MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034994187 · doi:10.1103/physreva.70.032111

Quantum-to-classical limit in a Hamiltonian system

2004· article· en· W2034994187 on OpenAlexafffund
L. E. Ballentine

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsHamiltonian (control theory)ObservableScalingQuantum decoherenceChaoticQuantum chaosQuantumQuantum mechanicsClassical limitStatistical physicsLimit (mathematics)Quantum dynamicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamics of quantum and classical probability distributions are computed for a model of two coupled rotors (or pendulums), with emphasis on the $\ensuremath{\hbar}$ scaling of the quantum-classical (QC) differences. This scaling is not the same for coarse-grained and fine-grained quantities. The QC differences in the averages of observables scale as ${\ensuremath{\hbar}}^{2∕3}$ for chaotic states, but as ${\ensuremath{\hbar}}^{2}$ for regular states. The QC differences in probability distributions scale as ${\ensuremath{\hbar}}^{1∕3}$ for chaotic states. No simple scaling is found for those differences in regular states, although their overall magnitudes are similar to those in chaotic states. QC differences arise first in the short-wavelength regime, and subsequently spread to all wavelengths. A satisfactory classical limit is obtained without invoking environmental decoherence, which in any case would be effective in suppressing only short-wavelength QC differences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207