pith. sign in

arxiv: 2404.11157 · v1 · submitted 2024-04-17 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · quant-ph

Self-Ordered Supersolid in Spinor Condensates with Cavity-Mediated Spin-Momentum-Mixing Interactions

Jingjun You , Su Yi , Yuangang Deng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 02:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph
keywords supersolidspinor condensatecavity QEDTavis-Cummings modelGoldstone modespin-momentum mixingself-ordered phase
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cavity-mediated spin-momentum mixing produces self-ordered supersolids in spin-1/2 condensates that support an undamped gapless Goldstone mode.

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

The paper proposes an optical-cavity scheme that couples pump and cavity fields to spin-1/2 atomic condensates, generating self-ordered square and plane-wave supersolid phases. These phases are fully captured by a two-component Tavis-Cummings model that incorporates cavity-mediated long-range interactions between spin and momentum modes. The resulting supersolid state is shown to possess a gapless Goldstone mode that remains undamped over a wide range of parameters. The approach uses identical laser configurations already available in current experiments and simultaneously realizes spin-momentum squeezing and spatially distributed multipartite entanglement.

Core claim

The interplay of cavity and pump fields produces supersolid square and plane-wave phases that are comprehensively described by the two-component Tavis-Cummings model; the self-ordered supersolid exhibits an undamped gapless Goldstone mode over a wide parameter range while realizing cavity-mediated spin-momentum-mixing interactions analogous to spin-mixing in spin-1 condensates.

What carries the argument

The two-component Tavis-Cummings model, which encodes the cavity-mediated coupling between spin and momentum degrees of freedom and governs both the supersolid ordering and the collective excitation spectrum.

If this is right

  • The scheme is achievable with current experimental setups that employ identical laser configurations.
  • Cavity-mediated spin-momentum-mixing interactions enable spin-momentum squeezing.
  • The same interactions produce spatially distributed multipartite entanglement.
  • The approach bypasses the requirement of two precisely matched Z2 symmetries needed for checkerboard supersolidity in multimode resonators.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Detection of the undamped Goldstone mode would provide a direct experimental signature of the mean-field supersolid description.
  • The platform could be extended to study how cavity-induced long-range spin-momentum couplings affect other quantum phases in spinor gases.
  • Realization of the predicted entanglement would open routes to distributed quantum information processing in cavity QED arrays.

Load-bearing premise

The mean-field treatment of the two-component Tavis-Cummings model accurately describes the system without losses, higher-order interactions, or deviations from mean-field becoming dominant.

What would settle it

Observation of damping in the Goldstone mode or failure to detect the predicted supersolid phases when the cavity and pump fields are applied in the proposed configuration would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2404.11157 by Jingjun You, Su Yi, Yuangang Deng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Schematic for creating two-component TCM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Phase diagram of ground state on g1-g2 pa￾rameter plane. The solid (dashed) line marks numerical (an￾alytical) phase boundaries. (b) and (c) show, respectively, g1 dependence of |α| and N↓ for different values of g2. two-component TCM Hamiltonian (~ = 1) [72] Hˆ 1 =∆˜ caˆ † aˆ +ω0Jˆ z + g1 √ 2 (ˆaJˆ (1) − + g2 g1 aˆ †Jˆ (2) − +H.c.), (4) which describes two-component two-level bosonic atoms coupled to … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) g1 dependence of collective excitations ǫ± with g1/g2 = 1. (b) Lower branch ǫ− and (c) order parameter Θ as a function of g1 for different values of g2. solid line), incorporating atomic collision and cavity dis￾persion. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online). The condensates wave functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ultracold atoms with cavity-mediated long-range interactions offer a promising platform for investing novel quantum phenomena. Exploiting recent experimental advancements, we propose an experimental scheme to create self-ordered supersolid in spin-$1/2$ condensates confined within an optical cavity. The interplay of cavity and pump fields gives rise to supersolid square and plane wave phases, comprehensively described by the two-component Tavis-Cummings model. We show that the self-ordered supersolid phase exhibits an undamped gapless Goldstone mode over a wide parameter range. This proposal, achievable with current experimental setups utilizing identical laser configurations, is in contrast to the realization of checkerboard supersolidity, which hinges on constructing a $U(1)$ symmetry by utilizing two ${\cal Z}_2$ symmetries with precisely matched atom-cavity coupling in multimode resonators. By employing the superradiant photon-exchange process, we realize for the first time cavity-mediated spin-momentum-mixing interactions between highly correlated spin and momentum modes, analogous to that observed spin-mixing in spin-1 condensates. Our scheme provides a unique platform for realizing spin-momentum squeezing and spatially distributed multipartite entanglement.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an experimental scheme to realize self-ordered supersolid phases (square and plane-wave) in spin-1/2 condensates inside an optical cavity via cavity-mediated spin-momentum-mixing interactions. These phases are asserted to be comprehensively described by a two-component Tavis-Cummings model, which is shown to support an undamped gapless Goldstone mode over a wide parameter range. The work contrasts this approach with checkerboard supersolids requiring matched U(1) symmetries in multimode cavities and highlights potential applications in spin-momentum squeezing and multipartite entanglement.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the proposal offers an experimentally accessible platform for cavity-mediated supersolids and spin-momentum correlations that builds directly on existing single-mode cavity setups. The identification of a gapless Goldstone mode would provide a clear signature of supersolid order, and the analogy to spin-1 spin-mixing could open routes to entanglement generation. The work is grounded in standard cavity-QED techniques but would benefit from explicit checks against realistic loss channels.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the self-ordered supersolid 'exhibits an undamped gapless Goldstone mode' is made within the lossless two-component Tavis-Cummings model. Cavity systems include a photon decay rate κ; the manuscript does not show that the linearized fluctuation spectrum around the steady state remains strictly real (undamped) once κ > 0 is restored. This directly affects the strongest claim.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract / Model description: The statement that the square and plane-wave phases are 'comprehensively described by the two-component Tavis-Cummings model' without significant contributions from losses, higher-order interactions, or mean-field deviations is asserted rather than derived step-by-step or validated numerically. No explicit mapping from the full atom-cavity Hamiltonian or Bogoliubov-de Gennes analysis is referenced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the potential of our proposal and address the major comments point by point below. We will make revisions to clarify the scope of our claims regarding the lossless model and the derivation of the effective model.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the self-ordered supersolid 'exhibits an undamped gapless Goldstone mode' is made within the lossless two-component Tavis-Cummings model. Cavity systems include a photon decay rate κ; the manuscript does not show that the linearized fluctuation spectrum around the steady state remains strictly real (undamped) once κ > 0 is restored. This directly affects the strongest claim.

    Authors: We agree that the demonstration of the undamped gapless Goldstone mode is performed within the ideal lossless two-component Tavis-Cummings model, as is common in theoretical proposals to identify key signatures. The manuscript emphasizes this ideal case to highlight the supersolid nature. However, to address the concern, we will include a discussion on the impact of finite cavity decay rate κ in the revised version. Specifically, we will analyze the linearized fluctuations including κ and show that for experimentally relevant small κ, the Goldstone mode acquires only weak damping while remaining gapless, preserving the key feature. This will be supported by additional calculations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract / Model description: The statement that the square and plane-wave phases are 'comprehensively described by the two-component Tavis-Cummings model' without significant contributions from losses, higher-order interactions, or mean-field deviations is asserted rather than derived step-by-step or validated numerically. No explicit mapping from the full atom-cavity Hamiltonian or Bogoliubov-de Gennes analysis is referenced.

    Authors: The two-component Tavis-Cummings model is obtained by considering the dominant cavity-mediated interactions in the single-mode cavity setup, neglecting higher-order terms under the mean-field approximation valid in the thermodynamic limit. We will expand the manuscript to provide a step-by-step derivation from the full atom-cavity Hamiltonian, including the conditions under which losses and higher-order interactions can be neglected. Additionally, we will reference or include a Bogoliubov-de Gennes analysis to validate the phases. This will strengthen the claim that the phases are comprehensively described by the model within the relevant parameter regime. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: supersolid phases and Goldstone mode derived from standard Tavis-Cummings model

full rationale

The paper applies the established two-component Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian to a spin-1/2 condensate in a cavity, derives the self-ordered supersolid phases from the interplay of cavity and pump fields, and extracts the gapless Goldstone mode from the linearized fluctuation spectrum around the mean-field steady state. No quoted equation or step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter defined by the same data, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on a self-citation chain whose content is itself unverified. The model is treated as an external starting point whose consequences (including the undamped mode in the lossless limit) are computed rather than presupposed, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on the assumption that the two-component Tavis-Cummings model fully captures the relevant physics; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The two-component Tavis-Cummings model comprehensively describes the supersolid phases arising from cavity-pump interplay.
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the framework that captures square and plane-wave supersolids.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5745 in / 1292 out tokens · 27711 ms · 2026-05-24T02:11:01.683746+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The entanglement be- tween photon and condensates, along with the quantum noise of cavity can be ignored when |˜∆c/κ | ≫ 1 [ 70, 71]

    for considering a moderate photon emissions with |α | ∼ 1. The entanglement be- tween photon and condensates, along with the quantum noise of cavity can be ignored when |˜∆c/κ | ≫ 1 [ 70, 71]. Spin momentum mixing interactions .—To deeper un- derstanding of underlying physics, the self-organized su- perradiance can be comprehensively characterized by the ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    2nm, cavity decay rate κ = 100 EL/ ℏ, two-photon detuning δ = − 2EL/ ℏ, Stark shift U0 = 10EL/ ℏ, and pump-cavity detuning ˜∆c =U0N/ 2

    53kHz(2π ) with the wavelength λ = 2π/k L = 803. 2nm, cavity decay rate κ = 100 EL/ ℏ, two-photon detuning δ = − 2EL/ ℏ, Stark shift U0 = 10EL/ ℏ, and pump-cavity detuning ˜∆c =U0N/ 2. The s-wave scattering lengths for collisional interactions are a↓↓ =a↑↓ ≈ a↑↑ = 50aB with aB being the Bohr radius. We emphasize that the thresh- old of superradiance is la...

    work page

  3. [3]

    is given by ( ℏ = 1) ˆH1 = ˜∆cˆa†ˆa +ω 0 ˆJz + g1√ 2 (ˆa ˆJ (1) − +g2 g1 ˆa† ˆJ (2) − +H. c. ), (10) where ˆJ (1) − = ˆb† ↑,0 ˆb↓,1, ˆJ (2) − = ˆb† ↑,0 ˆb↓,2 and ˆJz = (ˆb† ↓,1 ˆb↓,1 + ˆb† ↓,2 ˆb↓,2− ˆb† ↑,0 ˆb↑,0)/ 2 are the collective spin operators. And ω 0 = 2EL/ ℏ − δ is the effective detuning of atomic field. The ˆa ˆJ (1) − (non-rotating wave couplin...

    work page

  4. [4]

    does not conserve the number of to- tal excitations [ 32]. Interestingly, we find that the two- component TCM Hamiltonian possesses a U (1) symme- try characterized by the action of the operator Rθ = exp[iθ(ˆa†ˆa − ˆb† ↓,1 ˆb↓,1 + ˆb† ↓,2 ˆb↓,2)], (11) which yields R† θ(ˆa, ˆJ (1) − , ˆJ (2) − )Rθ = (ˆaeiθ, ˆJ (1) − e− iθ, ˆJ (2) − eiθ), (12) for arbitrary...

    work page

  5. [5]

    8 12 1 5 10 15 20 simulation analysis SS 0 3 6 9 Figure A1

    is deeply entangled and enables generation of novel quan- tum states that are highly-correlated in their spin and motional degrees of freedom simultaneously. 8 12 1 5 10 15 20 simulation analysis SS 0 3 6 9 Figure A1. (Color online). Ground-state phase diagram on g1-U0 parameter plane. The solid (dashed) line denotes the numerical (analytical) result of s...

    work page

  6. [6]

    back into the two-component TCM Hamiltonian ( 10) and displace the bosonic operators ˆa, ˆb1 and ˆb2 with respect to their mean values in the following ways [ 73] ˆa† → ˆd† + √ ζ, ˆb† 1 → ˆe† 1 − √ β, ˆb† 2 → ˆe† 2 − √ γ, where ˆd, ˆe1 and ˆe2 denotes the photonic and atomic quantum fluctuations around its mean-field values with ⟨ˆa⟩ = √ ζ, ⟨ˆb1⟩ = √ β and ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    + √ 1 +µ 0 2 λ 1( ˆdˆe1 + ˆe† 1 ˆd†) + √ 1 +µ 0 2 λ 2( ˆd† ˆe2 + ˆe† 2 ˆd) + (3 +µ 0)(1 − µ 0) 16ω 1(1 +µ 0) [λ 1(ˆe† 1 + ˆe1) +λ 2(ˆe† 2 + ˆe2)]2 − 1 − µ 0 4√ 1 +µ 0 ( ˆd† + ˆd)[λ 1(ˆe† 1 + ˆe1) +λ 2(ˆe† 2 + ˆe2)], (23) where µ 0 = (1/µ 1 + 1/µ 2)− 1, µ 1 = 2ω 1ω 0/λ 2 1 and µ 2 = 2ω 1ω 0/λ 2

    work page

  8. [8]

    For simplicity, the Hamiltonian of Eq. ( 23) can be rewritten as ˆH(2)/ ℏ =ω 1 ˆd† ˆd +ω 2(ˆe† 1ˆe1 + ˆe† 2ˆe2) − ω 0N 4µ 0 (1 − µ 2 0) +P1( ˆd† + ˆd)(ˆe† 1 + ˆe1) +P2( ˆd† + ˆd)(ˆe† 2 + ˆe2) +Ω3(ˆe† 1 + ˆe1)2 + Ω4(ˆe† 2 + ˆe2)2 + 2Ωx(ˆe† 1 + ˆe1) × (ˆe† 2 + ˆe2) +Q1( ˆdˆe1 + ˆe† 1 ˆd†) +Q2( ˆd† ˆe2 + ˆe† 2 ˆd) (24) where ω 2 ≡ ω 0 1 +µ 0 2µ 0 , P1 ≡ − 1 ...

    work page

  9. [9]

    has no physical meaning and the solution ζ = β = γ = 0 is applied for calculating. For superradiance phase, the Heisenberg equations of motion of t he quantum fluctuations in the photonic and atomic field operators become i∂ ∂t ˆd =ω 1 ˆd +P1ˆe1 + (P2 +Q2)ˆe2 + (P1 +Q1)ˆe† 1 +P2ˆe† 2 i∂ ∂t ˆe1 =P1 ˆd + (ω 2 + 2Ω3)ˆe1 + 2Ωxˆe2 + (P1 +Q1) ˆd† + 2Ω3ˆe† 1 + 2Ωx...

    work page

  10. [10]

    ˆd − 2Ω∗ 3ˆe1 − 2Ω∗ xˆe2 i∂ ∂t ˆe† 2 = − (P ∗ 2 +Q∗

    work page

  11. [11]

    ˆd† − 2Ω∗ xˆe† 1 − (ω ∗ 2 + 2Ω∗ 4)ˆe† 2 − P ∗ 2 ˆd − 2Ω∗ xˆe1 − 2Ω∗ 4ˆe2. (26) Furthermore, we recast these equations in the form of Hopfield-b ogoliubov matrix for superradiance phase         ω 1 P1 P2 +Q2 0 P1 +Q1 P2 P1 ω 2 + 2Ω3 2Ωx P1 +Q1 2Ω3 2Ωx P2 +Q2 2Ωx ω 2 + 2Ω4 P2 2Ωx 2Ω4 0 −P ∗ 1 − Q∗ 1 −P ∗ 2 −ω ∗ 1 −P ∗ 1 −P ∗ 2 − Q∗ 2 −P ∗ 1 − Q∗ 1 − ...

    work page

  12. [12]

    (29) 11 Thus the collective excitation spectra of our model can be convenie ntly calculated by numerically diagonalizing the Hopfield-bogoliubov matrix with Eq

    With the forms of the Hopfield-bogoliubov matrix, we can recast t hese equations          ω 1 0 ˜λ 2 0 ˜λ 1 0 0 ω 0 0 ˜λ 1 0 0 ˜λ 2 0 ω 0 0 0 0 0 − ˜λ 1 0 −ω ∗ 1 0 − ˜λ 2 − ˜λ 1 0 0 0 −ω ∗ 0 0 0 0 0 − ˜λ 2 0 −ω ∗ 0                  ˆd ˆe1 ˆe2 ˆd† ˆe† 1 ˆe† 2         =ǫ         ˆd ˆe1 ˆe2 ˆd† ˆe† 1 ˆe† 2      ...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Ritsch, P

    H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical poten- tials, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 553 (2013)

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Mivehvar, F

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, Cav- ity QED with quantum gases: New paradigms in many- body physics, Adv. Phys. 70, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr ` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Long-range interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Carusotto and C

    I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, Quantum fluids of light, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 299 (2013)

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zilberberg, and I. Carusotto, Topological photonics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015006 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, Manipulat- ing quantum entanglement with atoms and photons in a cavity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 565 (2001)

    work page 2001

  19. [19]

    Hammerer, A

    K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum interface between light and atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1041 (2010)

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Forn-D ´ ıaz, L

    P. Forn-D ´ ıaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025005 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Reiserer and G

    A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1379 (2015) . 12

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Reiserer, Colloquium: Cavity-enhanced quantum net- work nodes, Rev

    A. Reiserer, Colloquium: Cavity-enhanced quantum net- work nodes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 041003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Boninsegni and N

    M. Boninsegni and N. V. Prokof’ev, Collo- quium: Supersolids: What and where are they? Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 759 (2012)

    work page 2012

  25. [25]

    Kim and M

    E. Kim and M. H. W. Chan, Probable observation of a supersolid helium phase, Nature 427, 225 (2004)

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Balibar, The enigma of supersolidity, Nature 464, 176 (2010)

    S. Balibar, The enigma of supersolidity, Nature 464, 176 (2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    D. Y. Kim and M. H. W. Chan, Absence of su- persolidity in solid helium in porous vycor glass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 155301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    G. V. Chester, Speculations on Bose-Einstein condensa- tion and quantum crystals, Phys. Rev. A 2, 256 (1970)

    work page 1970

  29. [29]

    E. P. Gross, Unified theory of interacting bosons, Phys. Rev. 106, 161 (1957)

    work page 1957

  30. [30]

    J. Wang, H. Li, N. Xi, Y. Gao, Q.-B. Yan, W. Li, and G. Su, Plaquette singlet transition, magnetic barocaloric effect, and spin supersolidity in the shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 116702 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    C. W. Myung, B. Hirshberg, and M. Parrinello, Pre- diction of a supersolid phase in high-pressure deuterium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 045301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    J. S. Hofmann, E. Berg, and D. Chowdhury, Su- perconductivity, charge density wave, and supersolid- ity in flat bands with a tunable quantum metric, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 226001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Conti, A

    S. Conti, A. Perali, A. R. Hamilton, M. V. Miloˇ sevi´ c, F. m. c. M. Peeters, and D. Neilson, Chester supersolid of spatially indirect excitons in double-layer semiconducto r heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 057001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Zhang, D

    Y.-H. Zhang, D. N. Sheng, and A. Vish- wanath, Su(4) chiral spin liquid, exciton super- solid, and electric detection in moir´ e bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 247701 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Y.-J. Lin, K. Jim´ enez-Garc ´ ıa, and I. B. Spiel- man, Spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates, Nature (London) 471, 83 (2011)

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    L. W. Cheuk, A. T. Sommer, Z. Hadzibabic, T. Yef- sah, W. S. Bakr, and M. W. Zwierlein, Spin- injection spectroscopy of a spin-orbit coupled fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 095302 (2012)

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    Z. Wu, L. Zhang, W. Sun, X.-T. Xu, B.-Z. Wang, S.-C. Ji, Y. Deng, S. Chen, X.-J. Liu, and J.-W. Pan, Realization of two-dimensional spin-orbit coupling for Bose-Einstein condensates, Science 354, 83 (2016)

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Huang, Z

    L. Huang, Z. Meng, P. Wang, P. Peng, S.-L. Zhang, L. Chen, D. Li, Q. Zhou, and J. Zhang, Experimental re- alization of two-dimensional synthetic spin-orbit coupli ng in ultracold fermi gases, Nat. Phys. 12, 540 (2016)

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    K. T. Geier, G. I. Martone, P. Hauke, W. Ket- terle, and S. Stringari, Dynamics of stripe pat- terns in supersolid spin-orbit-coupled bose gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 156001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    J.-R. Li, J. Lee, W. Huang, S. Burchesky, B. Shteynas, F. C ¸ . Top, A. O. Jamison, and W. Ketterle, A stripe phase with supersolid properties in spin–orbit-coupled Bose–Einstein condensates, Nature 543, 91 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Y. Deng, J. Cheng, H. Jing, and S. Yi, Bose-Einstein condensates with cavity-mediated spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 143007 (2014)

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    L. Dong, L. Zhou, B. Wu, B. Ramachandhran, and H. Pu, Cavity-assisted dynamical spin-orbit coupling in cold atoms, Phys. Rev. A 89, 011602 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Sinha, R

    S. Sinha, R. Nath, and L. Santos, Trapped two- dimensional condensates with synthetic spin-orbit cou- pling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 270401 (2011)

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    Deng and S

    Y. Deng and S. Yi, Self-ordered supersolid phase beyond Dicke superradiance in a ring cavity, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    R. M. Kroeze, Y. Guo, and B. L. Lev, Dy- namical spin-orbit coupling of a quantum gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 160404 (2019)

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Bland, E

    T. Bland, E. Poli, C. Politi, L. Klaus, M. A. Nor- cia, F. Ferlaino, L. Santos, and R. N. Bisset, Two- dimensional supersolid formation in dipolar condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 195302 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    M. A. Norcia, E. Poli, C. Politi, L. Klaus, T. Bland, M. J. Mark, L. Santos, R. N. Bisset, and F. Ferlaino, Can angular oscillations probe superfluidity in dipolar supersolids? Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 040403 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    M. Guo, F. B¨ ottcher, J. Hertkorn, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, H. P. B¨ uchler, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, The low-energy Goldstone mode in a trapped dipolar super- solid, Nature 574, 386 (2019)

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    E. Poli, T. Bland, S. J. M. White, M. J. Mark, F. Fer- laino, S. Trabucco, and M. Mannarelli, Glitches in ro- tating supersolids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 223401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Karpov and F

    P. Karpov and F. Piazza, Light-induced quantum droplet phases of lattice bosons in multimode cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 103201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    work page 2008

  52. [52]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalattore, Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011)

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    Dalibard, F

    J. Dalibard, F. Gerbier, G. Juzeli¯ unas, and P. ¨Ohberg, Colloquium: Artificial gauge potentials for neutral atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1523 (2011)

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    N. R. Cooper, J. Dalibard, and I. B. Spiel- man, Topological bands for ultracold atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015005 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science 357, 995 (2017)

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    L´ eonard, A

    J. L´ eonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Supersolid formation in a quan- tum gas breaking a continuous translational symmetry, Nature 543, 87 (2017)

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    L´ eonard, A

    J. L´ eonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Monitoring and manipulating Higgs and Goldstone modes in a supersolid quantum gas, Science 358, 1415 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    S. C. Schuster, P. Wolf, S. Ostermann, S. Slama, and C. Zimmermann, Supersolid properties of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a ring resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 143602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Masalaeva, H

    N. Masalaeva, H. Ritsch, and F. Mivehvar, Tuning photon-mediated interactions in a multimode cavity: From supersolid to insulating droplets hosting phononic excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 173401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, B. P. Marsh, S. Gopalakrishnan, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, An optical lattice with sound, 13 Nature 599, 211 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Mivehvar, S

    F. Mivehvar, S. Ostermann, F. Piazza, and H. Ritsch, Driven-dissipative supersolid in a ring cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 123601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Gietka, F

    K. Gietka, F. Mivehvar, and H. Ritsch, Supersolid-based gravimeter in a ring cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 190801 (2019)

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Ostermann, W

    S. Ostermann, W. Niedenzu, and H. Ritsch, Unravel- ing the quantum nature of atomic self-ordering in a ring cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 033601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Tanzi, S

    L. Tanzi, S. Roccuzzo, E. Lucioni, F. Fam` a, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, G. Modugno, A. Recati, and S. Stringari, Supersolid symmetry breaking from compressional oscillations in a dipolar quantum gas, Nature 574, 382 (2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    Tanzi, E

    L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, F. Fam` a, J. Catani, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and G. Modugno, Observation of a dipolar quan- tum gas with metastable supersolid properties, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130405 (2019)

    work page 2019

  66. [66]

    Chomaz, D

    L. Chomaz, D. Petter, P. Ilzh¨ ofer, G. Natale, A. Traut- mann, C. Politi, G. Durastante, R. M. W. van Bijnen, A. Patscheider, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, and F. Fer- laino, Long-lived and transient supersolid behaviors in dipolar quantum gases, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021012 (2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    B¨ ottcher, J.-N

    F. B¨ ottcher, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, J. Hertkorn, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Transient super- solid properties in an array of dipolar quantum droplets, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011051 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Baumann, C

    K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Dicke quantum phase transition with a superfluid gas in an optical cavity, Nature 464, 1301 (2010)

    work page 2010

  69. [69]

    Mottl, F

    R. Mottl, F. Brennecke, K. Baumann, R. Landig, T. Don- ner, and T. Esslinger, Roton-type mode softening in a quantum gas with cavity-mediated long-range interac- tions, Science 336, 1570 (2012)

    work page 2012

  70. [70]

    R. M. Kroeze, Y. Guo, V. D. Vaidya, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Spinor self-ordering of a quantum gas in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 163601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    C. K. Law, H. Pu, and N. P. Bigelow, Quan- tum spins mixing in spinor Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5257 (1998)

    work page 1998

  72. [72]

    C. Luo, H. Zhang, V. P. Koh, J. D. Wilson, A. Chu, M. J. Holland, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Cavity-mediated collective momentum-exchange interac- tions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01411 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Salvi, N

    L. Salvi, N. Poli, V. Vuleti´ c, and G. M. Tino, Squeezing on momentum states for atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 033601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  74. [74]

    Colciaghi, Y

    P. Colciaghi, Y. Li, P. Treutlein, and T. Zibold, Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen experiment with two Bose-Einstein con- densates, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021031 (2023)

    work page 2023

  75. [75]

    Lange, J

    K. Lange, J. Peise, B. L¨ ucke, I. Kruse, G. Vitagliano, I. Apellaniz, M. Kleinmann, G. T´ oth, and C. Klempt, Entanglement between two spatially separated atomic modes, Science 360, 416 (2018)

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    Fadel, T

    M. Fadel, T. Zibold, B. D´ ecamps, and P. Treut- lein, Spatial entanglement patterns and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen steering in Bose-Einstein condensates, Science 360, 409 (2018)

    work page 2018

  77. [77]

    Kunkel, M

    P. Kunkel, M. Pr¨ ufer, H. Strobel, D. Linnemann, A. Fr¨ olian, T. Gasenzer, M. G¨ arttner, and M. K. Oberthaler, Spatially distributed multipartite entan- glement enables EPR steering of atomic clouds, Science 360, 413 (2018)

    work page 2018

  78. [78]

    Martin, M

    M. Martin, M. Bishof, M. Swallows, X. Zhang, C. Benko, J. Von-Stecher, A. Gorshkov, A. Rey, and J. Ye, A quan- tum many-body spin system in an optical lattice clock, Science 341, 632 (2013)

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    J. G. Bohnet, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, M. L. Wall, A. M. Rey, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum spin dynamics and entanglement generation with hun- dreds of trapped ions, Science 352, 1297 (2016)

    work page 2016

  80. [80]

    Christakis, J

    L. Christakis, J. S. Rosenberg, R. Raj, S. Chi, A. Morn- ingstar, D. A. Huse, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Probing site-resolved correlations in a spin system of ultracold molecules, Nature 614, 64 (2023)

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.