Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

On the complex zeros of the wavefunction

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For most quantum states, non-Gaussianity is exactly the presence of a complex zero in the wavefunction.

desk verdict Original and mostly sound theory of wavefunction zeros as non-Gaussianity witnesses, but the 'most states' scope is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23468 v2 pith:KIQPY563 submitted 2025-07-31 quant-ph

Sacha Cerf , Clara Wassner , Jack Davis , Francesco Arzani , Ulysse Chabaud This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 30C1581Q1081S30 PACS 03.65.-w42.50.-p
keywords wavefunctionzerosHudson'stheoremstellarranknon-GaussianityentirefunctionsCalogero-Mosersystembosonicquantumstateshomodynedetection
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

This paper establishes that, for pure bosonic states whose Fock-basis coefficients decay at least exponentially, non-Gaussianity is completely witnessed by the complex zeros of the position wavefunction. The central claim is a Hudson-type theorem: under that energy bound, a state is non-Gaussian if and only if its extended wavefunction has a zero over the complex plane. The authors further show that for states of finite stellar rank, the number of wavefunction zeros, counted with multiplicity, equals the stellar rank, so the zero-set is a complete non-Gaussianity witness. They then prove that Gaussian Hamiltonian evolution makes the zeros move like classical particles in a Calogero–Moser system, and they give conditions under which phase shifts bring those complex zeros to the real axis, where they could be observed through single-quadrature measurements. A companion paper uses this to propose a protocol detecting non-Gaussianity from a single quadrature of the electromagnetic field.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the energy bound ⟨s^n⟩_ψ < ∞ for some s > 1, which forces the wavefunction to extend to an entire function of order at most 2. This extension converts the wavefunction into an object amenable to the Hadamard–Weierstrass factorization theorem, which then links the absence of zeros to Gaussianity. For finite stellar rank states, the factorization ψ(x) = P(x) $e^{{-ax^2+bx+c}}$ with P a degree-r polynomial is the bridge between the stellar rank and the wavefunction zero-count, and the Calogero–Moser dynamical system for the zeros λ_k(t), together with its matrix resolution X(t), is what turns Gaussian evolution into classical particle motion of the zeros.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit pure state satisfying the energy bound ⟨s^n⟩ < ∞ for some s > 1 whose position wavefunction is non-Gaussian and has no complex zeros; by the Hadamard–Weierstrass factorization such a state would have to have a Gaussian wavefunction, so a concrete counterexample would refute Theorem 2. A numerical search over energy-bounded states with rapidly decaying Fock coefficients could look for a zero-free non-Gaussian wavefunction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's main discovery is that the complex zero-set of the position wavefunction carries the same non-Gaussian information as the stellar function. Theorem 2 states: for a pure state |ψ⟩ satisfying the energy bound ⟨s^n⟩ < ∞ for some s > 1, |ψ⟩ is non-Gaussian if and only if its wavefunction has a zero over C. The proof uses Theorem 1, which shows that such energy-bounded wavefunctions extend to entire functions of order at most 2, and the Hadamard–Weierstrass factorization theorem, which forces a zero-free entire function of order at most 2 to be a Gaussian. Theorem 3 strengthens this for finite stellar rank r: the wavefunction factorizes as a degree-r polynomial times a Gaussian function, so it has exactly r complex zeros counted with multiplicity, and conversely any energy-bounded state whose wavefunction has exactly r zeros has stellar rank r. The paper also derives the Gaussian dynamics of these zeros: under quadratic Hamiltonians, the zeros evolve as a classical Calogero–Moser system, decoupled from the evolution of the Gaussian envelope, with an explicit matrix solution. Finally, Theorems 7 and 8 give sufficient conditions for phase-shifted wavefunctions to acquire real zeros, making the non-Gaussianity visible in a single quadrature probability distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The entire edifice rests on the energy bound ⟨s^n⟩ < ∞ for some s > 1, meaning the Fock coefficients must decay at least exponentially; states with slower decay can be non-Gaussian yet have no complex zeros, as the $e^{{-x^4}}$ example shows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-Gaussianity of any energy-bounded pure state is certified by a single complex zero of its wavefunction, without needing phase-space representations.
  • For finite-stellar-rank states, the stellar rank is read directly from the number of complex zeros of the wavefunction, counted with multiplicity.
  • Gaussian evolution becomes a classical many-body problem: the wavefunction zeros move as particles in an integrable Calogero–Moser system, decoupled from the Gaussian envelope.
  • Under phase shifts, sufficiently separated complex zeros generically cross the real axis, so the non-Gaussian signal can appear as a real zero of a quadrature probability distribution, measurable by homodyne detection.
  • A companion protocol can witness non-Gaussianity and stellar rank using a single quadrature measurement, exploiting these real zeros.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The energy bound excludes states whose Fock coefficients decay only polynomially, so the 'if and only if' characterization is not universal across all square-integrable wavefunctions; the example e^{-x^4} shows the boundary is real and not merely technical.
  • If the authors' conjecture that every complex zero becomes real under some phase shift is correct, then homodyne detection could in principle certify not only non-Gaussianity but also the full stellar rank, turning a continuous quadrature histogram into a discrete count of real zeros.
  • The Calogero–Moser picture suggests an experimental route to tracking the motion of individual zeros in time, which would effectively simulate an integrable classical system using a quantum optical state whose stellar rank is known.
  • Extending these tools to multiple modes or mixed states is not immediate: zeros over C become zero-sets over C^n, and the single-mode factorization arguments do not carry over without new structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 studies the complex zeros of the position wavefunction for single-mode bosonic pure states. Its main technical result (Theorem 1) states that if the Fock-basis coefficients satisfy the energy bound ⟨s^n⟩_ψ < ∞ for some s>1 (Eq. (2)), then the wavefunction extends to an entire function of order at most 2. On this basis, Theorem 2 gives a wavefunction analogue of Hudson's theorem: under the same energy bound, a pure state is non-Gaussian if and only if its wavefunction has a zero over C. Theorem 3 shows that a finite-stellar-rank state of rank r has exactly r complex zeros in its wavefunction and that the wavefunction takes the form of a degree-r polynomial times a Gaussian. The paper then studies Gaussian dynamics: Theorem 5 derives a Calogero–Moser system for the motion of the zeros, Theorem 6 claims an explicit matrix solution, and Theorems 7 and 8 give conditions under which some phase-shifted wavefunction has a real zero, with consequences for single-quadrature non-Gaussianity detection explored in a companion paper.

Significance. The conditional results are genuinely interesting. Theorem 2 is a clean application of Hadamard–Weierstrass factorization, Theorem 3 gives a direct bridge between wavefunction zeros and stellar rank, and the Calogero–Moser interpretation of Gaussian zero dynamics in Theorem 5 is elegant. The paper is also honest about the main limitation of its framework: it explicitly notes that the non-Gaussian, zero-free wavefunction e^{-x^4} does not satisfy the energy bound (2). If the statement issues described below are repaired, the core theorems would be a valuable contribution to the study of non-Gaussianity in bosonic systems. However, the advertised scope ('most bosonic quantum systems') is not supported, and Theorem 6 and Theorem 7 as printed contain correctable but load-bearing errors.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §III] The claim that the energy bound (2) holds for 'most states' is not supported and is, in the standard mathematical senses, false. For fixed s>1, the set E_s = {ψ ∈ ℓ² : Σ s^n |ψ_n|² < ∞} is a proper subspace with empty interior in ℓ², and the union over s>1 is meager; the set of finite-stellar-rank states, though dense in ℓ², is also meager. Density does not imply topological or measure-theoretic genericity. The conditional theorems themselves are not affected, but the abstract and §III should be rephrased so that the scope is described as 'states with exponentially decaying Fock coefficients' or another explicitly stated class, rather than 'most states.'
  2. [Theorem 6, Eq. (15), Eq. (18), and Appendix E] The scaling factor in Theorem 6 and Eq. (18) is misprinted. In Eq. (15), λ̃_k is defined with a factor (4B²)^{-4}, but reducing the equation of motion of Theorem 5 to the normalized Calogero–Moser form (E2) requires the factor (4B²)^{-1/4}; correspondingly, Eq. (18) needs (4B²)^{1/4} rather than (4B²)^4. In addition, Eq. (E9) in Appendix E contains a factor 2 and an exponential-sign convention that are inconsistent with the derivation immediately following it and with the initial condition X(0)=Λ(0). As printed, these formulas cannot be used to compute the zero trajectories.
  3. [Theorem 7 and Appendix F] The distance condition in Eq. (19), min_{i,j} |λ_i(0)−λ_j(0)| ≥ sqrt((r−1)/a(0)), is not well defined under the conventions used in Theorem 5 and Eq. (12), where a(0) is generally complex (with negative real part for square-integrable states). The proof in Appendix F uses the identity |cos t + 2ia(0) sin t| = sqrt(cos² t + 4a(0)² sin² t), which is valid only for real a(0), and it also injects the first-order condition ˙Λ(0)=2ia(0)Λ(0), which drops the explicit interaction terms present in the first-order equation of Theorem 5. The theorem therefore needs either a restricted hypothesis (for example, a(0) real and positive) or a corrected proof that handles complex a(0) and the full first-order condition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III] The sentence 'which is the case for most states' should be qualified as noted in the major comment; at minimum, the paper should distinguish density from the notion of 'most.'
  2. [Eq. (6) vs Eq. (12)] The coefficient a is used with opposite sign conventions in Eq. (6), where the Gaussian is e^{-a x²+bx+c} with Re(a)>0, and in Eq. (12), where it is e^{a(t)z²+b(t)z+c(t)}. This notational clash makes statements such as Theorem 7 difficult to interpret; the authors should unify the convention or explicitly state the relation.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A21)] In the bound for |f_odd(x)|, the expression '1/e + 1/t−1' should read '1/e + 1/(t−1)'; as written it is ambiguous.
  4. [Appendix A heading] The appendix heading says 'Hudson's theorem for the wavefunction (proof of Theorem 1)', but the section proves Lemma 9; the heading should refer to Theorem 1 and Lemma 9 consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorems 1-3 are genuine consequences of the energy bound and Hadamard factorization, with self-citations to [19] and [26] serving only as independent, published support.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no step in which a claimed prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. Theorem 1 is a genuine analytic statement: the energy bound <s^n><inf makes the Hermite-series wavefunction entire of order at most 2 (Appendix A, Lemma 9), and the proof gives explicit bounds. Theorem 2 follows from Theorem 1 and the Hadamard-Weierstrass factorization theorem: an entire zero-free function of order at most 2 is a Gaussian exponential, which is exactly the wavefunction of a Gaussian state; no stellar-rank input is used in this step. Theorem 3 uses the stellar representation |psi>=P_psi(a-dagger)G|0> from [19] to derive the polynomial-times-Gaussian wavefunction form, proves by induction that the polynomial has exact degree r, and the converse direction again invokes Hadamard factorization plus the same independent representation; the stellar rank is not defined in terms of the position wavefunction, so the equality of zero counts is an actual result, not a renaming. The Gaussian-dynamics theorems (5-8) are derived from the explicit partial-fraction computation in Appendix D and the Olshanetsky-Perelomov matrix integration, with the citation to [26] used only as a proof analogue. The authors' self-citations to [19, 24, 26] are to published, parameter-free, independently checkable results whose assumptions do not include the target claims, so they do not constitute load-bearing circularity. The only substantive caveat is scope: the paper says Eq. (2) holds for 'most states' because finite-stellar-rank states are dense, but density does not imply genericity in measure or Baire category, and the paper itself notes the e^{-x^4} counterexample. This overstatement affects applicability, not the internal logic of the conditional theorems, and is a correctness-risk point rather than a circularity. Overall circularity score: 2 (minor non-load-bearing self-citation presence; no circular step).

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are postulated. The proofs rest on standard complex analysis (Hadamard-Weierstrass factorization, Gershgorin circle theorem), on the uniqueness of the Schroedinger evolution, and on the stellar representation of [19], which the paper takes as an upstream domain result. The distinctness of zeros is assumed in several theorems and is defended by a perturbation argument.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hadamard-Weierstrass factorization theorem: an entire function of finite order with no zeros is exp(Q(z)) for a polynomial Q.
    Used in Theorem 2 and the converse of Theorem 3 to conclude that a zero-free entire wavefunction of order at most 2 is a Gaussian.
  • domain assumption Stellar representation and stellar rank from [19]: any pure state of finite stellar rank r can be written as P(a^dagger) G |0> with deg P = r; Gaussian states are exactly rank 0; finite-rank states are dense.
    Borrowed from Chabaud et al. [19], co-authored by the present last author. It is a peer-reviewed, parameter-free characterization with stated assumptions, so it counts as independent support rather than a circular step.
  • standard math Gershgorin circle theorem for complex matrices.
    Used in Theorem 7 to confine each zero trajectory to a disc centered on a known curve, enabling the perturbation argument.
  • domain assumption Distinctness of the zeros of the extended wavefunction on an open time interval (or initially distinct and simple).
    Theorems 5 and 6 derive dynamics and the matrix resolution under distinctness; Theorem 8 assumes simple zeros at t = 0. The paper argues it can be achieved by perturbation, but it restricts the states directly covered.
  • standard math Uniqueness of the solution of the complex Schroedinger equation for the extended wavefunction.
    Used in Appendix E to extend the determinant formula (18) from the distinct-zeros regime to all times.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the complex zeros of the wavefunction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KIQPY563

@misc{pith2026250723468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the complex zeros of the wavefunction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KIQPY563}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23468}
}
read the original abstract

The Schr\"odinger wavefunction is ubiquitous in quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry, and bosonic quantum information theory. Its zero-set for fermionic systems is well-studied and central for determining chemical properties, yet for bosonic systems the zero-set is less understood, especially in the context of characterizing non-classicality. Here we study the zeros of such wavefunctions and give them a novel information-theoretic interpretation. Our main technical result is showing that the wavefunction of most bosonic quantum systems can be extended to a holomorphic function over the complex plane, allowing the application of powerful techniques from complex analysis. As a consequence, we prove a version of Hudson's theorem for the wavefunction and characterize Gaussian dynamics as classical motion of the wavefunction zeros. Our findings suggest that the non-Gaussianity of quantum optical states can be detected by measuring a single quadrature of the electromagnetic field, which we demonstrate in a companion paper [arXiv:2507.23005]. More generally, our results show that the non-Gaussian features of bosonic quantum systems are encoded in the zeros of their wavefunction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Detecting quantum non-Gaussianity with a single quadrature

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A single-quadrature homodyne measurement can witness quantum non-Gaussianity and lower-bound stellar rank by detecting zeros in the quadrature distribution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E.Schrödinger,Anundulatorytheoryofthemechanicsof atoms and molecules, Physical Review28, 1049 (1926)

    work page 1926

  2. [2]

    whirling

    And since z 7→ ψ(z) does not vanish the Hadamard– Weierstrass factorization theorem implies that it is a Gaussian function. Hence, x 7→ ψ(x) is also a Gaussian function and |ψ⟩ is a Gaussian state. Once again, a similar result holds for the momentum wavefunction (or any other phase-shifted wavefunction) because the energy bound is invariant under phase sh...

    work page

  3. [3]

    De Broglie, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta , Ph.D

    L. De Broglie, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta , Ph.D. thesis, Migration-université en cours d’affectation (1924)

    work page 1924

  4. [4]

    Everett, The theory of the universal wave function, in The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechan- ics, edited by B

    H. Everett, The theory of the universal wave function, in The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechan- ics, edited by B. S. DeWitt and N. Graham (Princeton University Press, 1973) pp. 3–140

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    Goldstein and N

    S. Goldstein and N. Zanghì, Reality and the role of the wave function in quantum theory, inThe Wave Func- tion: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics, edited by D. Z. Albert and A. Ney (Oxford University Press, 2013) pp. 91–109

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Raymer, Measuring the quantum mechanical wave function, Contemporary Physics38, 343 (1997)

    M. Raymer, Measuring the quantum mechanical wave function, Contemporary Physics38, 343 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    R. B. Laughlin, Anomalous quantum Hall effect: An in- compressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged ex- citations, Physical Review Letters50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

  8. [8]

    Von Klitzing, Developments in the quantum Hall ef- fect, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 363, 2203 (2005)

    K. Von Klitzing, Developments in the quantum Hall ef- fect, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 363, 2203 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Riess, Nodal structure of Schrödinger wave functions and its physical significance, Annals of Physics57, 301 (1970)

    J. Riess, Nodal structure of Schrödinger wave functions and its physical significance, Annals of Physics57, 301 (1970). 7

    1970

  2. [10]

    D. M. Ceperley and B. J. Alder, Ground state of the elec- tron gas by a stochastic method, Physical Review Letters 45, 566 (1980)

    1980

  3. [11]

    D. M. Ceperley, Fermion nodes, Journal of statistical physics 63, 1237 (1991)

    1991

  4. [12]

    P. J. Reynolds, D. M. Ceperley, B. J. Alder, and W. A. Lester Jr, Fixed-node quantum Monte Carlo for molecules, The Journal of Chemical Physics 77, 5593 (1982)

    1982

  5. [13]

    Bressanini, D

    D. Bressanini, D. M. Ceperley, and P. J. Rynolds, What do we know about wave function nodes?, in Recent Advances in Quantum Monte Carlo Methods—Part II (World Scientific, 2002) pp. 3–11

    2002

  6. [14]

    K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber, Density operators and quasiprobability distributions, Physical Review177, 1882 (1969)

    1969

  7. [15]

    R. P. Rundle and M. J. Everitt, Overview of the phase space formulation of quantum mechanics with applica- tion to quantum technologies, Advanced Quantum Tech- nologies 4, 2100016 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Leboeuf and A

    P. Leboeuf and A. Voros, Chaos-revealing multiplicative representationofquantumeigenstates,JournalofPhysics A: Mathematical and General23, 1765 (1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    Arranz, F

    F. Arranz, F. Borondo, and R. Benito, Distribution of zeros of the Husimi function in a realistic Hamiltonian molecular system, Physical Review E54, 2458 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    Leboeuf and P

    P. Leboeuf and P. Shukla, Universal fluctuations of zeros of chaotic wavefunctions, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and General29, 4827 (1996)

    1996

  11. [19]

    Lütkenhaus and S

    N. Lütkenhaus and S. M. Barnett, Nonclassical effects in phase space, Physical Review A51, 3340 (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    Chabaud, D

    U. Chabaud, D. Markham, and F. Grosshans, Stellar representation of non-Gaussian quantum states, Physi- cal Review Letters124, 063605 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Husimi, Some formal properties of the density ma- trix, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan

    K. Husimi, Some formal properties of the density ma- trix, Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan. 3rd Series22, 264 (1940)

    1940

  14. [22]

    Chabaud and M

    U. Chabaud and M. Walschaers, Resources for bosonic quantum computational advantage, Physical Review Let- ters 130, 090602 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermody- namic equilibrium, Physical review40, 749 (1932)

    E. Wigner, On the quantum correction for thermody- namic equilibrium, Physical review40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  16. [24]

    R. L. Hudson, When is the Wigner quasi-probability den- sity non-negative?, Reports on Mathematical Physics6, 249 (1974)

    1974

  17. [25]

    L. D. Abreu, U. Chabaud, N. C. Dias, and J. N. Prata, Inverse problems for the zeros of the Wigner function (2025), arXiv:2507.18296 [quant-ph]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Leboeuf, Phase space approach to quantum dynam- ics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General24, 4575 (1991)

    P. Leboeuf, Phase space approach to quantum dynam- ics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General24, 4575 (1991)

    1991

  19. [27]

    Chabaud and S

    U. Chabaud and S. Mehraban, Holomorphic representa- tion of quantum computations, Quantum6, 831 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Bruno, Quantum geometric phase in Majorana’s stellar representation: Mapping onto a many-body Aharonov-Bohm phase, Physical Review Letters

    P. Bruno, Quantum geometric phase in Majorana’s stellar representation: Mapping onto a many-body Aharonov-Bohm phase, Physical Review Letters. 108, 240402 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Majorana, Atomi orientati in campo magnetico vari- abile, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942)9, 43–50 (1932)

    E. Majorana, Atomi orientati in campo magnetico vari- abile, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942)9, 43–50 (1932)

    1932

  22. [30]

    Bargmann, On a Hilbert space of analytic functions and an associated integral transform part I, Communica- tions on Pure and Applied Mathematics14, 187 (1961)

    V. Bargmann, On a Hilbert space of analytic functions and an associated integral transform part I, Communica- tions on Pure and Applied Mathematics14, 187 (1961)

    1961

  23. [31]

    I. E. Segal,Mathematical problems of relativistic physics, Vol. 2 (American Mathematical Soc., 1963)

    1963

  24. [32]

    Vourdas, Analytic representations in quantum me- chanics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 39, R65 (2006)

    A. Vourdas, Analytic representations in quantum me- chanics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 39, R65 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    Wassner, J

    C. Wassner, J. Davis, S. Cerf, U. Chabaud, and F. Arzani, Detecting quantum non-Gaussianity with a single quadrature (2025), arXiv:2507.23005 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bertrand and P

    J. Bertrand and P. Bertrand, A tomographic approach to Wigner’s function, Foundations of Physics17, 397–405 (1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    V. V. Dodonov, ‘Nonclassical’ states in quantum optics: a ‘squeezed’ review of the first 75 years, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics4, R1 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Blasiak and P

    P. Blasiak and P. Flajolet, Combinatorial mod- els of creation-annihilation (2011), arXiv:1010.0354 [math.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    R. M. Wilcox, Exponential operators and parameter dif- ferentiationinquantumphysics,JournalofMathematical Physics 8, 962 (1967)

    1967

  30. [38]

    Mancini, V

    S. Mancini, V. I. Man’ko, and P. Tombesi, Wigner func- tion and probability distribution for shifted and squeezed quadratures, Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Jour- nal of the European Optical Society Part B7, 615–623 (1995)

    1995

  31. [39]

    Mancini, V

    S. Mancini, V. Man’ko, and P. Tombesi, Symplectic to- mography as classical approach to quantum systems, Physics Letters A213, 1–6 (1996)

    1996

  32. [40]

    Mancini, V

    S. Mancini, V. I. Man’ko, and P. Tombesi, Classical-like description of quantum dynamics by means of symplectic tomography, Foundations of Physics27, 801–824 (1997)

    1997

  33. [41]

    Calogero, Solution of a three-body problem in one dimension, Journal of Mathematical Physics 10, 2191 (1969)

    F. Calogero, Solution of a three-body problem in one dimension, Journal of Mathematical Physics 10, 2191 (1969)

    1969

  34. [42]

    Moser, Three integrable Hamiltonian systems con- nected with isospectral deformations, inSurveys in ap- plied mathematics(Elsevier, 1976) pp

    J. Moser, Three integrable Hamiltonian systems con- nected with isospectral deformations, inSurveys in ap- plied mathematics(Elsevier, 1976) pp. 235–258

    1976

  35. [43]

    Olshanetsky and A

    M. Olshanetsky and A. Perelomov, Classical integrable finite-dimensional systems related to lie algebras, Physics Reports 71, 313 (1981)

    1981

  36. [44]

    Leonhardt, Essential quantum optics: from quan- tum measurements to black holes(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    U. Leonhardt, Essential quantum optics: from quan- tum measurements to black holes(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Soto and P

    F. Soto and P. Claverie, When is the Wigner function of multidimensional systems nonnegative?, J. Math. Phys. 24, 97 (1983)

    1983

  38. [46]

    Wünsche, Generating functions for prod- ucts of special Laguerre 2D and Hermite 2D polynomials, Applied Mathematics 6, https://doi.org/10.4236/am.2015.612188 (2015)

    A. Wünsche, Generating functions for prod- ucts of special Laguerre 2D and Hermite 2D polynomials, Applied Mathematics 6, https://doi.org/10.4236/am.2015.612188 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Wünsche, Laguerre 2D-functions and their application in quantum optics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General31, 8267 (1998)

    A. Wünsche, Laguerre 2D-functions and their application in quantum optics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General31, 8267 (1998)

    1998

  40. [48]

    S. A. Gerschgorin, Über die Abgrenzung der Eigenwerte einer Matrix, Izvestia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Mathemat- ics and Natural Sciences6, 749 (1931). 8 Appendix Appendix A: Hudson’s theorem for the wavefunction (proof of Theorem 1) In this section we complete the proof of Theorem ...

    1931

  41. [49]

    Combined with Eqs

    We have tp ≤ sp/2 and tp√2p + 1 = o(sp/2) so there exists C ≥ 1 which depends only onα and s such that tp√2p + 1 ≤ Cs (2p+1)/4 for all p ∈ N. Combined with Eqs. (A3), (A12), and (A21) we obtain π1/4|ψ(x)| ≤ |feven(x)| + |fodd(x)| (A22) ≤ +∞X p=0 tp|ψ2p| ! exp 1 2 + 4 sα − 1 x2...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.