valery V

    Yuri N. Fedorov and Valery V. Kozlov. Various aspects of n-dimensional rigid body dynamics.Amer. Math. Soc. Transl., 168:141–171, 1995

    1995

  28. [35]

    Stickler, Bernhard Schrinski, and Klaus Hornberger

    Benjamin A. Stickler, Bernhard Schrinski, and Klaus Hornberger. Rotational friction and diffusion of quan- tum rotors.Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:040401, 2018

    2018

  29. [36]

    Mukunda, S

    N. Mukunda, S. Chaturvedi, and R. Simon. Wigner dis- tributions and quantum mechanics on Lie groups.J. Math. Phys., 45:114, 2004

    2004

  30. [37]

    N. Mukunda. Wigner distribution for angle coordinates in quantum mechanics.American Journal of Physics, 47(2):182–187, 1979

    1979

  31. [39]

    The resulting func- tions of (Φ, p Φ) are respectively even and odd under Φ→Φ +π

    The integer and half-integer sublattices are interpolated separately as smooth functions ofp Φ. The resulting func- tions of (Φ, p Φ) are respectively even and odd under Φ→Φ +π. The finite-difference operators only involve values on the same sublattice

  32. [40]

    S. M. Cox and P. C. Matthews. Exponential time dif- ferencing for stiff systems.Journal of Computational Physics, 176(2):430–455, 2002. 7 Appendix A: Wigner transform of the master equation The Wigner transformW[ ˆA]≡Aof an operator ˆA involves taking a matrix element between ...

    2002

  33. [41]

    This makes sense since the caseγ s =γ r is equivalent to the case of ordinary isotropic dissipation in two dimensions

    In the Fokker-Planck approximation, these coefficients correspond to the diffusion terms ℏ 2 c1 ∂2 pr +∂ 2 ps +c 2 ∂2 s +∂ 2 r +c3 (p2 r +p 2 s)∂2 pΦ + 1 4 (∂2 s +∂ 2 r ) ρ.(D5) If all the other coefficientsc= 0, non-negativity implies the inequality c1c2 ≥γ 2 + 2δ2 c2 c3 .(D6...

Pith tools

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