Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Quantum Simulation

Comment on: "Solving many-body Schrödinger equations with kinetic energy partition method", Ann. Phys. 388 (2018) 54-68 by Y-H. Chen and S. D. Chao

arXiv
Authors: Francisco M. Fernández

Year

2020

Paper ID

18883

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

77

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We discuss a recent test of the performance of the kinetic energy partition method (KEP) through its application to two separable quantum-mechanical models. We argue that one of the benchmark models is exceedingly simple for testing any realistic approximate method and that almost any reasonable approach yields better results. In the second example our exact benchmark eigenvalues disagree considerably with those chosen by the authors for comparison, which casts doubts on the accuracy of their KEP approach.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We discuss a recent test of the performance of the kinetic energy partition method (KEP) through its application to two separable quantum-mechanical models.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #18883 #78846 Analog quantum simulation of Sh... #78810 Secure Quantum Handshakes: Quan... #78802 Quantum Co-Design of Inhomogene... #78801 Constructing Large and Structur...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.