pith. sign in

arxiv: 2110.00877 · v1 · pith:D6G26KKSnew · submitted 2021-10-02 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · physics.atom-ph

Dissipation in a Finite Temperature Atomic Josephson Junction

Klejdja Xhani , Nikolaos P. Proukakis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 13:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph
keywords thermaldissipationsuperfluidtemperaturebarriercloudcondensateinitial
0
0 comments X

The pith

Numerical characterization shows dissipation in atomic Josephson junctions depends on initial chemical potential difference and thermal energy versus barrier height, with distinct regimes and a reversal of condensate-thermal cloud roles at high thermal energies.

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

Researchers ran computer simulations of a superfluid made from cold bosonic atoms trapped in an elongated shape with a thin barrier in the middle. This setup creates a Josephson junction where atoms can tunnel across the barrier. At finite temperatures some atoms form a thermal cloud that interacts with the superfluid condensate. The simulations tracked how the system evolves when the two sides start with different numbers of atoms. They found two main behaviors. For small initial differences the motion looks like slowly damped oscillations. For larger differences early dissipation comes from vortices and sound waves. The strength of thermal effects also depends on whether the thermal atoms have enough energy to cross the barrier. When they do the thermal cloud starts driving the condensate instead of the other way around. All of this stays within the temperature range where a clear condensate still exists and matches what current cold-atom experiments can test.

Core claim

We numerically demonstrate and characterize the emergence of distinct dynamical regimes of a finite temperature bosonic superfluid in an elongated Josephson junction generated by a thin Gaussian barrier over the entire temperature range where a well-formed condensate can be clearly identified.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical model used to couple the condensate to the dynamical thermal cloud accurately captures the relevant dissipation channels without significant artifacts from the chosen simulation method or approximations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2110.00877 by Klejdja Xhani, Nikolaos P. Proukakis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Equilibrium 2D integrated condensate density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Population imbalance oscillations exhibiting damp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Temperature dependence of oscillatory dynamics of (a) the condensate, and (b) the total population imbalance across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Temperature dependence of (a) dominant frequencies, and (b) damping rates of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The Discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of the differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Population imbalance oscillations for the con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Temperature dependence of oscillatory dynamics of (a) the condensate, and (b) the total population imbalance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Temperature dependence of (a) dominant frequencies, and (b) damping rates of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The Discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Carpet plots of renormalised density ˜n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a) The condensate and the thermal cloud density profiles along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The time evolution of the condensate imbalance (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The chemical potential as a function of the tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The condensate density profile along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. The critical condensate initial imbalance at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. (a) The condensate population imbalance time evolution at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We numerically demonstrate and characterize the emergence of distinct dynamical regimes of a finite temperature bosonic superfluid in an elongated Josephson junction generated by a thin Gaussian barrier over the entire temperature range where a well-formed condensate can be clearly identified. Although the dissipation arising from the coupling of the superfluid to the dynamical thermal cloud increases with increasing temperature as expected, the importance of this mechanism is found to depend on two physical parameters associated (i) with the initial chemical potential difference, compared to some characteristic value, and (ii) the ratio of the thermal energy to the barrier amplitude. The former determines whether the superfluid Josephson dynamics are dominated by gradually damped plasma-like oscillations (for relatively small initial population imbalances), or whether dissipation at early times is instead dominated by vortex- and sound-induced dissipation (for larger initial imbalances). The latter defines the effect of the thermal cloud on the condensate dynamics, with a reversal of roles, i.e. the condensate being driven by the oscillating thermal cloud, being observed when the thermal particles acquire enough energy to overcome the barrier. Our findings are within current experimental reach in ultracold superfluid junctions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper numerically demonstrates and characterizes distinct dynamical regimes of a finite-temperature bosonic superfluid in an elongated Josephson junction created by a thin Gaussian barrier, across the full temperature range where a condensate is identifiable. Dissipation from condensate-thermal cloud coupling increases with temperature but depends on two parameters: the initial chemical potential difference (determining plasma oscillations for small imbalances vs. vortex/sound dissipation for large ones) and the ratio of thermal energy to barrier amplitude (with role reversal when thermal particles overcome the barrier). The results are stated to be experimentally accessible.

Significance. If validated, the work identifies parameter regimes governing dissipation mechanisms in finite-T Josephson junctions, extending zero-temperature treatments and providing guidance for ultracold-atom experiments on superfluid dynamics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical Methods] The manuscript provides insufficient information on the finite-T coupling scheme (e.g., the specific hybrid model, collision integral approximation, or truncation), convergence tests, and validation against known limits such as the T=0 Josephson regime. This is load-bearing because the claimed regimes (plasma vs. vortex/sound) and role reversal rest on the fidelity of the condensate-thermal cloud interaction without dominant numerical artifacts.
  2. [Results and Discussion] No explicit benchmarks are shown against analytical expectations or prior zero-T simulations for the early-time dissipation at large imbalances or the crossover when kT exceeds barrier height; without these, it is unclear whether the reported behaviors arise from the physical coupling or from discretization/approximation choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. The phrase 'some characteristic value' for the chemical potential difference in the abstract should be replaced by a quantitative definition (e.g., in terms of the barrier height or plasma frequency) when introduced in the main text.
  2. Figure captions would benefit from listing the specific values of imbalance, temperature, and barrier parameters used in each panel to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for highlighting the need for greater detail on numerical methods and validation. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical Methods] The manuscript provides insufficient information on the finite-T coupling scheme (e.g., the specific hybrid model, collision integral approximation, or truncation), convergence tests, and validation against known limits such as the T=0 Josephson regime. This is load-bearing because the claimed regimes (plasma vs. vortex/sound) and role reversal rest on the fidelity of the condensate-thermal cloud interaction without dominant numerical artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that additional methodological details are required for full reproducibility and to rule out artifacts. In the revised manuscript we will expand the description of the finite-temperature coupling scheme to specify the hybrid model, the form of the collision integral and any truncation, include convergence tests with respect to discretization parameters, and add explicit validation by recovering the T=0 Josephson regime (plasma oscillations for small imbalances and vortex/sound dynamics for large imbalances) when the thermal cloud is suppressed. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and Discussion] No explicit benchmarks are shown against analytical expectations or prior zero-T simulations for the early-time dissipation at large imbalances or the crossover when kT exceeds barrier height; without these, it is unclear whether the reported behaviors arise from the physical coupling or from discretization/approximation choices.

    Authors: We accept this criticism and will incorporate the requested benchmarks. The revised manuscript will include direct comparisons of early-time dissipation at large imbalances against zero-temperature simulations and analytical expectations for vortex and sound-wave contributions, together with additional data illustrating the crossover when kT exceeds the barrier height to confirm the physical origin of the observed role reversal. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: numerical demonstration of regimes from hybrid model simulations

full rationale

The paper reports numerical simulations of an elongated Josephson junction at finite temperature using a condensate-thermal cloud coupling model (likely ZNG-type). Claims concern emergence of distinct dynamical regimes (damped plasma oscillations vs. vortex/sound dissipation) as functions of initial imbalance and thermal energy vs. barrier height, observed across the condensate temperature range. No analytical derivation chain, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional quantities, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described structure. Results are direct outputs of the chosen numerical scheme rather than reductions to inputs by construction. The work is self-contained as a computational study of model behavior.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all ledger entries are therefore empty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5729 in / 1054 out tokens · 19164 ms · 2026-05-24T13:03:35.293148+00:00 · methodology

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

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    work page 1962

  2. [2]

    P. W. Anderson and J. M. Rowell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 230 (1963)

    work page 1963

  3. [3]

    Barone and G

    A. Barone and G. Paterno, Physics and Applications of the Josephson Effect (John Wiley, New York, 1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Avenel and E

    O. Avenel and E. Varoquaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 416 (1988)

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    J. C. Davis and R. E. Packard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 741 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Y. Sato, E. Hoskinson, and R. Packard, in Fundamentals and Frontiers of the Josephson Effect, Vol. 286, edited by F. Tafuri (Springer, Cham, 2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Hoskinson, Y

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

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    B. P. Anderson and M. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686 (1998)

    work page 1998

  9. [9]

    F. S. Cataliotti, S. Burger, C. Fort, P. Maddaloni, F. Mi- nardi, A. Trombettoni, A. Smerzi, and M. Inguscio, Sci- ence 293, 843 (2001)

    work page 2001

  10. [10]

    Albiez, R

    M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. F¨ olling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cris- tiani, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010402 (2005)

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    Anker, M

    T. Anker, M. Albiez, R. Gati, S. Hunsmann, B. Eier- mann, A. Trombettoni, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 020403 (2005)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Schumm, S

    T. Schumm, S. Hofferberth, L. M. Andersson, S. Wilder- muth, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, J. Schmiedmayer, and P. Kr¨ uger, Nature Physics1, 57 (2005)

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, and A. E. Leanhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 050405 (2004)

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

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

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Spagnolli, G

    G. Spagnolli, G. Semeghini, L. Masi, G. Ferioli, A. Trenkwalder, S. Coop, M. Landini, L. Pezz` e, G. Mod- ugno, M. Inguscio, A. Smerzi, and M. Fattori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 230403 (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    L. J. LeBlanc, A. B. Bardon, J. McKeever, M. H. T. Extavour, D. Jervis, J. H. Thywissen, F. Piazza, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 025302 (2011)

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    Valtolina, A

    G. Valtolina, A. Burchianti, A. Amico, E. Neri, K. Xhani, J. A. Seman, A. Trombettoni, A. Smerzi, M. Zaccanti, M. Inguscio, and G. Roati, Science 350, 1505 (2015)

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Burchianti, F

    A. Burchianti, F. Scazza, A. Amico, G. Valtolina, J. A. Seman, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, M. Inguscio, and G. Roati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 025302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    W. J. Kwon, G. Del Pace, R. Panza, M. Inguscio, W. Zw- erger, M. Zaccanti, F. Scazza, and G. Roati, Science369, 84 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Luick, L

    N. Luick, L. Sobirey, M. Bohlen, V. P. Singh, L. Mathey, T. Lompe, and H. Moritz, Science 369, 89 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Del Pace, W

    G. Del Pace, W. J. Kwon, M. Zaccanti, G. Roati, and F. Scazza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 055301 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    K. G. Lagoudakis, B. Pietka, M. Wouters, R. Andr´ e, and B. Deveaud-Pl´ edran, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 120403 (2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    A. F. Adiyatullin, M. D. Anderson, H. Flayac, M. T. Portella-Oberli, F. Jabeen, C. Ouellet-Plamondon, G. C. Sallen, and B. Deveaud, Nature Communications 8, 1329 (2017)

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Edwards, Nature Physics 9, 68 (2013)

    M. Edwards, Nature Physics 9, 68 (2013)

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

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

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    C. Ryu, E. C. Samson, and M. G. Boshier, Nat. Comms. 11, 3338 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Amico, M

    L. Amico, M. Boshier, G. Birkl, A. Minguzzi, C. Miniatura, L.-C. Kwek, D. Aghamalyan, V. Ahufinger, D. Anderson, N. Andrei, A. S. Arnold, M. Baker, T. A. 20 Bell, T. Bland, J. P. Brantut, D. Cassettari, W. J. Chet- cuti, F. Chevy, R. Citro, S. De Palo, R. Dumke, M. Ed- wards, R. Folman, J. Fortagh, S. A. Gardiner, B. M. Gar- raway, G. Gauthier, A. G¨ unthe...

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Gauthier, S

    G. Gauthier, S. S. Szigeti, M. T. Reeves, M. Baker, T. A. Bell, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, M. J. Davis, and T. W. Neely, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 260402 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Smerzi, S

    A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4950 (1997)

    work page 1997

  30. [30]

    Raghavan, A

    S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. A 59, 620 (1999)

    work page 1999

  31. [31]

    Zapata, F

    I. Zapata, F. Sols, and A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. A 57, R28 (1998)

    work page 1998

  32. [32]

    Sakellari, N

    E. Sakellari, N. P. Proukakis, M. Leadbeater, and C. S. Adams, New Journal of Physics 6, 42 (2004)

    work page 2004

  33. [33]

    M., and Smerzi, A., EPL 109, 40005 (2015)

    Abad, M., Guilleumas, M., Mayol, R., Piazza, F., Jezek, D. M., and Smerzi, A., EPL 109, 40005 (2015)

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    Pascucci and L

    F. Pascucci and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. A 102, 013325 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Spuntarelli, P

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

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    J. Polo, R. Dubessy, P. Pedri, H. Perrin, and A. Min- guzzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 195301 (2019)

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    A. K. Saha and R. Dubessy, Phys. Rev. A 104, 023316 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Xhani, E

    K. Xhani, E. Neri, L. Galantucci, F. Scazza, A. Burchi- anti, K.-L. Lee, C. F. Barenghi, A. Trombettoni, M. In- guscio, M. Zaccanti, G. Roati, and N. P. Proukakis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 045301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Xhani, L

    K. Xhani, L. Galantucci, C. F. Barenghi, G. Roati, A. Trombettoni, and N. P. Proukakis, New Journal of Physics 22, 123006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Jendrzejewski, S

    F. Jendrzejewski, S. Eckel, N. Murray, C. Lanier, M. Ed- wards, C. J. Lobb, and G. K. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 045305 (2014)

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Eckel, J

    S. Eckel, J. G. Lee, F. Jendrzejewski, C. J. Lobb, G. K. Campbell, and W. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. A 93, 063619 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    Piazza, L

    F. Piazza, L. A. Collins, and A. Smerzi, New J. Phys. 13, 043008 (2011)

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    Griffin, S

    A. Griffin, S. Nazarenko, and D. Proment, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 175701 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    B. I. Halperin, G. Refael, and E. Demler, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics B 24, 4039 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1142/S021797921005644X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021797921005644x 2010

  45. [45]

    Chen, Y.-H

    Y. Chen, Y.-H. Lin, S. D. Snyder, A. M. Goldman, and A. Kamenev, Nature Physics 10, 567 (2014)

    work page 2014

  46. [46]

    K. C. Wright, R. B. Blakestad, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 025302 (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    Snizhko, K

    K. Snizhko, K. Isaieva, Y. Kuriatnikov, Y. Bidasyuk, S. Vilchinskii, and A. Yakimenko, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063642 (2016)

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Smerzi, A

    A. Smerzi, A. Trombettoni, T. Lopez-Arias, C. Fort, P. Maddaloni, F. Minardi, and M. Inguscio, The Euro- pean Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Com- plex Systems 31, 457 (2003)

    work page 2003

  49. [49]

    Smerzi and A

    A. Smerzi and A. Trombettoni, Phys. Rev. A 68, 023613 (2003)

    work page 2003

  50. [50]

    Raghavan, A

    S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, and V. M. Kenkre, Phys. Rev. A 60, R1787 (1999)

    work page 1999

  51. [51]

    Marino, S

    I. Marino, S. Raghavan, S. Fantoni, S. R. Shenoy, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 60, 487 (1999)

    work page 1999

  52. [52]

    Sakellari, M

    E. Sakellari, M. Leadbeater, N. J. Kylstra, and C. S. Adams, Phys. Rev. A 66, 033612 (2002)

    work page 2002

  53. [53]

    Zou and F

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

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    Y. M. Bidasyuk, M. Weyrauch, M. Momme, and O. O. Prikhodko, J. Phys. B 51, 205301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Meier and W

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

    work page 2001

  56. [56]

    Piselli, S

    V. Piselli, S. Simonucci, and G. C. Strinati, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144517 (2020)

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    R. Gati, B. Hemmerling, J. F¨ olling, M. Albiez, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 130404 (2006)

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    Imamo¯ glu, M

    A. Imamo¯ glu, M. Lewenstein, and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2511 (1997)

    work page 1997

  59. [59]

    FRANZOSI, V

    R. FRANZOSI, V. PENNA, and R. ZECCHINA, Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics B 14, 943 (2000)

    work page 2000

  60. [60]

    G. J. Milburn, J. Corney, E. M. Wright, and D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4318 (1997)

    work page 1997

  61. [61]

    V. P. Singh, N. Luick, L. Sobirey, and L. Mathey, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033298 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    J. Polo, V. Ahufinger, F. W. J. Hekking, and A. Min- guzzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 090404 (2018)

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    Dalfovo, S

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

    work page 1999

  64. [64]

    Zaccanti and W

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

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    Y. M. Bidasyuk, O. O. Prikhodko, and M. Weyrauch, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033603 (2016)

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    Mart´ ınez-Garaot, G

    S. Mart´ ınez-Garaot, G. Pettini, and M. Modugno, Phys. Rev. A 98, 043624 (2018)

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    Goldobin, D

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

    work page 2007

  68. [68]

    Uchino and J.-P

    S. Uchino and J.-P. Brantut, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023284 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    Griffin, T

    A. Griffin, T. Nikuni, and E. Zaremba, Bose-Condensed Gases at Finite Temperatures (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  70. [70]

    Jackson and E

    B. Jackson and E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. A 66, 033606 (2002)

    work page 2002

  71. [71]

    N. P. Proukakis and B. Jackson, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 41, 203002 (2008)

    work page 2008

  72. [72]

    Proukakis, S

    N. Proukakis, S. Gardiner, M. Davis, and M. Szyma´ nska, eds., Quantum Gases: Finite Temperature and Non- Equilibrium Dynamics (Imperial College Press, London, United Kingdom, 2013)

    work page 2013

  73. [73]

    M. J. Bijlsma, E. Zaremba, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 62, 063609 (2000)

    work page 2000

  74. [74]

    Jackson and E

    B. Jackson and E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 180402 (2002)

    work page 2002

  75. [75]

    Jackson and E

    B. Jackson and E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 100404 (2001)

    work page 2001

  76. [76]

    Jackson, N

    B. Jackson, N. P. Proukakis, and C. F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. A 75, 051601 (2007)

    work page 2007

  77. [77]

    Jackson, N

    B. Jackson, N. P. Proukakis, C. F. Barenghi, and E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. A 79, 053615 (2009)

    work page 2009

  78. [78]

    A. J. Allen, E. Zaremba, C. F. Barenghi, and N. P. 21 Proukakis, Phys. Rev. A 87, 013630 (2013)

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    A. J. Allen, S. Zuccher, M. Caliari, N. P. Proukakis, N. G. Parker, and C. F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. A 90, 013601 (2014)

    work page 2014

  80. [80]

    For example, for V0/µ = 0.6 the sound mode is damped already at T = 60nK

    work page

Showing first 80 references.