Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Journal of Physics B Atomic and Molecular Physics

Comments on the validity of the unified classical path theory of Stark broadening

E. W. Smith, J. Cooper, C. R. Vidal

Published Feb 1, 1972• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In a recent paper by Frisch and Brissaud (ibid., Vol. 4, 1230, 1971) certain aspects of the unified classical path theory for Stark broadening are criticized; since it is felt that their results could be misleading. Some comments on their paper are offered.
DOI
10.1088/0022-3700/5/2/006

Related papers

Electron Correlations in the Unified Model for Stark Broadening

Hubert Capes, Dietrich Voslamber

Physical Review A•Oct 1, 1972•1 citation

Comment on “Photonic tunneling times"

Aephraim M. Steinberg

In [1], some misleading statements were made about [2] and “zero-time" tunneling. We criticize these claims.

Journal de Physique I•Dec 1, 1994•12 citations

Reply to comments by George and Prigogine on the paper 'On the validity of the Brussels formalism in statistical mechanics'

Peter V. Coveney, O. Penrose

For original paper see Coveney et. al., ibid., vol.25, p.4947 (1992). George and Prigogine (ibid., vol.26, p.3905, 1993) interpret the authors previous paper as destructive criticism of the Brussels formalism. However they argue that their aim was to discover conditions under which this method might be supported by rigorous analysis and that their results give a set of sufficient conditions, admittedly quite restrictive, for the validity of a part of the formalism. The Brussels school has never promulgated any agreed choice for the function space in which the formalism's operators are to act. In their work they chose a Hilbert space. This structure sufficed for the theorems they could prove, which concern only the P subspace. They agree that additional structure, such as that of a rigged Hilbert space, may be necessary to give effect to the Brussels formalism outside the P subspace, but since this additional structure would not have affected their results they do not see that its omission was a misrepresentation. Further comments are made.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Aug 7, 1993•0 citations

Approximate treatment of ion dynamics in stark broadening theory

E.R.A. Segre, Dietrich Voslamber

Physics Letters A•Jan 1, 1974•13 citations

Comment on 'Critical behaviour of spin-s Heisenberg antiferromagnetic chains: analytic and numerical results'

Marcio Jose Martins

Makes some observations on a recent paper by Affleck et al. (ibid., vol.22, p.511, (1989)) about the singlet excitation in the spin-s=1 integrable model and logarithmic corrections for integrable spin models.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Apr 21, 1990•2 citations

A comment on disordered systems

Theodore Kaplan, L. J. Gray

For original papers see ibid., vol.10, p.L597 (1977) and vol.11, p.L949 (1978). The authors respond to two recent letters which comment on the augmented space formalism.

Journal of Physics C Solid State Physics•Sep 28, 1979•3 citations
For original paper see Coveney et. al., ibid., vol.25, p.4947 (1992). George and Prigogine (ibid., vol.26, p.3905, 1993) interpret the authors previous paper as destructive criticism of the Brussels formalism. However they argue that their aim was to discover conditions under which this method might be supported by rigorous analysis and that their results give a set of sufficient conditions, admittedly quite restrictive, for the validity of a part of the formalism. The Brussels school has never promulgated any agreed choice for the function space in which the formalism's operators are to act. In their work they chose a Hilbert space. This structure sufficed for the theorems they could prove, which concern only the P subspace. They agree that additional structure, such as that of a rigged Hilbert space, may be necessary to give effect to the Brussels formalism outside the P subspace, but since this additional structure would not have affected their results they do not see that its omission was a misrepresentation. Further comments are made.