Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Ground State Phases and Topological Excitations of Spin-1 Bose-Einstein Condensate in Twisted Optical Lattices

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Moiré phases emerge from atom interactions in twisted spin-1 BEC.

desk verdict Solid, honest numerical extension of interaction-induced moiré to spin-1 trilayer lattices; the phase-coexistence claim is real but partly threshold-defined and should be framed more carefully. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14731 v1 pith:5JBHRYS4 submitted 2024-12-19 cond-mat.quant-gas

Tian-Tian Li , Ze-Hong Guo , Xiao-Ning Wang , Qizhong Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords spin-1Bose-Einsteincondensatetwistedopticallatticemoirépatterninteraction-inducedspinorground-statephasesGross-Pitaevskiiequationvortexpairsquenchdynamics
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 claims that a spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate loaded in a twisted trilayer optical lattice develops a moiré pattern purely from atomic interactions, with no single-particle coupling between spin states. In the ground state, the condensate splits into a periodic mosaic of local phases—ferromagnetic, antiferromagnetic, polar, and broken-axisymmetry—arranged on the moiré length scale. The same mosaic appears for both antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic interactions, and it includes phases that do not exist in the corresponding homogeneous gas. Quenching the lattice depth then generates vortex-antivortex pairs with zero total charge whose positions follow the moiré periodicity. If correct, this gives a tunable cold-atom platform for studying interaction-generated moiré physics and topological defects beyond twisted bilayer graphene.

What carries the argument

The central object is the twisted trilayer spin-dependent optical lattice: the $m=\pm1$ atoms feel two square lattices rotated by $\pm\theta/2$ while the $m=0$ atoms feel none, so the single-particle Hamiltonian has no interspin coupling. The moiré pattern is carried by the spatially varying effective Zeeman coefficients $P(\mathbf{r})=(U_{-1}(\mathbf{r})-U_1(\mathbf{r}))/2$ and $Q(\mathbf{r})=(U_{-1}(\mathbf{r})+U_1(\mathbf{r}))/2$, which act as local linear and quadratic magnetic fields. Atomic interactions—the density term $C_0 n$ and the spin term $C_1 \mathbf{f}$—mix the three components and transfer the lattice structure to the $m=0$ component, generating the interaction-induced moiré pattern. The analysis uses the local density approximation to compare each local patch with the uniform spin-1 phase diagram, and the quench dynamics of the same Gross-Pitaevskii equations produce the vortex pairs.

What would settle it

Imaging the local transverse and longitudinal magnetization of an antiferromagnetic spin-1 condensate in the proposed twisted trilayer lattice at $\theta=\pi/30$ with $V_0=15.0E_r$, $V_1=V_2=12.5E_r$, $C_0 n=1.936E_r$, $C_1 n=0.007E_r$ should reveal the predicted moiré-periodic mosaic of FM, AFM, P, and BA phases, including BA regions with $|f_+|\ge 0.05$ that the homogeneous phase diagram forbids; a quench from $V_0=1.5E_r$ to $V_0=1.15E_r$ should produce vortex-antivortex pairs with zero net charge at moiré-periodic positions, observable with magnetization-sensitive phase-contrast imaging.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a spin-1 condensate in a quasi-2D harmonic trap with two square optical lattices rotated by $\pm\theta/2$ relative to each other (relative angle $\theta=\pi/30$) acting on the $m=\pm1$ spin components and no lattice on $m=0$, the three components are coupled only through the density and spin interactions. Numerically solving the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equations by imaginary-time evolution, the paper finds that all three components develop density and magnetization patterns with moiré periodicity, even though the single-particle Hamiltonian contains no interspin coupling. Examining the local transverse magnetization $|f_+|$ and longitudinal magnetization $f_z$, and classifying each spatial region with thresholds $\epsilon=\delta=0.05$, the ground state is partitioned into coexisting FM, AFM, P, and BA phases whose boundaries follow the effective local Zeeman coefficients $P(\mathbf{r})$ and $Q(\mathbf{r})$. This mosaic appears for both antiferromagnetic ($C_1>0$) and ferromagnetic ($C_1<0$) interactions; spatial inhomogeneity and the kinetic energy cost allow the BA phase to appear in an antiferromagnetic gas and the AFM phase in a ferromagnetic gas, both forbidden in the homogeneous phase diagram. Starting from a polar-phase-dominated ground state and suddenly quenching the lattice potential to parameters favoring the BA phase, the real-time evolution shows vortex-antivortex pairs with total charge zero emerging in the transverse-magnetization phase profile, positioned according to the moiré period, with the pairs being created and annihilated in quasi-periodic oscillations linked to spin-mixing dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that at twist angle $\theta=\pi/30$ each local patch of the inhomogeneous condensate behaves like a uniform spin-1 gas with the local Zeeman coefficients $P(\mathbf{r})$ and $Q(\mathbf{r})$, and that the chosen magnetization thresholds $\epsilon=\delta=0.05$ faithfully separate the phases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For both antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic spin-1 condensates, all four homogeneous ground-state phases can be present simultaneously in a single inhomogeneous ground state, with the BA phase (for antiferromagnetic) or the AFM phase (for ferromagnetic) appearing only because of the kinetic energy cost of spatial inhomogeneity.
  • The moiré phase pattern and the positions of quench-generated vortex pairs are both set by the moiré period, so lattice depths $V_1$ and $V_2$ (through $P(\mathbf{r})$ and $Q(\mathbf{r})$) provide direct experimental knobs for reshaping the phase mosaic.
  • Vortex pairs created by the quench always have zero total topological charge, and their creation and annihilation recur periodically in time due to spin-mixing dynamics, so the same experimental setup can produce and detect persistent topological excitations.
  • Because the moiré pattern arises from interactions rather than single-particle coupling, its appearance and phase texture should persist as long as density and spin interactions are present, independent of any interspin tunneling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not in the paper: reducing the twist angle should enlarge the moiré period and therefore the spatial size of each phase domain, making the local density approximation more accurate while slowing the spin-mixing oscillations that drive vortex dynamics; this scaling is a testable prediction.
  • Not in the paper: the same interaction-generated moiré mechanism should extend to spin-2 or higher-spin condensates, where additional phases and richer spin textures could appear in the local phase mosaic.
  • Not in the paper: the threshold-based phase classification could be replaced by computing local order parameters such as the spin-nematic tensor, which would distinguish polar from broken-axisymmetry regions without arbitrary cutoffs.
  • Not in the paper: the persistence of vortex-pair oscillations suggests that measuring their frequency as a function of $C_1$ would directly probe whether local spin-mixing rates, rather than the quench speed, control defect dynamics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a quasi-2D spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate in a spin-dependent twisted optical lattice: the m=±1 components experience two square lattices rotated by angle θ, the m=0 component experiences no lattice, and there is no single-particle interspin coupling. Solving the Gross-Pitaevskii equations in imaginary and real time, the authors find interaction-induced moiré density patterns, classify the ground state into local FM, AFM, P, and BA phases using thresholds on the transverse and longitudinal spin densities, and report that such phase coexistence occurs for both ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions. They also study quench dynamics and observe vortex-antivortex pairs whose spatial distribution follows the moiré periodicity.

Significance. If the central claims are robust, this is a timely numerical proposal that connects spinor BEC physics to moiré lattice physics and suggests a concrete experimental route based on existing twisted optical lattice setups. The paper is explicit about the model, the parameter values, and the distinction between interaction-induced and single-particle-induced moiré patterns, and it treats both signs of the spin-dependent interaction. The main weakness is that the phase-coexistence claim rests on a threshold-based classification that is not independently validated against the homogeneous phase diagram, and the local-density interpretation is asserted rather than quantitatively checked. For these reasons the significance of the result is currently conditional; the central claims are plausible but not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.B, Fig. 3(f)] The identification of the BA phase through the single criterion |f+| ≥ ε is definitional rather than diagnostic. For C1 > 0 the BA phase is not a ground state of the homogeneous Hamiltonian, as the authors themselves note, so labeling any region with |f+| > 0.05 as BA does not connect this region to the homogeneous phase diagram invoked by the local density approximation. The comparison of ε=δ=0.03 with ε=δ=0.05 is not a convincing robustness test because both thresholds are close and may both fall inside the same continuum of partially polarized spinors. I ask the authors to quantify the area fractions of each phase over a wider threshold range (for example 0.01, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20) and to compare the local labels with the order parameters obtained from the constrained uniform problem at the local values of P(r) and Q(r). Without this, the statement that all homogeneous phases appear is not established beyond the threshold convention.
  2. [Section III.B, LDA justification] The central interpretation rests on the local density approximation for θ=π/30, but no quantitative check of this approximation is provided. At this twist angle the moiré period is roughly 10λ, and the harmonic trap of frequency ω≈2π×410 Hz introduces another length scale; it is not shown that the local density and spin order parameters actually track the local P(r) and Q(r). Please estimate the kinetic energy cost, test at least one smaller twist angle (for example θ=π/60) or a region away from the trap center, and report convergence with respect to grid spacing, time step, and box size. Without such checks, the claim that the observed pattern is a local-phase mosaic rather than a finite-size or kinetic artifact is not fully supported.
  3. [Section III.B and Appendix A] The claim that BA (for C1 > 0) and AFM (for C1 < 0) phases are induced by kinetic energy is asserted but not demonstrated. A direct test would be to compare the imaginary-time ground state with the pointwise minimum of the local uniform energy functional at the local P(r) and Q(r), excluding the kinetic term. Regions where the labels differ from this local-minimum solution would identify genuinely kinetic-energy-induced phases, whereas regions where they coincide would show that the labels merely reflect the local Zeeman fields. Such a comparison would also separate the statement 'all homogeneous phases appear' from the threshold convention and would make the novelty claim about new phases much stronger.
  4. [Section IV, Figs. 5 and 8] The vortex-pair claim is supported only by visual inspection of the arg f+ color maps. Please provide a quantitative winding-number calculation (for example by integrating ∇arg f+ around plaquettes) to confirm that the detected objects carry charges ±1 and that the total charge is zero, and define the criterion by which the creation and annihilation is called 'periodic' (for example, a time trace of the vortex number or a Fourier analysis). The reported times t=19.65 ms and t=59.19 ms would be considerably more convincing with such an analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II, Fig. 2 reference] The text refers to 'Fig. ??' when discussing P(r) and Q(r); the cross-reference should be fixed.
  2. [Throughout] The trap frequency is denoted by w in the figure captions but by ω in Eq. (1); the notation should be unified.
  3. [Section III.B] The 'major value' criterion for distinguishing the AFM phase from the P phase is not precisely defined; please specify whether it is based on the population fractions and what numerical threshold is used.
  4. [Section II] The explicit expressions for P(r) and Q(r) in terms of U1(r) and U−1(r) are described in words but not written; adding the explicit formulas would make Fig. 2 and the later analysis easier to follow.
  5. [Section IV, Fig. 5] The text says the quench is from V0=1.5Er to V0=1.15Er and that the final ground state is BA-dominated, but the physical reason why decreasing the lattice depth drives the system from P-dominated to BA-dominated is not discussed; a brief explanation would help.
  6. [Title and abstract] The term 'twisted trilayer' may be misleading because the m=0 component experiences no lattice potential; the manuscript should clarify in what sense this is a three-layer system.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Phase-coexistence claim reduces to threshold-based labeling: 'BA phase' is defined by |f+|≥ε, so its 'emergence' is by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section III.B, phase classification text (after Fig. 3)]
    "We set the thresholds ϵ and δ to define the ranges within which the transverse and longitudinal magnetization deviate from the homogeneous case, respectively... a phase with transverse magnetization |f+| ≥ ϵ is classified as the BA phase... By examining Fig. 3(f) and Figs. 4(a)-(d), one observes four distinct local phases... all the phases found in the homogeneous system also appear in the moiré inhomogeneous system under specific conditions. The BA phase, absent in the homogeneous system with antiferromagnetic interaction (C1 > 0), emerges in this inhomogeneous system."

    The 'BA phase' is not a ground state of the homogeneous AFM Hamiltonian (the paper concedes this), so its claimed 'emergence' cannot come from the LDA comparison to homogeneous phases. Instead, BA is defined operationally by the threshold |f+|≥ε. Therefore the headline statement that all four homogeneous phases coexist is, for BA, equivalent to the computed transverse magnetization exceeding a user-chosen ε somewhere; the phase label is imposed by the same rule that is then cited as evidence. The underlying |f+| and fz maps are genuine numerical outputs, and the FM/AFM/P labels also depend on the arbitrary ε, δ thresholds and the 'major value' criterion.

full rationale

The only load-bearing step that reduces to its own input is the phase classification in Section III.B. The paper defines BA by the threshold |f+|≥ε and then reports the appearance of BA in the AFM case as a finding, even though BA is not a homogeneous ground state for C1>0. Thus the central claim that all four homogeneous phases coexist is, for the BA component, equivalent to the chosen threshold being exceeded in the computed |f+| map. The GP-computed order parameters and the vortex-pair quench dynamics are genuine numerical results, and the self-citations (refs [32], [48], [55]) are background rather than load-bearing. However, because the main phase-coexistence claim is not anchored to an independent energetic criterion and the robustness check covers only two closely spaced thresholds, the headline phase-pattern result is partially circular by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several hand-chosen parameters (interaction strengths, lattice depths, twist angle, classification thresholds) and on domain assumptions such as the validity of the GP mean-field description and the local density approximation. No genuinely new physical entities are introduced; the twisted trilayer lattice is a new setup built from existing ingredients.

free parameters (7)
  • C0 n = 1.936 Er
    Density-density interaction strength times peak density; chosen without derivation.
  • C1 n (antiferromagnetic) = 0.007 Er
    Spin-dependent interaction strength for the AFM case; chosen small and positive.
  • C1 n (ferromagnetic) = -0.007 Er (main) and -0.0007 Er (Fig. 8)
    Spin-dependent interaction strength for the FM case; negative values chosen by hand.
  • Lattice depths V0, V1, V2 = V0 = 15 Er, V1 = V2 = 7.5-14.5 Er; quench from 1.5 Er to 1.15 Er with V1 = V2 = 1.11 Er
    Lattice depths and detunings set by hand to place the system in the desired phase regimes.
  • Twist angle θ = π/30
    Small angle chosen so the local density approximation applies.
  • Phase classification thresholds ε, δ = 0.05 (and 0.03 in robustness tests)
    Thresholds on |f+| and fz used to assign local phases; the phase pattern depends on these thresholds.
  • Harmonic trap frequency ω = 2π × 410 Hz (ground state) and 2π × 360 Hz (quench)
    Trap frequency chosen to confine the cloud; not systematically varied.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii description is valid for the spin-1 BEC in the twisted optical lattice.
    The paper models the system with GP equations (Eq. 5) and does not discuss beyond-mean-field corrections.
  • domain assumption Local density approximation: each local region behaves like a uniform system with local linear and quadratic Zeeman coefficients P(r) and Q(r).
    Stated in Section III.B as the basis for classifying local phases; accuracy is assumed for small twist angles.
  • standard math The homogeneous spin-1 BEC phase diagram with linear and quadratic Zeeman terms is correct.
    The four homogeneous phases and their criteria are taken from Ref. [47] and used as the classification reference.
  • domain assumption The twisted spin-dependent lattice potentials can be generated experimentally as demonstrated for bilayer square lattices in Ref. [29].
    The proposal relies on extending the experimental technique of Ref. [29] to a trilayer spin-1 configuration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ground State Phases and Topological Excitations of Spin-1 Bose-Einstein Condensate in Twisted Optical Lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5JBHRYS4

@misc{pith2026241214731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ground State Phases and Topological Excitations of Spin-1 Bose-Einstein Condensate in Twisted Optical Lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5JBHRYS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14731}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, the simulation of moir\'e physics using cold atom platforms has gained significant attention. These platforms provide an opportunity to explore novel aspects of moir\'e physics that go beyond the limits of traditional condensed matter systems. Building on recent experimental advancements in creating twisted bilayer spin-dependent optical lattices for pseudospin-1/2 Bose gases, we extend this concept to a trilayer optical lattice for spin-1 Bose gases. Unlike conventional moir\'e patterns, which are typically induced by interlayer tunneling or interspin coupling, the moir\'e pattern in this trilayer system arises from inter-species atomic interactions. We investigate the ground state of Bose-Einstein condensates loaded in this spin-1 twisted optical lattice under both ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions. We find that the ground state forms a periodic pattern of distinct phases in the homogeneous case, including ferromagnetic, antiferromagnetic, polar, and broken axial symmetry phases. Additionally, by quenching the optical lattice potential strength, we examine the quench dynamics of the system above the ground state and observe the emergence of topological excitations such as vortex pairs. This study provides a pathway for exploring the rich physics of spin-1 twisted optical lattices and expands our understanding of moir\'e systems in synthetic quantum platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14731 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lattice potential experienced by spin-1 BEC (the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The spatial variation of the coefficients of effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) The ground state properties of antiferromagnetic spin-1 BEC in twisted optical lattice potentials. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) The spatial distribution of local phases for antiferromagnetic spin-1 BEC under different lattice depths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online) Evolution of wave functions and transverse magnetization of antiferromagnetic spin-1 BEC in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) The ground state properties of ferromagnetic spin-1 BEC in twisted optical lattice potentials. (a)-(c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Color online) The ground state phases of ferromagnetic spin-1 BEC under different lattice depths. The first and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Color online) Evolution of wave functions and magnetization of ferromagnetic spin-1 BEC in the twisted optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, 9 (a) (e) (d) (h) (b) (f) (c) (g) Figure 7. (Color online) The ground state phases of ferromagnetic spin-1 BEC under different lattice depths. The first and second rows correspond to threshold ϵ = δ = 0.03 and ϵ = δ = 0.05, respectively. The interaction strength C1n = −0.007Er and other parameters are ...

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Bistritzer and A

    R. Bistritzer and A. H. MacDonald, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 12233 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    G. Chen, L. Jiang, S. Wu, B. Lyu, H. Li, B. L. Chittari, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Z. Shi, J. Jung, Y. Zhang, and F. Wang, Nat. Phys. 15, 237 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Codecido, Q

    E. Codecido, Q. Wang, R. Koester, S. Che, H. Tian, R. Lv, S. Tran, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Zhang, M. Bockrath, and C. N. Lau, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw9770 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    A. L. Sharpe, E. J. Fox, A. W. Barnard, J. Finney, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. A. Kastner, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Science 365, 605 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Kerelsky, L

    A. Kerelsky, L. J. McGilly, D. M. Kennes, L. Xian, M. Yankowitz, S. Chen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, C. Dean, A. Rubio, and A. N. Pasupathy, Na- ture 572, 95 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    N. P. Wilson, W. Yao, J. Shan, and X. Xu, Nature 599, 383 (2021)

    2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    T. Li, S. Jiang, B. Shen, Y. Zhang, L. Li, Z. Tao, T. De- vakul, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Fu, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Nature 600, 641 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    H. Yu, M. Chen, and W. Yao, Natl. Sci. Rev.7, 12 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    F. Wu, T. Lovorn, E. Tutuc, I. Martin, and A. H. Mac- Donald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 086402 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Devakul, V

    T. Devakul, V. Cr´ epel, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Nat. Com- mun. 12, 6730 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Y. Zeng, Z. Xia, K. Kang, J. Zhu, P. Kn¨ uppel, C. Vaswani, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Nature 622, 69 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    F. Xu, Z. Sun, T. Jia, C. Liu, C. Xu, C. Li, Y. Gu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Tong, J. Jia, Z. Shi, S. Jiang, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031037 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Li, W.-X

    B. Li, W.-X. Qiu, and F. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 109, L041106 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    H. Park, J. Cai, E. Anderson, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Liu, C. Wang, W. Holtzmann, C. Hu, Z. Liu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J.-H. Chu, T. Cao, L. Fu, W. Yao, C.-Z. Chang, D. Cobden, D. Xiao, and X. Xu, Nature 622, 74 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    J. Cai, E. Anderson, C. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Liu, W. Holtzmann, Y. Zhang, F. Fan, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y. Ran, T. Cao, L. Fu, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature 622, 63 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Huang, F

    C. Huang, F. Ye, X. Chen, Y. V. Kartashov, V. V. Kono- top, and L. Torner, Sci. Rep. 6, 32546 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    P. Wang, Y. Zheng, X. Chen, C. Huang, Y. V. Kartashov, L. Torner, V. V. Konotop, and F. Ye, Nature 577, 42 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Q. Fu, P. Wang, C. Huang, Y. V. Kartashov, L. Torner, V. V. Konotop, and F. Ye, Nat. Photonics14, 663 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    A. A. Arkhipova, Y. V. Kartashov, S. K. Ivanov, S. A. Zhuravitskii, N. N. Skryabin, I. V. Dyakonov, A. A. Kalinkin, S. P. Kulik, V. O. Kompanets, S. V. Chekalin, F. Ye, V. V. Konotop, L. Torner, and V. N. Zadkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 083801 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Wu, Z.-K

    S.-Q. Wu, Z.-K. Lin, B. Jiang, X. Zhou, Z. H. Hang, 10 t=11.63ms (b) (a) (c) t=19.65ms t=40.57ms t=58.96ms (e) quench (f) (d) PBA Figure 8. (Color online) Evolution of wave functions and magnetization of ferromagnetic spin-1 BEC in the twisted optical lattice following the ins...

    2022

  15. [23]

    G. Duan, S. Zheng, J. Zhang, Z. Jiang, X. Man, D. Yu, and B. Xia, Appl. Phys. Lett. 123, 021702 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Oudich, X

    M. Oudich, X. Kong, T. Zhang, C. Qiu, and Y. Jing, Nat. Mater. 23, 1169 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Soltan-Panahi, J

    P. Soltan-Panahi, J. Struck, P. Hauke, A. Bick, W. Plenkers, G. Meineke, C. Becker, P. Windpassinger, M. Lewenstein, and K. Sengstock, Nat. Phys. 7, 434 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    G.-B. Jo, J. Guzman, C. K. Thomas, P. Hosur, A. Vish- wanath, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 045305 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Luo and C

    X.-W. Luo and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 103201 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Lee and J

    J. Lee and J. H. Pixley, SciPost Phys. 13, 033 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Z. Meng, L. Wang, W. Han, F. Liu, K. Wen, C. Gao, P. Wang, C. Chin, and J. Zhang, Nature615, 231 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 100, 053604 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Madro˜ nero, G

    C. Madro˜ nero, G. A. D. Castro, and R. Paredes, (2024), arXiv:2405.00811

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J.-H. Zeng, Q. Zhu, and L. He, (2024), arXiv:2405.20732

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. Wang, C. Gao, J. Zhang, H. Zhai, and Z.-Y. Shi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 163401 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    R. Tian, Y. Zhang, T. Wu, M. Liu, Y.-C. Zhang, S. Li, and B. Liu, (2024), arXiv:2407.21466

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ho, Phys

    T.-L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 742 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    Ohmi and K

    T. Ohmi and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 1822 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    Stenger, S

    J. Stenger, S. Inouye, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Mies- ner, A. P. Chikkatur, and W. Ketterle, Nature 396, 345 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    J. M. Park, Y. Cao, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 590, 249 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Z. Zhu, S. Carr, D. Massatt, M. Luskin, and E. Kaxiras, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 116404 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Y. Bai, Y. Li, S. Liu, Y. Guo, J. Pack, J. Wang, C. R. Dean, J. Hone, and X. Zhu, Nano Lett. 23, 11621 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    H. He, Z. Gong, Q.-J. Tong, D. Zhai, W. Yao, and X.-T. An, (2024), arXiv:2410.05197

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    W. H. Zurek, Nature 317, 505 (1985)

    1985

  35. [43]

    Damski, Phys

    B. Damski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 035701 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Damski and W

    B. Damski and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130402 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Anquez, B

    M. Anquez, B. A. Robbins, H. M. Bharath, M. Bogus- lawski, T. M. Hoang, and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 155301 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    D. S. Petrov, M. Holzmann, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2551 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    Kawaguchi and M

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

    2012

  40. [48]

    Q. Tong, H. Yu, Q. Zhu, Y. Wang, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Nat. Phys. 13, 356 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    L. E. Sadler, J. M. Higbie, S. R. Leslie, M. Vengalattore, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Nature 443, 312 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    Saito, Y

    H. Saito, Y. Kawaguchi, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 76, 043613 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    Widera, F

    A. Widera, F. Gerbier, S. F¨ olling, T. Gericke, O. Mandel, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 190405 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    Zhang, D

    W. Zhang, D. L. Zhou, M.-S. Chang, M. S. Chapman, and L. You, Phys. Rev. A 72, 013602 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    K. W. Mahmud and E. Tiesinga, Phys. Rev. A88, 023602 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    D. M. Stamper-Kurn and M. Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1191 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Zhu, Q.-f

    Q. Zhu, Q.-f. Sun, and B. Wu, Phys. Rev. A 91, 023633 11 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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