Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 26 references

One Cooper pair definition wins the boson test across resonance

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-08 16:52 UTC pith:NSIQDHML

load-bearing objection ODLRO-based pair definition is more bosonic than pair-projection definition across BCS-BEC crossover, within mean-field BCS the 2 major comments →

arxiv 0704.0006 v1 pith:NSIQDHML submitted 2007-03-31 cond-mat.mes-hall

Bosonic characters of atomic Cooper pairs across resonance

Y. H. Pong , C. K. Law This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 03.75.Ss05.30.Fk74.20.Fg03.67.Mn
keywords Cooper pairFeshbach resonanceBCS-BEC crossoverbosonic statisticsoff-diagonal long range orderultracold Fermi gasBose enhancementpair projection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks a deceptively simple question: when two fermionic atoms pair up in a gas with tunable interactions, how boson-like is the resulting pair? The answer matters because the BCS-to-BEC crossover — smoothly connecting loosely bound Cooper pairs to tightly bound molecules that condense — hinges on whether pairs can be treated as bosons. The authors construct a Cooper pair creation operator C and subject it to three quantitative boson tests: the condensate fraction (how many atoms actually occupy the pair mode), the commutator expectation value (does C behave like a bosonic operator?), and the Bose enhancement correction factor (does adding or removing one pair from an N-pair gas follow bosonic counting rules?). The central finding is that not all definitions of a Cooper pair are equally bosonic. The definition tied to off-diagonal long range order (lambda proportional to u* times v) consistently scores higher on all three bosonic indicators than the pair-projection definition (lambda proportional to v/u), especially on the weak-coupling (negative scattering length) side. Both definitions converge in the strong-coupling BEC regime where (kFa)^{-1} >= 1, yielding over 90% condensate fraction. The paper identifies a transition window roughly between (kFa)^{-1} = -2 and +2 where pairs cross from non-bosonic to bosonic character — and notably, this bosonization does not require deep BEC conditions; at (kFa)^{-1} = 1 the condensate fraction is already 95%, the commutator is 0.94, and the Bose enhancement correction is 0.97.

Core claim

The paper's central result is that the ODLRO-based Cooper pair wave function, where the pair amplitude lambda_n is proportional to u*_n times v_n (the product of the BCS coherence factors), is more bosonic than the pair-projection definition where lambda_n is proportional to v_n divided by u_n. This is established by computing three indicators across the full Feshbach resonance crossover in a uniform 3D Fermi gas: (1) the condensate fraction <C†C>/N, (2) the commutator expectation <[C,C†]>, and (3) the normalization ratio chi_{N+1}/chi_N which measures the correction to Bose enhancement. The ODLRO definition scores higher on all three. The physical reason is that on the BCS side, the ODLRO-p

What carries the argument

The analysis is built on a mean-field BCS ground state |Phi> = product_n (u_n + v_n alpha†_n beta†_n)|0> with amplitudes u_n, v_n solved from the regularized gap equation and number equation for a homogeneous 3D gas. Two definitions of the Cooper pair operator C = sum_n lambda_n alpha_n beta_n are compared: (A) lambda_n = u*_n v_n / sqrt(sum |u*_m v_m|^2), reflecting ODLRO (Yang 1962), and (B) lambda_n = (v_n/u_n) / sqrt(sum |v_m/u_m|^2), reflecting pair projection of the BCS state (Nozieres-Schmitt-Rink). Three bosonic indicators are computed: condensate fraction <C†C>/N (Eq. 14, 19), commutator expectation <[C,C†]> (Eq. 15, 20), and the M-pair normalization ratio chi_{N+1}/chi_N solved via

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis is built on a mean-field BCS ground state as the variational ansatz for the crossover. This ansatz is known to be quantitatively unreliable in the strongly interacting regime near unitarity, (kFa)^{-1} approximately 0, where pair fluctuations and beyond-mean-field corrections are significant. The claims about the transition region are most vulnerable because this is precisely where the BCS ansatz is least trustworthy.

What would settle it

If a beyond-mean-field treatment (e.g., including Gaussian pair fluctuations or quantum Monte Carlo ground state) were to show that the ODLRO definition is no longer more bosonic than the pair-projection definition, or that the transition window for bosonization shifts substantially from the range -2 to 2 in (kFa)^{-1}, the paper's quantitative claims would be undermined. Alternatively, if an experiment directly measuring pair commutator statistics found deviations from the predicted condensate fractions or commutator values, the mean-field predictions would be falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the ODLRO definition is the right one for treating Cooper pairs as bosons, then theoretical models that project the BCS state onto a bosonic molecular field should use lambda ~ u*v rather than lambda ~ v/u, affecting predictions for collective modes and condensate fluctuations in the crossover regime.
  • The identification of a transition window -2 < (kFa)^{-1} < 2 for bosonization provides a concrete benchmark: experiments probing pair statistics (e.g., through noise correlations or molecular RF spectroscopy) should see bosonic behavior emerging well before the deep BEC limit.
  • The result that at (kFa)^{-1} = 1 the pairs are already 95% bosonic suggests that the experimentally relevant regime for observing bosonic pair behavior is broader than the deep BEC side, potentially simplifying experimental requirements.
  • The method extends in principle to trapped systems where natural orbits replace plane waves, opening a path to compare bosonic character in harmonic traps relevant to current ultracold gas experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The three bosonic indicators tested here are necessary but not sufficient conditions for true bosonic behavior — the commutator expectation being close to 1 does not guarantee the operator algebra is bosonic. A stronger test would examine higher-order commutators or the full operator identity [C, C†] = 1 as an operator equation, not just its ground-state expectation value.
  • Since the analysis uses a mean-field BCS ansatz throughout, the transition window -2 < (kFa)^{-1} < 2 identified here may shift if pair fluctuations and beyond-mean-field corrections are included. The qualitative ranking of the two definitions could potentially survive, but the quantitative boundaries of the bosonization window are uncertain in the unitarity regime where the BCS ansatz is least re
  • If an experimental observable directly tied to C or C' could be identified — for instance, a two-photon Raman process that creates or annihilates a pair with a known momentum structure — the two definitions would make distinguishable predictions for the momentum distribution of the pair wave function, especially on the BCS side where they differ most.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper examines the bosonic character of Cooper pairs across the BCS-BEC crossover by comparing two definitions of the Cooper pair wave function: one derived from ODLRO (λ_n ∝ ũ*_n ṽ_n) and one from pair projection (λ'_n ∝ ṽ_n/ũ_n). Three indicators are computed within a mean-field BCS ansatz: the condensate fraction ⟨C†C⟩/N, the commutator expectation ⟨[C,C†]⟩, and the normalization correction χ_{N+1}/χ_N. The authors find that the ODLRO-based definition yields more bosonic behavior across the crossover, particularly on the BCS side, and that both definitions converge in the deep BEC limit. The algebraic derivations in §II–III are clean, and the numerical evaluation for the uniform gas uses standard integrals from Marini et al. (Ref. 16).

Significance. The paper addresses a well-defined conceptual question: which definition of the Cooper pair wave function better captures bosonic character across the Feshbach resonance. The comparative framework—applying three distinct bosonic indicators to two candidate wave functions—is a reasonable approach. The derivation of the commutator expectations (Eqs. 14–15, 19–20) from the BCS state is straightforward and correct. The momentum-space analysis (Fig. 4) provides a clear physical picture for why the two definitions differ. However, the quantitative results are entirely contingent on the mean-field BCS ansatz (Eq. 1), which is known to be quantitatively unreliable in the strongly interacting regime near unitarity. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free predictions beyond what the BCS ansatz yields.

major comments (2)
  1. §IV, Eqs. (22–23): The quantitative claims in the crossover region −2 ≲ (k_F a)^{-1} ≲ 2 are computed using the mean-field BCS gap and number equations. At unitarity, mean-field gives μ ≈ 0.59 E_F and Δ ≈ 0.69 E_F, while QMC benchmarks give μ ≈ 0.37 E_F and Δ ≈ 0.45 E_F — discrepancies of 30–40%. Since ũ_k and ṽ_k depend on μ and Δ through Eq. (21), the specific numerical values reported (e.g., at μ = 0, (k_F a)^{-1} ≈ 0.553: ⟨[C,C†]⟩ = 0.835, χ_{N+1}/χ_N = 0.937) could shift substantially. The paper does not acknowledge this limitation anywhere. A discussion of the sensitivity of the three bosonic indicators to the values of μ and Δ is needed for the quantitative claims to be credible. The comparative claim (ODLRO definition is more bosonic than pair-projection) is more robust, as it reflects a structural difference in momentum-space weighting (Fig. 4), but the reader should be told the
  2. §IV, discussion following Fig. 3: The paper identifies a 'transition region' −2 ≲ (k_F a)^{-1} ≲ 2 where Cooper pairs transit from non-bosonic to bosonic, and reports specific threshold values (e.g., at (k_F a)^{-1} = 1: ⟨C†C⟩/N = 95%, ⟨[C,C†]⟩ ∼ 0.94, χ_{N+1}/χ_N ∼ 0.97). These are presented as results about the physical system, but they are results about the BCS ansatz. The manuscript should explicitly state that these thresholds are mean-field estimates and may differ in a more accurate treatment. Without this qualification, the thresholds risk being over-interpreted as quantitative predictions for experiment.
minor comments (6)
  1. §II, Eq. (10): The simple model gives χ_{N+1}/χ_N ≈ 1 − N k_C^3/(V 6π²). In the BCS limit, the text states k_C ∼ k_F and N/V ≈ k_F³/(6π²), which would give the second term as ∼1, making N/z₀ ≈ 0. This is consistent with the text. However, the statement 'k_C ∼ Fermi momentum k_F' is imprecise — k_C is the momentum-space cutoff of the pair wave function, which in the BCS limit is of order k_F but not equal to it. A brief clarification would help.
  2. Figures 1–3: The axis labels use (k_F a)^{-1} but the figure captions do not state the units or the meaning of the solid/dashed lines beyond inline text. Adding a legend or a clearer caption would improve readability.
  3. §III, Eq. (16): The BCS state is rewritten as a coherent state in C'†. The text notes this but does not discuss the physical significance: if C' were perfectly bosonic, the BCS state would be a coherent state of pairs. This connection could be stated more explicitly.
  4. §V, Conclusion: The phrase 'the gas is basically in its simplest single mode' is informal. Consider rephrasing to 'the gas is well described by a single bosonic mode.'
  5. References: The self-citation [10] (Law, 2005) provides the χ_M framework. This is appropriately cited, but the authors should ensure the novelty of the present work relative to [10] is clearly stated, since [10] also discusses composite particle statistics.
  6. Appendix, Eqs. (28)–(36): The change of variables (Eqs. 24–27) is introduced but the relationship between x₀, κ, q and the physical parameters (μ, Δ, a) is not summarized in a table. A brief table or additional explanatory text would make the appendix more self-contained.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and constructive comments. The referee correctly identifies that our quantitative results in the crossover region depend on the mean-field BCS gap and number equations, which are known to deviate from QMC benchmarks near unitarity. We agree that this limitation should be explicitly acknowledged in the manuscript. We will add a discussion of the sensitivity of the three bosonic indicators to the values of μ and Δ, and qualify the threshold values as mean-field estimates rather than quantitative predictions for experiment. The comparative claim—that the ODLRO-based definition yields more bosonic behavior than the pair-projection definition—is structural and does not depend on the precise values of μ and Δ, as the referee also notes.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §IV, Eqs. (22–23): The quantitative claims in the crossover region are computed using the mean-field BCS gap and number equations, which are known to be quantitatively unreliable near unitarity (30–40% discrepancies with QMC). The paper does not acknowledge this limitation. A discussion of the sensitivity of the three bosonic indicators to μ and Δ is needed.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the specific numerical values reported in the crossover region are contingent on the mean-field BCS ansatz, and that this limitation is not acknowledged in the current manuscript. We will add an explicit discussion in §IV noting that mean-field BCS gives μ ≈ 0.59 E_F and Δ ≈ 0.69 E_F at unitarity, while QMC benchmarks yield μ ≈ 0.37 E_F and Δ ≈ 0.45 E_F, and that the reported numerical values of the three bosonic indicators could shift accordingly. We agree this is important for the reader to assess the quantitative credibility of our results. We would also note, as the referee acknowledges, that the comparative claim—ODLRO definition is more bosonic than pair-projection—reflects a structural difference in momentum-space weighting (Fig. 4) and is robust to the specific values of μ and Δ. The ODLRO weighting λ_k ∝ ũ_k ṽ_k concentrates on states near the Fermi surface while the pair-projection weighting λ'_k ∝ ṽ_k/ũ_k averages over the entire Fermi sphere; this qualitative distinction holds regardless of the precise values of μ and Δ. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §IV, discussion following Fig. 3: The threshold values (e.g., at (k_F a)^{-1} = 1: ⟨C†C⟩/N = 95%, ⟨[C,C†]⟩ ∼ 0.94, χ_{N+1}/χ_N ∼ 0.97) are presented as results about the physical system but are results about the BCS ansatz. The manuscript should explicitly state that these thresholds are mean-field estimates and may differ in a more accurate treatment.

    Authors: We agree. The threshold values and the identification of the 'transition region' −2 ≲ (k_F a)^{-1} ≲ 2 are specific to the mean-field BCS ansatz and should be qualified as such. We will revise the discussion following Fig. 3 to explicitly state that these are mean-field estimates and that the precise threshold values may shift in a more accurate treatment (e.g., using QMC or beyond-mean-field methods). This qualification will be added to prevent over-interpretation of the numerical thresholds as quantitative experimental predictions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained with standard BCS inputs and externally-motivated definitions

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is straightforward and self-contained. The BCS amplitudes ũ_k, ṽ_k are determined by the standard mean-field gap equation (Eq. 22) and number equation (Eq. 23), which are external to the paper. The two Cooper pair definitions are motivated by external work: the ODLRO definition (λ_n ∝ ũ*_n ṽ_n, Eq. 13) traces to Yang [12] and Leggett [20], while the pair-projection definition (λ'_n ∝ ṽ_n/ũ_n, Eq. 18) traces to Nozières-Schmitt-Rink [7], Randeria [13], and Ortiz-Dukelsky [11]. The χ_M framework (Eqs. 8-9) is attributed to Combescot et al. [8,9], not to the present authors. The one self-citation, Ref. [10] (Law, 2005), is mentioned only as context for the connection between χ_M and entanglement; it is not load-bearing for any of the three computed indicators or the comparative claim. Ref. [19] (Pong & Law, 2006) is cited only for methods applicable to trapped systems, which are not used in this paper's homogeneous-gas calculations. The paper explicitly acknowledges that ⟨C†C⟩ for the ODLRO definition recovers the two-particle density matrix eigenvalue by construction ('In the large N limit, ⟨C†C⟩ is just the eigenvalue given in (11)'), but this is a known consistency property, not a hidden circularity presented as a prediction. The commutator (Eqs. 15, 20) and χ_{N+1}/χ_N (via Eq. 9) are non-trivial computations that do not reduce to the inputs by construction. The comparative claim—that the ODLRO definition yields more bosonic indicators—is a genuine outcome of the calculation, not forced by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted or introduced ad hoc; the BCS amplitudes are determined by the standard gap and number equations. No new entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are postulated. The axioms are all domain assumptions from standard BCS theory, with the main vulnerability being the mean-field ansatz in the strongly interacting regime.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption BCS state |Φ⟩ = ∏_n (û_n + ṽ_n α†_n β†_n)|0⟩ is the ground state across the entire BCS-BEC crossover at zero temperature
    Invoked in §I (Eq. 1) as the variational ansatz. Known to be quantitatively unreliable near unitarity where pair fluctuations matter.
  • domain assumption One-channel model with contact interaction and regularized scattering length a is sufficient to describe the crossover
    Stated in §I: 'We employ the one-channel approach to discuss the crossover phenomena at zero temperature [11, 15, 16, 17].' Standard for broad Feshbach resonances but an approximation.
  • domain assumption The large-N approximation χ_{N+1}/χ_N ≈ N/z_0 from Combescot et al. (Eq. 8) is valid for atomic Cooper pairs
    Invoked in §II (Eq. 8-9). Derived for exciton systems; its validity for Fermi gas Cooper pairs is assumed but not independently verified.
  • standard math Standard regularized gap equation and number equation (Eqs. 22-23) determine û_k, ṽ_k self-consistently
    Standard BCS theory; integrals expressed via elliptic functions following Marini et al. (Ref. 16).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 12454 in / 2857 out tokens · 137841 ms · 2026-07-08T16:52:11.192945+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the two-particle wave function of paired atoms in a Fermi gas with tunable interaction strengths controlled by Feshbach resonance. The Cooper pair wave function is examined for its bosonic characters, which is quantified by the correction of Bose enhancement factor associated with the creation and annihilation composite particle operators. An example is given for a three-dimensional uniform gas. Two definitions of Cooper pair wave function are examined. One of which is chosen to reflect the off-diagonal long range order (ODLRO). Another one corresponds to a pair projection of a BCS state. On the side with negative scattering length, we found that paired atoms described by ODLRO are more bosonic than the pair projected definition. It is also found that at $(k_F a)^{-1} \ge 1$, both definitions give similar results, where more than 90% of the atoms occupy the corresponding molecular condensates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 0704.0006 by C. K. Law, Y. H. Pong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (Color online) The fraction of condensate particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (Color online) Expectation value of the commutator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) Momentum distribution (in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    In [12], Yang showed that off-diagonal long range order ex- ists in a superconducting state, and is characterized by a dominant eigenvector of the two-particle density matrix

    have given a discussion at length on this matter. In [12], Yang showed that off-diagonal long range order ex- ists in a superconducting state, and is characterized by a dominant eigenvector of the two-particle density matrix. The eigenvector is sometimes recognized as a Cooper pair wave function. On the other hand, the pair projection wave function of a BC...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (9) From this last equation the ratio can be solved numeri- cally

    have shown that χ N +1 χ N ≈ N z0 , (8) where z0 can be solved from the equation [9] N z0 = ∑ n |λ n|2 1 +z0 |λ n|2. (9) From this last equation the ratio can be solved numeri- cally. In Refs. [8, 9], the correction factor in (6) has been studied in exciton systems. Here we will apply Eq. (9) to atomic Cooper pairs with λ n defined in the next section. One...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The mode func- tion ˜φ can be written as ˜φ(r1, r2) = ∑ n ˜u∗ n˜vnf ∗ n(r2)fn(r1) √∑ m |˜u∗ m˜vm|2 (12) in terms of the natural orbits {fn}

    that the long range correlation ( |r1 − r′ 1| → ∞ , |r2 − r′ 2| → ∞ ) in a paired state is reflected in the eigen- value decomposition of the two particle density matrix G(r′ 1, r′ 2; r1, r2) = ⣨ ψ † α (r′ 1)ψ † β (r′ 2)ψ β (r2)ψ α (r1) ⟩ ≈ ( ∑ m |˜u∗ m˜vm|2 ) ˜φ (r1, r2) ˜φ ∗ (r′ 1, r′ 2), (11) where ψ α (r) = ∑ nfn (r)α n and ψ β (r) = ∑ nf ∗ n (r)βn are...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (19, 20)

    and Eq. (19, 20). In Fig. 1 we plot the fraction of condensation in the gas, as a function of the dimen- sionless parameter ( kFa)− 1. With either choice of λ k, the fraction goes to one in the BEC limit ( kFa)− 1 ≫ 1. Notice that ⟨ C†C ⟩ /N is an appreciably higher fraction than ⟨ C′†C′⟩ /N , showing a dominant condensation of atoms into the pair wave fu...

    work page

  5. [5]

    C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 040403 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, A. J. Kerman, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120403 (2004); M. W. Zwierlein, J. R. Abo- Shaeer, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Nature 435, 1047 (2005)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Zwierlein, Andre Schirotzek, Christian H

    Martin W. Zwierlein, Andre Schirotzek, Christian H. Schunck, and Wolfgang Ketterle, Science 311, 492 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Bartenstein, A

    M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J. Hecker Denschlag, R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 203201 (2004)

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    K. M. O’Hara, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, S. R. Granade, J. E. Thomas, Science 298, 2179 (2002)

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    P. G. de Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (W.A. Benjamin INC.,1966); J. B. Ketterson and S. N. Song, Superconductivity (New York, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1999)

    work page 1966

  11. [11]

    Nozi´ eres, S

    P. Nozi´ eres, S. Schmitt-Rink, J. Low Temp. Phys. 59, 195 (1985)

    work page 1985

  12. [12]

    Combescot and C

    M. Combescot and C. Tanguy, Europhys. Lett. 55, 390 (2001)

    work page 2001

  13. [13]

    Combescot, X

    M. Combescot, X. Leyronas, and C. Tanguy, Eur. Phys. J. B 31, 17 (2003)

    work page 2003

  14. [14]

    C. K. Law, Phys. Rev. A 71, 034306 (2005). 6

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    What is a Cooper pair ?

    G. Ortiz and J. Dukelsky, Phys. Rev. A 72, 043611 (2005); G. Ortiz and J. Dukelsky, cond-mat/0604236

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  16. [16]

    C. N. Yang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 694 (1962)

    work page 1962

  17. [17]

    Randeria, in Bose Einstein Condensation , edited by A

    M. Randeria, in Bose Einstein Condensation , edited by A. Griffin, D. W. Snoke and S. Stringari (Cambridge Uni- versity Press 1995)

    work page 1995

  18. [18]

    Projecting Fermion Pair Condensates into Molecular Condensates

    Roberto B. Diener and Tin-Lun Ho, cond-mat/0404517

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Luca Salasnich, Nicola Manini, Alberto Parola, Phys. Rev. A 72, 023621 (2005)

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    Marini, F

    M. Marini, F. Pistolesi, and G.C. Strinati, Eur. Phys. J . B 1, 151 (1998)

    work page 1998

  21. [21]

    Parish, Bogdan Mihaila, Eddy M

    Meera M. Parish, Bogdan Mihaila, Eddy M. Timmer- mans, Krastan B. Blagoev, and Peter B. Littlewood, Phys. Rev. B 71, 064513 (2005)

    work page 2005

  22. [22]

    Reinhard, M

    P.-G. Reinhard, M. Bender, K. Rutz, and J. A. Maruhn, Z. Phys. A 358 , 277 (1997)

    work page 1997

  23. [23]

    Pong and C

    Y.H. Pong and C. K. Law, Phys. Rev. A 74 013618 (2006)

    work page 2006

  24. [24]

    A. J. Leggett, J. de Physique 41, C7-19 (1980)

    work page 1980

  25. [25]

    A. J. Leggett, in Modern Trends in the Theory of Con- densed Matter , edited by A. Pekalski and R. Przystawa (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980)

    work page 1980

  26. [26]

    Levin, Phys

    Qijin Chen, Jelena Stajic, Shina Tan, and K. Levin, Phys . Rep. 412, 1 (2005)

    work page 2005