Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Finite-size effects on the cluster expansions for quantum gases in restricted geometries

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 This paper derives exact finite-size density matrices and cluster expansions for ideal Bose and Fermi gases in box geometries, and extends the cluster expansion to a quasi-1D interacting gas by using mean-field energy levels.

desk verdict The ideal-gas half is a correct but textbook-level re-derivation; the interacting quasi-1D cluster expansion is a mean-field ansatz presented as exact, and the advertised theorem and harmonic-trap results never appear. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02106 v2 pith:ROP424LY submitted 2019-08-06 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Soumi Dey , Prathyush Manchala , Srijit Basu , Debshikha Banerjee , Shyamal Biswas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph MSC 82B0582B10 PACS 01.40.Ha05.30.-d05.30.Fk05.30.Jp
keywords quantumclusterexpansionfinite-sizeeffectsone-particledensitymatrixBosegasFermiJacobithetafunctionboxgeometryquasi-1Dinteracting
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 aims to put finite-size effects on an exact footing for ideal quantum gases confined in rectangular boxes, and to carry the same cluster-expansion structure over to an interacting quasi-one-dimensional gas. It shows that the one-particle density matrix for a particle in a one-dimensional box is a closed difference of two Jacobi $\theta$ functions, and that the three-dimensional version is the product over axes, so that all spatial correlations inherit the box geometry exactly. From this it obtains quantum cluster expansions of the grand free energy, with the $\nu$-particle cluster integral collapsing to a single sum over box energy levels, and hence an equation of state for gases confined between parallel walls. The paper argues that the same form survives for short-range interacting gases in quasi-1D boxes, with mean-field eigenvalues in place of the ideal levels, which would make finite-size and interaction corrections simultaneously tractable for ultracold box-trap experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Jacobi $\theta$ function $\vartheta_3(u,q)$, which sums the box's sine-square eigenstates into a closed form. A difference of two $\theta$ functions, one in $x'-x$ and one in $x'+x$, represents the free propagator plus its reflected image, so the density matrix satisfies the Bloch equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions. In the cluster expansion, the key identity is that the multiple integral in Eq. (19) collapses to a one-level sum, $\int \rho(1,2)\cdots\rho(\nu,1)\,d^3r_1\cdots d^3r_\nu = \sum_j e^{-\nu\beta E_j}$, by repeated use of eigenstate orthonormality. For the interacting quasi-1D case, the same collapse is asserted with the mean-field spectrum $\bar E_j$ from Eq. (27), built from Jacobi elliptic functions solving the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, replacing the ideal levels.

What would settle it

Compute the two-particle cluster integral $h_2$ for a small repulsively interacting Bose gas in a 1D box by exact two-body diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (25), and compare the result with $\sum_j e^{-2\beta\bar E_j}$ using the eigenvalues of Eq. (27); a discrepancy at any temperature would refute the interacting cluster expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that box confinement can be handled exactly in the single-particle density matrix and in the quantum cluster expansion. For a particle in a 1D box, $\rho(x,x';\beta)=\frac{1}{2L}[\vartheta_3(\frac{\pi(x'-x)}{2L},e^{-\beta\pi^2\hbar^2/2mL^2})-\vartheta_3(\frac{\pi(x'+x)}{2L},e^{-\beta\pi^2\hbar^2/2mL^2})]$; the second $\theta$ term is the image contribution that makes the density matrix vanish at the walls. The one-particle density matrix of an ideal Bose or Fermi gas follows by expanding in fugacity, and the paper derives from the orthonormality of the sine eigenstates that the $\nu$-particle cluster integral of Eq. (19) reduces to $h_\nu=\sum_{j_1,j_2,j_3}e^{-\nu\beta \pi^2\hbar^2(j_1^2/L_1^2+j_2^2/L_2^2+j_3^2/L_3^2)/2m}$, the single-particle partition function at inverse temperature $\nu\beta$. The same reduction is then asserted, with a sign convention, for an interacting quasi-1D gas, with the mean-field eigenvalues $\bar E_j$ of Eq. (27) replacing the ideal levels.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on assuming that for the interacting quasi-1D gas the $\nu$-particle cluster integral is just $\sum_j e^{-\nu\beta \bar E_j}$, with $\bar E_j$ the mean-field eigenvalues of Eq. (27); the cluster-integral definition for interacting particles does not by itself imply this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The one-particle density matrix of an ideal Bose or Fermi gas in a box can be written down at any temperature as a fugacity series of theta functions, so spatial correlations in box traps have closed-form expressions.
  • For a gas free in two directions and bounded in one, the pressure on the wall is given by Eq. (24): it is lower than the free-gas pressure and exponentially suppressed when the thermal wavelength exceeds the box length, so the confined gas behaves quasi-two-dimensionally at low temperature.
  • Finite-size corrections to the grand free energy and particle number follow from the same cluster expansion and reduce exactly to the familiar free-gas results as all box lengths go to infinity.
  • If the interacting quasi-1D cluster form holds, the equation of state and density correlations for a short-range-interacting Bose or Fermi gas in a narrow box are obtained simply by evaluating the ideal-gas formulas at the mean-field eigenvalues $\bar E_j$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theta-function image method is not restricted to Dirichlet boxes: the same construction should yield closed-form density matrices for Neumann or periodic boundary conditions, and for other separable containers, by choosing the appropriate eigenfunction reflection pair.
  • The claimed interacting cluster formula $h_\nu=\sum_j e^{-\nu\beta\bar E_j}$ is an ansatz rather than a derivation; a direct test would be to compute $h_2$ for a small repulsive Bose gas in a 1D box by exact two-body diagonalization and compare with $\sum_j e^{-2\beta\bar E_j}$.
  • A natural next step, consistent with the paper's aims, would be to use these formulas to map the dimensional crossover from 3D to quasi-1D thermodynamics as two box lengths shrink below the thermal wavelength, and to compare the predicted pressure with box-trap measurements.
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. This manuscript derives the statistical-mechanical density matrix for a single particle in one- and three-dimensional hard-wall boxes in terms of Jacobi theta functions (Eq. (8)), extends it to one-particle density matrices of ideal Bose and Fermi gases (Eqs. (11)-(15)), and uses cluster integrals to obtain the grand free energy and equation of state in a slab geometry (Eqs. (22) and (24)). It then claims exact cluster expansions for interacting quasi-one-dimensional Bose and Fermi gases by replacing the single-particle energies with Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field eigenvalues (Eqs. (29) and (30)). The abstract additionally promises results for harmonic traps and a theorem with proof, neither of which appears in the body of the paper.

Significance. The ideal-gas part of the paper is sound and useful: the theta-function representation (8) is correct, the cluster expansion (22) and the slab equation of state (24) reduce to the standard free-gas results in the appropriate limits, and the derivation is parameter-free and self-contained. These are clean results with pedagogical value. The advertised novelty, however, is the exact treatment of interacting gases and a generic theorem about quantum cluster integrals, and that part is not supported. Because the interacting cluster expansion is asserted rather than derived from the many-body problem, the central claim of exactness for interacting quantum gases fails in the present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (30)] The cluster integral h_nu = sum_j exp(-nu beta Ebar_j) does not follow from the cluster-integral definition (19). For the interacting Hamiltonian (25), cluster coefficients are fixed by traces of the nu-body problem and contain interaction contributions; they cannot be obtained by inserting the mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii eigenvalues Ebar_j of Eq. (27) into the ideal-gas formula. Moreover, Eq. (19) uses the noninteracting single-particle density matrix of Eq. (9), so it is not an interacting cluster integral at all. The functions psi_j of Eq. (26) are nonlinear mean-field solutions, not a complete orthonormal basis of the many-body Hilbert space, so the grand-canonical trace is not a sum over them. Consequently Eq. (29) is also a mean-field ansatz rather than an exact one-particle density matrix. These gaps invalidate the interacting cluster expansion and the corresponding claims in Sections V and VI.
  2. [Abstract and Section VI] The abstract claims 'a theorem (with a proof) about the generic form of the quantum cluster integral' and results for 'harmonically trapped geometries', but neither appears in the manuscript. There is no theorem statement, proof, or harmonic-trap calculation anywhere in the body. These claims must be removed or the corresponding content supplied; as submitted, the paper advertises results it does not contain.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (21)] The sign factor is inconsistent with the definition (19). Eq. (19) defines h_nu without a sign, while Eq. (21) inserts a factor (±1)^{nu-1} into h_nu. If Eq. (21) is literally used in Eq. (18), the factor (±1)^{nu-1} cancels and the Fermi gas loses its alternating sign in the grand free energy. The final formula (22) correctly omits the sign inside h_nu, but the two statements need to be reconciled.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The text says x3 = y; this should be x3 = z.
  2. [Eq. (13) and Fig. 2] The sentence 'We plot the 1-particle density matrix-element in Eqn. (8)' should refer to Eq. (13), which is the formula actually plotted.
  3. [Eqs. (10) and (11)] Eq. (10) uses the symbol ± while Eq. (11) uses ∓; the sign convention for Bose and Fermi statistics should be stated once and then used consistently.
  4. [Eq. (20)] The text says a Fourier series expansion of the theta functions was used to obtain Eq. (20), but the result follows by orthonormality of the sine eigenstates; this phrasing should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ideal-gas cluster expansion is derived from the density-matrix convolution definition, and the problematic interacting result is an unsupported substitution rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's ideal-gas results are self-contained and not circular. The single-particle density matrix for the box, Eq. (8), follows from summing the exact eigenstates of the box Hamiltonian, and the 1-particle density matrix in Eq. (11) is the standard grand-canonical sum over single-particle states. The cluster expansion in Section IV starts from the standard cluster-integral definition Eq. (19); Eq. (20) for h_1 follows by direct integration, and Eq. (21) follows from orthonormality of the box eigenstates. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction, and no central result is assumed into its own derivation. The self-citations (refs. [25], [26], [29], [30]) provide background or input solutions but are not used to force the central ideal-gas equations. The main weakness of the paper is not circularity but an unsupported derivation step: Eq. (30) asserts h_nu = sum_j exp(-nu beta Ebar_j) for the interacting quasi-1D gas simply 'by looking at Eqn. (21)', with Ebar_j taken from the nonlinear Gross-Pitaevskii equation. This is a mean-field ansatz substituted into an ideal-gas formula, not a derived many-body cluster integral; however, this is a gap or error in the derivation, not a reduction of the claimed result to its own inputs. Likewise, the abstract's promised theorem and harmonic-trap results do not appear in the body, which is an incompleteness relative to the claims, not a circularity. No step of the paper reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, a self-citation chain, or a definition that presupposes the conclusion, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the standard cluster expansion, the standard Dirichlet heat kernel model, and an ad-hoc mean-field replacement in the interacting section. No fitted free parameters are introduced. The abstract's promised theorem and harmonic-trap results are not part of the body.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Standard Kahn-Uhlenbeck / Lee-Yang quantum cluster expansion: Omega = -k_B T sum_nu (+-)^{nu-1} h_nu z^nu / nu (Eq. 18).
    Quoted from refs [15,16]; used as the starting point for all cluster results in Sections IV and V. No derivation is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption Dirichlet boundary conditions for the box and the free-particle heat kernel of Eq. (5) as the L->infinity reference.
    The density matrix is required to vanish at the hard-wall boundaries; this is the standard physical model for the box and is invoked in Eqs. (6)-(9).
  • ad hoc to paper For the quasi-1D interacting gas, the mean-field GP energies Ebar_j (Eq. 27) are taken as given from Carr-Clark-Reinhardt [28] and then used to write the cluster integral as h_nu = sum_j e^{-nu beta Ebar_j} (Eq. 30).
    Interactions enter only through a mean-field shift of single-particle energies; this is not the exact cluster expansion for a gas with pair interactions and is not derived from Eq. (19).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-size effects on the cluster expansions for quantum gases in restricted geometries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROP424LY

@misc{pith2026190802106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-size effects on the cluster expansions for quantum gases in restricted geometries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROP424LY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02106}
}
read the original abstract

We have analytically obtained 1-particle density matrices for ideal Bose and Fermi gases in both the 3-D box geometries and the harmonically trapped geometries for the entire range of temperature. We have obtained quantum cluster expansions of the grand free energies in closed forms for the same systems in the restricted geometries. We have proposed a theorem (with a proof) about the generic form of the quantum cluster integral. We also have considered short ranged interactions in our analyses for the quasi 1-D cases of Bose and Fermi gases in the box geometries. Our theoretical results are exact, and are directly useful for understanding finite-size effects on quantum cluster expansion of Bose and Fermi gases in the restricted geometries. Our results would be relevant in the context of experimental study of spatial correlations in ultra-cold systems of dilute Bose and Fermi gases of alkali atoms (i) in 3-D magneto-optical box traps with quasi-uniform potential around the center [1], and (ii) in 3-D harmonic traps [2, 3].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Profile of the density matrix elements for the particl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Profile of the 1-particle density matrix-elements fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Length dependence of the equation of states for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    can be recast as [ 4] ˆρ = ∞∑ j=1 e−βEj |ψj⟩⟨ψj | (2) A. Density matrix for a single particle in a 1-D box If the pointsx andx′ be any two arbitrary points inside a 1-D box of length L which confines a point-particle such that 0 < x < L, then the density matrix element of the system can be defined in position representation as ρ(x,x ′;β) = ⟨x|ˆρ|x′⟩ = ⟨x|e−...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Alternating series expansion in Eqn.( 13) further re- duces the spatial correlations in the Fermi gas in com- parison to that in the Bose gas as clear in the FIG

    The dotted line would come arbitrary close to the solid line at z =L3/2 for ¯z → 0. Alternating series expansion in Eqn.( 13) further re- duces the spatial correlations in the Fermi gas in com- parison to that in the Bose gas as clear in the FIG. 2. Eqn.(13), for the Fermi gas, can be recast as ρ1(⃗ r,⃗ r′;β) = ∞∑ j3=1 [ ∫ ei(⃗ r′ ⊥−⃗ r⊥)·⃗ p⊥/ℏ eβ([p2 ⊥/...

    work page

  3. [3]

    This can be considered as an inhomogeneous boundary condition for the solution to the diffusion Eqn

    we get ρ(x,x ′; 0) = δ(x −x′). This can be considered as an inhomogeneous boundary condition for the solution to the diffusion Eqn. ( 4). The solution for L → ∞, i.e. for the case of free particle, ρf (x,x ′;β) = √ m 2πℏ2β e− m(x′ −x)2 2ℏ 2β (5) is well known in the literature [ 4]. The solution to the Eqn.( 4) for finite L, however, is not known in the lit...

    work page

  4. [4]

    R. P. Feynman, Statistical Mechanics: A Set of Lectures , p. 39-96 (ch. 2-3), Westview Press, Boulder, USA (1972)

    work page 1972

  5. [5]

    G. C. Wick, Phys. Rev. 96, 1124 (1954)

    work page 1954

  6. [6]

    Fox, Quantum Optics: An Introduction , p

    M. Fox, Quantum Optics: An Introduction , p. 171 (ch. 9), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, New York, USA (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    we get an exact result in compact form as ρ(x,x ′;β) = 1 2L [ ϑ3 ( π[x′ −x] 2L , e−β π2ℏ 2 2mL2 ) −ϑ3 ( π[x′ +x] 2L , e−β π2ℏ 2 2mL2 )] (8) where ϑ3 represents a Jacobi (elliptic) theta function in the usual notation[31]. The second term in the right hand 3 side of Eqn.( 8) breaks the translational symmetry in the density matrix-element, as because, the d...

    work page

  8. [8]

    for the 3-D as product of the density matrix elements for the individual axes: ρ(⃗ r,⃗ r′;β) = Π 3 i=1 1 2Li [ ϑ3 ( π[x′ i −xi] 2Li , e −β π2ℏ 2 2mL2 i ) −ϑ3 ( π[x′ i +xi] 2Li , e −β π2 ℏ 2 2mL2 i )] (9) where x1 =x, x2 =y, x3 =y, and so as for the primed coordinates. Eqn.(9) is our result for statistical mechanical density matrix element ( ρ(⃗ r,⃗ r′;β) ...

    work page

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    for the density matrix-element for a particle in 1-D box, has been used to get the final expression of h1 which by definition is the partition function for a sin- gle particle in the 3-D box. It can be shown from the orthonormality of the single-particle energy eigenstates that,...

  2. [10]

    for ideal Bose and Fermi gases for fixed fugacity, and com- pare with the the case of the free Bose gas in FIG. 4. The solid line approaches the result λ3 Tp/kBT =g5/2(¯z), whereg5/2 is the Bose integral [ 16], for the 3-D free Bose gas as L3/λT tends to ∞. The dashed line appr...

  3. [11]

    for the finiteness of the system only along the z axis [ 25] apart from studying typical finite-size ef- fect on the many-body system. V. QUANTUM CLUSTER EXP ANSION FOR A NON-IDEAL QUANTUM GAS IN A CLOSED RECTANGULAR CYLINDER Let the Bose gas spin 0 particles be interacting with...

  4. [12]

    D. M. Gangardt and G. V. Shlyapnikov, New J. Phys. 8, 167 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    The dotted line represents the same for 3-D fr ee Bose gas, and follows Eqn.( 15) for the upper sign

    for upper and lower signs respectively. The dotted line represents the same for 3-D fr ee Bose gas, and follows Eqn.( 15) for the upper sign. in Eqn.(8) for 3-D ideal Bose gas, and compare it with the one (in Eqn.( 15)) with the free-boundary in FIG. 2. It is clear from the FI...

  6. [14]

    von Neumann, G¨ ottinger Nachrichten 1927, 245 (1927)

    J. von Neumann, G¨ ottinger Nachrichten 1927, 245 (1927)

    1927

  7. [15]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 25, 62 (1929) ; 27, 240 (1931)

    1929

  8. [16]

    R. C. Tolman, The Principles of Statistical Mechanics , p. 327-361 (ch. 9), Clarendon Press, Oxford, Great Britain (1938)

    1938

  9. [17]

    Dalfovo, S

    F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, andS. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Penrose and L

    O. Penrose and L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. 104, 576 (1956)

    1956

  12. [20]

    L. P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Conden- sation, p. 7 (ch. 2), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, New York, USA (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    L. F. Barragan-Gila and R. Walser, Am. J. Phys. 86, 22 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Let us now remove the boundaries along the x and y axes so that L1 → ∞ , L2 → ∞ , and the quantum gas remains bounded only along the z axis

    and ( 23). Let us now remove the boundaries along the x and y axes so that L1 → ∞ , L2 → ∞ , and the quantum gas remains bounded only along the z axis. In this situation the summations in Eqns. ( 22) and ( 23) over j1 and j2 can be replaced by integrations from 0 to ∞ without ...

  15. [23]

    Onofri, Am

    E. Onofri, Am. J. Phys. 46, 379 (1978)

    1978

  16. [24]

    Let us now define the generalized pressure given by the quantum gas on a wall of the system as p = −Ω L1L2L3 which would be the true pressure in the thermodynamic limit

    for +ve and -ve signs respectively. Let us now define the generalized pressure given by the quantum gas on a wall of the system as p = −Ω L1L2L3 which would be the true pressure in the thermodynamic limit. Thermodynamic behaviour of the ideal quantum gas can now be extracted fr...

  17. [25]

    M. T. Batchelor, X. W. Guan, N. Oelkers, and C. Lee, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 7787 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    - ( 30) would be re- placed by ¯N/ 2 for the interacting Fermi system. In ad- dition the Bose-Einstein statistics (¯ nj = 1 eβ[ ¯Ej −µ]−1 ) in Eqn.(29) is to be replaced by the Fermi-Dirac statistics (¯nj = 1 eβ[ ¯Ej −µ]+1 ) and a phase factor ( −1)ν−1 would be multiplied in t...

  19. [27]

    J.-S. Caux, P. Calabrese, and N. A. Slavnov, J. Stat. Mech. 2007, P01008 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Kira and S

    M. Kira and S. W. Koch, Phys. Rev. A 78, 022102 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Kahn and G

    B. Kahn and G. E. Uhlenbeck, Physica 5, 399 (1938) ; T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 117, 22 (1960)

    1938

  22. [30]

    R. K. Pathria, Statistical Mechanics , 2nd edn., p. 254, ch. 9, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, New York, USA

  23. [31]

    Giorgini, L

    S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1215 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, E. A. Cornell, Science 269, 198 (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995)

    1995

  26. [34]

    K. B. Davis, M. -O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    A. L. Gaunt, T. F. Schmidutz, I. Gotlibovych, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 200406 (2013); Also see - T. P. Meyrath, F. Schreck, J. L. Hanssen, C.-S. Chuu, and M. G. Raizen, Phys. Rev. A 71, 041604(R) (2005)

    2013

  28. [36]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics : part-1, 3rd edn., p. 356 (sec. 117), Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford, New York, USA

  29. [37]

    Biswas, J

    S. Biswas, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 9969 (2007) ; Eur. Phys. J. D 42, 109 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Bhattacharya, S

    A. Bhattacharya, S. Das, and S. Biswas, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 51, 075301 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Biswas, Eur

    S. Biswas, Eur. Phys. J. D 55, 653 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    L. D. Carr, C. W. Clark, and W. P. Reinhardt, Phys. Rev. A 62, 063610 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Biswas, J

    S. Biswas, J. K. Bhattacharjee, D. Majumder, K. Saha, and N. Chakravarty, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 43, 085305 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Biswas, D

    S. Biswas, D. Jana, and R. K. Manna, Eur. Phys. J. D 66, 217 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    The Jacobi (elliptic) theta function, ϑ 3(u, q ), is defined as ϑ 3(u, q ) = 1 + 2 ∑ ∞ j=1 qj2 cos(2ju) for u ∈ C and |q|< 1

  36. [44]

    Maximization of the density matrix-element is possible at x′ = x = L/ 2 as there is a reflection symmetry about this point

  37. [45]

    This is the limiting case of Fermi-Huang potential under Born approximation for low energy scattering [ 26]

Pith tools

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