MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586605998 · doi:10.22401/jnus.19.3.08

Interpretation of the q-Deformed 1-D Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

2016· article· en· W2586605998 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. S. Mahmood, M A Z Habeeb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Al-Nahrain University-Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsHarmonic oscillatorPhase spaceAnharmonicityQuantum harmonic oscillatorQuantumMathematical physicsUncertainty principleClassical limitMathematicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsClassical mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interpretation of the q-deformed 1-D quantum harmonic oscillator is investigated for two definitions of q-deformation. This investigation is achieved by using Zaslavskii's method to obtain the Heisenberg equations of motion (quantum Liouville equations) in the undeformed phase space. These quantum Liouville equations exhibit a non-commutative geometry produce from the existence of the dilatation operator which is inherent in the q-deformation process. The classical limits of these equations are obtained by applying a special classical limiting condition to produce the classical Liouville equations of the q-deformed oscillator. These classical Liouville equations are solved by using the method of characteristics in order to obtain the classical probability distribution functions for this system. The 2-D and 3-D behaviors of these functions were then investigated using a computer visualization method. The results of the mathematical derivations together with the computer visualization method show that the classical limit of the quantum Liouville equations for the q-deformed 1-D quantum harmonic oscillator are statistical in nature where the nonlinearity parameter for the q-deformed oscillator is connected with h . This result conforms to that obtained by Ghosh et al. for the undeformed 1-D quantum harmonic oscillator.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Al-Nahrain University-ScienceSame topicNonlinear Waves and SolitonsFrench-language works237,207