Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

On the Planckian bound for heat diffusion in insulators

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum cap on sound velocity explains Planckian heat transport in insulators.

desk verdict A useful empirical correlation and a fresh way to think about Planckian transport, but the central 'derivation' of Eq. (10) is actually a fit; the velocity bound alone does not imply the Planckian bound. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04792 v2 pith:GLOM7WPT submitted 2019-08-13 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.stat-mech

Connie H. Mousatov , Sean A. Hartnoll This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mech PACS 66.70.+f63.20.-e
keywords PlanckianboundthermaltransportphononumklappscatteringsoundvelocitymeltingLindemanncriterioninsulatorsdiffusivity
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 argues that the observed near-Planckian heat diffusion in insulating crystals is not a sign of exotic quantum dynamics but the ordinary consequence of a quantum upper bound on sound velocity. It constructs a melting velocity $v_M = (k_B T_M)a/\hbar$ from the melting temperature, interatomic spacing, and Planck's constant, and claims that every crystal obeys $v_s \lesssim v_M$. If this velocity bound is combined with the classical high-temperature phonon scattering rate, the transport lifetime satisfies $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}} \sim v_M/v_s \gtrsim 1$, which is precisely the Planckian bound. The paper supports the claim by showing that for dozens of insulating crystals, from alkali halides to perovskites, the measured $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ tracks $v_M/v_s$ with a slope near one third. The payoff would be a unified explanation of why many insulators conduct heat as fast as quantum mechanics permits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the melting velocity $v_M \equiv (k_B T_M)a/\hbar$, a Lieb-Robinson-style maximal velocity for crystals. It is derived by applying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to the Lindemann energy cap for a single vibrating atom, and it plays the role that the coupling $J$ plays in the Lieb-Robinson bound for spin systems. The classical phonon scattering rate $1/\tau = v_s/\ell$ with $\ell \sim 1/T$ is then combined with $v_s \lesssim v_M$, converting a velocity cap into the Planckian lifetime bound. In the comparison with data, $v_M/v_s$ is the one quantity that organizes the materials: the ratio runs from about 5 to 19, and $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ runs with it.

What would settle it

Measure the thermal diffusivity $D$ and the elastic sound velocity $v_s$ of any insulating crystal at a temperature safely above its Debye temperature, and compare the extracted $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ with $v_M/v_s$ computed from tabulated $T_M$ and density. A single crystal with $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ below unity, or one that systematically violates the $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}} \sim v_M/v_s$ trend while still obeying the classical scattering law, would falsify the claimed reduction. The same test can be run in a classical molecular-dynamics simulation of a model atomistic solid, where $T_M$ and the anharmonic scattering rate are both computable from first principles.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is equation (10): a Lieb-Robinson-type bound on the sound velocity implies a Planckian bound on scattering, $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}} \sim v_M/v_s \gtrsim 1$. The derivation begins with a classical anharmonic-lattice Hamiltonian and the textbook result that above the Debye temperature the phonon umklapp scattering rate is $1/\tau = v_s/\ell$ with a mean free path $\ell \sim a^3 K/(\gamma^2 k_B T)$. The purely classical sound velocity is then bounded from above by combining the Lindemann melting criterion, written as an energy cap $k_B T_M \gtrsim p^2/2M + K(x-x_{\mathrm{eq}})^2/2$, with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The result is $v_s \lesssim v_M \equiv (k_B T_M)a/\hbar$. Using the scattering rate, this velocity bound becomes the Planckian bound. The paper verifies the proportionality $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}} \approx \frac{1}{3} v_M/v_s$ across alkali halides, oxides, perovskites, and semiconductors, with a separate cluster of high-conductivity adamantine crystals that have anomalously long mean free paths.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is equation (6), which treats the Lindemann melting criterion as a per-atom energy cap $k_B T_M \gtrsim p^2/2M + K(x-x_{\mathrm{eq}})^2/2$; melting is in reality a collective instability, so the sound-velocity bound is exactly as strong as this single-atom idealization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wherever $v_M/v_s$ is small, heat diffusion in an insulator is predicted to be Planckian, $\tau \sim \tau_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, independent of structural complexity; this explains why simple LiF and complex oxides can appear in the same near-Planckian class.
  • The slope $\frac{1}{3}$ in the material plot implies that, with the conventional three-dimensional definition $D = \frac{1}{3}v_s^2\tau'$, the phonon mean free path near melting is $\ell' \approx (T_M/T)a$.
  • The velocity bound is orthogonal to the Slack-Kittel mean-free-path bound: the latter limits the magnitude of the thermal diffusivity, while the velocity bound limits the slope of $D^{-1}$ with temperature.
  • Because zero-point motion brings light-atom crystals closer to spontaneous melting, the largest sound velocities are the ones that most strongly push the transport lifetime toward the Planckian value.
  • Adamantine crystals such as diamond, silicon, and GaAs are the expected outliers: their measured lifetimes are several multiples of the Planckian time, revealing an anomalously long mean free path within the same velocity-based logic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the same $v_M$ bound suggests a design rule for thermal management: the maximum high-temperature heat diffusivity of an insulating crystal above the Debye temperature is controlled by melting temperature and lattice spacing alone, up to the numerical factor measured here.
  • The analogy with electron-phonon Planckian transport in metals invites a test beyond phonons: if the Fermi velocity $v_F$ is the relevant sound proxy, then metals with small $v_F/v_M$ should also show large $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, connecting two currently separate Planckian phenomenologies.
  • Because the paper's derivation uses only the energy cap per atom, one can test the mechanism directly in classical molecular-dynamics simulations: compute $v_s$, the Lindemann melting temperature, and the high-temperature scattering rate for a model crystal, and check whether $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{Pl}} \approx v_M/v_s$ emerges without any fit parameter.
  • The exception of the adamantine crystals is left unexplained; a natural extension would be to check whether their anomalously long mean free paths correlate with a suppressed Gr\"uneisen parameter or with a particular anisotropy of the umklapp phase space, which are the two numerical factors the paper deliberately drops.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the near-Planckian thermal transport lifetimes observed in many insulating crystals at high temperatures follow from a quantum mechanical bound on the sound velocity, v_s < v_M ≡ k_B T_M a/ℏ. The authors derive this velocity bound from the Lindemann melting criterion combined with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, combine it with a classical anharmonic-phonon scattering estimate for the mean free path, and obtain τ/τ_Pl ∼ v_M/v_s ≳ 1. They support the relation with a compilation of elastic, thermodynamic, and thermal-transport data for roughly seventy compounds, and they show that most non-adamantine crystals follow τ/τ_Pl ≈ (1/3) v_M/v_s, while a family of high-conductivity zincblende/wurtzite compounds lies well above this trend.

Significance. If the proposed relation were quantitatively robust, it would give a simple organizing principle for phonon transport: the ratio of melting velocity to sound velocity, rather than detailed anharmonic calculations, would control the proximity to Planckian dissipation in insulators. The paper's strengths are its clear physical picture, the explicit 'melting velocity' scale that ties transport to melting, a large and carefully referenced data table, and a falsifiable correlation that can be tested on additional materials. The manuscript is also transparent about its approximations, explicitly stating when numerical factors are dropped and verified a posteriori. However, the central step from the velocity bound to the Planckian relation drops prefactors that are not order one, and the universality of the claim is weakened by the structured exclusion of the adamantine compounds; the result is best regarded as a heuristic scaling law with an empirically fitted slope rather than a derivation of the Planckian bound.

major comments (3)
  1. [From the velocity bound to the Planckian bound, Eq. (10); see also Eq. (4) and the Lindemann estimate below Eq. (2)] Equation (10) does not follow from the velocity bound unless the omitted prefactors are genuinely of order one, but the paper's own estimates give a large prefactor. Combining the mean free path estimate l ~ a^3 K/(gamma^2 k_B T) in Eq. (4) with the Lindemann relation k_B T_M ~ c_L^2 K a^2 yields l ~ a T_M/(gamma^2 c_L^2 T), and hence tau/tau_Pl = l k_B T/(hbar v_s) ~ [1/(gamma^2 c_L^2)] v_M/v_s. With c_L ~ 0.1-0.3 and gamma ~ O(1), this prefactor is of order 10-100, not the empirical slope 1/3. The statement that the dropped factors 'tend to cancel out on average' is an a posteriori consistency check after fitting Fig. 2, and the alternative definition tau' = 3 tau would change the slope by construction. The observed near-Planckian values therefore require an unexplained cancellation of the explicit c_L^2 and gamma^2 factors; the relation (10) is an empirical fit rather than a consequence of the velocity bound alone.
  2. [The melting velocity, Eq. (6)] The velocity bound rests on the single-atom energy cap k_B T_M >= p^2/(2M) + (K/2)(x - x_eq)^2, which is an idealization of the Lindemann criterion. Melting is a collective instability, and the total energy that binds an atom in the crystal is not simply k_B T_M; the inequality suppresses the fact that the Lindemann constant c_L enters the relation between T_M and K a^2. Since the derivation of Eq. (8) uses only this assumption plus the uncertainty relation, the bound v_s < v_M is exactly as strong as the per-atom Lindemann input and is not obtained from the Lieb-Robinson theorem, which the paper correctly notes does not apply to the unbounded oscillator Hilbert space. A concrete way to test this load-bearing assumption would be to compare k_B T_M with the per-atom kinetic plus potential energy in classical molecular dynamics at the melting temperature; if the energy cap is not approximately saturated, the velocity bound and all subsequent claims would need revision.
  3. [Fig. 2 and the accompanying data table in the Supplementary Material] The central correlation is demonstrated only after excluding a large, structured family of crystals. The adamantine compounds in the inset (Si, Ge, diamond, III-V, II-VI, BeO, AlN) have v_M/v_s values between about 5 and 16, but their tau/tau_Pl values are an order of magnitude larger than the main-panel trend; for instance the table gives diamond v_M/v_s = 5.78 versus tau/tau_Pl = 44.5, Si 7.10 versus 29.4, and GaAs 11.84 versus 39.5. Because these are ordinary insulating crystals, the claim that the velocity ratio determines Planckian scattering is not universal, and the explanation in terms of 'numerical factors' in the scattering calculation does not predict which materials will obey the trend. At minimum, the paper should state the empirical scope precisely and discuss whether the bound (8) or the scattering estimate (4) is the point at which the adamantine family fails.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2] The linear fits are described as guides to the eye, but no slopes, intercepts, or uncertainties are reported; given that the slope 1/3 is quoted as evidence for the relation, the fit parameters and the list of included materials should be given explicitly.
  2. [Supplementary Material, material data table] Several diffusivities are evaluated at T = 300 K (CaF2, SrF2, BaF2, Y2O3, Gd3Ga5O12, Y3Al5O12) or 350 K (MgSiO3), which may be below or near the Debye temperature and outside the regime where the T-linear umklapp scattering rate is established. The high-temperature criterion used to select the evaluation temperature should be stated and checked against T_D for each compound.
  3. [Introduction and text around Eq. (1)] The 'Planckian bound' is formulated as an inequality on the lifetime, tau >= tau_Pl, so the scattering rate inequality 1/tau <= k_B T/hbar is correct, but the phrase 'bound' is used interchangeably for an empirical near-saturation ('Planckian transport') and a hard inequality; this distinction should be made explicit throughout.
  4. [Discussion, Eq. (11)] The statement that l' = (T_M/T)a is 'consistent with the observation that mean free paths typically approach the interatomic spacing close to the melting temperature' should acknowledge that this is the same Lindemann-scale input used to construct v_M, so Eq. (11) is a repackaging of the melting criterion rather than an independent prediction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central Eq. (10) is not a logical consequence of the velocity bound; its O(1) prefactor is obtained by dropping the Lindemann and anharmonic coefficients and then absorbing the missing numerical factor through the linear fit in Fig. 2.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'From the velocity bound to the Planckian bound', Eq. (10); Discussion, Eq. (11) and Fig. 2 fit]
    "If we use the velocity bound (8) in the scattering rate (4) and furthermore drop all dimensionless numerical factors (including γ2, c2L and phase space factors in the scattering computation, the correctness of this procedure will be verified a posteriori), then we obtain a Planckian bound on the phonon lifetime τ/τPl ∼ vM/vs & 1."

    Combining the paper's own Eq. (4), ℓ ∼ a³K/(γ²kBT), with the Lindemann relation used in the text, kBTM ∼ cL²Ka², gives identically τ/τPl = ℓkBT/(ℏvs) = (1/(γ²cL²))(kBTM a)/(ℏvs) = (1/(γ²cL²)) vM/vs. With cL ≈ 0.1–0.3 and γ = O(1), this prefactor is 10–100, not 1. Equation (10) is obtained only by explicitly dropping γ² and cL²; the missing numerical content is then supplied by the linear fit in Fig. 2, whose slope τ/τPl ≈ (1/3)vM/vs is presented as an a posteriori verification. Thus the central claim that the velocity bound implies the Planckian bound is not derived from the bound; the coefficient that makes the relation hold is imported from the same data being 'predicted'.

full rationale

The early chain is self-contained and non-circular: the classical scattering rate (3)–(4) is a standard textbook computation, and the velocity bound (8) follows (as an assumption, not circularly) from the Lindemann-type energy cap (6) plus the uncertainty principle. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the cited Lieb-Robinson results are used only as an analogy, and the paper explicitly notes that its oscillator model falls outside the theorem. The circularity enters at Eq. (10). From the paper's own equations, the exact consequence of the scattering rate and the Lindemann relation is τ/τPl = (1/γ²cL²) vM/vs, with a numerically large prefactor. Setting that prefactor to 1 is the step that makes the Planckian bound appear to follow from the velocity bound; the subsequent Fig. 2 fit (slope 1/3) supplies the coefficient that the derivation dropped. The 'a posteriori verification' is therefore not an independent check of a derived prediction but the source of the missing numerical factor. The adamantine outlier class is treated post hoc, which weakens the empirical claim but is not itself a circular step. Overall: one central prediction reduces to a fit plus dropped prefactors, so the paper is partially circular but not tautological.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of empirical and estimate-level ingredients: the anharmonic Hamiltonian, the Lindemann criterion, the energy cap in Eq. (6), the uncertainty principle, the classical scattering rate, and several crude phase-space estimates. The melting velocity is a derived composite, not an independently measured quantity, and the final slope 1/3 is a fitted value.

free parameters (4)
  • γ (Grüneisen parameter) = O(1) (not measured precisely; folded into dropped factors)
    Enters the mean free path in Eq. (4) as γ²; the final slope 1/3 absorbs it.
  • c_L (Lindemann constant) = 0.1-0.3 (literature range)
    Sets the melting criterion Δx = c_L a; used to estimate k_B T_M ~ c_L² K a² and hence v_M; folded into dropped factors.
  • Umklapp phase-space factor Q² = ~1/a² (estimated)
    Area of efficient umklapp surface in Eq. (3); a crude estimate that sets the prefactor of the scattering rate.
  • Slope in τ/τ_Pl vs v_M/v_s = 1/3 (from linear fit in Fig. 2)
    Not predicted; extracted from data and only afterwards argued to be 'natural in three dimensions.'
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Anharmonic Hamiltonian (2) with only cubic anharmonicity, and K ~ λ a
    Used throughout; higher-order terms neglected because the Lindemann criterion makes fluctuations small below melting.
  • domain assumption Lindemann criterion: melting occurs when RMS displacement reaches c_L a, with c_L ~ 0.1-0.3
    Basis for the energy bound in Eq. (6) and for the estimate k_B T_M ~ c_L² K a².
  • ad hoc to paper Single atom energy is bounded by k_B T_M (Eq. 6)
    An idealization converting collective melting to a per atom energy cap; the velocity bound (8) is exactly this assumption in disguise.
  • standard math Uncertainty principle (Heisenberg)
    Used to turn the energy bound into k_B T_M ≳ ℏ sqrt(K/M).
  • standard math High temperature Bose-Einstein limit n_B(ω) ≈ k_B T/(ℏ ω) for T > T_D
    Derives the classical scattering rate (3) in the supplementary material.
  • domain assumption Umklapp scattering rate formula (3)/(16) with Q ~ 1/a and v_s² ~ a² K/M
    Textbook phonon scattering expression; the estimate of Q is crude and the averaging over the Brillouin zone is schematic.
  • domain assumption Binding energy scale K a² ~ ℏ²/(m a²)
    Used in Eq. (9) to estimate the velocity ratio in terms of sqrt(m/M); not accurate for all materials, especially covalent crystals.
  • domain assumption Room temperature elastic moduli (K, G) and density describe the high temperature sound velocity
    Used to compute v_s for all compounds; the paper notes this is approximate but expects weak temperature dependence.
invented entities (1)
  • Melting velocity v_M = (k_B T_M) a/ℏ independent evidence
    purpose: Defines a quantum mechanical velocity ceiling; formal analog of the Lieb-Robinson velocity, used to express the Planckian bound as a velocity bound.
    It is a composite of measured quantities (T_M and a) and Planck's constant, so the inequality v_s < v_M is directly checkable from data, as done in Fig. 1. It is not a fundamentally new entity, but it is a new scale introduced to explain transport.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Planckian bound for heat diffusion in insulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GLOM7WPT

@misc{pith2026190804792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Planckian bound for heat diffusion in insulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GLOM7WPT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04792}
}
abstract

High temperature thermal transport in insulators has been conjectured to be subject to a Planckian bound on the transport lifetime $\tau \gtrsim \tau_\text{Pl} \equiv \hbar/(k_B T)$, despite phonon dynamics being entirely classical at these temperatures. We argue that this Planckian bound is due to a quantum mechanical bound on the sound velocity: $v_s < v_M$. The `melting velocity' $v_M$ is defined in terms of the melting temperature of the crystal, the interatomic spacing and Planck's constant. We show that for several classes of insulating crystals, both simple and complex, $\tau/\tau_\text{Pl} \approx v_M/v_s$ at high temperatures. The velocity bound therefore implies the Planckian bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04792 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Melting velocity versus sound velocity for various classes of non-metallic com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ratio of timescales τ /τPl versus the ratio of velocities vM/vs. The inset shows ‘adamantine’ crystals with a large mean free path, discussed in the main text. Linear fits are shown as guides to the eye. The velocity and Planckian bounds are shown as shaded regions. We have also shown the Planckian bound for τ 0 = 3τ , see main text. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Martelli, J

    V. Martelli, J. L. Jim´ enez, M. Continentino, E. Baggio-Saitovitch and K. Behnia, Thermal Transport and Phonon Hydrodynamics in Strontium Titanate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 125901, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Behnia and A

    K. Behnia and A. Kapitulnik, A lower bound to the thermal diffusivity of insulators, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. 31, 405702, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Zhang, E

    J. Zhang, E. D. Kountz, K. Behnia and A. Kapitulnik, Thermalization and possible signatures of quantum chaos in complex crystalline materials, to appear in PNAS

    work page

  4. [4]

    Zaanen, Why the temperature is high, Nature 430, 512–513, 2004

    J. Zaanen, Why the temperature is high, Nature 430, 512–513, 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    S. A. Hartnoll, Theory of universal incoherent metallic transport, Nature Physics 11, 54, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Peierls, On the Statistical Basis for the Electron Theory of Metals, Helv

    R. Peierls, On the Statistical Basis for the Electron Theory of Metals, Helv. Phys. Act. (Supp.) 7, 24, 1934

    work page 1934

  7. [7]

    Peierls, Remarks on the Theory of Metals, Z

    R. Peierls, Remarks on the Theory of Metals, Z. Phys 88, 786, 1934

    work page 1934

  8. [8]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions . CUP, 1999. 11

    work page 1999

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    J. A. N. Bruin, H. Sakai, R. S. Perry and A. P. Mackenzie, Similarity of Scattering Rates in Metals Showing T-Linear Resistivity, Science 339, 804–807, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Zhang, E

    J. Zhang, E. M. Levenson-Falk, B. J. Ramshaw, D. A. Bonn, R. Liang, W. N. Hardy, S. A. Hartnoll and A. Kapitulnik, Anomalous thermal diffusivity in underdoped YBa2Cu3O6+x, PNAS 114, 5378–5383, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Zhang, E

    J. Zhang, E. D. Kountz, E. M. Levenson-Falk, D. Song, R. L. Greene and A. Kapitulnik, Thermal Diffusivity Above Mott-Ioffe-Regel Limit, [arXiv:1808.07564 [cond-mat.str-el]]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Legros, S

    A. Legros, S. Benhabib, W. Tabis, F. Lalibert´ e, M. Dion, M. Lizaire, B. Vignolle, D. Vignolles, H. Raffy, Z. Z. Li, P. Auban-Senzier, N. Doiron-Leyraud, P. Fournier et al., Universal T-linear resistivity and Planckian dissipation in overdoped cuprates, Nature Physics 15, 142–...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Y. Cao, D. Chowdhury, D. Rodan-Legrain, O. Rubies-Bigord` a, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Senthil and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Strange metal in magic-angle graphene with near Planckian dissipation, 2019, [arXiv:1901.03710 [cond-mat.str-el]]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    L. Feng, T. Shiga and J. Shiomi, Phonon transport in perovskite SrTiO3 from first principles, Appl. Phys. Expr. 8, 071501, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Tadano and S

    T. Tadano and S. Tsuneyuki, Self-consistent phonon calculations of lattice dynamical properties in cubic SrTiO 3 with first-principles anharmonic force constants, Phys. Rev. B 92, 054301, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    G. A. Slack, The thermal conductivity of nonmetallic crystals, vol. 34 of Solid State Physics, pp. 1 – 71. Academic Press, 1979. DOI

    1979

  9. [17]

    Grimvall and S

    G. Grimvall and S. Sjodin, Correlation of properties of materials to debye and melting temperatures, Phys. Scr. 10, 340–352, 1974

    1974

  10. [18]

    Poirier, Lindemann law and the melting temperature of perovskites, Phys

    J. Poirier, Lindemann law and the melting temperature of perovskites, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 54, 364 – 369, 1989

    1989

  11. [19]

    J. M. Ziman, Electrons and phonons: the theory of transport phenomena in solids . Oxford university press, 1960

    1960

  12. [20]

    Auerbach and P

    A. Auerbach and P. B. Allen, Universal high-temperature saturation in phonon and electron transport, Phys. Rev. B 29, 2884–2890, 1984. 12

    1984

  13. [21]

    Kittel, Interpretation of the thermal conductivity of glasses, Phys

    C. Kittel, Interpretation of the thermal conductivity of glasses, Phys. Rev. 75, 972–974, 1949

    1949

  14. [22]

    D. G. Cahill, S. K. Watson and R. O. Pohl, Lower limit to the thermal conductivity of disordered crystals, Phys. Rev. B 46, 6131–6140, 1992

    1992

  15. [23]

    P. B. Allen, X. Du, L. Mihaly and L. Forro, Thermal conductivity of insulating Bi2Sr2YCu2O8 and superconducting Bi 2Sr2CaCu2O8: Failure of the phonon-gas picture, Phys. Rev. B 49, 9073–9079, 1994

    1994

  16. [24]

    A. J. C. Ladd, B. Moran and W. G. Hoover, Lattice thermal conductivity: A comparison of molecular dynamics and anharmonic lattice dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 34, 5058–5064, 1986

    1986

  17. [25]

    Sun and P

    T. Sun and P. B. Allen, Lattice thermal conductivity: Computations and theory of the high-temperature breakdown of the phonon-gas model, Phys. Rev. B 82, 224305, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems, Comm. Math. Phys. 28, 251–257, 1972

    1972

  19. [27]

    Hartman, S

    T. Hartman, S. A. Hartnoll and R. Mahajan, Upper Bound on Diffusivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141601, 2017, [arXiv:1706.00019 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nachtergaele, H

    B. Nachtergaele, H. Raz, B. Schlein and R. Sims, Lieb-robinson bounds for harmonic and anharmonic lattice systems, Comm. Math. Phys. 286, 1073–1098, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    C. J. Martin and D. A. O’Connor, An experimental test of Lindemann’s melting law, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 10, 3521–3526, 1977

    1977

  22. [30]

    Yu and A

    X. Yu and A. M. Hofmeister, Thermal diffusivity of alkali and silver halide crystals as a function of temperature, J. Appl. Phys. 109, 033516, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Slack, Nonmetallic crystals with high thermal conductivity, J

    G. Slack, Nonmetallic crystals with high thermal conductivity, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 34, 321 – 335, 1973

    1973

  24. [32]

    Wehinger, A

    B. Wehinger, A. Bosak, S. Nazzareni, D. Antonangeli, A. Mirone, S. L. Chaplot, R. Mittal, E. Ohtani, A. Shatskiy, S. Saxena, S. Ghose and M. Krisch, Dynamical and elastic properties of MgSiO3 perovskite (bridgmanite), Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 2568–2575, 2016. 13

    2016

  25. [33]

    J. Suda, O. Kamishima, K. Hamaoka, I. Matsubara, T. Hattori and T. Sato, The First-Order Raman Spectra and Lattice Dynamics for YAlO3 Crystal, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 72, 1418–1422, 2003

    2003

  26. [34]

    J. J. Wortman and R. A. Evans, Young’s Modulus, Shear Modulus, and Poisson’s Ratio in Silicon and Germanium, J. of Appl. Phys. 36, 153–156, 1965

    1965

  27. [35]

    W. M. Haynes, CRC handbook of chemistry and physics . CRC press, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Maycock, Thermal conductivity of silicon, germanium, IIIV compounds and IIIV alloys, Solid State Electron

    P. Maycock, Thermal conductivity of silicon, germanium, IIIV compounds and IIIV alloys, Solid State Electron. 10, 161 – 168, 1967

    1967

  29. [37]

    N. M. Ravindra, S. R. Marthi and A. Ba˜ nobre, Radiative Properties of Semiconductors. 2053-2571. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2017, 10.1088/978-1-6817-4112-3

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    J. D. Bass, Elasticity of Minerals, Glasses, and Melts , pp. 45–63. American Geophysical Union (AGU), 2013. 10.1029/RF002p0045

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    J. R. Olson, R. O. Pohl, J. W. Vandersande, A. Zoltan, T. R. Anthony and W. F. Banholzer, Thermal conductivity of diamond between 170 and 1200 k and the isotope effect, Phys. Rev. B 47, 14850–14856, 1993

    1993

  32. [40]

    A. C. Victor, Heat capacity of diamond at high temperatures, J. Chem. Phys. 36, 1903–1911, 1962

    1903

  33. [41]

    Azuhata, T

    T. Azuhata, T. Sota and K. Suzuki, Elastic constants of III - V compound semiconductors: modification of Keyes’ relation, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 8, 3111–3119, 1996

    1996

  34. [42]

    P¨ assler, Non-Debye heat capacity formula refined and applied to GaP, GaAs, GaSb, InP, InAs, and InSb, AIP Advances 3, 082108, 2013

    R. P¨ assler, Non-Debye heat capacity formula refined and applied to GaP, GaAs, GaSb, InP, InAs, and InSb, AIP Advances 3, 082108, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Vassiliev, B

    V. Vassiliev, B. Legendre and V. Zlomanov, The critical analysis and mutual coherence of the thermodynamic data of the AIIIBV phases, Intermetallics 19, 1891 – 1901, 2011

    1901

  36. [44]

    Tsubouchi and N

    K. Tsubouchi and N. Mikoshiba, Zero-Temperature-Coefficient SAW Devices on AlN Epitaxial Films, IEEE Trans. Sonics Ultrason. 32, 634–644, 1985. 14

    1985

  37. [45]

    A. M. Hofmeister, Thermal diffusivity and thermal conductivity of single-crystal MgO and Al2O3 and related compounds as a function of temperature, Phys. Chem. Miner. 41, 361–371, 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    D. C. Harris, M. Baronowski, L. Henneman, L. V. LaCroix, C. Wilson, S. C. Kurzius, B. Burns, K. Kitagawa, J. Gembarovic, S. M. Goodrich et al., Thermal, structural, and optical properties of Cleartran R© multispectral zinc sulfide, Optical Engineering 47, 114001, 2008

    2008

  39. [47]

    B. H. Lee, Pressure Dependence of the Second-Order Elastic Constants of ZnTe and ZnSe, J. of Appl. Phys. 41, 2988–2990, 1970

    1970

  40. [48]

    Lugueva, S

    N. Lugueva, S. Luguev and A. Dunaev, Thermal conductivity of polycrystalline zinc selenide, Physics of the Solid State 45, 449–452, 2003

    2003

  41. [49]

    P¨ assler, Non-Debye behaviours of heat capacities of cubic II-VI materials, J

    R. P¨ assler, Non-Debye behaviours of heat capacities of cubic II-VI materials, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 72, 1296 – 1311, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    W. D. Kingery, J. Francl, R. L. Coble and T. Vasilos, Thermal conductivity: X, data for several pure oxide materials corrected to zero porosity, J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 37, 107–110, 1954

    1954

  43. [51]

    K. K. Kelley, Contributions to the Data on Theoretical Metallurgy: High-temperature heat-content, heat-capacity, and entropy data for inorganic compounds. X . No. 476. US Government Printing Office, 1949

    1949

  44. [52]

    Gupta and V

    B. Gupta and V. Kumar, Analysis of effective compressibilities in PbS, PbSe, PbTe and SnTe, Solid State Commun. 45, 745 – 747, 1983

    1983

  45. [53]

    Pei and Y

    Y.-L. Pei and Y. Liu, Electrical and thermal transport properties of pb-based chalcogenides: Pbte, pbse, and pbs, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 514, 40 – 44, 2012

    2012

  46. [54]

    B. Hemingway, Thermodynamic properties for bunsenite, NiO, magnetite, Fe3O4, and hematite, Fe2O3, with comments on selected oxygen buffer reactions, American Mineralogist 75, 781–790, 1990

    1990

  47. [55]

    S. M. Lang, Properties of high-temperature ceramics and cermets. elasticity and density at room temperature, tech. rep., DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC, 1958. 15

    1958

  48. [56]

    Powell, C

    R. Powell, C. Y. Ho and P. E. Liley, Thermal conductivity of selected materials , vol. 8. US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC, 1966

    1966

  49. [57]

    Popov, P

    P. Popov, P. Fedorov and V. Osiko, Thermal conductivity of single crystals with a fluorite structure: cadmium fluoride, Physics of the Solid State 52, 504–508, 2010

    2010

  50. [58]

    Berke, A

    A. Berke, A. Mayer and R. Wehner, Spontaneous decay of acoustic phonons in calcium fluoride and silicon, Solid State Commun. 54, 395 – 397, 1985

    1985

  51. [59]

    Yeheskel and O

    O. Yeheskel and O. Tevet, Elastic moduli of transparent yttria, J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 82, 136–144, 1999

    1999

  52. [60]

    T. Y. Fan, D. J. Ripin, R. L. Aggarwal, J. R. Ochoa, B. Chann, M. Tilleman and J. Spitzberg, Cryogenic Yb 3+-Doped Solid-State Lasers, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 13, 448–459, 2007

    2007

  53. [61]

    D. L. Anderson, Theory of the Earth . Blackwell scientific publications, 1989

    1989

  54. [62]

    A. M. Hofmeister, Thermal diffusivity of oxide perovskite compounds at elevated temperature, J. of App. Phys. 107, 103532, 2010

    2010

  55. [63]

    M. A. Carpenter, S. V. Sinogeikin, J. D. Bass, D. L. Lakshtanov and S. D. Jacobsen, Elastic relaxations associated with the Pm ¯3m -R¯3c transition in LaAlO3: I. Single crystal elastic moduli at room temperature, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 22, 035403, 2009

    2009

  56. [64]

    A. G. Kalinichev, J. D. Bass, C. S. Zha, P. D. Han and D. A. Payne, Elastic properties of orthorhombic KNbO3 single crystals by Brillouin scattering, J. App. Phys. 74, 6603–6608, 1993

    1993

  57. [65]

    Osako and E

    M. Osako and E. Ito, Thermal diffusivity of MgSiO3 perovskite, Geophys. Res. Lett. 18, 239–242, 1991

    1991

  58. [66]

    Chiker, F

    F. Chiker, F. Boukabrine, H. Khachai, R. Khenata, C. Mathieu, S. B. Omran, S. Syrotyuk, W. Ahmed and G. Murtaza, Investigating the Structural, Thermal, and Electronic Properties of the Zircon-Type ZrSiO4, ZrGeO4 and HfSiO4 Compounds, J. Elec. Mater. 45, 5811–5821, 2016

    2016

  59. [67]

    Dorogokupets, E

    P. Dorogokupets, E. Ponomarev and E. Melekhova, Optimization of experimental data on the heat capacity, volume, and bulk moduli of minerals, PETROLOGY C/C OF PETROLOGIIA 7, 574–591, 1999. 16

    1999

  60. [68]

    Schulz and M

    B. Schulz and M. Hoffmann, Thermophysical properties of the system Al2O3-MgO, High Temp. High Press 34, 203–212, 2002

    2002

  61. [69]

    A. M. Hofmeister and M. Pertermann, Thermal diffusivity of clinopyroxenes at elevated temperature, Eur. J. Miner. 20, 537–549, 2008

    2008

  62. [70]

    V. F. Kitaeva, E. V. Zharikov and I. L. Chistyi, The properties of crystals with garnet structure, Phys. Status Solidi (a) 92, 475–488, 1985

    1985

  63. [71]

    Ledbetter, S

    H. Ledbetter, S. Kim, D. Balzar, S. Crudele and W. Kriven, Elastic properties of mullite, J. Amer. Ceram. Soc. 81, 1025–1028, 1998

    1998

  64. [72]

    Pabst, E

    W. Pabst, E. Gregorov, T. Uhlirova and A. Musilov, Elastic properties of mullite and mullite-containing ceramics part 1: Theoretical aspects and review of monocrystal data, Ceramics - Silikaty 57, 265–274, 2013

    2013

  65. [73]

    Patnaik, Handbook of inorganic chemicals

    P. Patnaik, Handbook of inorganic chemicals . McGraw-Hill, 2002

    2002

  66. [74]

    Navrotsky, Thermodynamic Properties of Minerals , pp

    A. Navrotsky, Thermodynamic Properties of Minerals , pp. 18–28. American Geophysical Union (AGU), 2013. 10.1029/RF002p0018

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    R. C. Linares, Growth of garnet laser crystals, Solid State Commun. 2, 229 – 231, 1964. 17 Supplementary Material A Scattering above the Debye temperature Simple compounds It will be convenient to work with the Lagrangian for the normal phonon modes. If a† sq creates a phonon ...

    1964

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.