The Sound of Decoherence

James Trayford; Robson Christie

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 29 references

The Sound of Decoherence

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a density matrix in the Hamiltonian eigenbasis can be fully encoded as a stereo audio signal, so decoherence is heard as a binaural pattern collapsing to a single tone.

desk verdict New binaural sonification with a real lossiness problem under the hood—worth refereeing, but the paper overstates how faithfully it encodes the density matrix. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17045 v1 pith:S3Y6FD4Z submitted 2024-12-22 quant-ph physics.ed-ph

Robson Christie , James Trayford This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.ed-ph

keywords quantumsonificationdensitymatrixbinauralaudiodecoherenceLindbladequationopensystemsspinhelixstatesquantum-to-classicaltransition

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 proposes a way to hear quantum decoherence. It maps each element of a density matrix in the Hamiltonian eigenbasis to sine tones: energy levels become frequencies proportional to their energies, diagonal elements become monophonic tones, and off-diagonal elements are sent to the left and right ears as a binaural signal carrying magnitude and phase. As decoherence kills the off-diagonal terms, the stereo image should collapse to a single tone, giving an audible version of the quantum-to-classical transition. The authors demonstrate the mapping on two open-system models: quantum Brownian motion in a double well and a boundary-driven spin helix in an XXZ chain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the binaural additive-synthesis mapping of Eq. (5): each off-diagonal density-matrix element $\rho_{kl} = r_{kl} e^{i\theta_{kl}}$ becomes $r_{kl} \sin(2\pi f_k t + \theta_{kl})$ in the left ear and $r_{kl} \sin(2\pi f_l t - \theta_{kl})$ in the right ear, with frequencies $f_k = (E_k/E_0) f_0$. Sending the ket index to one ear and the bra index to the other makes the phase sign audible through interaural differences, while equal frequency and phase on both ears for $k=l$ renders populations as a central monophonic tone. Lindblad master equations supply the dynamics, so the same audio pipeline can represent both thermalisation and engineered recoherence.

What would settle it

Take the rendered audio for a decohering double-well system and make two clips: one with full off-diagonal terms and one with all off-diagonal terms set to zero. If untrained listeners cannot identify the coherent clip at rates above chance, or cannot report hearing the binaural beating at the expected frequency, the claimed perceptual fidelity of the mapping is refuted; the mathematical encoding would remain, but the intuitive benefit would not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the stereo signal built from Eq. (5), with the ket index sent to the left ear and the bra index to the right ear, encodes the full density-matrix information in the Hamiltonian eigenbasis: populations (diagonal terms) produce the monophonic backbone, while coherences (off-diagonal terms) produce binaural level and phase cues. Because Hermiticity fixes $\theta_{kl} = -\theta_{lk}$, summing only $k \ge l$ loses nothing. Under Lindblad decoherence, as $\rho_{kl} \to 0$ for $k \neq l$, the audio shifts from intricate binaural patterns to a simpler monophonic tone, so listening is claimed to be a faithful monitor of coherence dynamics. The double-well example makes tunnelling audible as a binaural beat at half the tunnel splitting, and the spin-helix example gives an acoustic signature of a recohering non-equilibrium steady state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is psychoacoustic: that listeners can reliably hear the binaural phase, the beat at the tunnel splitting, and the collapse to a monophonic tone as perceptually faithful signatures of coherence dynamics; the paper asserts this intuitive benefit without testing it on listeners.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Decoherence in any Lindblad evolution becomes audible as a collapse from a stereo, phase-rich sound to a monophonic tone.
The tunnel splitting $E_1-E_0$ between the lowest double-well levels is rendered as a binaural beat at half that splitting, so the beat frequency directly measures the tunnelling rate.
Thermalisation is heard as ordered tones dissolving into a broader, less structured soundscape.
Engineered recoherence in the boundary-driven XXZ chain produces a developing audio pattern that stabilises as the spin helix forms.

Reading between the lines

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

If the perceptual premise holds, the same rendering could serve as a real-time auditory diagnostic for experiments where coherence must be monitored without looking at a screen, such as qubit arrays or cold-atom simulators; the paper does not make this application claim.
Because the construction only uses Hermiticity and an eigenvalue ordering, it can be applied to any Hermitian matrix, not just physical Hamiltonians; the authors illustrate only quantum contexts, so this generality is left implicit.
A controlled listening study could turn the asserted intuition into a quantitative claim, ranking the binaural phase cue against visual coherence plots for speed and accuracy.
One could test the decoherence signature directly with synthetic audio: set all off-diagonal elements to zero and confirm that listeners hear the result as monophonic, which is a stronger condition than the mathematical equality.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper proposes a genuinely new binaural sonification mapping: Eq. (5) sends the ket index to the left ear and the bra index to the right, summing only the k >= l triangle. It is cleanly specified and comes with public code and YouTube demos. Second, the mapping is not faithful in the information-theoretic sense. The stress-test kernel is correct: for N=4, the Hermitian traceless matrix M given in the note produces zero Fourier amplitude in every ear, so I/4 +/- eps M are distinct valid states with identical audio. Eq. (5) is therefore non-injective for N>=4, and the XXZ example has dimension 16. 'Directly encodes the quantum structure and dynamics' overstates what the rendering does. This is a serious caveat, though not fatal if the goal is an educational display rather than state reconstruction - the paper should say which.

What is good: the mapping equations are coherent as a definition, the two models are standard and properly cited, and the authors provide reproducible artifacts. That is real work. The reader's conditional verdict is roughly right, but the non-injectivity is a sharper problem than the untested psychoacoustic premise.

The other soft spots are smaller. Eq. (12) has a units error: fb = f0(E1-E0)/2 is not a frequency; it should involve division by E0. The audio time scaling (dynamics time to playback seconds) is not stated, so the demos cannot be rebuilt from the text alone. And the central perceptual claim - that listeners can hear coherence collapse - rests on an unstated assumption that binaural phase presentation conveys coherence. No listening study, no baseline against Arasaki and Takatsuka. That is an empirical claim, not a mathematical one.

This is a methods/education paper, not a physics result. I would accept it for peer review because the mapping is new and the non-injectivity example is a useful cautionary tale, but the referees should require a units fix, a statement of the audio parameters, a code version, and either a small listening test or a scaled-back description of what the audio can convey. For my own work I would not cite it in the next year, but I would happily bring it to a reading group - the kernel example is a good exercise for students.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an 'Open Quantum Sonification' framework in which a density matrix, written in the Hamiltonian eigenbasis, is mapped to a stereo audio signal: diagonal populations r_kk become monophonic tones at frequencies f_k, while off-diagonal coherences r_kl e^{iθ_kl} are rendered binaurally by sending tones with phase +θ_kl to the left ear and -θ_kl to the right ear (Eq. 5). The authors illustrate the framework with two open-system Lindblad examples: thermalisation in a double well and boundary-driven spin-helix states in the XXZ chain, and they claim that as decoherence kills off-diagonal elements, the perceived sound shifts from intricate binaural patterns to a simpler monophonic tone. The paper includes companion YouTube playlists and Python code on GitHub.

Significance. If the central technical claim were correct, the framework would be a lightweight, reproducible tool for auditory monitoring of coherence dynamics, complementing existing work such as Arasaki and Takatsuka [11] and earlier quantum sonification studies. The paper's strengths are its clear exposition, the use of standard and correctly cited dynamical models (Breuer-Petruccione Brownian-motion Lindblad operator in Eq. 14; Popkov-Schütz spin-helix boundary operators in Eqs. 16-17), and the availability of code and audio examples. However, the information-theoretic ambiguity in the proposed mapping undermines the assertion that the sound 'directly encodes the quantum structure and dynamics'; this is a load-bearing issue rather than a presentational one. The paper also rests on an untested psychoacoustic premise. With a redesigned mapping or appropriately restricted claims, the framework could still be a useful educational analogy, but as written the central claim is not supported.

major comments (2)

[Section II, Eq. (5)] The additive-synthesis mapping is non-injective for N≥4, so the statement that the summed soundscape 'directly encodes the quantum structure and dynamics' is false as written. For each pair k>l, the element ρ_kl contributes only to the left-ear amplitude at f_k and to the right-ear amplitude at f_l; consequently the stereo signal contains, at each frequency f_k, one complex left-ear coefficient and one complex right-ear coefficient, which is insufficient to recover the N(N-1)/2 complex off-diagonal parameters once N≥4. A concrete Hermitian traceless kernel for N=4 is M = [[0,0,i,-i],[0,0,-i,i],[-i,i,0,0],[i,-i,0,0]]: every row and column sums to zero, so all eight left- and right-ear Fourier coefficients vanish for M. For small ε, both ρ_+ = I/4 + εM and ρ_- = I/4 - εM are valid density matrices, yet they produce identical audio. The XXZ spin-chain example in Section IIIB has Hilbert-space dimension 16, so this ambiguity affects a headline demonstration. The mapping should be redesigned (for example by using pair-specific combination frequencies) or the fidelity claim should be restricted to the quantities that actually survive the projection.
[Section II and Abstract] The claimed pedagogical and experiential benefit rests on an untested psychoacoustic premise: that presenting tones with phases ±θ_kl to the two ears is a faithful rendering of coherence, and that listeners can reliably hear the intended features such as the binaural beat associated with the tunnel splitting and the collapse to a monophonic tone under decoherence. No listening study, no discrimination task, and no comparison with the earlier sonification in Ref. [11] is reported. The authors should either provide such a validation or explicitly frame the perceptual claims as an unverified analogy rather than as an established property of the framework.

minor comments (4)

[Section III A, Eq. (12)] Equation (12) is dimensionally inconsistent as written: f0(E1-E0)/2 has units of Hz times energy, not frequency. The intended expression is presumably f0(E1-E0)/(2E0), or possibly f0(E1-E0)/E0 depending on whether the factor of 1/2 is meant to denote the binaural beat envelope; please correct and clarify.
[Figure 1 caption] The caption reads 'with parameters c2 = 0.35 and c2 = 0.05'; the second parameter should presumably be c4 (or the two values should be labelled distinctly), since the potential in Eq. (9) contains both c4 X^4 and c2 X^2.
[Section II, Eq. (5)] For the diagonal terms k=l, the phase θ_kk is forced to zero by Eq. (2); stating this explicitly would prevent ambiguity about how diagonal populations enter the left and right channels.
[Section III A, Eq. (10)] The tunnelling dynamics formula in Eq. (10) is correct, but the subsequent sentence introducing Eq. (12) should define clearly whether the 'binaural beating' refers to the difference between the left-ear and right-ear instantaneous frequencies or to the amplitude modulation of a single two-tone signal; these give different factors, and the current text is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sonification map is explicitly constructed, the example dynamics are cited external models, and the self-cited YouTube/GitHub companions are not load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

The paper makes no fitted-parameter prediction: the two dynamical examples are taken directly from cited external work (Petruccione's Lindblad dissipative double well in Eqs. (13)-(14), and Popkov-Schutz's boundary-driven XXZ chain in Eqs. (15)-(17)). Equation (4) defines the frequency grid and Eq. (5) defines the stereo rendering; these are explicit construction choices, not derived results. Statements such as "As these phases evolve and off-diagonal terms vanish due to decoherence, the perceived sound shifts from intricate binaural patterns to a simpler monophonic tone" are immediate consequences of the mapping's definition, and the paper presents them as the rationale for the sonification rather than as empirical predictions. The only self-references are the authors' own YouTube playlists and GitHub code (refs. [20], [21], [28]); these are pointer/demonstration artifacts and are not cited as evidence for any physical claim, so they are not load-bearing circularity. The non-injectivity of the additive-synthesis map for N>=4 is a faithfulness and correctness concern about whether distinct density matrices can be distinguished by ear, not a circularity in which an output is equivalent to an input by construction.

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

The paper introduces no fit-to-data parameters in the physics sense: the double-well and spin-chain parameters (c4, c2, gamma, m, T, J, Delta, alpha, beta, r, Phi) are scenario inputs imported from standard cited models, not fitted to reproduce an outcome. The genuinely hand-chosen quantities are the audio scale f0 and the playback time compression. The framework assumes standard quantum formalism (density matrices, Lindblad equations) and two imported model results (Breuer-Petruccione thermal bath, Popkov-Schutz spin helix). No new physical entities are invented. The most exposed assumption is psychoacoustic and is marked as ad hoc in the ledger.

free parameters (2)

f0 (ground-state fundamental frequency) = not stated
The absolute pitch of the sonification in Eq. (4). It does not affect the physics but determines whether the predicted frequencies fall in the audible range; the value is chosen in the code and not reported in the paper.
audio time scaling (dynamics time to playback seconds) = not stated
The Lindblad time t must be compressed into playback seconds for the audio demos; the paper states no mapping, so the perceived speed of the coherence collapse and the audibility of the beat at fb depend on an unstated, hand-chosen time scale.

assumptions (5)

standard math Density-matrix representation in the Hamiltonian eigenbasis with Hermiticity theta_kl = -theta_lk (Eqs. 1-3)
Standard quantum mechanics formalism, cited to Blum [12]; not derived in the paper.
standard math Lindblad master equation and its stochastic-unravelling form (Eqs. 6-7)
Standard open quantum systems result, cited to [14-19]; the paper assumes complete positivity and trace preservation.
domain assumption Breuer-Petruccione double-well jump operator L = sqrt(4 gamma m k_B T / hbar) X + i sqrt(gamma hbar / (4 m k_B T)) P (Eq. 14) thermalises the particle correctly
Imported from [16]; the paper performs no derivation or independent check of this model's validity for the double well.
domain assumption Popkov-Schutz boundary Lindblad operators (Eqs. 16-17) drive the XXZ chain to a pure spin-helix steady state
Imported from [29]; the recoherence example's claim depends on this external result.
ad hoc to paper Psychoacoustic premise: binaural presentation of tones with phases +/- theta_kl yields an intuitive, faithful rendering of coherence
The load-bearing perceptual assumption introduced in Section II (Eq. 5): that humans hear the binaural amplitude and phase rendering as coherence. It is asserted without listening tests or psychoacoustic analysis, and the cited binaural-beat mechanism [23] only covers near-equal-frequency tones.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Sound of Decoherence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S3Y6FD4Z

@misc{pith2026241217045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Sound of Decoherence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S3Y6FD4Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17045}
}

read the original abstract

We explore an unconventional bridge between quantum mechanical density matrices and sound by mapping elements of the density matrix and their phases to auditory signals, thus introducing a framework for Open Quantum Sonification. Employing the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian operator as a basis, each quantum state contributes a frequency proportional to its energy level. The off-diagonal terms, which encode coherence and phase relationships between energy levels, are rendered as binaural signals presented separately to the left and right ears. We illustrate this method within the context of open quantum system dynamics governed by Lindblad equations, presenting first an example of quantum Brownian motion of a particle in a thermal bath, and second, a recoherence process induced by boundary driving that results in spin-helix states. This document serves as a companion to the corresponding audio visual simulations of these models available on the YouTube channel Open Quantum Sonification with the Python Codes on GitHub. The auditory analogy presented here provides an intuitive and experiential means of describing quantum phenomena such as tunnelling, thermalisation, decoherence, and recoherence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17045 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Illustration of a four site XXZ Heisenberg chain with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[11]

Sonification of molecular electronic energy density and its dynamics,

Y. Arasaki and K. Takatsuka, “Sonification of molecular electronic energy density and its dynamics,” RSC ad- vances, vol. 14, no. 13, pp. 9099–9108, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Sonification of particle systems via de broglie’s hypothesis,

B. L. Sturm, “Sonification of particle systems via de broglie’s hypothesis,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD) , Georgia Insti- tute of Technology, 2000

work page 2000
[2]

Composing for an ensemble of atoms: the metamorphosis of scientific experiment into music,

B. L. Sturm, “Composing for an ensemble of atoms: the metamorphosis of scientific experiment into music,” Or- ganised Sound, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 131–145, 2001

work page 2001
[3]

Sonification of quantum spec- tra,

A. de Campo, C. Frauenberger, R. H¨ oldrich, T. Melde, W. Plessas, and B. Sengl, “Sonification of quantum spec- tra,” in Proceedings of ICAD, pp. 6–9, 2005

work page 2005
[4]

An introduction to sonification and its application to theoretical physics,

K. Vogt, A. de Campo, and G. Eckel, “An introduction to sonification and its application to theoretical physics,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of the Alps Adria Acous- tics Association, Graz, Austria , 2007

work page 2007
[5]

Sonification of controlled quantum dynamics,

A. Kontogeorgakopoulos and D. Burgarth, “Sonification of controlled quantum dynamics,” in ICMC, 2014

work page 2014
[6]

Quantum computer music,

E. R. Miranda, “Quantum computer music,” Founda- tions, Methods and Advanced Concepts. Springer, Cham , 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Developing a frame- work for sonifying variational quantum algorithms: Implications for music composition,

P. V. Itabora ´ ı, P. Thomas, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, T. Schw¨ agerl, and M. A. Y´ a˜ nez, “Developing a frame- work for sonifying variational quantum algorithms: Implications for music composition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07104, 2024

arXiv 2024

Show all 29 references

[8]

Quantum: An art-science case study on sonification and sound design in virtual reality,

F. Morawitz, “Quantum: An art-science case study on sonification and sound design in virtual reality,” in 2018 IEEE 4th VR Workshop On Sonic Interactions For Vir- tual Environments (SIVE) , pp. 1–5, IEEE, 2018

2018
[9]

Towards the intuitive understanding of quantum world: Sonification of Rabi oscillations, Wigner functions, and quantum simulators,

R. Yamada, E. Pi˜ nol, S. Grandi, J. Zakrzewski, and M. Lewenstein, “Towards the intuitive understanding of quantum world: Sonification of Rabi oscillations, Wigner functions, and quantum simulators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13313, 2023

2023 arXiv
[10]

Sonification of Wigner functions: case study of intense light-matter interactions,

R. Yamada, A. Reserbat-Plantey, E. Pi˜ nol, and M. Lewenstein, “Sonification of Wigner functions: case study of intense light-matter interactions,” in Interna- tional Conference on Mathematics and Computation in Music, pp. 447–455, Springer, 2024

2024
[12]

Blum, Density matrix theory and applications, vol

K. Blum, Density matrix theory and applications, vol. 64. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[13]

Sinewave additive synthesis revisited,

R. C. Maher, “Sinewave additive synthesis revisited,” in Audio Engineering Society Convention 91 , Audio Engi- neering Society, 1991

1991
[14]

On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups,

G. Lindblad, “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 48, pp. 119–130, 1976

1976
[15]

Com- pletely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level sys- tems,

V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. Sudarshan, “Com- pletely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level sys- tems,” Journal of Mathematical Physics , vol. 17, p. 821, 1976

1976
[16]

Breuer and F

H. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quan- tum Systems . Oxford University Press, 2002

2002
[17]

Percival, Quantum State Diffusion

I. Percival, Quantum State Diffusion . Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1998

1998
[18]

A new wave equation for a continuous non- demolition measurement,

V. Belavkin, “A new wave equation for a continuous non- demolition measurement,” Physics Letters A , vol. 140, no. 5-6, pp. 355–358, 1989

1989
[19]

Oksendal, Stochastic differential equations: an intro- duction with applications

B. Oksendal, Stochastic differential equations: an intro- duction with applications . Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

2013
[20]

Shallow double well playlist

Open Quantum Sonification, “Shallow double well playlist.” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list= PLnFRudoWkGcFL1CHw-Fm1MyMWy0dQSNo1, 2024

2024
[21]

Deep double well playlist

Open Quantum Sonification, “Deep double well playlist.” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list= PLnFRudoWkGcHVpW_9V9Xgd7ijx69aGJo8, 2024

2024
[22]

Razavy, Quantum theory of tunneling

M. Razavy, Quantum theory of tunneling . World Scien- tific, 2013

2013
[23]

Auditory beats in the brain,

G. Oster, “Auditory beats in the brain,” Scientific Amer- ican, vol. 229, no. 4, pp. 94–103, 1973

1973
[24]

Gate-controlled persistent spin helix state in (in, ga) as quantum wells,

M. Kohda, V. Lechner, Y. Kunihashi, T. Dollinger, P. Ol- brich, C. Sch¨ onhuber, I. Caspers, V. Bel’Kov, L. Golub, D. Weiss, et al. , “Gate-controlled persistent spin helix state in (in, ga) as quantum wells,” Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics , vol. 86,...

2012
[25]

Physics and application of persistent spin helix state in semiconductor heterostruc- tures,

M. Kohda and G. Salis, “Physics and application of persistent spin helix state in semiconductor heterostruc- tures,” Semiconductor Science and Technology , vol. 32, no. 7, p. 073002, 2017

2017
[26]

Long-lived phan- tom helix states in Heisenberg quantum magnets,

P. N. Jepsen, Y. K. Lee, H. Lin, I. Dimitrova, Y. Mar- galit, W. W. Ho, and W. Ketterle, “Long-lived phan- tom helix states in Heisenberg quantum magnets,” Na- ture Physics, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 899–904, 2022

2022
[27]

Quantum spin helices more stable than the ground state: Onset of helical pro- tection,

S. K¨ uhn, F. Gerken, L. Funcke, T. Hartung, P. Stor- nati, K. Jansen, and T. Posske, “Quantum spin helices more stable than the ground state: Onset of helical pro- tection,” Physical Review B , vol. 107, no. 21, p. 214422, 2023

2023
[28]

XXZ Heisenberg chain playlist

Open Quantum Sonification, “XXZ Heisenberg chain playlist.” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list= PLnFRudoWkGcGvAqjI4cF_ZnQsnsL0pUNZ, 2024

2024
[29]

Solution of the Lindblad equation for spin helix states,

V. Popkov and G. M. Sch¨ utz, “Solution of the Lindblad equation for spin helix states,”Physical Review E, vol. 95, no. 4, p. 042128, 2017

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Sonification of molecular electronic energy density and its dynamics,

Y. Arasaki and K. Takatsuka, “Sonification of molecular electronic energy density and its dynamics,” RSC ad- vances, vol. 14, no. 13, pp. 9099–9108, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Sonification of particle systems via de broglie’s hypothesis,

B. L. Sturm, “Sonification of particle systems via de broglie’s hypothesis,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD) , Georgia Insti- tute of Technology, 2000

work page 2000

[3] [2]

Composing for an ensemble of atoms: the metamorphosis of scientific experiment into music,

B. L. Sturm, “Composing for an ensemble of atoms: the metamorphosis of scientific experiment into music,” Or- ganised Sound, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 131–145, 2001

work page 2001

[4] [3]

Sonification of quantum spec- tra,

A. de Campo, C. Frauenberger, R. H¨ oldrich, T. Melde, W. Plessas, and B. Sengl, “Sonification of quantum spec- tra,” in Proceedings of ICAD, pp. 6–9, 2005

work page 2005

[5] [4]

An introduction to sonification and its application to theoretical physics,

K. Vogt, A. de Campo, and G. Eckel, “An introduction to sonification and its application to theoretical physics,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of the Alps Adria Acous- tics Association, Graz, Austria , 2007

work page 2007

[6] [5]

Sonification of controlled quantum dynamics,

A. Kontogeorgakopoulos and D. Burgarth, “Sonification of controlled quantum dynamics,” in ICMC, 2014

work page 2014

[7] [6]

Quantum computer music,

E. R. Miranda, “Quantum computer music,” Founda- tions, Methods and Advanced Concepts. Springer, Cham , 2022

work page 2022

[8] [7]

Developing a frame- work for sonifying variational quantum algorithms: Implications for music composition,

P. V. Itabora ´ ı, P. Thomas, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, T. Schw¨ agerl, and M. A. Y´ a˜ nez, “Developing a frame- work for sonifying variational quantum algorithms: Implications for music composition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07104, 2024

arXiv 2024