Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Strongly correlated superfluid order parameters from dc Josephson supercurrents

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 The paper claims that the dc Josephson critical current through a barrier between two strongly interacting Fermi superfluids measures the pair condensate density, and uses this to extract the condensate fraction across the BCS-BEC…

desk verdict A genuinely first dc Josephson supercurrent in a strongly interacting Fermi gas, with a clean sinusoidal current-phase relation; the condensate-fraction extraction is clever but rests on an untested factorization, so take that number as a model-dependent estimate. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09696 v3 pith:RNY7DJPX submitted 2019-08-26 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.supr-conphysics.atom-ph

W. J. Kwon , G. Del Pace , R. Panza , M. Inguscio , W. Zwerger , M. Zaccanti , F. Scazza , G. Roati This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-conphysics.atom-ph
keywords dcJosephsoneffectBCS-BECcrossovercondensatefractionunitaryFermigassuperfluidorderparametercriticalcurrentstronglycorrelatedfermionsweaklink
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 reports the observation of dc Josephson supercurrents between two strongly correlated fermionic superfluids and uses them as a phase-sensitive probe of the superfluid order parameter. The authors claim that the measured critical current $I_c$ is set by the density of condensed pairs $n_c$ — the order-parameter amplitude — rather than by the superfluid density, and that this holds through the BCS-BEC crossover all the way to unitarity. Working with a tunable optical-barrier junction in $^6$Li, they observe a zero-resistance plateau and a sinusoidal current-phase relation, extract $I_c$, and compare it with an analytic model with no free parameters. From that comparison they determine the total condensate fraction $\langle\lambda_0\rangle$, finding $0.47(7)$ at unitarity, in agreement with non-perturbative many-body predictions. If correct, this makes dc Josephson transport a direct, essentially model-free window onto strongly correlated order parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorization of the Josephson critical current density into a bulk thermodynamic prefactor $\mu n_c/(2k)$ times the single-pair transmission amplitude $|t(\mu)|$. This separates single-particle tunnelling from many-body physics and, extended via the local-density approximation to the trapped gas, produces an analytic prediction for $I_c$ with no free parameters once $\mu(r)$ and $\lambda_0(r)$ are taken from non-perturbative many-body theory. Experimentally, $I_c$ is extracted from the measured current-imbalance characteristics using the resistively-and-capacitively-shunted junction (RCSJ) model, a lump-element circuit with a capacitive and a resistive channel in parallel with the Josephson element. The inversion to $\langle\lambda_0\rangle$ relies on the approximate factorization $I_c \approx \langle\lambda_0\rangle I_{c,\mathrm{sup}}$, which the authors check numerically to within a few percent, and the barrier transmission $|t|$ is evaluated with an Eckart approximation to the Gaussian barrier.

What would settle it

Measure the critical current at unitarity in junctions whose barrier transmission is independently calibrated (for instance from the normal-state conductance), and compare the extracted $\langle\lambda_0\rangle$ with a direct independent determination of the condensate fraction at the same temperature, such as rapid-ramp or momentum-resolved photoemission; a significant disagreement would show that the factorization is biased. A second decisive test is to track $I_c$ as the temperature approaches $T_c$: the condensate density vanishes at $T_c$ while the superfluid density does not, so the fate of $I_c$ near $T_c$ separates the two order parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a dc Josephson junction between superfluid Fermi gases measures the condensate density directly through $\hbar j_c = \mu n_c |t(\mu)| / (2 k(\mu))$, where $n_c = n\lambda_0$ is the pair condensate density, $\mu$ the pair chemical potential, and $|t(\mu)|$ the single-pair barrier transmission amplitude. Extended to the harmonically trapped gas via the local-density approximation, this gives the total critical current $I_c$; the authors show that the measured $I_c$ across the BCS-BEC crossover is non-monotonic and peaked near unitarity, and that their model reproduces the data without free parameters. This implies that $I_c$ tracks $n_c$ rather than the superfluid density. Inverting the relation yields the total condensate fraction $\langle\lambda_0\rangle$, which at unitarity comes out as $0.47(7)$, consistent with zero-temperature many-body calculations and clearly below the mean-field value around $0.7$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the critical Josephson current factorizes exactly into the bulk condensate density times a single-pair barrier transmission amplitude, even at unitarity, and that the additional factorization $I_c \approx \langle\lambda_0\rangle I_{c,\mathrm{sup}}$ holds; if either step fails, the extracted $\langle\lambda_0\rangle$ is not the true condensate fraction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $I_c$ is controlled by $n_c$, then Josephson critical currents give a phase-sensitive measurement of the order-parameter amplitude in any weakly linked superfluid, including systems where other probes are indirect.
  • The condensate fraction can be mapped across the BCS-BEC crossover from transport data alone, without rapid-ramp or photoemission calibrations.
  • The observed zero-resistance branch and sinusoidal current-phase relation for strong barriers confirm Josephson's original prediction in a strongly correlated fermionic superfluid.
  • With the measured underdamped regime ($\beta_c \sim 10^3$), ac driving should produce Shapiro resonances, enabling frequency-based transport diagnostics.
  • The critical current shows no detectable decrease at unitarity up to $T\approx 0.1T_F$, indicating that the extracted condensate fraction is robust to small temperature changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the factorization survives closer to $T_c$, $I_c$ could serve as a direct thermometer for the condensate fraction where other order-parameter probes become ambiguous; this is a testable extension, not a claim of the paper.
  • The same junction geometry applied to a two-dimensional Fermi gas could disentangle condensate fraction from superfluid density, since Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless physics changes their relationship.
  • Directly measuring the single-pair transmission $|t|$ (for instance from conductance in a regime where its connection to $|t|^2$ is known) would provide an independent test of Eq. (1) without relying on theoretical input for $n_c$.
  • For imbalanced or topological superfluids, the current-phase relation measured through the same weak link could expose unconventional order-parameter symmetries; the paper points toward such extensions but does not carry them out.
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. The paper reports the observation of dc Josephson supercurrents in strongly interacting 6Li fermionic superfluids connected through a thin, tunable optical barrier. The authors measure the current-imbalance (I-Δμ) characteristic and the current-phase relation, observe a zero-resistance plateau below a critical current Ic, a sinusoidal current-phase relation for strong barriers, and a sign-reversal symmetry Is(φ) ≈ -Is(-φ). They use the RCSJ model to extract Ic and compare it with an analytic model for the critical current, Eq. (1) and Eq. (S.5), which is then inverted via Eq. (S.12) to obtain the total condensate fraction ⟨λ0⟩ across the BCS-BEC crossover, including ⟨λ0⟩ = 0.47(7) at unitarity. The central claim is that the measured dc Josephson current is controlled by the pair condensate density rather than the superfluid density, thereby providing a phase-sensitive determination of the superfluid order-parameter amplitude in strongly correlated superfluids.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim holds, this experiment provides the first phase-sensitive measurement of the pair condensate density in a strongly correlated fermionic superfluid, and the agreement with non-perturbative Luttinger-Ward and quantum Monte Carlo results would be a notable advance. The experimental work has clear strengths: careful calibration of the barrier height by two independent methods, direct extraction of the current-phase relation from matter-wave interferometry, observation of the zero-resistance plateau, a direct check of the sign symmetry of the supercurrent, and systematic mapping of Ic and the conductance G across the crossover. The RCSJ-based determination of Ic is model-free in the sense that only Ic and G are fit parameters. However, the quantitative condensate-fraction extraction rests on an analytic factorization formula from a companion paper by two of the same authors that is not rederived or independently tested here; this makes the reported ⟨λ0⟩ values less secure than the raw transport observations.

major comments (3)
  1. [S.5, Eq. (S.5)] The load-bearing relation ℏIc = ∫ d3r λ0(r)n(r)μ(r)|t(μ(r),V0)|/(4k(μ(r))Rx) is imported from Ref. 40, a companion paper by two of the present authors, and is not rederived in this manuscript. The claim that the critical Josephson current factorizes exactly into a bulk condensate-density prefactor and a single-pair transmission amplitude is especially delicate at unitarity, where the notion of a single-pair transmission amplitude is not obviously well defined. Because Eq. (S.5) is the sole link between the measured Ic and the inferred ⟨λ0⟩, please provide a derivation or an independent numerical validation of this factorization at strong coupling, for example against a microscopic fermionic calculation of the junction current across the crossover.
  2. [S.5.A, Eqs. (S.10)-(S.12)] The numerical check of the factorized form Eq. (S.10) uses the same theoretical λ0(r) from Ref. 45 that is later compared with the extracted ⟨λ0⟩ in Fig. 3B. This verifies only that the trap integral of a slowly varying envelope is well approximated by Eq. (S.10); it cannot detect an interaction-dependent error in the prefactor of Eq. (S.5). Since the inversion Eq. (S.12) divides the experimental current by a theory current computed with the same λ0, an unknown prefactor A((kFa)^-1) multiplying the integrand of Eq. (S.5) would be absorbed into the reported ⟨λ0⟩, and the agreement in Fig. 3A would not reveal it because the same model generates both the theory curves and the extracted quantity.
  3. [S.5.B, Fig. S9] The Eckart-barrier approximation is stated to deviate from the Gaussian-barrier transmission by a few percent for incident energies ε > 0.5V0. The data used for the ⟨λ0⟩ extraction are restricted to V0/μ > 0.6, so incident kinetic energies up to the local μ can exceed 0.5V0 in the barrier-height range selected. The resulting few-percent systematic in |t| propagates directly into ⟨λ0⟩ and does not appear to be included in the quoted uncertainty of 0.47(7); please quantify and add this model-bias contribution to the error budget.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2E-F] The quantity V0' is used in the figure panels but is not defined in the caption; the main text only says it is 'the calculated barrier height for which Ic = |Iext|'. Please define it explicitly and state how it is computed for each barrier width and interaction strength.
  2. [Fig. S7] The shaded regions in Fig. S7 are described as the standard confidence interval of the critical velocity obtained from imbalance measurements, but the underlying imbalance data and fits are not shown in the figure; either add them or point to the section where they appear.
  3. [S.5, Eq. (S.5)] The statement that n(r) coincides with the superfluid pair density is an approximation; please state the expected size of the error from identifying total pair density with superfluid density at T/TF = 0.06, since this approximation enters the condensate-fraction normalization.
  4. [References] Reference [44] is listed as the Supplementary Materials, but the main text also refers to the Supplementary file implicitly; spell out 'see Supplementary Materials' in the main text rather than citing only '[44]'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central extraction rests on a self-cited factorization (Eq. S.5 from Ref. 40, by two of the present authors) and on inverting the same formula that generated the model curves; the direct measurements and QMC comparison give independent content, so the circularity is partial.

  1. self citation load bearing [Main text, section on microscopic understanding, Eq. (1); Supplementary Eq. (S.5)]
    "To gain a precise microscopic understanding of the observed behavior of the Josephson critical current, we rely on the analytic model recently presented in Ref. 40. Within such a framework, expected to hold within the tunneling limit for any coupling strength throughout the BCS-BEC crossover, the critical pair current density per unit area can be expressed in terms of a bulk thermodynamic pre-factor and the single-pair barrier transmission amplitude. For a homogeneous junction with pair density n, this reads as ℏjc = μnc/(2k(μ))|t(μ)|."

    The load-bearing relation jc ∝ nc|t(μ)| is not rederived here; it is imported from Ref. 40, whose authors M. Zaccanti and W. Zwerger are co-authors of this paper. The same self-cited model is then used both to compute the theory curves (with λ0(r) from Ref. 45, also sharing author W. Zwerger) and to invert the measured Ic into the reported condensate fraction. Thus the central claim that dc critical currents measure the order-parameter amplitude is only as strong as this unverified, self-cited factorization; an interaction-dependent prefactor error in Eq. (S.5) would be absorbed into the extracted ⟨λ0⟩. The experiment still provides independent data, so this is partial circularity, not a complete reduction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Section S.5.A, Eqs. (S.10)–(S.12); Fig. 3]
    "Imax = f(I2/Ic) Ic ≈ ⟨λ0⟩ f(I2, sup/Ic, sup) Ic, sup. ... By employing this latter relation and the experimentally determined maximum Josephson current Ic, exp, we extract ⟨λ0⟩ for each coupling strength across the BCS-BEC crossover as ⟨λ0⟩≈ Ic, exp/(f(I2, sup/Ic, sup) Ic, sup)."

    Because Eq. (S.5) is linear in λ0, the 'extraction' is an algebraic inversion of the same model that generated the predicted curves in Fig. 3A: Ic,sup is the model integral with λ0=1, so whenever the measured Ic agrees with the model curve (which used λ0 from Ref. 45), the extracted ⟨λ0⟩ must automatically reproduce the Ref. 45 input. The Fig. 3B agreement is therefore largely a consistency check rather than an independent confirmation of the condensate fraction. The numerical check of the factorization also uses the theoretical λ0(r), so it validates the envelope integration but cannot detect a coupling-dependent error in the prefactor of Eq. (S.5).

full rationale

The paper does contain substantial independent content: it reports the first dc Josephson effect in strongly interacting fermionic superfluids, measures a sinusoidal current-phase relation in the tunneling limit, extracts Ic via RCSJ fits directly from the I–Δμ characteristic, and demonstrates a barrier-transmission scaling collapse in Fig. 2E-F. These measurements do not presuppose the condensate fraction, and the comparison of extracted ⟨λ0⟩ with external Quantum Monte Carlo results provides some independent benchmarking. However, the quantitative step from Ic to ⟨λ0⟩ is not self-contained: the central factorization Eq. (1)/Eq. (S.5) is taken from Ref. 40 by two of the same authors, the theory curves use λ0 from Ref. 45 also sharing an author, and Eq. (S.12) simply inverts that same formula. Thus the central quantitative claim is partly a consistency check of the authors' own model rather than a completely independent determination. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no parameter is fitted to the condensate fraction, so the circularity is moderate but not total. Score 4 reflects partial circularity with real independent measurement and external QMC support.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the paper introduces no new entities. The model inputs, μ and λ0 from Ref. 45 and QMC from Ref. 39, come from prior literature. The main burden is the assumed factorization of the critical current in Eq. (S.5), the LDA extension to the trap, the RCSJ circuit model, and the zero-temperature extrapolation. These are reasonable assumptions for the field, but the reader must accept them to trust the extracted condensate fraction.

free parameters (2)
  • RCSJ critical current Ic and conductance G = Determined per junction by RCSJ fit; no single numerical value (see Fig. 2)
    The RCSJ model leaves only Ic and G as free parameters (Sect. S.2). Ic is the measured quantity on which all λ0 extraction depends, so the paper's quantitative claim rests on these fits.
  • Eckart barrier scale d = 0.6 w0
    The Gaussian optical barrier is replaced by an Eckart potential with d = 0.6 w0 to obtain an analytic transmission |t| (Sect. S.5.B). The factor is chosen to match the Gaussian transmission and affects the absolute scale of the predicted Ic.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Local density approximation for the trapped, inhomogeneous junction
    Eq. (S.5) integrates a homogeneous critical-current density over the trap using the local chemical potential and condensate fraction; this assumes local equilibrium and a slowly varying trap potential.
  • domain assumption Factorization of the Josephson critical current as condensate density times single-pair transmission
    The central model from Ref. 40, used to predict Ic and to extract λ0, is not rederived in the paper. If it fails in the strongly correlated unitary regime, the extracted λ0 is not the condensate fraction.
  • domain assumption RCSJ lumped-circuit model with sinusoidal current-phase relation
    The I-delta-mu curves are fitted by solving the RCSJ equations (S.1)-(S.4); deviations from a sinusoidal current-phase relation are treated as small and not included in the fit.
  • domain assumption Zero-temperature theoretical description applies at T/TF = 0.06
    The model uses zero-temperature λ0 and μ from Ref. 45, while the experiment is at finite low temperature. The paper states that no detectable decrease of Ic was seen at unitarity for T ≤ 0.1 TF, but this is a finite-temperature assumption.
  • domain assumption Eckart-barrier transmission approximates the optical Gaussian barrier
    Analytic |t| is computed for a 1/cosh^2 profile with d = 0.6 w0 instead of the actual Gaussian barrier; Fig. S9 shows a few percent deviation at the energies used.
  • domain assumption Pair density equals superfluid density at the probed temperature
    In Sect. S.5, n(r) is assumed to coincide with the superfluid pair density, stated as an approximation expected to hold at low temperatures throughout the crossover.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strongly correlated superfluid order parameters from dc Josephson supercurrents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RNY7DJPX

@misc{pith2026190809696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strongly correlated superfluid order parameters from dc Josephson supercurrents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RNY7DJPX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09696}
}
read the original abstract

The dc Josephson effect provides a powerful phase-sensitive tool for investigating superfluid order parameters. We report on the observation of dc Josephson supercurrents in strongly interacting fermionic superfluids across a tunnelling barrier in the absence of any applied potential difference. For sufficiently strong barriers, we observe a sinusoidal current-phase relation, in agreement with Josephson's seminal prediction. We map out the zero-resistance state and its breakdown as a function of junction parameters, extracting the Josephson critical current behaviour. By comparing our results with an analytic model, we determine the pair condensate fraction throughout the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer - Bose-Einstein Condensation crossover. Our work suggests that coherent Josephson transport may be used to pin down superfluid order parameters in diverse atomic systems, even in the presence of strong correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Characterization of a current-biased atomic Josephson junction. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dc Josephson effect in a tunable, ultracold Josephson junction. Current-imbalance characteristics for ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Josephson critical current and condensate fraction across the BCS-BEC crossover. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. D. Josephson, Phys. Lett. 1, 251 (1962)

    1962

  2. [2]

    P. W. Anderson, Lectures on The Many-Body Problems , vol. 2 (Elsevier, 1964)

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    K. K. Likharev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 101 (1979)

    1979

  4. [4]

    R. C. Jaklevic, J. Lambe, A. H. Silver, J. E. Mercereau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 159 (1964)

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    Barone, G

    A. Barone, G. Patern `o, Physics and Applications of the Joseph- son Effect (John Wiley, New York, 1982)

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    Y . Sato, R. E. Packard,Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 016401 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Datta, Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems(Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    S. Datta, Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems(Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    P ¨opel, Metrologia 29, 153 (1992)

    R. P ¨opel, Metrologia 29, 153 (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Clarke, A

    J. Clarke, A. I. Braginski, The SQUID handbook , vol. 1 (Wiley Online Library, 2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    Bloch, Phys

    F. Bloch, Phys. Rev. B 2, 109 (1970)

    1970

  3. [11]

    Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996), second edn

    M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996), second edn

    1996

  4. [12]

    J. T. Anderson, A. M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 128 (1969)

    1969

  5. [13]

    D. J. Van Harlingen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 515 (1995)

    1995

  6. [14]

    C. C. Tsuei, J. R. Kirtley, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 969 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    A. Y . Kitaev,Phys.-Uspekhi 44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    Jiang, et al., Phys

    L. Jiang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 236401 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Albiez, et al., Phys

    M. Albiez, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010402 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    S. Levy, E. Lahoud, I. Shomroni, J. Steinhauer, Nature 449, 579 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    L. J. LeBlanc, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 025302 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Ramanathan, et al., Phys

    A. Ramanathan, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130401 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    C. Ryu, P. W. Blackburn, A. A. Blinova, M. G. Boshier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 205301 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Jendrzejewski, et al., Phys

    F. Jendrzejewski, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 045305 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Eckel, et al., Nature 506, 200 (2014)

    S. Eckel, et al., Nature 506, 200 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Eckel, F

    S. Eckel, F. Jendrzejewski, A. Kumar, C. J. Lobb, G. K. Camp- bell, Phys. Rev. X 4, 031052 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Spagnolli, et al., Phys

    G. Spagnolli, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 230403 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Pigneur, et al., Phys

    M. Pigneur, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 173601 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Chien, S

    C.-C. Chien, S. Peotta, M. Di Ventra, Nat. Phys. 11, 998 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Randeria, W

    M. Randeria, W. Zwerger, M. Zwierlein, The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas (Springer, 2012), pp. 1– 32

    2012

  21. [29]

    Stadler, S

    D. Stadler, S. Krinner, J. Meineke, J.-P. Brantut, T. Esslinger, Nature 491, 736 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Husmann, et al., Science 350, 1498 (2015)

    D. Husmann, et al., Science 350, 1498 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Valtolina, et al., Science 350, 1505 (2015)

    G. Valtolina, et al., Science 350, 1505 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Krinner, et al., Proc

    S. Krinner, et al., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 113, 8144 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Lebrat, et al., Phys

    M. Lebrat, et al., Phys. Rev. X 8, 011053 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Ambegaokar, A

    V . Ambegaokar, A. Baratoff,Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 486 (1963)

    1963

  27. [35]

    Meier, W

    F. Meier, W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. A 64, 033610 (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    Spuntarelli, P

    A. Spuntarelli, P. Pieri, G. C. Strinati,Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 040401 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    P. Zou, F. Dalfovo, J. Low Temp. Phys. 177, 240 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

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

    1962

  31. [39]

    G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras, S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230405 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Zaccanti, W

    M. Zaccanti, W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. A 100, 063601 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    M. W. Zwierlein, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120403 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

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

    2004

  35. [43]

    Horikoshi, S

    M. Horikoshi, S. Nakajima, M. Ueda, T. Mukaiyama, Science 327, 442 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    See Supplementary Materials for details on experimental meth- ods and data analysis, supplementary data, and theoretical mod- elling

  37. [45]

    Haussmann, W

    R. Haussmann, W. Rantner, S. Cerrito, W. Zwerger,Phys. Rev. A 75, 023610 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    This corresponds to an entropy per particle S/N≈ 0.1Sc/N, where Sc≃ 1.6Nk B is the critical entropy for the superfluid transition in a harmonically trapped unitary gas (47)

  39. [47]

    Haussmann, W

    R. Haussmann, W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. A 78, 063602 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Giovanazzi, A

    S. Giovanazzi, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4521 (2000)

    2000

  41. [49]

    Piazza, L

    F. Piazza, L. A. Collins, A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 81, 033613 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Hoskinson, Y

    E. Hoskinson, Y . Sato, I. Hahn, R. E. Packard, Nature Phys. 2, 23 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    W. C. Stewart, Appl. Phys. Lett. 12, 277 (1968)

    1968

  44. [52]

    D. E. McCumber, J. Appl. Phys. 39, 3113 (1968)

    1968

  45. [53]

    Burchianti, et al., Phys

    A. Burchianti, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 025302 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Gorkov, T

    L. Gorkov, T. Melik-Barkhudarov, Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 1018 (1961)

    1961

  47. [55]

    Giorgini, L

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

    2008

  48. [56]

    Salasnich, N

    L. Salasnich, N. Manini, A. Parola, Phys. Rev. A 72, 023621 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    Burchianti, et al., Phys

    A. Burchianti, et al., Phys. Rev. A 90, 043408 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Z ¨urn, et al., Phys

    G. Z ¨urn, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 135301 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Reinaudi, T

    G. Reinaudi, T. Lahaye, Z. Wang, D. Gu ´ery-Odelin, Opt. Lett. 32, 3143 (2007)

    2007

  52. [60]

    Hueck, et al., Phys

    K. Hueck, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 060402 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Naraschewski, D

    M. Naraschewski, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2423 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, H. van Houten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 3056 (1991)

    1991

  55. [63]

    Xhani, et al., , Phys

    K. Xhani, et al., , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 045301 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Fukushima, Y

    N. Fukushima, Y . Ohashi, E. Taylor, A. Griffin,Phys. Rev. A 75, 033609 (2007)

    2007

  57. [65]

    L. A. Sidorenkov, et al., Nature 498, 78 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    Heiselberg, Phys

    H. Heiselberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040402 (2004)

    2004

  59. [67]

    Wen, S.-Q

    W. Wen, S.-Q. Shen, G. Huang, Phys. Rev. B 81, 014528 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Goldobin, D

    E. Goldobin, D. Koelle, R. Kleiner, A. Buzdin, Phys. Rev. B 76, 224523 (2007)

    2007

  61. [69]

    F. M. Fern ´andez, Am. J. Phys. 79, 877 (2011)

    2011

  62. [70]

    ! *! #$%+,+$-.$-./,$0+1.23/-4.5 06 ! '! &! (! !

    D. ter Haar, Problems in Quantum Mechanics (Pion Limited, London, 1975), third edn. 7 Supplementary Materials for Strongly correlated superfluid order parameters from dc Josephson supercurrents W. J. Kwon1,2, G. Del Pace2,3, R. Panza1,2, M. Inguscio1,2,4, W. Zwerger5, M. Zaccan...

    1975

Pith tools

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