Talk:Lindbladian

message: Might be nice to add some discussion comparing with Fermi's golden rule -- Jheald 18:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Finite temperature dissipative environments, and environments in general are non-Markovian. I was under the impression that the Linbald Equation is Markovian only. Which for dissipative environments often means high temperature only. CHF
Additionally there are open systems that simply do not have master equations for their reduced density matrix. CHF
-- A Master equation, by definition is Markovian. If the bath correlation functions do not decay to zero fast enough (regardless of Temperature) a master equation is indeed inappropriate. People do use master equations that are not of Linblad form (i.e. Redfield equation) but these are not "allowed by quantum mechanics", as they don't preserve the positivity of the density matrix (or at least are not completely positive.)
Cederal 12:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most General Master Equation? 

message: The Lindblad eq. is the most general form time evolution for a density matrix meeting certain conditions (markovian, trace preserving, etc).  In order to meet these conditions, what are the restrictions on the Lindblad operators?  I think they have to be positive, but I also think there might be some sort of norm requirement.  Anyone have a source? Njerseyguy (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I figured it out and added to the article. Njerseyguy (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrictions on Lindblad operators 

message: The current version of the article lacks the derivation of the Lindblad equation from other master equations (for example from a Redfield-like equation) and lacks any discussion of the defects of the Lindblad equation (resulting in unphysical behavior) and of the modifications done by Lindblad to correct those deficiencies.
I will write such a material in brief. What do you prefer one or two new sections? JuanR (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation and limitations of the Lindblad equation 

message: The master equation has been modified by reordering the terms so that the general expression and L(C) are compatible, and more importantly, "h" was rescaled by a factor of 1/2 (so we have A{\rho}A^\dagger - (1/2) (....) and not 2A{\rho}A^\dagger - (...)). This results in dissipation proportional to exp(-t/h) when applied to simple test case, such as a qubit coupled with a dissipation operator of "a" to the environment. If you keep the factor of 2 in the M.E., it finds its way into the exponent, which is not what one would expect. Also, this is now compatible with the derivation in the "diagonalization" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shai mach (talk • contribs) 16:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scaling factor for "h" matrix 

message: I am not an expert so I will not edit the article myself, but the assertion that the Lindblad equation is a generalization of the Schrödinger equation seems more false than true, given that it is derived from the Schrödinger equation on a joint system. For someone looking for an overview of the subject, the opening paragraph in its current form could be somewhat misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublefelix921 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the opening paragraph: Lindblad is "more general" than Schrödinger equation - questionable.