Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Caustics and Superenergy in the Quantum Bouncer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the quantum bouncer, interference near each classical rebound is a cusp caustic, and the local weak-value energy can exceed every eigenenergy in the state's finite superposition.

desk verdict A clean, worthwhile application of catastrophe optics to the quantum bouncer; the caustic analysis holds up, but the headline superenergy fraction needs a convergence check before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02427 v1 pith:ULGKJEAM submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph math-phmath.MPnlin.PSnlin.SI

Marko. M. Ćosić , Andrew N. Jordan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MPnlin.PSnlin.SI
keywords quantumbouncercausticsPearceyfunctioncuspcatastrophesuperenergyweakvaluesMadelung-Bohmtrajectoriesphasesingularities
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 uses the quantum bouncer—a particle in a linear gravitational potential with a hard floor—as a testbed for two linked ideas. First, it tries to show that the interference pattern formed by a Gaussian wavepacket near every classical rebound is the diffraction-softened image of a cusp caustic, locally described by the Pearcey function built on the cusp catastrophe. Second, it tries to show that the weak-value local energy of the truncated state can exceed the largest energy eigenvalue in the superposition, with superbehaving regions covering about 25 percent of spacetime above the highest caustic. If true, the bouncer provides a clean, solvable model where universal catastrophe optics and anomalous weak-value energies coexist, and the Madelung–Bohm trajectory picture explains how the interference climbs into classically forbidden heights.

What carries the argument

Two objects carry the argument. (1) The cusp catastrophe polynomial A3(η;x,y)=η⁴+xη²+yη, whose bifurcation set 27y²+8x³=0 is a semicubical parabola; the associated Pearcey function, the oscillatory integral of exp(iA3), is the local semiclassical wavefunction model near each cusp, and its fitted version P(√κ(τ_C−τ)/τ̄_C, √κ(χ−χ_C)/χ̄_C) matches the bouncer's interference pattern. (2) The local weak-value energy E_N(χ,τ)=⟨χ|Ĥ|ψ_N⟩/⟨χ|ψ_N⟩, computed from the Airy eigenfunction expansion; its real part measures the local mean energy conditioned on position and its imaginary part the log-density growth rate. The two are tied together by the Madelung–Bohm form Re{E}=v²/4+V_eff and Im{E}=−J′/2ρ, s

What would settle it

Recompute the superenergy area fraction δ'_r from Eq. (51) at N=600, 800, and 1000 with the same parameters χ0=15, σ=0.15, and compare the encompassing contours e1–e4. If the fraction moves toward zero (or the contours shrink away) as N grows, the reported superenergy behavior is a truncation artifact; if it stabilizes at a positive value, the claim is confirmed as a property of finite-bandwidth Gaussian bouncer states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of the paper is a specific identification: near the return points C1, C2, ... the numerically computed wavefunction is locally modeled, with fitted scale parameters and an Arnol'd action, by the Pearcey function P(x,y)=∫exp[i(η⁴+xη²+yη)]dη, whose bifurcation set reproduces the classical caustic envelope and whose singularity chains organize the wave nodes. The companion quantitative claim is that the local weak-value energy E_N(χ,τ), defined as ⟨χ|Ĥ|ψ_N⟩/⟨χ|ψ_N⟩, has real part above ε_N in a nonzero-measure set, rising to a 25.1% area fraction in the extended region above the highest quantum caustic (Eq. 51). The paper also shows that the truncated initial state superoscillates

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the N=400 truncated eigenfunction expansion is a faithful stand-in for the exact Gaussian evolution when computing the caustic structure and, especially, the superenergy fractions; the paper explicitly shows one truncation effect (the near-origin superoscillation) vanishes as N grows, but no convergence proof is given for the 25.1% fraction or the singularity chains, so those numbers could in principle be cutoff artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near every classical return point, the bouncer's wavefunction is locally universal: the same Pearcey/cusp model (with adjusted scales) describes the interference, and by Whitney's theorem the pattern is structurally stable under perturbations.
  • Superenergy is concentrated around phase singularities; in the base region D, only about 3.5% of the area has Re{E_N} above ε_N, and the largest superbehaving region sits above the highest quantum caustic where the fraction reaches 25.1%.
  • Madelung–Bohm trajectories cannot cross phase singularities; they are trapped between singularity chains, run parallel to the classical caustic, and escape through subdominant singularities, providing a quantitative hydrodynamic picture of caustic traversal.
  • For the truncated state, the region-averaged local energy in D (≈28.37+0.16i) is close to the state's mean energy (≈26.04), so the superenergy spikes are local anomalies superimposed on ordinary average energy.
  • The superoscillating structure of the truncated initial state near the floor disappears in the N→∞ limit, so it is a truncation effect rather than a property of the exact Gaussian state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 25.1% fraction survives increasing N, superenergy would be a robust property of energy-limited approximations to smooth localized states in generic bound potentials; a direct numerical check at N=600–1000 would settle this.
  • The same cusp-caustic machinery should organize interference in other one-dimensional traps with anharmonic spectra (e.g., the 2D bouncing ball), where the caustic topology and singularity chains could be compared against the Pearcey prediction.
  • A cold-neutron bouncing experiment with position postselection could in principle search for the predicted superenergy hotspots; the Bohm-trajectory 'singularity alley' provides a map of where anomalous local energies should appear.
  • The paper leaves open whether superenergy above the highest eigenenergy persists for the exact (untruncated) Gaussian, whose energy spectrum is unbounded; if it does not, the phenomenon is inherently a property of the physically realizable finite-bandwidth state.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the quantum bouncer (a particle in a linear potential with a hard wall) starting from a Gaussian wavepacket, approximated by the first N=400 energy eigenstates. It shows that the interference pattern near each classical return point is organized by cusp caustics and that the local wavefunction can be modeled by a Pearcey function with fitted scale parameters (Sec. IV B, App. C). The authors define a weak-value local energy E~_N and report regions where Re{E~_N} exceeds the largest eigenvalue ε_N in the truncated superposition, including a 25.1% fraction in an extended spacetime region (Eq. 51). They also analyze the same structures with Madelung-Bohm trajectories, interpreting the singularity chains as guiding the trajectories. The main quantitative superenergy claims are computed at a single truncation order.

Significance. If the truncation-dependence issue is resolved, the paper would be a solid demonstration of catastrophe-theory classification in a simple quantum system, with a useful hydrodynamic perspective. The numerical work is reproducible from the formulas in App. D, and the authors are careful to report that the initial-state superoscillation vanishes as N→∞ (Sec. IV A). However, the paper's most quantitative superenergy result — the 25.1% fraction — is not yet shown to be a robust feature of the quantum bouncer; it may be an artifact of the N=400 cutoff. Because this is a central claim, the manuscript requires additional analysis before it can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV C, Eq. (51)] The fraction 0.251 is computed with N=400, ε_N=-z_N, and D'=(0≤χ≤170)×(0≤τ≤30). The paper does not provide any N-dependence for this quantity. Since -z_N ~ N^(2/3), both the threshold and the position of the high-altitude contours change with the cutoff; the paper itself shows in §IV B that the maximum stream height is approximately -z_N (checked at N=600,800). In contrast, the analogous initial-state superoscillation of the same truncated state is explicitly found to disappear in the N→∞ limit (§IV A). Without either a convergence study of the fraction (51) and of the contour family Re{E~_N}=ε_N, or a physical argument for a specific cutoff, the 25.1% claim is not established as a property of the Gaussian bouncer. I request results at several larger N (e.g., 600, 800, 1000) or a scaling argument.
  2. [§II, §IV A, Eq. (42)] The superenergy definition in Eq. (1) is relative to a finite spectral range [omin,omax]. For the exact Gaussian state the energy support is unbounded, so 'exceeds the highest energy in the superposition' is only meaningful after truncation; indeed the exact-limit local energy in Eq. (42) is smooth and has no such threshold. The abstract and conclusions state the quantum bouncer 'exhibits' superenergy, but the paper's own Sec. IV A shows a related superoscillation of the same state is a truncation effect. Please either prove that the superenergy statistics stabilize as N→∞ or explicitly frame all superenergy claims as properties of the finite energy-limited state ψ_N and justify the chosen truncation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] 'Catastrophic polynomial A4' should be 'A3' (the cusp catastrophe).
  2. [Eqs. (47)-(48)] The threshold 10 in the indicator functions is unexplained. If superbehavior is defined as Re below the spectral minimum ε_1 or above ε_N, using 10 misclassifies values in (ε_1,10); please justify or replace with ε_1.
  3. [Appendix C] Typos: 'last square sense' should be 'least square sense'; 'biffuctaion' should be 'bifurcation'.
  4. [Fig. 6] 'Maximum re-bounce height' should likely be 'maximum rebound height'.
  5. [Sec. III, Eq. (4)] The text says '-g is the gravitational acceleration'; it should say 'g is the gravitational acceleration' (or '-g is the acceleration').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Pearcey model is fit-informed but retains independent content, and the superenergy/truncation issue is a robustness question, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The Gaussian expansion coefficients are obtained analytically from the Airy-function identity (Appendix A, Eqs. A1-A6), the caustic lines are computed from the classical trajectory envelope (Eqs. 31-33), and the local-energy distributions are direct numerical outputs of the truncated state psi_N (Eqs. 41-51). The only element that might superficially look circular is the catastrophic model in Appendix C: the parameters (tau_bar_C = 0.224, chi_bar_C = 0.509, kappa = 0.010) are fixed by requiring the model cusp to sit at C1, the lower caustic branch to pass through D1, and the first Pearcey singularity to coincide with s1 (Eqs. C9-C16). Those are fitting constraints, but the paper's claimed agreement is about the overall pattern of singularity chains and bright/dark structure, not merely about the fitted points; the remaining singularities and chain morphology are not fixed by the fit, so the reproduction claim has independent content. The model is also independently motivated by the standard A3 cusp catastrophe and Pearcey integral (Eqs. 34-38, 47-49), not by a self-citation chain. The superenergy claims are explicitly for the N=400 truncated state; the paper states in Sec. VI that 'any finite truncation of this waveform on an energy limited set of energy eigenfunctions can lead to superenergy behavior,' and in Sec. IV A it admits that the analogous initial-state superoscillation wavenumber satisfies |k_psi| -> |z_N|^{1/2} as N -> infinity, 'so no superoscillations exist in this limit.' The absence of an N-convergence study for Eq. (51) is a legitimate external-validity or robustness concern, but it does not make Eq. (51) equivalent to its own input by construction. The self-citations (e.g., [13], [51]) supply definitions and prior context but are not load-bearing for the bouncer-specific Airy expansion, caustic envelope, or numerical superenergy integrals. No specific circular step satisfying the quoted-reduction evidence bar was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard quantum mechanical framework, the semiclassical catastrophic expansion, and the finite-N truncation. The genuinely adjustable quantities are the Pearcey scale parameters (fitted to D1 and s1) and the truncation order N; no new physical entities or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Pearcey scale \bar chi_{C1} = 0.509 (dimensionless units)
    Chosen in App. C (Eqs. C9-C15) so the bifurcation set passes through D1 and the first Pearcey singularity matches s1; this drives the visual agreement in Fig. 3(c).
  • Pearcey scale \bar tau_{C1} = 0.224 (dimensionless units)
    Chosen with \bar chi_{C1} to place the model's cusp at C1 and enforce the D1 and s1 matching conditions.
  • Pearcey scaling \kappa = 0.010
    Minimizes the cost function in Eq. (C12), balancing the two consistency conditions; not derived from the classical trajectory family.
  • Truncation order N = 400 (also 600, 800 used for checks)
    The energy-limited approximation is central to all superenergy claims and to the caustic height -z_N; no systematic convergence analysis is given.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-N eigenfunction expansion psi_N approximates the exact Gaussian solution well enough to describe caustics and superenergy (N=400 sufficient).
    Used throughout Secs. IV-V; the paper verifies norm 0.9996 and some checks at N=600/800, but gives no systematic convergence for superenergy fractions; the initial superoscillation is explicitly a truncation artifact (Sec. IV A).
  • domain assumption Near a cusp caustic the wavefunction is locally the Pearcey integral (37) with linear control parameters.
    Standard semiclassical catastrophe optics (Refs. 3, 45-49); invoked to build Eq. (C16).
  • standard math Airy functions and their asymptotic/zero formulas remain accurate for the low-n coefficients (n approximately 9-16) relevant to the Gaussian overlap.
    Used in Eq. (19) and Appendix B; the asymptotic forms are standard but applied at moderately small n.
  • domain assumption The classical envelope caustics are the semiclassical skeleton of the quantum interference pattern (Whitney theorem; generic stable caustics in 2D).
    Underpins the identification of c1, c2, c3 with cusp catastrophes and the generic claim in the Conclusions.
  • domain assumption sigma << 1 justifies extending the lower integration limit to -infinity when computing overlap coefficients (App. A).
    Needed for the analytic coefficient formula Eq. (19); controlled for chi0=15, sigma=0.15.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Caustics and Superenergy in the Quantum Bouncer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULGKJEAM

@misc{pith2026260802427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Caustics and Superenergy in the Quantum Bouncer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULGKJEAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02427}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the quantum interference and energetic phenomena associated with classical caustics in the quantum bouncing ball problem, we refer to as quantum caustics. By considering an initial Gaussian wavepacket, we show that caustics associated with the underlying classical trajectory families are exhibited. We connect the associated phase singularity chains in the vicinity of the caustic with the semiclassical Pearcey function built on the cusp catastrophe lines. We also quantify the amount of superenergy exhibited in these solutions - regions of space where the local energy exceeds the largest constituent energy eigenvalue. We give a complimentary description of the caustic and superenergy behavior using the Madelung/Bohm trajectories, which gives additional insight about the energy of the trajectories and how they traverse the phase singularity chains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Log-scale probability density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a,b) Magnified views of arg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The local energy values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows evolution of E˜N (χ, τ ) in region D = (0 ≤ χ ≤ 35) × (0 ≤ τ ≤ 25). Note that superbehav￾ing regions around phase singularities from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Evolution of Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Evolution of the probability current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Knorr, The geometry of burning-mirrors in antiquity, Isis74, 53 (1983)

    W. Knorr, The geometry of burning-mirrors in antiquity, Isis74, 53 (1983)

    1983

  2. [2]

    Arnold,Singularities of caustics and wave fronts (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    V. Arnold,Singularities of caustics and wave fronts (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Poston and I

    T. Poston and I. Stewart,Catastrophe Theory and Its Applications(Dover Publications, 1996)

    1996

  4. [4]

    Naghiloo, D

    M. Naghiloo, D. Tan, P. Harrington, P. Lewalle, A. N. Jordan, and K. W. Murch, Quantum caustics in resonance-fluorescence trajectories, Physical Review A 96, 053807 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Lewalle, J

    P. Lewalle, J. Steinmetz, and A. N. Jordan, Chaos in continuously monitored quantum systems: An optimal- path approach, Physical Review A98, 012141 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    M. V. Berry and C. Upstill, Iv catastrophe optics: morphologies of caustics and their diffraction patterns, Progress in optics18, 257 (1980)

    1980

  7. [7]

    P. W. Langhoff, Schr¨ odinger particle in a gravitational well, American Journal of Physics39, 954 (1971)

    1971

  8. [8]

    R. L. Gibbs, The quantum bouncer, American Journal of Physics43, 25 (1975)

    1975

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Abele, T

    H. Abele, T. Jenke, D. Stadler, and P. Geltenbort, Qubounce: the dynamics of ultra-cold neutrons falling in the gravity potential of the earth, Nuclear Physics A 827, 593c (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Elouard and A

    C. Elouard and A. N. Jordan, Efficient quantum measure- ment engines, Physical review letters120, 260601 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Berry, Wavelength-independent fringe spacing in rain- bows from falling neutrons, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General15, L385 (1982)

    M. Berry, Wavelength-independent fringe spacing in rain- bows from falling neutrons, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General15, L385 (1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    Gea-Banacloche, A quantum bouncing ball, American Journal of Physics67, 776 (1999)

    J. Gea-Banacloche, A quantum bouncing ball, American Journal of Physics67, 776 (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    A. N. Jordan, Y. Aharonov, D. C. Struppa, F. Colombo, I. Sabadini, T. Shushi, J. Tollaksen, J. C. Howell, and A. N. Vamivakas, Superphenomena for arbitrary quan- tum observables, Phys. Rev. A110, 012206 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Aharonov, D

    Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988)

    1988

  7. [15]

    Dressel, M

    J. Dressel, M. Malik, F. M. Miatto, A. N. Jordan, and R. W. Boyd, Colloquium: Understanding quantum weak values: Basics and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 307 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    A. N. Jordan and I. A. Siddiqi,Quantum measurement: Theory and practice(Cambridge University Press, 2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Madelung, Quantum theory in hydrodynamical form, z

    E. Madelung, Quantum theory in hydrodynamical form, z. Phys40(1927)

    1927

  10. [18]

    Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum the- ory in terms of ”hidden” variables

    D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum the- ory in terms of ”hidden” variables. i, Physical Review85, 166 (1952)

    1952

  11. [19]

    Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum the- ory in terms of ”hidden” variables

    D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum the- ory in terms of ”hidden” variables. ii, Physical Review 85, 180 (1952)

    1952

  12. [20]

    Dressel and A

    J. Dressel and A. N. Jordan, Significance of the imaginary part of the weak value, Physical Review A85, 012107 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Aharonov, S

    Y. Aharonov, S. Popescu, and D. Rohrlich,How a soft photon can emit a hard photon, Technical Report TAUP 1847-90 (Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, 1991)

    1991

  14. [22]

    M. V. Berry and S. Fishman, Escaping superoscillations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51, 025205 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Aharonov, S

    Y. Aharonov, S. Popescu, and D. Rohrlich, On conser- vation laws in quantum mechanics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e1921529118 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    A. N. Jordan, Superresolution using supergrowth and in- tensity contrast imaging, Quantum Studies: Mathemat- ics and Foundations7, 285 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Karmakar, A

    T. Karmakar, A. Chakraborty, A. N. Vamivakas, and A. N. Jordan, Supergrowth and sub-wavelength object 18 imaging, Opt. Express31, 37174 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    A. N. Jordan, J. C. Howell, N. Vamivakas, and E. Karimi, Superoscillations and physical applications, inOperator Theory, edited by D. Alpay, I. Sabadini, and F. Colombo (Springer, Basel, 2025) pp. 1–33

    2025

  19. [27]

    M. V. Berry, A note on superoscillations associated with bessel beams, Journal of Optics15, 1 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Aharonov, S

    Y. Aharonov, S. Popescu, and D. Rohrlich, Conservation laws and the foundations of quantum mechanics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.120, e2220810120 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Sanner and J.-J

    R. Sanner and J.-J. Slotine, Gaussian networks for direct adaptive control, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 3, 837 (1992)

    1992

  22. [30]

    M. R. Dennis, A. C. Hamilton, and J. Courtial, Super- oscillation in speckle patterns, Optics Letters33, 2976 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    M. V. Berry, Superoscillations for monochromatic stand- ing waves, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical53, 225201 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Viteri-Pflucker, C

    V. Viteri-Pflucker, C. J. Ryan, S. KR, K. Liang, D. Spiecker, S. Wadood, A. N. Jordan, and A. Nick Vami- vakas, Supergrowth in speckle patterns, Optics letters50, 137 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Karmakar and A

    T. Karmakar and A. N. Jordan, Beyond superoscillation: general theory of approximation with bandlimited func- tions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56, 495204 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano,Modern Quantum Me- chanics, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, 2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    ˇSoda and A

    B. ˇSoda and A. Kempf, Efficient method to create super- oscillations with generic target behavior, Quantum Stud- ies: Mathematics and Foundations7, 347 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Gonera, Isochronic potentials and new family of super- integrable systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General37, 4085 (2004)

    C. Gonera, Isochronic potentials and new family of super- integrable systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General37, 4085 (2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    Gonera, P

    C. Gonera, P. Kosi´ nski, and P. Ma´ slanka, Superinte- grable models of winternitz type, Physics Letters A289, 66 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    M. B. Sheftel, P. Tempesta, and P. Winternitz, Superin- tegrable systems in quantum mechanics and classical lie theory, Journal of Mathematical Physics42, 659 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    Vall´ ee and M

    O. Vall´ ee and M. Soares,Airy Functions and Applications to Physics, 2nd ed. (World Scientific Publishing Com- pany, 2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Gottlieb and S

    D. Gottlieb and S. A. Orszag,Numerical Analysis of Spectral Methods: Theory and Applications, CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 26 (SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1977)

    1977

  33. [41]

    E. W. Cheney and W. A. Light,A Course in Approxima- tion Theory, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 101 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    Aharonov, F

    Y. Aharonov, F. Colombo, I. Sabadini, D. C. Struppa, and J. Tollaksen,The Mathematics of Superoscillations, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 247 (American Mathematical Society, 2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    M. V. Berry and K. E. Mount, Semiclassical approxima- tions in wave mechanics, Reports on Progress in Physics 35, 315 (1972)

    1972

  36. [44]

    J. W. Bruce and P. J. Giblin,Curves and Singularities: A Geometrical Introduction to Singularity Theory, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992)

    1992

  37. [45]

    M. V. Berry, Waves and thom’s theorem, Advances in Physics25, 1 (1976)

    1976

  38. [46]

    M. V. Berry, Singularities in waves and rays, inLes Houches Lecture Series Session XXXV, Vol. 35, edited by R. Balian, M. Kl´ eman, and J.-P. Poirier (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981) pp. 453–543

    1981

  39. [47]

    V. I. Arnol’d, Integrals of rapidly oscillating functions and singularities of projections of Lagrangian manifolds, Functional Analysis and Its Applications6, 222 (1972)

    1972

  40. [48]

    T. Pearcey, The structure of an electromagnetic field in the neighbourhood of a cusp of a caustic, The Lon- don, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science37, 311 (1946)

    1946

  41. [49]

    M. V. Berry and C. J. Howls, Integrals with coalescing saddles, inNIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions, edited by F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2010) Chap. 36, pp. 775–793

    2010

  42. [50]

    M. V. Berry, J. F. Nye, and F. J. Wright, The elliptic um- bilic diffraction catastrophe, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences291, 453 (1979)

    1979

  43. [51]

    ´Cosi´ c, S

    M. ´Cosi´ c, S. Petrovi´ c, and S. Bellucci, On the phase- space catastrophes in dynamics of the quantum parti- cle in an optical lattice potential, Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science30, 103107 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    M. V. Berry and D. H. J. O’Dell, Ergodicity in wave- wave diffraction, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General32, 3571 (1999)

    1999

  45. [53]

    L. K. Shalm, S. Kocsis, S. Ravets, B. Braverman, M. J. Stevens, R. P. Mirin, and A. M. Steinberg, Observation of bohmian trajectories of a single photon using weak mea- surements, inConference on Lasers and Electro-Optics 2010(Optica Publishing Group, 2010) p. QThK7

    2010

  46. [54]

    Kocsis, B

    S. Kocsis, B. Braverman, S. Ravets, M. J. Stevens, R. P. Mirin, L. K. Shalm, and A. M. Steinberg, Observing the average trajectories of single photons in a two-slit in- terferometer, inProceedings of the International Quan- tum Electronics Conference and Conference on Lasers a...

    2011

  47. [55]

    D. H. Mahler, L. Rozema, K. Fisher, L. Vermeyden, K. J. Resch, H. M. Wiseman, and A. Steinberg, Experimental nonlocal and surreal bohmian trajectories, Science Ad- vances2, e1501466 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    H. M. Wiseman, Grounding bohmian mechanics in weak values and bayesianism, New Journal of Physics9, 165 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    P. R. Holland,The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Ac- count of the de Broglie–Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1993)

    1993

  50. [58]

    R. L. De Valois and K. K. De Valois,Spatial Vision(Ox- ford University Press, New York, NY, 1988)

    1988

  51. [59]

    J. F. Nye and M. V. Berry, Dislocations in wave trains, Proceedings of the Royal Society A336, 165 (1974)

    1974

  52. [60]

    Waegell, Madelung mechanics and superoscillations, New Journal of Physics26, 083002 (2024)

    M. Waegell, Madelung mechanics and superoscillations, New Journal of Physics26, 083002 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Whitney, On singularities of mappings of euclidean spaces

    H. Whitney, On singularities of mappings of euclidean spaces. I. Mappings of the plane into the plane, Annals of Mathematics62, 374 (1955)

    1955

  54. [62]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, eds.,Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables(Dover Publications, New York,

  55. [63]

    R. B. Dingle,Asymptotic Expansions: Their Derivation 19 and Interpretation(Academic Press, London, 1973)

    1973

  56. [64]

    D. E. Amos, Algorithm 644: A portable package for bessel functions of a complex argument and nonnegative order, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software12, 265 (1986)

    1986

  57. [65]

    N. P. Kirk, J. N. L. Connor, and C. A. Hobbs, An adap- tive contour code for the numerical evaluation of the os- cillatory cuspoid canonical integrals and their derivatives, Computer Physics Communications124, 165 (2000), program library: cuspint

    2000

  58. [66]

    W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline, Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm, ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics21, 163 (1987)

    1987

  59. [67]

    Brandt, H

    S. Brandt, H. D. Dahmen, E. Gjonaj, and T. Stroh, Quantile motion and tunneling, Physics Letters A249, 265 (1998)

    1998

  60. [1972]

    1972 printing

    reprint of NBS Applied Mathematics Series 55 (1964); with corrections through the Dec. 1972 printing

    1964

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.