Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Symmetry breaking in two dimensions on ultra-fast time scales

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 2D freezing follows one universal curve, no matter quench depth

desk verdict A plausible and useful universal collapse for ultrafast 2D freezing, but the missing threshold sensitivity analysis and fit parameters leave the main claim under-supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13433 v2 pith:O2AYC4B5 submitted 2024-11-20 cond-mat.soft

Alireza Valizadeh , Patrick Dillmann , Peter Keim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords 2DmeltingKibble-Zurekmechanismcolloidalmonolayersymmetrybreakingbond-orientationalordercrystallinitydomaincoarseningrapidquench
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

Using an ultra-fast temperature quench on a two-dimensional colloidal monolayer, this paper asks what happens when a continuous freezing transition is driven so quickly that the symmetry can only break locally. It reports that the number of symmetry-broken domains and their average size, when plotted against the crystallinity (the fraction of particles inside ordered domains), are universal: deep quenches and shallow quenches follow the same master curve. The maximum number of domains appears at roughly 37 percent crystallinity, close to $1/e$, and the bond-orientational correlation length grows exponentially before this point and algebraically after it. If true, this means the post-quench coarsening of a 2D system is fixed by the transformed fraction alone, independent of how far below the melting line the system is thrown.

What carries the argument

The central object is the local sixfold bond-order field $\psi_l = (1/N_j)\sum_k e^{i6\theta_{kl}}$ over nearest-neighbor bonds, used to define symmetry-broken domains with thresholds ($m_6 > 0.6$, bond-length deviation less than 10% of the mean spacing, bond-orientation variation less than 2.3 degrees). The argument is carried by the crystallinity $X$, the fraction of particles in such domains, used as a normalized time coordinate, and by the observed universal collapse of the number and mean size of domains versus $X$. The crossover at $X \approx 1/e$, where exponential growth of the correlation length switches to algebraic growth, is the mechanism linking coarsening to critical-like fluctuations before domain contact.

What would settle it

Repeat the domain analysis on the same videos with thresholds shifted (e.g., $m_6$ threshold 0.5 or 0.7, bond-length tolerance 5% or 15%, orientation tolerance 1.5 or 3 degrees): if the collapse of domain number versus crystallinity and the 37% peak move or disappear, the universality claim is an artifact of labeling. A second check would be to quench from a different initial fluid temperature; the paper's claim that mosaicity depends on the initial state predicts the peak position in $X$ would then change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that after a rapid quench from the fluid into the crystalline phase, the coarsening of a 2D colloidal system is described by a single universal function of crystallinity $X$, the fraction of particles that belong to symmetry-broken domains. For four quench depths ($\Gamma_E = 74$, 82, 110, 166), the number of domains first rises, peaks, and then falls, and the peak occurs at the same place, roughly $X \approx 0.37 \approx 1/e$, regardless of how deep the quench is. The same collapse holds for the mean domain size. At the same crystallinity value, the orientational correlation length $\xi_6$ crosses over from exponential growth to algebraic growth, which the authors interpret as the moment when domains start to touch and critical-like fluctuations become suppressed. The paper proposes that for continuous transitions the mosaicity (the maximum number of domains) is set by the initial state before the quench, not by the target temperature, in contrast to first-order transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The universal collapse is measured with manually chosen thresholds for what counts as a symmetry-broken domain ($m_6 > 0.6$, bond length within 10% of the mean, bond orientation within 2.3 degrees), and no sensitivity analysis shows that the collapse survives changing those numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deep quenches into the crystalline phase and quenches just below the melting line produce the same domain-size evolution once time is re-expressed as crystallinity.
  • The maximum number of symmetry-broken domains, the analogue of mosaicity in nucleation, is fixed at roughly 37% transformed area and does not grow with supercooling.
  • The bond-orientational correlation length grows exponentially before the crossover and algebraically afterward, with the crossover coinciding with the domain-number maximum.
  • For continuous transitions, the domain number after a quench is proposed to depend on the temperature before the quench, not the final temperature.
  • Freezing and melting are not reciprocal in the thermodynamic limit even for continuous transitions, because causality and critical slowing down prevent global symmetry breaking.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to repeat the quench from different initial temperatures in the fluid phase; the paper's proposed dependence of mosaicity on the initial state predicts the peak height at 37% crystallinity would shift with the starting temperature, not with the target.
  • If the master curve is truly universal, it should also hold for other 2D systems with the same ordering symmetry, such as simulations of hard disks or the 2D XY model, which would make the 37% crossover a general signature of critical-like coarsening.
  • The stated picture implies the exponential growth regime is dominated by critical fluctuations rather than defect annihilation, so a direct measurement of defect density versus crystallinity in that regime could separate this scenario from the finite-rate Kibble-Zurek prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of ultra-fast temperature quenches in a two-dimensional colloidal monolayer, crossing from the isotropic fluid into the crystalline phase at four final coupling strengths (Gamma_end = 74, 82, 110, 166). Using video microscopy, the authors measure the sixfold bond-orientational correlation length and introduce a local symmetry-broken-domain (SBD) labeling based on three thresholds on the local bond-order magnitude, bond-length deviation, and bond-orientation variation. They track the number and average size of these domains as functions of time and of crystallinity X, defined as the fraction of particles in SBDs. The central claim is that NSBD(X) and mean domain size are universal functions of X, independent of quench depth, with the maximum of NSBD occurring near X ~ 37% ~ 1/e. The paper further identifies two growth regimes in the orientational correlation length, exponential at early times and algebraic later, with a crossover coinciding with the NSBD maximum and with the onset of domain-domain contact.

Significance. If the universality claim holds, the paper would provide a striking and simple result: in the deep-quench limit, the coarsening of a two-dimensional symmetry-breaking system is controlled by the crystallinity alone, independent of the quench depth. This goes beyond earlier Kibble-Zurek studies that focus on linear cooling rates and would connect the defect/domain statistics of colloidal systems to a broader universality picture. The experimental setup is a clear strength: a clean quasi-2D colloidal monolayer, quenches that are effectively instantaneous relative to Brownian motion, gradient-free cooling, and ten repeated quenches per final state. The qualitative collapse in the right panels of Fig. 5 is visually suggestive, and the proposal that the 1/e crystallinity marks the transition from fluctuation-dominated growth to domain-coarsening is interesting. However, the quantitative support for the central claim is incomplete: the collapse is assessed by eye, the thresholds defining the domains are fixed without sensitivity analysis, and the fit parameters for the exponential and algebraic regimes are not reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.B, II.C, Fig. 5] The universal collapse and the 37% peak position are established using domains defined by three fixed thresholds (m6 > 0.6, bond-length deviation < 10%, bond-orientation variation less than 2.3 degrees in real space / 14 degrees in sixfold space). Crystallinity X is then computed from exactly the same labeling, so both axes of the right panels of Fig. 5 depend on the same manually chosen criteria. Varying these thresholds is not a trivial rescaling: it can split or merge connected domains, move the maximum of NSBD, and change the apparent collapse across the four quench depths. Since the paper reports no sensitivity analysis, no alternative labeling scheme, and no geometric null model, the central claim that the curves 'almost superimpose' and peak near X ~ 1/e could be an artifact of the labeling algorithm. Please quantify how NSBD(X) and the mean domain area change when the thresholds are varied over a reasonable range, and report the spread in the peak position and height across the four final coupling strengths.
  2. [II.A, Fig. 3] The two-regime claim rests on fits whose parameters, uncertainties, and selection criteria are not given. The text states that the early window is 'best fitted with an exponential increase' and that the later window is algebraic, but no values of the time constant tau, the exponent alpha, their uncertainties, or goodness-of-fit measures are reported. The crossover is identified with 'red arrows as a guide for the eye', and the crossover region is excluded 'as given in the label' without an objective criterion. Because the crossover time is later connected to the 37% crystallinity and to the NSBD maximum, this is a load-bearing step. Please provide the fitted parameters with confidence intervals, an objective procedure for locating the crossover (e.g., a piecewise or crossover-function fit to the full time series), and the equivalent analysis for NSBD and mean domain size rather than for xi6 alone.
  3. [II.C, Conclusion] The claim that the data 'almost superimpose' as a function of crystallinity is supported only by visual inspection of Fig. 5 (right). No quantitative collapse metric, residuals, or per-quench-depth comparison is reported, even though the universality statement is the paper's main conclusion. Please define a quantitative measure of collapse (for example, an L2 distance between normalized curves, or a master-curve fit allowing one scale parameter per final state) and report its value with uncertainties from the ten repeats. In addition, the peak position and height of NSBD(X) should be reported with error bars to substantiate the 37% ~ 1/e statement, which is currently presented without statistical support.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains apparent typos: 'Gamma_E = 1 110' should be 'Gamma_E = 110', and the crossover-time labels contain corrupted characters ('t >= ??0s'). Please correct these.
  2. [II.C] The text refers to 'red arrows in Fig. 5 [left]' and to 'cross-over time in Fig. 1'; the crossover in the correlation length is shown in Fig. 3, not Fig. 1 (Fig. 1 displays g6(r)). Please fix the cross-reference.
  3. [Abstract / I] The paper motivates the work with linear cooling rates and the Kibble-Zurek mechanism, but the experiment is a sudden temperature jump with dGamma/dt ~ 10^4 s^-1, effectively instantaneous on the Brownian time scale. The relationship between the sudden-quench protocol and the previously studied linear-cooling Kibble-Zurek scenario should be clarified explicitly.
  4. [II.A] The new term 'poly-hexallinty' is introduced without a formal definition. Please define it in relation to poly-crystallinity and to the equilibrium hexatic phase, and explain why it is preferable to existing terminology.
  5. [Fig. 5] The error bars are described as 'averages about 10 independent quenches', but it is not stated whether they are standard deviations or standard errors of the mean. Please specify the error-bar convention.
  6. [General] A data availability statement would improve reproducibility; raw particle trajectories or processed domain-size time series would allow readers to test the threshold sensitivity and collapse metric independently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the universal collapse is an empirical relationship between measured quantities, with no fitted parameter or self-citation used to force the result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental observation: after deep quenches to different Gamma_end, plots of the number of symmetry-broken domains (NSBD) and mean domain area versus crystallinity X superimpose, with the NSBD maximum near X about 1/e. X is defined as the fraction of particles belonging to symmetry-broken domains, and NSBD is the number of such domains, so both axes derive from the same threshold-based segmentation. This is a measurement protocol, not a derivation: no parameter is fitted to produce the collapse, and no equation is used to predict NSBD(X) from X. The thresholds in Section II.B are fixed constants (m6 > 0.6, less than 10% bond-length deviation, less than 2.3 degrees bond-orientation variation), and the paper does not report tuning them to force the 1/e peak or the quench-depth independence; the collapse is an empirical finding about the data, not a consequence of the definitions alone. The relevant self-citations ([35], [36], [37], [40], [46]) supply experimental methods, background on Kibble-Zurek scaling for linear cooling, transition temperatures, and a discussion of local crystallinity; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a proof that NSBD versus X must be universal, and the paper's own stated thresholds and data carry the argument. The paper also openly flags that the exponential growth regime is not yet understood ('we keep it open if is due to the Kosterlitz-Thouless universality'), which is an admitted open physical question, not a circular step. A threshold-sensitivity study would strengthen the claim, but its absence is a robustness/correctness concern, not a demonstration that the result is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central analysis rests on the experimental assumption of an instantaneous, gradient-free quench, on the KTHNY and Kibble-Zurek interpretive frame, and on the domain-labeling algorithm. The free parameters are the hand-set thresholds and the visually chosen fit crossovers. The only new named concept is 'poly-hexallinty', which is descriptive rather than an independently evidenced entity.

free parameters (5)
  • m6 domain threshold = 0.6
    Threshold for local sixfold bond-orientational order magnitude to count a particle as symmetry-broken (Section II.B). Central to X and NSBD measurements; no sensitivity analysis is shown.
  • bond length deviation threshold = 10 percent
    Maximum deviation of neighboring particle bond length from the average particle distance (Section II.B).
  • bond orientation variation threshold = 2.3 degrees (14 degrees in sixfold space)
    Maximum orientation difference between neighboring particles to merge into a domain (Section II.B).
  • exponential-to-algebraic crossover time = about 50 s, 45 s, 35 s, 20 s for GammaE = 74, 82, 110, 166 (from Fig. 3)
    Chosen visually via red arrows in Figure 3; defines the two growth regimes and enters the 37 percent crystallinity claim.
  • exponential rate 1/tau and algebraic exponent alpha = not reported
    Best fits in Figure 3 are shown as curves but the fitted values and uncertainties are not given in the text or captions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The quench is effectively instantaneous and homogeneous: dGamma/dt about 10^4 s^-1 is much faster than the Brownian time tau_B = 50 s, and there are no temperature or pressure gradients because there is no bulk or surface heat flux.
    Section I and II; if this fails, the measured dynamics would mix cooling and ordering, invalidating the interpretation.
  • domain assumption The interaction strength Gamma maps to inverse temperature (Eq. 1), with transition values Gamma_m = 70 +/- 0.5 and Gamma_i = 68 +/- 0.5.
    Footnote 42 revises the susceptibility calibration; all quench depths are defined relative to these transition values.
  • domain assumption The Kibble-Zurek causal and critical-slowing-down picture applies to this 2D continuous transition, and at ultra-fast quenches the early dynamics is dominated by critical-like fluctuations until domains touch.
    Introduction and Section II.C; this is the interpretive frame for the exponential and algebraic regimes.
  • standard math Mermin-Wagner-Hohenberg prohibits translational long-range order in 2D, so bond-orientational order is the appropriate order parameter.
    Section II.A; justifies using psi_6 and g6(r) instead of translational order.
  • domain assumption Crystallinity X, defined as the fraction of particles in identified symmetry-broken domains, is a valid time-like variable for collapsing the data.
    Section II.C; the universality claim is plotted in X, which is itself derived from the same domain algorithm.
invented entities (1)
  • poly-hexallinty
    purpose: Descriptive term for the out-of-equilibrium state of locally sixfold-ordered domains with different orientations, separated by disordered regions, analogous to poly-crystallinity.
    Coined in Section II.A; it is a label for the observed state, not a new physical object, and no independent falsifiable prediction is attached beyond the data that motivated it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry breaking in two dimensions on ultra-fast time scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O2AYC4B5

@misc{pith2026241113433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry breaking in two dimensions on ultra-fast time scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O2AYC4B5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13433}
}
read the original abstract

Melting of two-dimensional mono-crystals is described within the celebrated Kosterlitz-Thouless-Halperin-Nelson-Young scenario (KTHNY-Theory) by the dissociation of topological defects. It describes the shielding of elasticity due to thermally activated topological defects until shear elasticity disappears. As a well defined continuous phase transition, freezing and melting should be reversible and independent of history. However, this is not the case: cooling an isotropic 2D fluid with a finite but nonzero rate does not end in mono-crystals. The symmetry can not be broken globally but only locally in the thermodynamic limit due to the critical slowing down of order parameter fluctuations. This results in finite sized domains with the same order parameter. For linear cooling rates, the domain size is described by the Kibble-Zurek mechanism, originally developed for the defect formation of the primordial Higgs-field shortly after the Big-Bang. In the present manuscript, we investigate the limit of the deepest descent quench on a colloidal monolayer and resolve the time dependence of structure formation for (local) symmetry breaking. Quenching to various target temperatures below the melting point (deep in the crystalline phase and just close to the transition), we find universal behaviour if the timescale is re-scaled properly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13433 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Snapshot of the mono-layer 120 s after a quench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Orientational correlation length as function of time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Snapshot of the monolayer with symmetry broken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The left image shows the number of symmetry-broken domains (SBD) and the average size of the domains (inset) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Long range order and metastability in two dimensional solids and superfluids. (application of dislocation theory), Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 5, L124 (1972)

    work page 1972

  2. [2]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Ordering, metasta- bility and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  3. [3]

    D. R. Nelson and J. M. Kosterlitz, Universal jump in su- perfluid density of 2-dimensional superfluids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1201 (1977)

    work page 1977

  4. [4]

    B. I. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, Theory of two- dimensional melting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 121 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    A. P. Young, Melting and the vector coulomb gas in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 19, 1855 (1979)

    1979

  6. [6]

    H. N. Ritland, Density phenomena in the transformation range of a borosilicate crown glass, Journal of the Amer- ican Ceramic Society 37, 370 (1954)

    work page 1954

  7. [7]

    Vollmayr, W

    K. Vollmayr, W. Kob, and K. Binder, Cooling-rate ef- fects in amorphous silica: A computer-simulation study, Physical Review B 54, 15808 (1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    C. A. Angell, K. L. Ngai, G. B. McKenna, P. F. McMil- lan, and S. W. Martin, Relaxation in glassforming liq- uids and amorphous solids, Journal of Applied Physics 88, 3113 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    P. G. Debenedetti and F. H. Stillinger, Supercooled liq- uids and the glass transition, Nat. 410, 259 (2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    Binder, Theory of first-order phase transitions, Rep

    K. Binder, Theory of first-order phase transitions, Rep. Prog. Phys. 50, 783 (1987)

    1987

  3. [11]

    Onsager, Crystal statistics i a two-dimensional model with an order-disorder transition, Phys

    L. Onsager, Crystal statistics i a two-dimensional model with an order-disorder transition, Phys. Rev. 65, 117 (1944)

    1944

  4. [12]

    D. R. Nelson and B. I. Halperin, Dislocation-mediated melting in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B19, 2457 (1979)

    1979

  5. [13]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Topology of cosmic domains and strings, 7 Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  6. [14]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Some implications of a cosmological phase transition, Physics Reports 67, 183 (1980)

    1980

  7. [15]

    Kibble, Phase-transition dynamics in the lab and the universe, Physics Today 60, 47 (2007)

    T. Kibble, Phase-transition dynamics in the lab and the universe, Physics Today 60, 47 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    Y. B. Zel’dovic, I. Kobzarev, and O. L.B., Cosmological consequences of a spontaneous breakdown of a discrete symmetry, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 3 (1974)

    1974

  9. [17]

    W. H. Zurek, Cosmological experiments in superfluid he- lium?, Nature 317, 505 (1985)

    1985

  10. [18]

    W. H. Zurek, Cosmic strings in laboratory superfluids and the topological remnants of other phase transitions, Acta Phys Pol B 24 (1993)

    1993

  11. [19]

    W. H. Zurek, Cosmological experiments in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports 276, 177 (1996)

    1996

  12. [20]

    Chuang, R

    I. Chuang, R. Durrer, N. Turok, and B. Yurke, Cosmol- ogy in the laboratory: Defect dynamics in liquid crystals, Science 251, 1336 (1991)

    1991

  13. [21]

    Bauerle, Y

    C. Bauerle, Y. M. Bunkov, S. N. Fisher, H. Godfrin, and G. R. Pickett, Laboratory simulation of cosmic string for- mation in the early universe using superfluid 3he, Nature 382, 332 (1996)

    1996

  14. [22]

    Carmi, E

    R. Carmi, E. Polturak, and G. Koren, Observation of spontaneous flux generation in a multi-josephson- junction loop, Physical Review Letters 84, 4966 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    M. A. Miranda, J. Burguete, H. Mancini, and W. Gonz´ alez-Vi˜ nas, Frozen dynamics and synchroniza- tion through a secondary symmetry-breaking bifurcation, Physical Review E 87, 032902 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    S. C. Chae, N. Lee, Y. Horibe, M. Tanimura, S. Mori, B. Gao, S. Carr, and S. W. Cheong, Direct observation of the proliferation of ferroelectric loop domains and vortex- antivortex pairs, Physical Review Letters 108, 167603 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Xu, Y.-J

    X.-Y. Xu, Y.-J. Han, K. Sun, J.-S. Xu, J.-S. Tang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Quantum simulation of landau-zener model dynamics supporting the kibble-zurek mechanism, Physical Review Letters 112, 035701 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    S. Ulm, J. Roßnagel, G. Jacob, C. Deg¨ unther, S. T. Dawkins, U. G. Poschinger, R. Nigmatullin, A. Retzker, M. B. Plenio, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and K. Singer, Observa- tion of the kibble–zurek scaling law for defect formation in ion crystals, Nature Communications 4, 2290 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    K. Pyka, J. Keller, H. L. Partner, R. Nigmatullin, T. Burgermeister, D. M. Meier, K. Kuhlmann, A. Ret- zker, M. B. Plenio, W. H. Zurek, A. del Campo, and T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, Topological defect formation and sponta- neous symmetry breaking in ion coulomb crystals, Nature Comm...

    2013

  20. [28]

    Lamporesi, S

    G. Lamporesi, S. Donadello, S. Serafini, F. Dalfovo, and G. Ferrari, Spontaneous creation of kibble–zurek soli- tons in a bose–einstein condensate, Nature Physics 9, 656 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    del Campo and W

    A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, Universality of phase transition dynamics: Topological defects from symmetry breaking, International Journal of Modern Physics A 29, 1430018 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Keesling, A

    A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, P. Zoller, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum kibble–zurek mechanism and critical dynamics on a programmable rydberg simulator, Natur...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Schmitt, M

    M. Schmitt, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, M. Heyl, and W. H. Zurek, Quantum phase transition dynamics in the two-dimensional transverse-field ising model, Science Ad- vances 8, eabl6850 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    del Campo, Universal statistics of topological defects formed in a quantum phase transition, Physical Review Letters 121, 200601 (2018)

    A. del Campo, Universal statistics of topological defects formed in a quantum phase transition, Physical Review Letters 121, 200601 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Zeng, C.-Y

    H.-B. Zeng, C.-Y. Xia, and A. del Campo, Universal breakdown of kibble-zurek scaling in fast quenches across a phase transition, Physical Review Letters 130, 060402 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Deutschl¨ ander, P

    S. Deutschl¨ ander, P. Dillmann, G. Maret, and P. Keim, Kibble–zurek mechanism in colloidal monolayers, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 112, 6925 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Ebert, P

    F. Ebert, P. Dillmann, G. Maret, and P. Keim, The experimental realization of a two-dimensional colloidal model system, Rev. Sci. Inst. 80, 083902 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    P. Keim, G. Maret, and H. H. von Gr¨ unberg, Frank’s constant in the hexatic phase, Phys. Rev. E. 75, 031402 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Gasser, C

    U. Gasser, C. Eisenmann, G. Maret, and P. Keim, Melt- ing of crystals in two dimensions, ChemPhysChem 11, 963 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    J. M. Kosterlitz, Nobel lecture: Topological defects and phase transitions, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 040501 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Illing, S

    B. Illing, S. Fritschi, H. Kaiser, C. L. Klix, G. Maret, and P. Keim, Mermin–wagner fluctuations in 2d amorphous solids, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 114, 1856 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Dynabeads, 4.5 µm, http://www.dynal.no

  34. [42]

    Earlier work [37] reports lower values due to a lower mag- netic susceptibility of the colloids, measured by SQUID. Meanwhile, it is more precise to determine the suscep- tibility in comparison of the pair correlation function in the fluid phase with computer simulations, lead...

  35. [43]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Absence of ferromag- netism or antiferromagnetism in one- or two-dimensional isotropic heisenberg models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  36. [44]

    Hohenberg, Existence of long-range order in 1 and 2 dimensions, Phys

    P. Hohenberg, Existence of long-range order in 1 and 2 dimensions, Phys. Rev. 158, 383 (1967)

    1967

  37. [45]

    N. D. Mermin, Crystalline order in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. 176, 250 (1968)

    1968

  38. [46]

    Dillmann, G

    P. Dillmann, G. Maret, and P. Keim, Two-dimensional colloidal systems in time-dependent magnetic fields, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 222, 2941 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Biroli, L

    G. Biroli, L. F. Cugliandolo, and A. Sicilia, Kibble-zurek mechanism and infinitely slow annealing through critical points, Physical Review E 81, 050101 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Asja and F

    J. Asja and F. C. Leticia, Quench dynamics of the 2d xy model, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2011, P02032 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Hartmann, A

    P. Hartmann, A. Douglass, J. C. Reyes, L. S. Matthews, T. W. Hyde, A. Kovacs, and Z. Donko, Crystallization dynamics of a single layer complex plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 115004 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.