Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Quantum droplets and Schr\"{o}dinger's cat states in atomic-molecular Bose-Einstein condensates

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper demonstrates exact even and odd Schrödinger cat states in an atomic-molecular Bose-Einstein condensate, with the molecular field forming a quantum droplet, and traces the mechanism to atom-molecule interconversion.

desk verdict A genuinely new but under-verified exact-solution paper: Solution I checks out, but Solutions II/III need explicit consistency-condition solutions and a corrected model equation before the exactness claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16529 v1 pith:VJXZXGDR submitted 2024-11-25 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gasnlin.PS

Leena Barshilia , Rajiuddin Sk , Prasanta K. Panigrahi , Avinash Khare This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gasnlin.PS
keywords atomic-molecularBose-EinsteincondensatesSchrödingercatstatesquantumdropletsbrightsolitonskink-antikinkpairsatom-moleculeinterconversionKerrnonlinearitysqueezed
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that one experimentally accessible nonlinearity—the interconversion between atoms and molecules in a one-dimensional atomic-molecular Bose-Einstein condensate—is enough to produce three kinds of macroscopic quantum states as exact solutions: quantum droplets, even Schrödinger cat states, and odd Schrödinger cat states. In each solution the molecular field is a kink-antikink droplet, while the atomic field is the even or odd superposition of two bright solitons. The chemical potential and the interconversion strength set the droplet profile and the existence range, and the Kerr-type interaction terms play a secondary role. If the construction is correct, it gives a concrete route toward macroscopic superpositions and squeezed droplets in ultracold atom-molecule mixtures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-component one-dimensional mean-field system (Eqs. (3)-(4)) whose quadratic interconversion term couples $\psi_m\psi_a^*$ and $\psi_a^2$, with cubic Kerr terms present but secondary. The exact solutions are drawn from the rational family $\{1,\cosh,\sinh\}/(B+\cosh^2(\beta x))$; identities (6), (11), and (12) reinterpret these profiles as kink-antikink droplets and even/odd superpositions of bright solitons. Substitution converts the nonlinear partial differential equations into algebraic consistency conditions (Appendix A) that fix the amplitudes and restrict the chemical potential, the molecular offset, and the interaction parameters; the self-consistent potentials in Appendix B then explain the double-well shape for cat states and the box-to-harmonic shape for droplets.

What would settle it

Substitute the even- and odd-cat ansätze into Eqs. (3)-(4) exactly as printed, using the parameter values quoted for Figs. 1(d)-(k), and solve the algebraic system for $B$, $A^2$, and $D^2$; if no real solution with $A^2,D^2>0$ exists, the plotted profiles do not satisfy the displayed model. A direct numerical time evolution from those profiles would give the same verdict.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the one-dimensional mean-field equations of an atomic-molecular Bose-Einstein condensate admit exact stationary solutions in which the atomic wave function is a Schrödinger cat state and the molecular wave function is a quantum droplet. For the even cat, $\psi_a = A\cosh(\beta x)e^{-i\mu t}/(B+\cosh^2\beta x)$, which is the in-phase sum of two bright solitons (Eq. (11)); for the odd cat, $\psi_a = A\sinh(\beta x)e^{-i\mu t}/(B+\cosh^2\beta x)$, the out-of-phase difference (Eq. (12)); in both cases $\psi_m = D e^{-2i\mu t}/(B+\cosh^2\beta x)$, the kink-antikink droplet of Eq. (6). These solve the coupled equations provided the algebraic consistency conditions of Appendix A hold, with the chemical potential restricted to ranges such as $0<|\mu|<|\mu_0|$ and $\mu_0 = -\frac{4}{9}\frac{\alpha^2}{g_a+g_{am}}$ for the droplet solution. The paper identifies the $\chi^2$-type interconversion term as the physical origin of the cat states and droplets, with self-trapping potentials doing the confinement, and it presents Wigner functions whose interference and quadrature asymmetry signal nonclassicality and squeezing.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the algebraic side conditions in Appendix A having solutions with positive densities, yet the paper asserts a wide range without exhibiting one, and the printed equation differs from the form used to derive them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An atom-molecular BEC with tunable interconversion could host droplet, even-cat, and odd-cat states as exact stationary solutions without external lattices or double wells.
  • The molecular droplet's flat-top to Gaussian transition is controlled by the chemical potential approaching $\mu_0$, so the same setup can be used to study macroscopic shape transitions.
  • The predicted Wigner-function interference fringes, vanishing at the origin for the odd cat, give measurable phase-space signatures of the superposition.
  • Tuning photoassociation or Feshbach resonances changes the interconversion strength $\alpha$ and therefore $\mu_0$, providing a control knob for the existence and shape of all three states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the locked atom-cat and molecule-droplet pair could be dissociated to convert the droplet state into atomic correlations measurable in momentum space.
  • A numerical scan of the Appendix A consistency conditions would make the claimed wide range of solutions explicit and would show how the existence region shrinks as $\alpha$ and $\mu$ vary.
  • The same rational-$\cosh$ ansatz family could be tried with three or more displaced solitons to look for higher-order cat states in this system.
  • Because this droplet arises as a mean-field kink-antikink bound state rather than a Lee-Huang-Yang stabilized droplet, the two mechanisms could be distinguished by comparing density profiles or compressibility.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a one-dimensional atomic-molecular Bose-Einstein condensate (AMBEC) with atom-molecule interconversion and Kerr-type nonlinearities, and claims to find exact stationary solutions that realize quantum droplets, even and odd Schrödinger cat states in the atomic component, and squeezed droplet states in the molecular component. Three ansätze are presented: a kink-antikink droplet (Solution I), an even cat state (Solution II), and an odd cat state (Solution III). The consistency conditions for these solutions are listed in Appendix A, and the central claim is that, when these conditions hold, the ansätze solve the coupled mean-field equations exactly. The paper illustrates the solutions with density profiles and Wigner functions. However, the model equations as printed in Section II are inconsistent with the equations used to derive the Appendix A conditions, and for Solutions II and III the consistency conditions are never solved or checked against the parameter sets used in the figures, so the exactness of the claimed cat-state solutions is not established.

Significance. If the claims were fully substantiated, this would be a valuable contribution: it would provide explicit mean-field mechanisms for creating spatially localized, cat-like macroscopic superpositions in a two-component atomic-molecular system, and it would illustrate the role of the quadratic interconversion term in generating these states. The paper also demonstrates connections to quantum droplet physics and self-trapping potentials. However, the current manuscript has load-bearing gaps: the displayed model equations disagree with the equations used in the derivations, and the existence of the cat-state solutions is asserted rather than demonstrated. These issues are fixable in principle, but without them the central claim is unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (3) and Appendix A, Eq. (A13)] The printed atomic mean-field equation (3) has the atom-molecule conversion term as (α/√2) ψ_m ψ_a^*, but the consistency conditions derived in Appendix A, e.g., Eq. (A13), require √2 α ψ_m ψ_a^*. Substituting Solution II into Eq. (3) with the printed coefficient and using the identities for the ansatz gives g_a A^2 + (α/√2) D = -(4B+1) β^2, whereas Eq. (A13) states g_a A^2 + √2 α D = -(4B+1) β^2. The same discrepancy appears in Eq. (A2) for Solution I and in the repeated equations (B1). Thus the model actually solved in Appendix A differs from the model displayed; the manuscript must adopt one consistent conversion coefficient throughout and re-derive all conditions and figure parameters accordingly.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A15)-(A17) and (A23)-(A25)] For Solutions II and III, the paper states that the consistency conditions constrain the parameters 'in a wide range of their values' and gives only the sign conditions on µ, ε, ga, gm, and D. No explicit solution of these quadratic conditions is provided, and no parameter set is checked against the densities shown in Figs. 1(d)-(k). Since the central claim is that the cat-state ansätze are exact solutions, one needs at least one concrete, real parameter choice (with positive densities, A²>0 and D>0 or the stated sign alternatives) for each solution, either solved analytically or provided as the parameter values used in the figures. Without this, the existence of Solutions II and III is not established.
  3. [Figure captions, Figs. 1(d)-(k), Fig. 2, Fig. 3] The figure captions give only ga, gm, gam, β, and Δ, but not the values of α, ε, µ, and the amplitudes A and D used in the plots. For example, Fig. 1(d) uses ga=-5, gm=1, gam=-2.41, but the consistency conditions (A15)-(A17) depend on α, ε, and µ, none of which are given. As a result, the plotted densities cannot be reproduced or checked against the derived conditions. The authors should provide complete parameter sets for every plot, or a table listing them, so that the figures can be verified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The text states that the trap potentials can be removed 'through a similarity and gauge transformation' but does not explain how; since Eqs. (3)-(4) contain V_trap, the reader cannot see the reduction to the trap-free equations used later. A short explanation or a reference justifying this step would help.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (10)] The expression for µ0 in Eq. (10) is central to the discussion of the droplet-to-flat-top crossover, yet its derivation from the preceding consistency conditions is not shown. A brief derivation or a reference to the specific equations in Appendix A would improve transparency.
  3. [Sec. III, Eqs. (7)-(9)] The notation √n_a and √n_m is introduced in Eqs. (7)-(9) but n_a and n_m are not defined; clarify that these are the central densities or normalization constants, and check the denominator in Eq. (9) for a possible missing factor of (2B+1).
  4. [Conclusion] The concluding paragraph says 'the quadratic nature of the interconversion term plays a crucial role' and later refers to 'the asymmetric structure of the quadratic atom-molecular interconversion term', which is confusing; the term is symmetric under the displayed Hermitian coupling, so the wording should be made precise.
  5. [Fig. 3] The word 'assymetric' in the caption should be 'asymmetric', and the figure caption would benefit from stating the quadrature variables explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exact solutions are verified by direct substitution of explicit ansätze; the consistency conditions are unsolved but independent.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a direct substitution of explicit ansätze (Solution I: ψa = A/(B+cosh^2 βx), ψm = D/(B+cosh^2 βx); Solution II: ψa = A cosh(βx)/(B+cosh^2 βx), ψm = D/(B+cosh^2 βx); Solution III: ψa = A sinh(βx)/(B+cosh^2 βx), ψm = D/(B+cosh^2 βx)) into the coupled mean-field equations (3)-(4). All consistency conditions are algebraic constraints derived in Appendix A from this substitution. No quantity in the claimed result is fitted to data, and no target result is built into the starting ansatz beyond being a guess to be verified. The only coauthor citation entering the construction is Ref. [54], used for elementary hyperbolic identities expressing the chosen profiles as superpositions of sech/tanh solitons (Eqs. (6), (11), (12)); these identities are standard, externally checkable mathematical facts and are not load-bearing in a circular way. The Appendix A consistency conditions are asserted to admit a 'wide range' of solutions but are not solved explicitly, and the conversion-term coefficient printed in Eq. (3) disagrees with the coefficient implied by the Appendix A conditions; both are completeness/correctness gaps, not circular steps. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-as-prediction, or imported uniqueness claim appears. The paper's central verification is self-contained algebra against the stated model, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on hand-chosen model parameters and on the correctness of the consistency conditions. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unstated input is that the ansatz forms are complete enough to capture the claimed states; the paper does not solve the consistency conditions explicitly for the cat-state solutions.

free parameters (5)
  • interaction strengths ga, gm, gam
    Chosen by hand in the figures; for Solution I they must obey gm=(ga-gam)/2, e.g., ga=3, gm=2.9, gam=-2.8.
  • interconversion strength alpha = alpha=2 in Fig. 1(a)
    Controls the chemical potential range via mu0=-(4/9)alpha^2/(ga+gam); chosen by hand.
  • chemical potential mu
    Varied to change the droplet profile from Gaussian to flat-top; constrained to 0<|mu|<|mu0|.
  • energy offset epsilon
    Appears in the consistency conditions; for Solution I fixed to epsilon=3mu/2=-3beta^2, but for Solutions II/III its allowed values are not explicitly solved.
  • inverse width beta and parameter B (or Delta) = beta=1, Delta=6.219 for Fig. 2(a); beta=1.414, Delta=6.21077 for Fig. 2(b)
    These set the spatial scale and separation of the soliton components; chosen by hand.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The mean-field equations (3)-(4) accurately describe AMBEC dynamics in quasi-1D.
    The paper relies on the reduction from 3D via refs. [51,52] and neglects trapping potentials.
  • standard math The superposition identities from ref. [54] hold.
    Used to express the ansatz wavefunctions as superpositions of tanh and sech functions.
  • domain assumption The ansatz forms (8), (11), (12) with time phases e^{-i mu t} and e^{-2 i mu t} are sufficient to solve the coupled PDEs.
    Substitution reduces the PDEs to algebraic consistency conditions; this is the standard method but is an unproved restriction to this functional form.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum droplets and Schr\"{o}dinger's cat states in atomic-molecular Bose-Einstein condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJXZXGDR

@misc{pith2026241116529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum droplets and Schr\"odinger's cat states in atomic-molecular Bose-Einstein condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJXZXGDR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16529}
}
abstract

Explicit realization of quantum droplets, even and odd Schr\"{o}dinger cat states is demonstrated in an atom-molecular Bose-Einstein condensate in the presence of interconversion and Kerr non-linear interactions. The crucial roles of both the $\chi^2$-type nonlinearity and chemical potential in the formation of these macroscopic quantum states are shown, where the atomic condensate is in the cat state, with the corresponding molecular wave packet being a quantum droplet. The physical mechanism for their creation and common origin is established to be the non-linearity-induced self-trapping potentials, governed by photoassociation or Feshbach resonance, with the Kerr-type nonlinearities playing subdominant roles. The coexisting and controllable atom and molecular droplets are shown to realize the atom-molecular squeezed state with profiles ranging from Gaussian to flat-top super-Gaussian form. The Wigner functions are exhibited revealing the cat states' phase space interference and squeezing of droplets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16529 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Variation in density profiles for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Wigner function plot of the atomic (a) even cat state with the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Plot of the Wigner function for a molecular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    Khare and A

    A. Khare and A. Saxena. Superposed hyperbolic kink and pulse solutions of coupled ϕ4, nls and mkdv equations. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B , 36(22):2250142, (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd. Advances in photonic quantum sensing. Nat. Photonics , 12(12):724–733, (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    J. Wang, L. Davidovich, and G. S. Agarwal. Quan- tum sensing of open systems: Estimation of damp- ing constants and temperature. Phys. Rev. Research , 2(3):033389, (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    W. H. Zurek. Sub-planck structure in phase space and its relevance for quantum decoherence. Nature, 412(6848):712–717, (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [4]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone. Quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 96(1):010401, (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    L. Li, C. L. Zou, V. V. Albert, S. Muralidharan, S. M. Girvin, and L. Jiang. Cat codes with optimal decoherence suppression for a lossy bosonic channel. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(3):030502, (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Pezze, A

    L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein. Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 90(3):035005, (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz. Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 47(42):424006, (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Ghosh, R

    S. Ghosh, R. Sharma, U. Roy, and P. K. Panigrahi. Mesoscopic quantum superposition of the generalized cat state: a diffraction limit. Phys. Rev. A , 92(5):053819, (2015)

    2015

  2. [9]

    L. D. Carr, D. DeMille, R. V. Krems, and J. Ye. Cold and ultracold molecules: science, technology and appli- cations. New J. Phys. , 11(5):055049, (2009). 9

    2009

  3. [10]

    Vlastakis, G

    B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf. Deterministically encoding quan- tum information using 100-photon schr¨ odinger cat states. Science, 342(6158):607–610, (2013)

    2013

  4. [11]

    Shanta, S

    P. Shanta, S. Chaturvedi, V. Srinivasan, G. S. Agarwal, and C. L. Mehta. Unified approach to multiphoton co- herent states. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 72(10):1447, (1994)

    1994

  5. [12]

    J. R. Klauder and E. C. G. Sudarshan. Fundamentals of quantum optics . Courier Corporation, (2006)

    2006

  6. [13]

    G. S. Agarwal. Quantum optics . Cambridge University Press, (2012)

    2012

  7. [14]

    Hasegawa

    A. Hasegawa. Optical solitons in fibers. In Optical soli- tons in fibers , pages 1–74. Springer, (1989)

    1989

  8. [15]

    Lakshmanan and S

    M. Lakshmanan and S. Rajaseekar. Nonlinear dynam- ics: integrability, chaos and patterns . Springer Science & Business Media, (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    Y. S. Kivshar and G. P. Agrawal. Optical solitons: from fibers to photonic crystals . Academic press, (2003)

    2003

  10. [17]

    Hasegawa and F

    A. Hasegawa and F. Tappert. Transmission of stationary nonlinear optical pulses in dispersive dielectric fibers. i. anomalous dispersion. Appl. Phys. Lett. , 23(3):142–144, (1973)

    1973

  11. [18]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith. Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases . Cambridge University Press, (2008)

    2008

  12. [19]

    P. G. Kevrekidis and D. J. Frantzeskakis. Solitons in coupled nonlinear schr¨ odinger models: a survey of recent developments. Rev. Phys., 1:140–153, (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    Shabat and V

    A. Shabat and V. Zakharov. Exact theory of two-dimensional self-focusing and one-dimensional self- modulation of waves in nonlinear media. Sov. Phys. JETP, 34(1):62, (1972)

    1972

  14. [21]

    P. G. Kevrekidis, G. Theocharis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, and Boris A. Malomed. Feshbach resonance manage- ment for Bose-Einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 90(23):230401, (2003)

    2003

  15. [22]

    Shomroni, E

    I. Shomroni, E. Lahoud, S. Levy, and J. Steinhauer. Ev- idence for an oscillating soliton/vortex ring by density engineering of a Bose–Einstein condensate. Nat. Phys. , 5(3):193–197, (2009)

    2009

  16. [23]

    J. H. V. Nguyen, D. Luo, and R. G. Hulet. Formation of matter-wave soliton trains by modulational instability. Science, 356(6336):422–426, (2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    D. S. Petrov. Quantum mechanical stabilization of a collapsing Bose-Bose mixture. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 115(15):155302, (2015)

    2015

  18. [25]

    G. C. Katsimiga, S. I. Mistakidis, B. A. Mal- omed, D. J. Frantzeskakis, R. Carretero-Gonz´ alez, and P. G. Kevrekidis. Interactions and dynamics of one- dimensional droplets, bubbles and kinks. Condens. Mat- ter, 8(3):67, (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    Spada, S

    G. Spada, S. Pilati, and S. Giorgini. Quantum droplets in two-dimensional Bose mixtures at finite temperature. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 133(8):083401, (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    T. D. Lee, K. Huang, and C. N. Yang. Eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of a Bose system of hard spheres and its low-temperature properties. Phys. Rev., 106(6):1135, (1957)

    1957

  21. [28]

    M. K. Parit, G. Tyagi, D. Singh, and P. K. Panigrahi. Su- persolid behavior in one-dimensional self-trapped Bose– Einstein condensate. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , 54(10):105001, (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    Shukla, P

    A. Shukla, P. K. Panigrahi, et al. Kink-like solitons in quantum droplet. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , 54(16):165301, (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    N. P. Robins, P. A. Altin, J. E. Debs, and J. D. Close. Atom lasers: Production, properties and prospects for precision inertial measurement. Phys. Rep., 529(3):265– 296, (2013)

    2013

  24. [31]

    Zhang, L

    Z. Zhang, L. Chen, K. X. Yao, and C. Chin. Transition from an atomic to a molecular bose–einstein condensate. Nature, 592(7856):708–711, (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, B. Bulatovic, T. Karman, I. Stevenson, and S. Will. Observation of Bose–Einstein condensation of dipolar molecules. Nature, pages 1–5, (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    P. D. Drummond, K. V. Kheruntsyan, and H. He. Co- herent molecular solitons in Bose-Einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 81(15):3055, (1998)

    1998

  27. [34]

    Modak, P

    S. Modak, P. Das, C. Mishra, and P. K. Panigrahi. Chem- ical oscillation in ultracold chemistry.EPL, 145(3):32003, (2024)

    2024

  28. [35]

    Modak, P

    S. Modak, P. Das, and P. K. Panigrahi. Coherent quan- tum state transfer in ultra-cold chemistry. Eur. Phys. J. D, 76(9):174, (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    Weiner, V

    J. Weiner, V. S. Bagnato, S. Zilio, and P. S. Julienne. Experiments and theory in cold and ultracold collisions. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 71(1):1, (1999)

    1999

  30. [37]

    J. M. Hutson and P. Sold´ an. Molecular collisions in ul- tracold atomic gases. Int. Rev. Phys. Chem. , 26(1):1–28, (2007)

    2007

  31. [38]

    D. S. Petrov and G. V. Shlyapnikov. Interatomic col- lisions in a tightly confined bose gas. Phys. Rev. A , 64(1):012706, (2001)

    2001

  32. [39]

    P. S. Julienne and F. H. Mies. Collisions of ultracold trapped atoms. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B , 6(11):2257–2269, (1989)

    1989

  33. [40]

    Debnath, A

    A. Debnath, A. Khan, and P. K. Panigrahi. Dynamics of bright soliton under cubic-quartic interactions in quasi- one-dimensional geometry. Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 138(10):1– 14, (2023)

    2023

  34. [41]

    Radhakrishnan, M

    R. Radhakrishnan, M. Lakshmanan, and J. Hietarinta. Inelastic collision and switching of coupled bright solitons in optical fibers. Phys. Rev. E , 56(2):2213, (1997)

    1997

  35. [42]

    K. Tara, G. S. Agarwal, and S. Chaturvedi. Production of schr¨ odinger macroscopic quantum-superposition states in a kerr medium. Phys. Rev. A , 47(6):5024, (1993)

    1993

  36. [43]

    X. L. He, Y. Lu, D. Q. Bao, H. Xue, W. B. Jiang, Z. Wang, A. F. Roudsari, P. Delsing, J. S. Tsai, and Z. R. Lin. Fast generation of schr¨ odinger cat states using a kerr-tunable superconducting resonator. Nat. Commun., 14(1):6358, (2023)

    2023

  37. [44]

    P. K. Panigrahi and G. S. Agarwal. Existence of su- perposition solutions for pulse propagation in nonlinear resonant media. Phys. Rev. A , 67(3):033817, (2003)

    2003

  38. [45]

    J. F. E. Croft, C. Makrides, M. Li, A. K. K. B. Petrov, B. K. Kendrick, N. Balakrishnan, and S. Kotochigova. Universality and chaoticity in ultracold k+ krb chemical reactions. Nat. Commun. , 8(1):15897, (2017)

    2017

  39. [46]

    R. V. Krems. Cold controlled chemistry. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. , 10(28):4079–4092, (2008)

    2008

  40. [47]

    Balakrishnan

    N. Balakrishnan. Perspective: Ultracold molecules and the dawn of cold controlled chemistry. J. Chem. Phys. , 145(15), (2016)

    2016

  41. [48]

    J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye. Cold molecules: Progress in quantum engineering of chemistry and quan- tum matter. Science, 357(6355):1002–1010, (2017)

    2017

  42. [49]

    M. T. Bell and T. P. Softley. Ultracold molecules and 10 ultracold chemistry. Mol. Phys. , 107(2):99–132, (2009)

    2009

  43. [50]

    K. M. Jones, E. Tiesinga, P. D. Lett, and P. S. Juli- enne. Ultracold photoassociation spectroscopy: Long- range molecules and atomic scattering. Rev. Mod. Phys., 78(2):483, (2006)

    2006

  44. [51]

    Salasnich, A

    L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto. Effective wave equations for the dynamics of cigar-shaped and disk- shaped bose condensates. Phys. Rev. A , 65(4):043614, (2002)

    2002

  45. [52]

    A. M. Kamchatnov and V. S. Shchesnovich. Dynamics of bose-einstein condensates in cigar-shaped traps. Phys. Rev. A, 70(2):023604, (2004)

    2004

  46. [53]

    R. Atre, P. K. Panigrahi, and G. S. Agarwal. Class of solitary wave solutions of the one-dimensional gross- pitaevskii equation. Phys. Rev. E , 73(5):056611, (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    D. S. Petrov and G. E. Astrakharchik. Ultradilute low- dimensional liquids. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 117(10):100401, (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    G. S. Prakash and G. S. Agarwal. Mixed excitation- and deexcitation-operator coherent states for the su(1,1) group. Phys. Rev. A , 50(5):4258, (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

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