Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Thermal amplification and melting of phases in spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates

T0 review · 3 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 Thermal fluctuations melt the supersolid stripe phase; quantum fluctuations amplify it.

desk verdict First finite-T HFB-Popov phase diagram for spin-1 Raman SO-coupled BECs; the qualitative melting story looks right, but the ST-PW boundary is computed from one-phase roton gaps and is likely a spinodal, not an equilibrium coexistence curve. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19285 v1 pith:TYWQRWRW submitted 2024-12-26 cond-mat.quant-gas

Ritu , Rajat , Arko Roy , Sandeep Gautam This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords spin-orbitcouplingspin-1Bose-EinsteincondensatesupersolidstripephaseHartree-Fock-BogoliubovtheoryPopovapproximationrotongapfinite-temperaturediagramquantumandthermalfluctuations
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 asks what happens to the supersolid stripe phase of a spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate when the gas is heated. Using Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory with the Popov approximation, the authors compute the finite-temperature phase diagram of a homogeneous three-dimensional gas and locate the phase boundaries by tracking the roton gap and the condensate momentum. They find that the stripe phase melts: as temperature rises, the stripe-to-plane-wave boundary moves to lower Raman coupling and the plane-wave-to-zero-momentum boundary moves to higher coupling, so the plane-wave phase widens at the expense of the stripe and zero-momentum phases. They also find that zero-point (quantum) fluctuations narrow the roton gap and thereby favour the stripe, while thermal fluctuations open the gap and destabilize it. The result matters because it gives a concrete prediction for how the supersolid phase of an experimentally accessible spinor gas disappears with temperature, with the quadratic Zeeman field as an extra tuning knob.

What carries the argument

The central object is the roton gap, the minimum of the lowest Bogoliubov excitation branch at a finite wavevector, evaluated self-consistently in the plane-wave or zero-momentum phase. A vanishing roton gap marks the onset of a density-wave (stripe) instability, so the gap as a function of $\Omega$ or $\epsilon$ locates the stripe-phase boundary, while the condensate momentum $k$ locates the plane-wave-to-zero-momentum boundary. The numerical machinery is the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov framework with the Popov approximation, which keeps normal thermal and quantum fluctuations but drops anomalous densities, and the coupled generalized Gross-Pitaevskii and Bogoliubov-de-Gennes equations are solved self-consistently on a momentum grid.

What would settle it

A direct finite-temperature free-energy comparison of the stripe and plane-wave states would settle the point: if the coexistence value of $\Omega$ or $\epsilon$ differs from the roton-gap closing value, or if the transition shows hysteresis, the roton-closing criterion used to draw the phase boundaries is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a homogeneous antiferromagnetic spin-1 condensate with $c_0 n = 1$ and $c_2 n = 0.1$ at a fixed quadratic Zeeman field $\epsilon = -1$, the paper reports that the critical Raman coupling $\Omega_{c1}$ for the stripe-to-plane-wave transition falls from about $1.96$ at $T = 0$ as the temperature rises, while the plane-wave-to-zero-momentum critical coupling $\Omega_{c2}$ rises from about $2.78$. The supersolid stripe phase therefore occupies a smaller region of the $T{-}\Omega$ plane at finite temperature: it melts into the plane-wave phase, and the zero-momentum phase also loses territory to the plane-wave phase. The same melting appears in the $T{-}\epsilon$ plane, both for the stripe-to-plane-wave boundary at $\Omega = 1.8$ and for the direct stripe-to-zero-momentum boundary at $\Omega = 0.2$. The paper attributes the melting to thermal fluctuations, which open the roton gap that closes at the instability; quantum fluctuations act in the opposite direction, closing the gap further and enlarging the stripe region relative to the $T=0$ mean-field prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The phase boundaries are read off from where the roton gap closes in the plane-wave (or zero-momentum) phase, which assumes that this softening, not a first-order jump or stripe-phase fluctuations, is what actually marks the transition at finite temperature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At any fixed temperature below $T_c$, the stripe supersolid survives only for Raman couplings below a threshold that decreases with temperature, so a sample that is a stripe at $T = 0$ can become a plane-wave superfluid when heated.
  • Heating widens the plane-wave phase from both sides: it consumes part of the stripe phase on the low-coupling side and part of the zero-momentum phase on the high-coupling side of the $T{-}\Omega$ diagram.
  • Varying the quadratic Zeeman field drives the same physics: at fixed $\Omega$, the stripe-to-plane-wave critical Zeeman field shifts to more negative values as $T$ rises, and at small $\Omega$ the direct stripe-to-zero-momentum boundary also shifts downward.
  • Quantum and thermal fluctuations push the stripe-to-plane-wave boundary in opposite directions, so zero-point motion strengthens supersolidity while heat destroys it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct finite-temperature free-energy comparison between the stripe and plane-wave states would test whether the roton-closing criterion coincides with the true coexistence line; the extrapolated boundaries would shift if the transition becomes first order.
  • The opposing quantum and thermal shifts imply that the stripe-to-plane-wave boundary may be non-monotonic in $T$ at very low temperature, with a slight initial strengthening of the stripe before thermal melting dominates; the paper does not resolve this regime.
  • Since the Popov approximation neglects anomalous densities, including them could move the quantitative boundary locations, especially near the roton minimum where pairing fluctuations are largest; this is a testable extension rather than a claim of the paper.
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 homogeneous three-dimensional Raman-induced spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate with repulsive interactions, using Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory with the Popov approximation. The authors solve the generalized Gross-Pitaevskii equations and Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations self-consistently at finite temperature, compute roton gaps in the plane-wave and zero-momentum phases, and extract phase boundaries between the stripe, plane-wave, and zero-momentum phases in the T-Ω and T-ε planes. They report that the supersolid stripe phase melts with increasing temperature, and that quantum fluctuations enlarge the stripe region while thermal fluctuations shrink it.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine gap in the literature: finite-temperature phase diagrams of spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 condensates, including the quadratic Zeeman field as a tunable parameter. The explicit HFB-Popov equations, the self-consistent iteration scheme, and the observation of thermal roton-gap opening are useful and reproducible in structure. If the extracted boundaries were equilibrium phase boundaries, the contrasting roles of quantum and thermal fluctuations would be an interesting and nontrivial result. However, as detailed below, the central quantitative claim is currently supported only by a spinodal construction, so the significance is conditional on additional calculation or careful reframing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 3.1-3.3, Figs. 3, 5(b), 6(c)] The ST-PW and ST-ZM boundaries are obtained exclusively from the roton gap of the homogeneous PW or ZM phase; the stripe phase is never solved at finite temperature and no free-energy comparison is made. A roton-gap closing in a one-phase calculation locates the spinodal (limit of metastability) of that phase, which coincides with the equilibrium coexistence boundary only if the transition is continuous and the second phase's free energy crosses exactly at that point. Since thermal fluctuations can make the transition first order, the reported 'melting' curves are not demonstrated to be equilibrium phase boundaries. The central claims in Sec. 4 should be either supported by a finite-temperature stripe-phase calculation with free-energy comparison, or explicitly reframed as spinodal lines.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Figs. 1(b), 2(a); Sec. 3.2 Fig. 5(a); Sec. 3.3 Fig. 6(b)] The critical points are extracted by quadratic polynomial fits and linear extrapolations of numerical data with no error bars, no fit-window sensitivity analysis, and no convergence checks with respect to the BdG grid size or box length. In particular, the PW-ZM boundary is obtained by linear extrapolation after the self-consistent iteration fails to converge near Ωc2. The reported boundary shifts (e.g., Ωc1 decreasing and Ωc2 increasing with temperature) should be accompanied by estimates of the extrapolation uncertainty; otherwise the reader cannot judge whether the shifts are physical or artifacts of the fitting procedure.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, 'Fluctuations and supersolidity' and Fig. 4] The claim that quantum fluctuations 'amplify supersolidity' is based on comparing the roton gap at T=0 with and without quantum fluctuations at a single point, Ω=2.0. This is suggestive but does not establish that the boundary shift is robust across the phase diagram, especially because the self-consistent calculation breaks down near the boundary. The authors should either provide the Ω-dependence of the gap over the full PW region or qualify the conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3] The caption states 'ϵ=1' while the text and all other figures use ϵ=-1; please correct the mismatch.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] There is a typo in 'the the PW-ZM phase boundary'; please fix.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (6)] The notation c0n and c2n is ambiguous: it should be clarified that these are dimensionless products c0 n and c2 n, not products of two symbols where n appears both as a subscript and as density.
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The box size L used for the BdG momentum grid is not stated; since the grid spacing is Δq=2π/L, L must be specified for reproducibility.
  5. [Fig. 1] The caption of the inset says 'Ω=1.96 at T=0 and T=0.4Tc'; please clarify which curves correspond to which temperature and whether Ω=1.96 lies in the PW phase at T=0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: finite-temperature phase boundaries are computed from self-consistent HFB-Popov excitation spectra, not imposed as inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The ST-PW and ST-ZM boundaries are located by computing the roton gap from the numerically solved HFB-Popov equations and finding where it closes (Sec. 3.1: 'We map the ST-PW phase boundary by examining the variation of the roton gap in the dispersion of the PW phase'; Sec. 3.2; Sec. 3.3), and the PW-ZM boundary is located from the computed condensate momentum (Sec. 3.1). The temperature dependence of these boundaries is an output of the self-consistent calculation, not an input: the roton gap at fixed Ω opens as T rises, which is why Ω_c1 is inferred to shift. The quadratic-polynomial and linear extrapolations are auxiliary devices used to locate zeros from computed data; they do not supply the physical content of the phase diagram. The stripe phase is not itself solved at finite T, and the identification of the roton-gap closing with the equilibrium boundary is an assumption inherited from the zero-temperature soft-mode criterion; that is a correctness/robustness question (e.g., spinodal vs coexistence), not a circular reduction. Self-citations ([36,41,46]) support the HFB-Popov formalism and prior applications, but the formalism is also anchored to independent literature (Griffin [45], Hugenholtz-Pines [47], and non-overlapping finite-T studies [37-40]), and no load-bearing claim rests solely on those self-citations. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is renamed as an organizing principle.

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

The central claim rests on standard finite-temperature mean-field theory and on the choice of roton-gap closure as a proxy for the phase boundary. The only fitted quantities are the polynomial extrapolations used to locate critical couplings. No new entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Interaction strengths c0n and c2n = c0n = 1, c2n = 0.1
    Chosen by hand as representative repulsive interactions for the spin-1 system; the results depend quantitatively on them.
  • Quadratic polynomial fit coefficients for roton gap = not reported
    Used to extrapolate the roton gap to zero and locate Omega_c1 and epsilon_c1 at each temperature; coefficients are fitted to numerical data.
  • Linear extrapolation slope for condensate momentum = not reported
    Used to extrapolate k(Omega) to zero and locate Omega_c2 where self-consistent iteration fails to converge.
  • Box size L for the BdG momentum grid = not specified
    The quasi-momentum step is Delta q = 2*pi/L, but L is never stated, so the ultraviolet cutoff and grid discretization of the numerics are incompletely specified.
  • Under-relaxation parameter S = 0.1
    Numerical control parameter chosen to achieve convergence near phase boundaries; not physical.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory with the Popov approximation, neglecting anomalous densities, gives accurate finite-temperature phase boundaries.
    Invoked throughout Sec. 2 and used to derive the generalized GPEs and BdG equations; this is a standard but approximate finite-T scheme.
  • domain assumption The ST-PW phase boundary is located by the closing of the roton gap in the plane-wave phase.
    Sec. 3.1: 'We map the ST-PW phase boundary by examining the variation of the roton gap in the dispersion of the PW phase.' This assumes roton softening marks the transition at all temperatures.
  • domain assumption The condensation temperature Tc is that of a three-component ideal Bose gas.
    Used to normalize temperatures in Figs. 1-6; interaction corrections to Tc are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper Quadratic and linear extrapolations of numerical data near the transition are valid.
    Sec. 3.1-3.3: critical couplings are obtained by fitting and extrapolating roton-gap and momentum data beyond the convergent regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal amplification and melting of phases in spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYWQRWRW

@misc{pith2026241219285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal amplification and melting of phases in spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYWQRWRW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19285}
}
abstract

We implement Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory with Popov approximation for a homogeneous Raman-induced spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate and investigate the effects of finite temperature ($T$) on the ground-state phase diagram. We calculate the roton gap as a function of Raman coupling ($\Omega$) or quadratic Zeeman field strength ($\epsilon$) to extract the critical points separating the supersolid stripe phase from the plane wave or zero-momentum phase at finite temperatures. We present a few representative finite-temperature phase diagrams for the system in the $T-\Omega$ and $T-\epsilon$ planes. Our observations indicate that the supersolid stripe phase melts at finite temperatures. We also discuss the contrasting roles of quantum and thermal fluctuations in shifting the phase boundary separating the supersolid stripe from the plane-wave phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19285 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The Bogoliubov excitation spectra corresponding to the lowest dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The condensate’s momentum in the PW phase as a function of the Raman [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The finite-temperature phase diagram of the Raman-induced SO-coupled spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The sound velocities and (b) the non-condensate density as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: For an SO-coupled BEC with c0n = 1, c2n = 0.1, and Ω = 1.8: (a) variation of the roton gap ∆ in the PW phase as function ϵ at different temperatures, and (b) the ST-PW phase boundary in the T − ϵ plane. temperatures as a function of the ϵ in the PW phase. At T ̸= 0 K, …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: For an SO-coupled BEC with c0n = 1, c2n = 0.1, and Ω = 0.2: (a) shows the Bogoliubov excitation spectra corresponding to the lowest dispersion band at temperature T = 0.4Tc with qy = qz = 0 for different ϵ; (b) shows the roton gap ∆ as a function of ϵ at different temp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Galitski V and Spielman I B 2013 Spin-orbit coupling in quantum gases Nature 494 49–54

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Goldman N, Juzeli¯ unas G, ¨Ohberg P and Spielman I B 2014 Light-induced gauge fields for ultracold atoms Reports on Progress in Physics77 126401

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Lin Y, Jim´ enez-Garc ´ ıa K and Spielman I B 2011 Spin–orbit-coupled Bose–Einstein condensates Nature 471 83–86

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Campbell D, Price R, Putra A, Vald´ es-Curiel A, Trypogeorgos D and Spielman I B 2016 Magnetic phases of spin-1 spin–orbit-coupled Bose gases Nat. Commun. 7 10897

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Rep.6 18983

    Luo X, Wu L, Chen J and et al 2016 Tunable atomic spin-orbit coupling synthesized with a modulating gradient magnetic field Sci. Rep.6 18983

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Recati A and Stringari S 2023 Supersolidity in ultracold dipolar gases Nature Reviews Physics 5 735–743

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Li J R, Lee J, Huang W, Burchesky S, Shteynas B, Top F C ¸ , Jamison A O and Ketterle W 2017 A stripe phase with supersolid properties in spin–orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates Nature 543 91–94

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Putra A, Salces-C´ arcoba F, Yue Y, Sugawa S and Spielman I B 2020 Spatial Coherence of Spin-Orbit-Coupled Bose Gases Phys. Rev. Lett.124 053605

    work page 2020

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Chisholm C, Hirthe S, Makhalov V, Ramos R, Vatr´ e R, Cabedo J, Celi A and Tarruell L 2024 Probing supersolidity through excitations in a spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensate arXiv:2412.13861

    2024

  2. [10]

    Martone G I and Stringari S 2021 Supersolid phase of a spin-orbit-coupled Bose- Einstein condensate: A perturbation approach SciPost Phys. 11 092

    2021

  3. [11]

    Tanzi L, Lucioni E, Fam` a F, Catani J, Fioretti A, Gabbanini C, Bisset R N, Santos L and Modugno G 2019 Observation of a Dipolar Quantum Gas with Metastable Supersolid Properties Phys. Rev. Lett.122 130405 REFERENCES 14

    2019

  4. [12]

    B¨ ottcher F, Schmidt J N, Wenzel M, Hertkorn J, Guo M, Langen T and Pfau T 2019 Transient Supersolid Properties in an Array of Dipolar Quantum Droplets Phys. Rev. X9 011051

    2019

  5. [13]

    Chomaz L, Petter D, Ilzh¨ ofer P, Natale G, Trautmann A, Politi C, Durastante G, van Bijnen R M W, Patscheider A, Sohmen M, Mark M J and Ferlaino F 2019 Long-Lived and Transient Supersolid Behaviors in Dipolar Quantum Gases Phys. Rev. X 9 021012

    2019

  6. [14]

    Guo M, B¨ ottcher F, Hertkorn J, Schmidt J N, Wenzel M, B¨ uchler H P, Langen T and Pfau T 2019 The low-energy Goldstone mode in a trapped dipolar supersolid Nature 574 386–389

    2019

  7. [15]

    Natale G, van Bijnen R M W, Patscheider A, Petter D, Mark M J, Chomaz L and Ferlaino F 2019 Excitation Spectrum of a Trapped Dipolar Supersolid and Its Experimental Evidence Phys. Rev. Lett.123 050402

    2019

  8. [16]

    L´ eonard J, Morales A, Zupancic P, Esslinger T and Donner T 2017 Supersolid formation in a quantum gas breaking a continuous translational symmetry Nature 543 87–90

    2017

  9. [17]

    Phys.22 093017

    Chiu N, Kawaguchi Y, Yip S and Lin Y 2020 Visible stripe phases in spin–orbital- angular-momentum coupled Bose–Einstein condensates New J. Phys.22 093017

    2020

  10. [18]

    Chen X L, Peng S G, Zou P, Liu X J and Hu H 2020 Angular stripe phase in spin- orbital-angular-momentum coupled Bose condensates Phys. Rev. Res.2 033152

    2020

  11. [19]

    Banger P, Rajat and Gautam S 2024 Excitations of a supersolid annular stripe phase in a spin-orbital-angular-momentum-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate arXiv:2411.17586

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Wang C, Gao C, Jian C M and Zhai H 2010 Spin-Orbit Coupled Spinor Bose- Einstein Condensates Phys. Rev. Lett.105 160403

    2010

  13. [21]

    Ho T L and Zhang S 2011 Bose-Einstein Condensates with Spin-Orbit Interaction Phys. Rev. Lett.107 150403

    2011

  14. [22]

    Li Y, Pitaevskii L P and Stringari S 2012 Quantum Tricriticality and Phase Transitions in Spin-Orbit Coupled Bose-Einstein Condensates Phys. Rev. Lett.108 225301

    2012

  15. [23]

    Li Y, Martone G I, Pitaevskii L P and Stringari S 2013 Superstripes and the Excitation Spectrum of a Spin-Orbit-Coupled Bose-Einstein CondensatePhys. Rev. Lett. 110 235302

    2013

  16. [24]

    Martone G I, Li Y, Pitaevskii L P and Stringari S 2012 Anisotropic dynamics of a spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensate Phys. Rev. A86 063621

    2012

  17. [25]

    Zheng W, Yu Z Q, Cui X and Zhai H 2013 Properties of Bose gases with the Raman-induced spin–orbit coupling J. Phys. B46 134007

    2013

  18. [26]

    S´ anchez-Baena J, Boronat J and Mazzanti F 2020 Supersolid stripes enhanced by correlations in a Raman spin-orbit-coupled system Phys. Rev. A101 043602 REFERENCES 15

    2020

  19. [27]

    Khamehchi M A, Zhang Y, Hamner C, Busch T and Engels P 2014 Measurement of collective excitations in a spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensate Phys. Rev. A 90 063624

    2014

  20. [28]

    Ji S C, Zhang L, Xu X T, Wu Z, Deng Y, Chen S and Pan J W 2015 Softening of Roton and Phonon Modes in a Bose-Einstein Condensate with Spin-Orbit Coupling Phys. Rev. Lett.114 105301

    2015

  21. [29]

    Yu Z Q 2016 Phase transitions and elementary excitations in spin-1 Bose gases with Raman-induced spin-orbit coupling Phys. Rev. A93 033648

    2016

  22. [30]

    Sun K, Qu C, Xu Y, Zhang Y and Zhang C 2016 Interacting spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates Phys. Rev. A93 023615

    2016

  23. [31]

    Martone G I, Pepe F V, Facchi P, Pascazio S and Stringari S 2016 Tricriticalities and Quantum Phases in Spin-Orbit-Coupled Spin-1 Bose Gases Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 125301

    2016

  24. [32]

    Chen L, Pu H, Yu Z Q and Zhang Y 2017 Collective excitation of a trapped Bose- Einstein condensate with spin-orbit coupling Phys. Rev. A95 033616

    2017

  25. [33]

    Geier K T, Martone G I, Hauke P and Stringari S 2021 Exciting the Goldstone Modes of a Supersolid Spin-Orbit-Coupled Bose Gas Phys. Rev. Lett.127 115301

    2021

  26. [34]

    Phys.24 073041

    Chen Y, Lyu H, Xu Y and Zhang Y 2022 Elementary excitations in a spin–orbit- coupled spin-1 Bose–Einstein condensate New J. Phys.24 073041

    2022

  27. [35]

    Geier K T, Martone G I, Hauke P, Ketterle W and Stringari S 2023 Dynamics of Stripe Patterns in Supersolid Spin-Orbit-Coupled Bose Gases Phys. Rev. Lett.130 156001

    2023

  28. [36]

    Rajat, Banger P and Gautam S 2024 Collective excitations and universal coarsening dynamics of a spin-orbit-coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates arXiv:2410.22178

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ji S C, Zhang J Y, Zhang L, Du Z D, Zheng W, Deng Y J, Zhai H, Chen S and Pan J W 2014 Experimental determination of the finite-temperature phase diagram of a spin–orbit coupled Bose gas Nature Phys.10 314–320

    2014

  30. [38]

    Yu Z Q 2014 Equation of state and phase transition in spin-orbit-coupled Bose gases at finite temperature: A perturbation approach Phys. Rev. A90 053608

    2014

  31. [39]

    Chen X L, Liu X J and Hu H 2017 Quantum and thermal fluctuations in a Raman spin-orbit-coupled Bose gas Physical Review A96 013625

    2017

  32. [40]

    Chen X L, Liu X J and Hu H 2022 Superfluidity of a Raman spin-orbit-coupled Bose gas at finite temperature Phys. Rev. A106 023302

    2022

  33. [41]

    Rajat, Ritu, Roy A and Gautam S 2024 Temperature-induced supersolidity in spin- orbit-coupled Bose gases Phys. Rev. A109 033319

    2024

  34. [42]

    Kawaguchi Y, Phuc N T and Blakie P B 2012 Finite-temperature phase diagram of a spin-1 Bose gas Phys. Rev. A85 053611 REFERENCES 16

    2012

  35. [43]

    Phuc N T, Kawaguchi Y and Ueda M 2011 Effects of thermal and quantum fluctuations on the phase diagram of a spin-1 87Rb Bose-Einstein condensate Phys. Rev. A84 043645

    2011

  36. [44]

    Stamper-Kurn D M and Ueda M 2013 Spinor Bose gases: Symmetries, magnetism, and quantum dynamics Rev. Mod. Phys.85 1191–1244

    2013

  37. [45]

    Griffin A 1996 Conserving and gapless approximations for an inhomogeneous Bose gas at finite temperatures Phys. Rev. B53 9341–9347

    1996

  38. [46]

    Rajat, Roy A and Gautam S 2022 Collective excitations in cigar-shaped spin-orbit- coupled spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates Phys. Rev. A106 013304

    2022

  39. [47]

    Rev.116 489–506

    Hugenholtz N M and Pines D 1959 Ground-State Energy and Excitation Spectrum of a System of Interacting Bosons Phys. Rev.116 489–506

    1959

  40. [48]

    Simula T, Virtanen S and Salomaa M 2001 Quantized circulation in dilute Bose–Einstein condensates Computer Physics Communications142 396–400

    2001

Pith tools

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