Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Double sine-Gordon class of universal coarsening dynamics in a spin-1 Bose gas

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The easy-plane spin-1 Bose gas coarsens according to the double sine-Gordon universality class, with the spinor phase as the single relevant field.

desk verdict A useful and honest paper that maps the easy-plane spin-1 gas to a double sine-Gordon model and ties subdiffusive scaling to multi-well occupation, but the load-bearing reduction is approximate and the couplings are hand-tuned, so the universality-class claim is plausible rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13986 v3 pith:JSR32TYZ submitted 2024-12-18 cond-mat.quant-gas hep-ph

Ido Siovitz , Anna-Maria E. Glück , Yannick Deller , Alexander Schmutz , Felix Klein , Helmut Strobel , Markus K. Oberthaler , Thomas Gasenzer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gashep-ph PACS 03.75.Mn05.70.Ln
keywords doublesine-Gordonmodelspin-1Bosegascoarseningdynamicsuniversalityclassnonthermalfixedpointspinorphasesubdiffusivescalingself-similar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to establish that the coarsening dynamics of a spin-1 Bose gas after a quench into the easy-plane phase belongs to the universality class of the double sine-Gordon model: a single real scalar field, the spinor phase, carries the universal scaling. By integrating out small density fluctuations, the authors derive a low-energy effective action for $\varphi_s$ that has both $\cos\varphi_s$ and $\sin^2\varphi_s$ terms, and they show numerically that this model reproduces the subdiffusive coarsening of the full spinor gas, with $\beta=0.28(3)$ in one dimension. The same model yields diffusion-type scaling, $\beta\simeq 0.5$, when the field occupies only two minima of its periodic potential, so the spread over many minima is identified as the precondition for the slow exponent. If the reduction is correct, it explains why the spinor phase alone can describe the scaling, and it connects a microscopic many-body Hamiltonian to a universality class of coarsening.

What carries the argument

The central object is the double sine-Gordon model of a real scalar field, $\ddot{\varphi}=c_s^2\Delta\varphi-\lambda\sin\varphi+\lambda_s\sin(2\varphi)$, whose periodic potential combines a $\cos\varphi$ term and a $\sin^2\varphi$ term. The argument is carried by the Gaussian integration of density fluctuations in the spin-1 Lagrangian, which eliminates the $\delta\rho$ and $\delta\epsilon$ fields and leaves an effective action for the two phase angles; after expanding about $\varphi_s=2\pi\mathbb{Z}$, the spinor phase obeys the DSG equation while the Larmor phase becomes a free massless field. The $\sin^2\varphi_s$ term is load-bearing: truncating it to a pure sine-Gordon model leaves the one-dimensional power spectra static. The other indispensable ingredient is the regularization of the effective potential near $\varphi_s=(2\nu+1)\pi$ by momenta of order the spin healing momentum $k_{\xi_s}$, which allows localized kinks to interpolate between adjacent minima and thus lets the field spread over many wells.

What would settle it

Measure the spinor-phase structure factor in a long one-dimensional $^{87}$Rb condensate quenched from the polar into the easy-plane phase and fit the self-similar collapse: if the extracted $\beta$ equals $0.28(3)$ while the phase PDF covers several $2\pi$ wells, the DSG claim is supported, whereas a value near $0.5$ in the same multi-well regime would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the low-energy physics of the easy-plane spin-1 Bose gas reduces to a double sine-Gordon theory for the spinor phase $\varphi_s$, with effective Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}}=-\frac{1}{32c_1}\dot{\varphi}_s^2-\frac{n(\tilde{\rho}-2n)}{4M\tilde{\rho}}(\nabla\varphi_s)^2-\left[2c_1n(\tilde{\rho}-2n)-\frac{q^2}{16c_1}\right]\cos\varphi_s+\frac{q^2}{32c_1}\sin^2\varphi_s$. In one spatial dimension this theory shows self-similar subdiffusive coarsening with $\alpha=\beta=0.28(3)$ when the unwrapped field wanders over many minima of the periodic potential, and diffusion-type scaling with $\beta=0.52(4)$ when only two minima are populated; the contrasting exponents are therefore linked to how many wells the field configuration visits, not to domain size alone. The paper further claims that the noncompact DSG field inherits the topological content of the compact spinor phase by unwrapping, so kink and vortex information is encoded without explicit topological degrees of freedom. Numerical simulations of the full spin-1 model and experimental probability distributions of $\varphi_s$ from a quasi-one-dimensional condensate are presented as evidence that the spinor phase indeed localizes at multiples of $2\pi$ and spreads across several wells, as the DSG picture requires.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping assumes density fluctuations are weak enough to be integrated out to second order and that the spinor phase can be expanded around $\varphi_s=2\pi\mathbb{Z}$, with the singular behaviour at potential maxima cured by momenta near the spin healing length; the paper states the last step is not intended to constitute a rigorous derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The spinor phase alone, without the Larmor or total phase, is enough to reproduce the subdiffusive coarsening of the full spin-1 gas in one dimension.
  • The number of occupied minima of the periodic potential sets the universality class: many wells give $\beta=0.28(3)$, two wells give $\beta\simeq0.5$.
  • In two dimensions the DSG model reproduces diffusion-type scaling with $\beta=0.51(8)$ and $\alpha=0.98(20)$, consistent with earlier spin-1 results, so the same effective theory covers both dimensionalities.
  • The $\sin^2\varphi_s$ term is essential for the scaling: a pure sine-Gordon truncation leaves the power spectra static in one dimension.
  • The measured PDF of $\varphi_s$ matching the DSG potential makes the spinor condensate a platform for studying sine-Gordon dynamics, including soliton collisions and breathers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mapping is generic, one could expect a similar spinor-phase DSG reduction for other easy-plane ferromagnetic spin-$F$ condensates, with $\beta\simeq0.28$ in one dimension whenever the field visits many wells.
  • A clean experimental extension would be to tune the quench depth or quadratic Zeeman shift to control how many minima the spinor phase explores and watch $\beta$ cross from about $0.5$ to $0.28$ within the same system.
  • The paper's focus on spread over many minima suggests a general criterion for coarsening universality classes: the relevant quantity may be the number of potential wells visited by the order-parameter field, not merely the rate of domain growth.
  • One direct test of the unwrapping picture would be to compare kink statistics in the full spin-1 gas with the kink statistics of the noncompact DSG field; if they match, the topological encoding claim is confirmed.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the universal subdiffusive coarsening dynamics observed in the one-dimensional easy-plane spin-1 Bose gas after a quench belongs to the double sine-Gordon (DSG) universality class. It derives a low-energy effective DSG Lagrangian for the spinor phase by integrating out density fluctuations (Sec. III.A, App. B), and numerically shows that the DSG model exhibits self-similar subdiffusive scaling with β≈0.28 in 1+1D when the field spreads over many potential wells, and diffusion-type scaling β≈0.5 when only two wells are occupied (Sec. II). These results are compared with truncated-Wigner simulations and experimental PDFs of the spinor phase (Sec. III.B), and with a 2+1D DSG simulation that gives β≈0.51 (Sec. III.C).

Significance. If correct, the work would establish a concrete microscopic route from the spin-1 Bose gas parameters to a DSG effective description, providing a step toward a classification of coarsening dynamics and offering spinor gases as a platform for studying sine-Gordon physics. The paper is commendable for its careful scaling analysis (residuals, reference-time dependence) and for presenting both numerical and experimental evidence. However, the central identification rests on an approximate derivation that the authors themselves state is not rigorous (App. B.3), on DSG simulations whose couplings are tuned rather than taken from the microscopic mapping (App. C.2.b), and on a fit that imposes α=dβ. These issues currently weaken the claim that the spin-1 gas belongs to the DSG universality class.

major comments (4)
  1. [App. C.2.b / Eq. (10)] The subdiffusive DSG simulations are performed with λ=10λ_s, whereas the microscopic mapping (Eq. (10)) yields λ_{spin-1}≈5.8λ_s. The text states that the couplings 'were chosen such as to achieve reliable self-similar scaling' (App. C.2.b). This leaves open whether the DSG model at the microscopically derived couplings exhibits β≈0.28; consequently, the numerical agreement between the DSG and spin-1 exponents could reflect the parameter choice rather than universality. The authors should demonstrate that β is independent of λ/λ_s over a range including the microscopic value, or repeat the simulation at λ≈5.8λ_s.
  2. [App. B.3 / Sec. III.A] The mapping to the DSG model is not controlled in the regime where the subdiffusive scaling occurs. The derivation expands around φ_s=2πZ and neglects terms of O(δρ∇δρ∇δρ, δρ∇φ∇φ) (Eq. (B6)); the k→0 Green's function diverges at φ_s=(2ν+1)π, and the regularization ∇²→-k_ξs² is stated to be 'not intended to constitute a rigorous derivation' (App. B.3). The multi-well field configurations that are central to the claimed subdiffusive class necessarily cross these maxima. Without a quantitative check of the neglected terms on the actual spin-1 trajectories, the identification of the spin-1 gas with the DSG class rests on an uncontrolled approximation.
  3. [Sec. II.A / Fig. 1] The scaling collapse in Fig. 1 imposes α=dβ, justified by 'conservation of the momentum integral over S.' However, the DSG equation (1) has no visible Noether symmetry that would conserve ∫S(k,t) dk; φ is a noncompact field with a potential that breaks shift symmetry. The authors should either derive this conservation law for the DSG model or fit α and β independently (as done in the 2D case in Fig. 5) to confirm that β≈0.28 is not an artifact of the imposed relation.
  4. [Eq. (10) / Eq. (C2)] The sign convention relating the effective theory to the DSG simulations should be clarified. For c_1<0, the sin²φ_s term in Eq. (10) has a negative coefficient (and the same sign appears in Eq. (B22)), whereas the DSG Lagrangian (C2) is simulated with λ_s>0. These appear to correspond to opposite signs of the sin(2φ) nonlinearity in the equations of motion. Please state explicitly how the coefficients of Eq. (10) map to λ and λ_s in Eq. (C2), and confirm that the simulated DSG model is the one obtained from the microscopic derivation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.B / Fig. 4] The experimental comparison uses a Boltzmann approximation to extract V_eff(φ_s) from a far-from-equilibrium distribution; the agreement is qualitative, and both the mean-field shift and calibration offset are adjusted. The authors may wish to state this more cautiously in the main text.
  2. [Sec. II.C] The paragraph distinguishing the observed scaling from phenomenological diffusion equations is somewhat verbose; a concise statement of the relation to Refs. [71,80] would help the reader.
  3. [App. B.3] The sentence that one may neglect terms of order ˙φ_j sin²(φ_s/2) and (∇φ_j)² sin²(φ_s/2) is a strong truncation; since these terms are quadratic in derivatives and sin², it would be useful to state why they are negligible compared to the retained terms in the scaling regime.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The definition of k_ξs in the caption, k_ξs=(2Mρ̃|c_1|)^{1/2}≈4Q, mixes dimensional and numerical statements; the units and the numerical value should be defined more clearly.
  5. [References] Reference [80] is a master's thesis; if a published version exists or becomes available, it would be preferable to cite that instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DSG effective theory is derived from the spin-1 Lagrangian, and the DSG scaling exponents are numerical outputs, not parameters fitted to the spin-1 results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The spin-1 to DSG mapping (Eq. 10, App. B) starts from the microscopic spin-1 Lagrangian (2), integrates out density fluctuations, and expands around the derived potential minima; no fitted quantity from the target scaling exponents enters the effective Lagrangian. The subdiffusive exponent beta = 0.28(3) in the DSG model is obtained from a self-similarity collapse of the DSG structure factor (Fig. 1), not imposed, and the two-well vs multi-well contrast is a qualitative feature of the DSG potential that is corroborated by external experimental PDF data (Fig. 4). The comparison to full spin-1 subdiffusive scaling relies on prior numerics [60,72] by overlapping authors, but those are independent full spin-1 simulations with stated initial conditions and no DSG input, so the self-citations are real evidence rather than a circular chain. The admitted limitations — the regularization at potential maxima k ~ k_xi_s which is 'not intended to constitute a rigorous derivation' (App. B.3), and the choice of DSG couplings lambda = 10 lambda_s different from the microscopically derived lambda_spin-1 ~ 5.8 lambda_s (App. C 2b) — weaken the rigor of the reduction but do not make any predicted quantity equal to an input by construction. The mean-field shift added to match the PDF is a minor adjustment, not the load-bearing content of the DSG identification.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an effective-theory derivation with several approximations and on DSG couplings that are tuned rather than derived from the spin-1 Hamiltonian. The experimental comparison also requires a calibration offset and a mean-field shift. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • DSG couplings (lambda, lambda_s) in 1D subdiffusive simulations = lambda = 4e-4, lambda_s = 4e-5
    Chosen by hand 'to achieve reliable self-similar scaling' (App. C.2.b); they differ from the spin-1 derived values (lambda_spin-1 ~ 1.9e-4, lambda_s ~ 3.3e-5).
  • DSG couplings in 1D diffusive simulations = lambda = 2.5e-4, lambda_s = 5e-4
    Adjusted to change the potential landscape so the field occupies only two minima (App. C.2.b).
  • DSG couplings in 2D simulations = lambda = 1.6, lambda_s = 0.016
    Chosen for the 2D simulation; not derived from spin-1 parameters (App. C.2.b).
  • Experimental calibration offset = 0.083(3) pi
    Added to the theoretical PDF to match the experimental histogram (App. C.3, Fig. 4 caption).
  • Mean-field shift of the effective potential = unspecified
    Added to match the experimental potential extracted from the PDF (App. C.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Total density ~rho is constant; density fluctuations delta-rho and delta-epsilon are small and can be integrated out via a Gaussian integral.
    Used in Sec. III.A and App. B, justified by c0 >> |c1|.
  • ad hoc to paper The spinor phase is expanded around phi_s = 2 pi Z, and terms of order dot-phi^j sin^2(phi_s/2) and (grad phi_j)^2 sin^2(phi_s/2) are neglected.
    Stated 'motivated by numerical results' in App. B.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Momentum dependence of the Green's function is replaced by k^2 ~ k_xi^2 to regularize divergences at phi_s = pi.
    The authors explicitly call this an approximation 'not intended to constitute a rigorous derivation' (App. B.3).
  • domain assumption The Larmor phase phi_L decouples and can be ignored; the total phase theta is absorbed by a shift.
    Shown in App. B.3 to leading order; assumed to hold for the far-from-equilibrium dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Double sine-Gordon class of universal coarsening dynamics in a spin-1 Bose gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JSR32TYZ

@misc{pith2026241213986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Double sine-Gordon class of universal coarsening dynamics in a spin-1 Bose gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JSR32TYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13986}
}
read the original abstract

Far from equilibrium, universal dynamics prevails in many different situations, from pattern coarsening to turbulence. A central longstanding problem concerns the development of a theory of coarsening that rests on the microscopic properties of the system and allows identifying the interaction mechanisms underlying a possible overarching universality class of the associated scaling dynamics. In quantum systems, this is complicated by the existence of nonlinear and topological excitations due to the compact nature of phase degrees of freedom. We show that the double sine-Gordon model as a noncompact low-energy effective model of the spin-1 Bose gas accounts for subdiffusive coarsening dynamics, identifying field configurations spread over multiple wells of the sinusoidal potential as a precondition for the slow scaling. This is in contrast to diffusion-type scaling which the model is known to exhibit as well, where field configurations are seen to not extend over more than two wells. Experimental observations of a spinor BEC support these characteristics, thus constituting a platform for the investigation of sine-Gordon dynamics. Our results point to a path towards a classification of pattern coarsening in many-body systems on the basis of microscopic models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Subdi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Defect coarsening in the dynamics of the DSG. (a) (upper panel) Excerpt of the time evolution of the DSG field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Self-similar scaling of the DSG model in (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Probability distribution histogram (blue bars) of the spinor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Self-similar scaling of the DSG model in (2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Spinor phase dynamics after a quench from the polar phase into the easy-plane phase. (a) Short-time evolution of the spinor phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Experimental data after a quench from the polar into the easy-plane phase. (a) Time evolution of the probability distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Self-similar scaling of the DSG model in (2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Spin-dependent interactions are governed by the term ∼ c1|F|2, with F = ψ∗ afabψb, a, b ∈ {+1, 0,−1} denoting the magnetic-sub-level indices in the spin-1 manifold

    Model Hamiltonian and Lagrangian and their parametrisation The classical spin-1 Hamiltonian reads, in d dimensions, H = Z dx " Ψ†(x, t) − 1 2M∇2 + q f 2 z ! Ψ(x, t) + c0 2 ˜ρ(x, t)2 + c1 2|F (x, t)|2 , (A1) where M is the atomic mass, q represents the quadratic Zee- man shift and the term ∼ c0 ˜ρ2 describes U(3)-symmetric density-density interactions, wit...

  2. [2]

    This competition gives rise to di fferent ground states in the system depending on the chosen point in the q-c1-plane

    Ground states of the polar and easy-plane phase The energy term describing the quadratic Zeeman shift q competes with the spin-spin interactions proportional to c1. This competition gives rise to di fferent ground states in the system depending on the chosen point in the q-c1-plane. Our focus is set on simulating the dynamics of a ferromagnetic system, i....

  3. [3]

    ˙θ− 1− 2ρ ˜ρ ! ˙φs + 4ϵ ˜ρ ˙φL # − ˜ρ 8M

    Expansion of the Lagrangian about constant mean-field densities We start from the Lagrangian density in the form (A8). In the regime of low-energy excitations, density fluctuations are strongly suppressed. Hence, we assume the density fields to be given by their mean-field background values with small fluctua- tions added, ˜ρ(x, t) = ˜ρ = const., ρ (x, t)...

  4. [4]

    L0− 1 2 J T GJ # − 1 2 ln detG−1 ) | {z } = exp{iS eff} , and collecting the result in the effective action S eff = Z t,x

    Reduction to a low-energy e ffective theory for the phases As we disregard fluctuations of the total density, we may also neglect the contribution L˜θ, which in the chosen approximation decouples from the remaining Lagrangian. Thus, the approximate Lagrangian takes the form of L =L0 + J· δρ + 1 2 δρT· G−1· δρ +O(δρ3,δϵ 3), (B11) where δρ = (δρ,δϵ )T and J...

  5. [5]

    Reduction to a double sine-Gordon model For our low-energy e ffective theory, we consider only mo- menta which are much lower than the healing momentum of the system. Hence, we will eventually omit the momen- tum dependence of L2, such that the matrix elements of the Green’s function G are given by the respective inverses of the matrix elements of G−1, Eq...

  6. [6]

    Early-time spinor phase dynamics after a quench The U(3) manifold is spanned by a total of 8 genera- tors, leading to the formation of several SU(2) subspaces. Particular subspaces, under the assumption of ⟨Fz⟩ = 0, are{Fx, Qyz, Q0} and{Fy, Qxz, Q0}, with the nematic opera- tor Q0 = − 1 3 1− Qzz, in terms of the quadrupole operators Qi j = fi f j + f j fi...

  7. [7]

    Spin-1 Bose gas The dynamics of the spin-1 Bose gas is simulated using the Truncated-Wigner (TW) method

    Truncated-Wigner simulations a. Spin-1 Bose gas The dynamics of the spin-1 Bose gas is simulated using the Truncated-Wigner (TW) method. The numerical integra- 13 FIG. 6. Spinor phase dynamics after a quench from the polar phase into the easy-plane phase. (a) Short-time evolution of the spinor phase probability distribution in the Fx-Qyz plane. The upper ...

  8. [8]

    Experimental methods We briefly discuss the experimental system and methods that were employed for the acquisition of the experimental data shown in Fig. 4. We prepare a Bose-Einstein conden- sate of 10 5 87 Rb atoms in a quasi-one-dimensional box-like trapping potential, for more details see, e.g., [94]. The exper- iments are performed in a homogeneous m...

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Vinen, J

    W. Vinen, J. Low Temp. Phys. 145, 7 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Tsubota, J

    M. Tsubota, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77, 111006 (2008), arXiv:0806.2737 [cond-mat.other]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    V . E. Zakharov, V . S. L’vov, and G. Falkovich, Kolmogorov Spectra of Turbulence I: Wave Turbulence (Springer, Berlin, 1992)

    1992

  4. [12]

    Nazarenko, Wave turbulence, Lecture Notes in Physics No

    S. Nazarenko, Wave turbulence, Lecture Notes in Physics No. 825 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2011) pp. XVI, 279 S

    2011

  5. [13]

    Berges, A

    J. Berges, A. Rothkopf, and J. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 041603 (2008), arXiv:0803.0131 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Schole, B

    J. Schole, B. Nowak, and T. Gasenzer, Phys. Rev. A86, 013624 (2012), arXiv:1204.2487 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Piñeiro Orioli, K

    A. Piñeiro Orioli, K. Boguslavski, and J. Berges, Phys. Rev. D 92, 025041 (2015), arXiv:1503.02498 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chantesana, A

    I. Chantesana, A. Piñeiro Orioli, and T. Gasenzer, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043620 (2019), arXiv:1801.09490 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. N. Mikheev, C.-M. Schmied, and T. Gasenzer, Phys. Rev. A 99, 063622 (2019), arXiv:1807.10228 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  11. [19]

    Janssen, in Dynamical critical phenomena and related top- ics, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol

    H. Janssen, in Dynamical critical phenomena and related top- ics, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 104 (Springer, Heidelberg,

  12. [20]

    H. W. Diehl, in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena (Academic Press, London, 1986)

    1986

  13. [21]

    Janssen, in From phase transitions to chaos (World Scien- tific, Singapore, 1992) p

    H. Janssen, in From phase transitions to chaos (World Scien- tific, Singapore, 1992) p. 68

    1992

  14. [22]

    A. J. Bray, Adv. Phys. 43, 357 (1994)

    1994

  15. [23]

    Puri and V

    S. Puri and V . Wadhawan, eds., Kinetics of Phase Transitions (Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    L. F. Cugliandolo, C. R. Phys. 16, 257 (2015), arXiv:1412.0855 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    E. A. L. Henn, J. A. Seman, G. Roati, K. M. F. Magalhães, and V . S. Bagnato, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 045301 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Gring, M

    M. Gring, M. Kuhnert, T. Langen, T. Kitagawa, B. Rauer, M. Schreitl, I. Mazets, D. A. Smith, E. Demler, and J. Schmied- mayer, Science 337, 1318 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    D. A. Smith, M. Gring, T. Langen, M. Kuhnert, B. Rauer, R. Geiger, T. Kitagawa, I. Mazets, E. Demler, and J. Schmied- mayer, New J. Phys. 15, 075011 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Langen, S

    T. Langen, S. Erne, R. Geiger, B. Rauer, T. Schweigler, M. Kuh- nert, W. Rohringer, I. E. Mazets, T. Gasenzer, and J. Schmied- mayer, Science 348, 207 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Navon, A

    N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Science 347, 167 (2015), arXiv:1410.8487 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Navon, A

    N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Nature 539, 72 (2016), arXiv:1609.01271 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. 16

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Rauer, S

    B. Rauer, S. Erne, T. Schweigler, F. Cataldini, M. Tajik, and J. Schmiedmayer, Science 360, 307 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Gauthier, M

    G. Gauthier, M. T. Reeves, X. Yu, A. S. Bradley, M. A. Baker, T. A. Bell, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, M. J. Davis, and T. W. Neely, Science364, 1264 (2019), arXiv:1801.06951 [cond-mat. quant-gas]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. P. Johnstone, A. J. Groszek, P. T. Starkey, C. J. Billington, T. P. Simula, and K. Helmerson, Science 364, 1267 (2019), arXiv:1801.06952v2 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Eigen, J

    C. Eigen, J. A. P. Glidden, R. Lopes, E. A. Cornell, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Nature 563, 221 (2018), arXiv:1805.09802 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Prüfer, P

    M. Prüfer, P. Kunkel, H. Strobel, S. Lannig, D. Linnemann, C.- M. Schmied, J. Berges, T. Gasenzer, and M. K. Oberthaler, Na- ture 563, 217 (2018), arXiv:1805.11881 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. Erne, R. Bücker, T. Gasenzer, J. Berges, and J. Schmied- mayer, Nature 563, 225 (2018), arXiv:1805.12310 [cond-mat. quant-gas]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Navon, C

    N. Navon, C. Eigen, J. Zhang, R. Lopes, A. L. Gaunt, K. Fu- jimoto, M. Tsubota, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Science 366, 382 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    J. A. P. Glidden, C. Eigen, L. H. Dogra, T. A. Hilker, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Nature Phys. 17, 457 (2021), arXiv: 2006.01118 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. D. García-Orozco, L. Madeira, M. A. Moreno-Armijos, A. R. Fritsch, P. E. S. Tavares, P. C. M. Castilho, A. Cidrim, G. Roati, and V . S. Bagnato, Phys. Rev. A106, 023314 (2022), arXiv:2107.07421 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lannig, M

    S. Lannig, M. Prüfer, Y . Deller, I. Siovitz, J. Dreher, T. Gasenzer, H. Strobel, and M. K. Oberthaler, (2023), arXiv:2306.16497 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Martirosyan, C

    G. Martirosyan, C. J. Ho, J. Etrych, Y . Zhang, A. Cao, Z. Hadz- ibabic, and C. Eigen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 113401 (2024), arXiv:2304.06697 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. Gazo, A. Karailiev, T. Satoor, C. Eigen, M. Gałka, and Z. Hadzibabic, (2023), arXiv:2312.09248 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M. A. Moreno-Armijos, A. R. Fritsch, A. D. García-Orozco, S. Sab, G. Telles, Y . Zhu, L. Madeira, S. Nazarenko, V . I. Yukalov, and V . S. Bagnato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 023401 (2025), arXiv:2407.11237 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Martirosyan, M

    G. Martirosyan, M. Gazo, J. Etrych, S. M. Fischer, S. J. Morris, C. J. Ho, C. Eigen, and Z. Hadzibabic, (2024), arXiv: 2410. 08204 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024

  37. [45]

    Berges, S

    J. Berges, S. Borsanyi, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 142002 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403234 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kodama, H

    T. Kodama, H. T. Elze, C. E. Aguiar, and T. Koide, Europhys. Lett. 70, 439 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0406732 [cond-mat]

    2005 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Barnett, A

    R. Barnett, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Vengalattore, Phys. Rev. A 84, 023606 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Marcuzzi, J

    M. Marcuzzi, J. Marino, A. Gambassi, and A. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 197203 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Langen, M

    T. Langen, M. Gring, M. Kuhnert, B. Rauer, R. Geiger, D. A. Smith, I. E. Mazets, and J. Schmiedmayer, Eur. Phys. J. ST 217, 43 (2013), arXiv:1211.0016 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Nessi, A

    N. Nessi, A. Iucci, and M. A. Cazalilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 210402 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Gagel, P

    P. Gagel, P. P. Orth, and J. Schmalian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 220401 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Bertini, F

    B. Bertini, F. H. L. Essler, S. Groha, and N. J. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 180601 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Babadi, E

    M. Babadi, E. Demler, and M. Knap, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041005 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Buchhold, M

    M. Buchhold, M. Heyl, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. A 94, 013601 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Berges and G

    J. Berges and G. Ho ffmeister, Nucl. Phys. B813, 383 (2009), arXiv:0809.5208 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Nowak, J

    B. Nowak, J. Schole, and T. Gasenzer, New J. Phys.16, 093052 (2014), arXiv:1206.3181v2 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hofmann, S

    J. Hofmann, S. S. Natu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 095702 (2014), arXiv:1403.1284 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Maraga, A

    A. Maraga, A. Chiocchetta, A. Mitra, and A. Gambassi, Phys. Rev. E 92, 042151 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    L. A. Williamson and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 025301 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    L. A. Williamson and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 94, 023608 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Bourges and P

    A. Bourges and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 95, 023616 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Chiocchetta, A

    A. Chiocchetta, A. Gambassi, S. Diehl, and J. Marino, Phys. Rev. B 94, 174301 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Karl and T

    M. Karl and T. Gasenzer, New J. Phys. 19, 093014 (2017), arXiv:1611.01163 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Schachner, A

    A. Schachner, A. Piñeiro Orioli, and J. Berges, Phys. Rev. A 95, 053605 (2017), arXiv:1612.03038 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R. Walz, K. Boguslavski, and J. Berges, Phys. Rev. D 97, 116011 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Schmied, A

    C.-M. Schmied, A. N. Mikheev, and T. Gasenzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 170404 (2019), arXiv:1807.07514 [cond-mat.quant- gas]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Mazeliauskas and J

    A. Mazeliauskas and J. Berges, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 122301 (2019), arXiv:1810.10554 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Schmied, M

    C.-M. Schmied, M. Prüfer, M. K. Oberthaler, and T. Gasenzer, Phys. Rev. A 99, 033611 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    L. A. Williamson and P. B. Blakie, SciPost Physics 7, 029 (2019), arXiv:1902.10792 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    C. M. Schmied, T. Gasenzer, and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 100, 033603 (2019), arXiv:1904.13222 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Spitz, J

    D. Spitz, J. Berges, M. Oberthaler, and A. Wienhard, SciPost Physics 11, 060 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    C. Gao, M. Sun, P. Zhang, and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 040403 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    M. T. Wheeler, H. Salman, and M. O. Borgh, EPL 135, 30004 (2021), arXiv:2110.02671 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Gresista, T

    L. Gresista, T. V . Zache, and J. Berges, Phys. Rev. A 105, 013320 (2022), arXiv:2107.11749 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, A. Piñeiro Orioli, and J. Marino, PNAS 119, e2122599119 (2022), arXiv:2106.00023 [cond-mat.stat- mech]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Preis, M

    T. Preis, M. P. Heller, and J. Berges, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 031602 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    I.-K. Liu, N. P. Proukakis, and G. Rigopoulos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 521, 3625 (2023), arXiv:2211.02565 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Heinen, A

    P. Heinen, A. N. Mikheev, C.-M. Schmied, and T. Gasenzer, (2022), arXiv:2212.01162 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Heinen, A

    P. Heinen, A. N. Mikheev, and T. Gasenzer, Phys. Rev. A 107, 043303 (2023), arXiv:2212.01163 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2023

  72. [80]

    Siovitz, S

    I. Siovitz, S. Lannig, Y . Deller, H. Strobel, M. K. Oberthaler, and T. Gasenzer, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 183402 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    Gliott, A

    E. Gliott, A. Rançon, and N. Cherroret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 233403 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Noel and D

    V . Noel and D. Spitz, Phys. Rev. D109, 056011 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    V . Noel, T. Gasenzer, and K. Boguslavski, (2025), arXiv: 2503.01771 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Berges, in Proc

    J. Berges, in Proc. Int. School on Strongly Interacting Quantum Systems Out of Equilibrium, Les Houches , edited by T. Giamarchi et al. (OUP, Oxford, 2016) pp. 69–206, arXiv:1503.02907 [hep-ph]. 17

    2016 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Langen, T

    T. Langen, T. Gasenzer, and J. Schmiedmayer, J. Stat. Mech. 1606, 064009 (2016), arXiv:1603.09385 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Schmied, A

    C.-M. Schmied, A. N. Mikheev, and T. Gasenzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34, 1941006 (2019), arXiv:1810.08143 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    A. N. Mikheev, I. Siovitz, and T. Gasenzer, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 232, 3393 (2023), arXiv:2304.12464 [cond-mat.quant- gas]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Köper, Approximations to the two-particle irreducible quan- tum effective action, MSc thesis, Universität Heidelberg (2023)

    H. Köper, Approximations to the two-particle irreducible quan- tum effective action, MSc thesis, Universität Heidelberg (2023)

    2023

  81. [89]

    Kawaguchi and M

    Y . Kawaguchi and M. Ueda, Phys. Rep.520, 253 (2012)

    2012

  82. [90]

    Kunkel, Splitting a Bose-Einstein condensate enables EPR steering and simultaneous readout of noncommuting observ- ables, PhD thesis, Universität Heidelberg (2019)

    P. Kunkel, Splitting a Bose-Einstein condensate enables EPR steering and simultaneous readout of noncommuting observ- ables, PhD thesis, Universität Heidelberg (2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    Gritsev, A

    V . Gritsev, A. Polkovnikov, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B 75, 174511 (2007)

    2007

  84. [92]

    Coleman, Phys

    S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2088 (1975)

    1975

  85. [93]

    Kosterlitz and D

    J. Kosterlitz and D. Thouless, J. Phys. C: Sol. St. Phys. 6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  86. [94]

    D. Amit, Y . Goldschmidt, and S. Grinstein, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 13, 585 (1980)

    1980

  87. [95]

    Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    T. Giamarchi, Quantum Physics in One Dimension (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    2003

  88. [96]

    M. A. Cazalilla, R. Citro, T. Giamarchi, E. Orignac, and M. Rigol, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1405 (2011), arXiv:1101.5337 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2011 arXiv

  89. [97]

    A. N. Mikheev, Far-from-equilibrium universal scaling dynam- ics in ultracold atomic systems and heavy-ion collisions , PhD thesis, Ruprecht-Karls Universität Heidelberg (2023)

    2023

  90. [98]

    J. W. Cahn and J. E. Hilliard, The Journal of Chemical Physics 28, 258 (1958)

    1958

  91. [99]

    Yu and P.B

    X. Yu and P.B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023043 (2021), arXiv:2008.08175v2 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2021 arXiv

  92. [100]

    S. V . Dmitriev, P. G. Panayotis, and Y . S. Kivshar, Phys. Rev. E 78, 046604 (2008)

    2008

  93. [101]

    D. K. Campbell, M. Peyrard, and P. Sodano, Physica D: Non- lin. Phen. 19, 165 (1986)

    1986

  94. [102]

    Prüfer, D

    M. Prüfer, D. Spitz, S. Lannig, H. Strobel, J. Berges, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nature Physics 18, 1459–1463 (2022)

    2022

  95. [103]

    Kunkel, M

    P. Kunkel, M. Prüfer, S. Lannig, R. Rosa-Medina, A. Bonnin, M. Gärttner, H. Strobel, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 063603 (2019)

    2019

  96. [104]

    C. D. Hamley, C. Gerving, T. M. Hoang, E. M. Bookjans, and M. S. Chapman, Nature Physics 8, 305 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.