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

Comments and questions about the interacting-boson model

DAVID J. ROWE, F. K. McGowan, S. Raman, Ramon Alexander Wyss, Vladimir Zelevinsky

Published Jan 1, 1992• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): What Is Measured in Quantum Mechanics — Bosonic Duality Eliminated by Boson–Fermion Asymmetry

Radu Necsanu

The Measurement Questions (structural framing) Any complete account of quantum measurement must answer four logically distinct questions: What is measuredWhich physical identity component is registered in the measurement event? Pre-measurement evolution(context for the target measurement)What interactions occur between initial preparation and the designated target measurement, and how do they reshape or constrain the admissible evolution of the wavefunction? Where is it measuredAt which spatial location does the registrar event occur? When is it measuredAt which lattice tick does the registrar event occur? These questions are independent in definition but coupled in prediction: prior to realization, specifying one of {where, when} necessarily leaves the other probabilistic. Scope of this work This work resolves Question (1): what is measured. We show that: Bosons cannot be measured directly. A “boson measurement” is always the measurement of a fermionic non-optimal transfer induced by bosonic interaction. All registered outcomes are fermionic registrar events. Bosonic wave–particle duality is therefore not fundamental, but an artifact of fermionic detection. Questions (2), (3), and (4) — including explicit space–time prediction and pre-measurement evolution (e.g. elastic recombination) — are deferred to follow-up work. Standalone follow-up work on: Necsanu, R. (2025). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): A Minimum Structural Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation, and Cosmology.Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17992660ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1281-9180

•Jan 10, 2026•0 citations

The Interacting Boson Model

Abraham Klein

Science•Apr 2, 1982•1 citation

Comment on “Fragmented Condensate Ground State of Trapped Weakly Interacting Bosons in Two Dimensions”

G. M. Kavoulakis, S. M. Reimann, Ben R. Mottelson

Recently Liu et al. [PRL 87, 030404 (2001)] examined the lowest state of a weakly-interacting Bose-Einstein condensate. In addition to other interesting results, using the method of the pair correlation function, they questioned the validity of the mean-field picture of the formation of vortices and stated that the vortices are generated at the center of the cloud. This is in apparent contradiction to the Gross-Pitaevskii approach, which predicts that the vortices successively enter the cloud from its outer parts as L/N (where N is the number of atoms in the trap and hbar(L) is the angular momentum of the system) increases. We have managed to reproduce the results of Liu et al. however a more careful analysis presented below confirms the validity of the mean-field approach.

arXiv:cond-mat/0109329•Physical Review Letters•Jul 30, 2002•6 citations

The interacting boson approximation model and applications

Olaf Scholten

•Jan 1, 1980•22 citations

Comment on “Quantum suppression of chaos in the spin-boson model”

Luca Bonci, Roberto Roncaglia, Bruce J. West +1 more

We independently examine the case of a spin-$j$ particle interacting with a boson field studied by Finney and Gea-Banacloche. We concentrate on their conclusion that in the case $j=1/2$ the correspondence between the quantum and the semiclassical case is damaged to the point that the increase of entropy and quantum uncertainty for regular motion exceeds that for the chaotic case. We demonstrate by direct calculation that this conclusion is the result of mistakenly identifying a regular evolution of the spin-boson system as being chaotic.

Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics•Aug 1, 1997•0 citations

Some results on the spin-boson model

Juan José García‐Ripoll

•Aug 20, 2014•0 citations
The Measurement Questions (structural framing) Any complete account of quantum measurement must answer four logically distinct questions: What is measuredWhich physical identity component is registered in the measurement event? Pre-measurement evolution(context for the target measurement)What interactions occur between initial preparation and the designated target measurement, and how do they reshape or constrain the admissible evolution of the wavefunction? Where is it measuredAt which spatial location does the registrar event occur? When is it measuredAt which lattice tick does the registrar event occur? These questions are independent in definition but coupled in prediction: prior to realization, specifying one of {where, when} necessarily leaves the other probabilistic. Scope of this work This work resolves Question (1): what is measured. We show that: Bosons cannot be measured directly. A “boson measurement” is always the measurement of a fermionic non-optimal transfer induced by bosonic interaction. All registered outcomes are fermionic registrar events. Bosonic wave–particle duality is therefore not fundamental, but an artifact of fermionic detection. Questions (2), (3), and (4) — including explicit space–time prediction and pre-measurement evolution (e.g. elastic recombination) — are deferred to follow-up work. Standalone follow-up work on: Necsanu, R. (2025). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): A Minimum Structural Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation, and Cosmology.Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17992660ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1281-9180
Recently Liu et al. [PRL 87, 030404 (2001)] examined the lowest state of a weakly-interacting Bose-Einstein condensate. In addition to other interesting results, using the method of the pair correlation function, they questioned the validity of the mean-field picture of the formation of vortices and stated that the vortices are generated at the center of the cloud. This is in apparent contradiction to the Gross-Pitaevskii approach, which predicts that the vortices successively enter the cloud from its outer parts as L/N (where N is the number of atoms in the trap and hbar(L) is the angular momentum of the system) increases. We have managed to reproduce the results of Liu et al. however a more careful analysis presented below confirms the validity of the mean-field approach.
We independently examine the case of a spin-jjj particle interacting with a boson field studied by Finney and Gea-Banacloche. We concentrate on their conclusion that in the case j=1/2j=1/2j=1/2 the correspondence between the quantum and the semiclassical case is damaged to the point that the increase of entropy and quantum uncertainty for regular motion exceeds that for the chaotic case. We demonstrate by direct calculation that this conclusion is the result of mistakenly identifying a regular evolution of the spin-boson system as being chaotic.