Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Supersolid dipolar phases in planar geometry: effects of tilted polarization

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tilted polarization can replace one critical point with three critical lines in a dipolar supersolid phase diagram.

desk verdict A solid, well-benchmarked mean-field study whose main topology claim rests on a restricted lattice-symmetry ansatz that the paper does not test; worth refereeing with that caveat pressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09641 v1 pith:JGCLCRSM submitted 2025-01-16 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.othercond-mat.stat-mech

Daniel Lima , Matheus Grossklags , Vinicius Zampronio , Fabio Cinti , Alejandro Mendoza-Coto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.othercond-mat.stat-mech PACS 67.85.-d03.75.Hh
keywords dipolarBose-Einsteincondensatessupersolidstiltedpolarizationphasediagramcriticallinesstripeshexagonalandhoneycombphasesanisotropicsuperfluidity
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 studies a planar (quasi-2D) dipolar Bose-Einstein condensate and asks what happens when the polarization direction is tilted relative to the plane's normal. For strictly perpendicular polarization, the known phase diagram shows hexagonal, stripes, and honeycomb supersolid phases meeting at a single critical point. The paper claims that any in-plane polarization component destroys this point and replaces it with three critical lines, each separating two phases, with first- and second-order segments and two triple points. The tilt also compresses the hexagonal lattice and stretches the honeycomb lattice along the in-plane polarization axis, making the superfluid fraction direction-dependent: superfluidity is enhanced along the tilt direction and suppressed perpendicular to it. If correct, this gives a practical handle for tuning both the order of supersolid transitions and the anisotropy of supersolid transport in ultracold dipolar gases.

What carries the argument

The central object is an effective 2D mean-field energy functional for the in-plane condensate wave function, obtained by integrating out a Thomas–Fermi transverse profile and expressing the dipole–dipole interaction through an effective potential with Fourier kernel F(qx, qy, α) = ∫ dq/2π [3(−q cos q + sin q)/$q^{3}$]^2 ($q_y^{2}$ + (q_x − q tan α)^2)/($q_y^{2}$ + $q^{2}$ + (q_x − q tan α)^2), together with the Lee–Huang–Yang quantum-fluctuation term. The variational search compares three ansätze: the homogeneous state, stripes oriented along the in-plane polarization (the x-axis), and hexagonal lattices that can be compressed or stretched along the same axis via the angle θ. Minimizing over Fourier amplitudes, the modulation wavevector k0, and θ locates the phases. The superfluid fraction tensor is computed by solving ∇·(ρ(r)∇Ki) = ∂ρ(r)/∂xi through minimization of a convex action, which needs only the Fourier harmonics present in ∂ρ(r)/∂xi.

What would settle it

Perform an unconstrained ground-state search on the same mean-field functional, allowing arbitrary lattice symmetries, oblique wavevectors, and stripe orientations not aligned with the in-plane polarization. If any pattern outside the three ansätze has lower energy in the regions the paper assigns to compressed hexagonal, stripes, or stretched honeycomb—especially near the two triple points—then the three-critical-lines topology is not the complete ground-state diagram.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the ground-state phase diagram of a planar dipolar Bose gas with polarization tilted by angle α from the plane normal is organized by three critical lines instead of the single critical point present at α = 0. In the density–scattering-length plane (ρ, as/add), the homogeneous superfluid meets the stripes phase along one continuous critical line, while a compressed-hexagonal phase and a stretched-honeycomb phase each meet the stripes phase along their own critical lines; first-order transitions continue these boundaries away from criticality, and triple points mark where homogeneous, stripes, and each lattice phase coexist. The same effective anisotropy along the in-plane polarization deforms the density patterns, giving the lattice spacing ratio Dx/Dd = 2 sin(θ), with the hexagonal phase more strongly deformed than the honeycomb phase. The authors compute the resulting superfluid fraction tensor and find that f_xx increases and f_yy decreases with α in the lattice phases, while the stripes phase keeps f_xx = 1. A converged many-mode calculation for α = 30° confirms the single-mode topology, with the stripes–homogeneous critical line unaffected by higher-order harmonics.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation compares only three ansätze—homogeneous, stripes fixed along the in-plane polarization, and hexagonal lattices deformed only along that same axis—so if some oblique, rotated, or square lattice has lower energy anywhere in the (ρ, as/add) plane, the reported phase boundaries and even the critical-line topology could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any nonzero in-plane polarization component, the single α = 0 critical point splits into three critical lines and two triple points, changing the topology of the supersolid phase diagram.
  • The homogeneous-to-stripes transition becomes second order over a wide intermediate-density region, resembling phase diagrams of quasi-one-dimensional dipolar systems.
  • The hexagonal and honeycomb phases are axially deformed along the in-plane polarization direction, with the spacing ratio set by Dx/Dd = 2 sin(θ), producing anisotropic long-distance properties.
  • In the deformed lattice phases, the superfluid fraction increases along the in-plane polarization direction and decreases perpendicular to it; stripes remain fully superfluid along the stripe direction.
  • The parameter regime is compatible with current experiments using 162Dy, with lattice spacings around 4.6 µm, making the predicted anisotropic superfluidity experimentally accessible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The splitting of the critical point can be understood as the in-plane tilt breaking the rotational degeneracy of the soft mode: a free-energy expansion around the multicritical point should reproduce the fan of three critical lines and the two triple points.
  • Because the contrast of the density modulation changes little while f_xx and f_yy diverge with α, superfluid anisotropy is not simply a proxy for modulation depth; measuring dipole-oscillation frequencies or moment of inertia along x and y could test the predicted directional response.
  • The paper's restriction to three ansätze leaves room for oblique or square modulated states; an unconstrained ground-state search near the triple points could either confirm the topology or reveal additional phases that the present variational family misses.
  • The mechanism is generic for long-range interacting planar systems: any in-plane easy axis in a dipolar supersolid should generically induce anisotropic superfluidity and split degenerate multicritical points.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a quasi-2D dipolar Bose gas harmonically confined along z, with the polarization direction tilted by an angle α from the normal. The authors minimize an extended Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional including LHY quantum fluctuations, using a Thomas-Fermi ansatz in the transverse direction and three planar variational families: homogeneous, stripes with wavevector along y, and centered-rectangular lattices obtained by uniaxial compression/stretching of hexagonal/honeycomb states. Their central claim is that for α>0 the single critical point of the α=0 phase diagram is replaced by three critical lines, two triple points, and phase boundaries containing both first- and second-order segments. They further report that tilting deforms the hexagonal and honeycomb patterns along the in-plane polarization direction and makes the superfluid fraction tensor anisotropic. A many-mode spectral calculation at α=30° is presented as a check of the single-mode phase diagram.

Significance. If the central topology claim holds, the paper significantly extends the known phase diagram of planar dipolar supersolids and makes concrete, experimentally testable predictions for the lattice spacing and superfluid anisotropy of 162Dy samples. The work has genuine strengths: the α=0 limit reproduces the previously established hexagonal/stripes/honeycomb diagram; the energy functional is minimized from first principles with no experimental input; the superfluid fraction is computed from the ground-state density via a well-defined auxiliary problem; and the many-mode check at α=30° is a good-faith convergence test. The main reservation is that the phase diagram is obtained by comparing only three symmetry-restricted variational families, so the claimed topology is conditional on an untested lattice-symmetry assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The ground-state search is restricted to homogeneous states, stripes with wavevector along y, and centered-rectangular lattices with basis vectors e1=(0,1) and e2=(1/2 cot θ, -1/2). This family has no shear (oblique) degree of freedom and forces reflection symmetry about the x and y axes. Because tilting the polarization breaks continuous rotational symmetry, competing oblique, rotated-stripe, square, or other lattice symmetries are not excluded a priori. All phase boundaries in Fig. 2 are obtained by comparing energies within this restricted set, so the central claim of three critical lines and two triple points is conditional. I ask for a concrete test, e.g., a variational calculation with a general oblique lattice (allowing e2=(a,b)) and with a rotated stripe orientation at α=30°, or an imaginary-time real-space evolution; if an excluded symmetry wins anywhere in the (ρ, as/add) plane, the reported topology must be revised.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 2 and Sec. IV, Fig. 3] The phase diagrams for all α values in Fig. 2 are computed in the single-mode approximation, retaining only the first Fourier harmonic of each ansatz. The many-mode comparison in Fig. 3 is performed only at α=30°. While this check supports the topology at that angle, it does not validate the evolution of the critical lines and first-order boundaries as α is varied, in particular the convergence back to a single critical point as α→0. I request many-mode calculations for at least one additional tilt angle, or a quantitative error estimate for the single-mode boundaries over the full α range shown.
  3. [Sec. II.A, text after Eq. (7)] The transverse Thomas-Fermi width σ is minimized only for the homogeneous solution and then reused for the stripes, hexagonal, and honeycomb ansätze. Since σ enters the LHY term as σ^{-3/2} and multiplies all interaction terms, this approximation can bias the relative energies of the modulated phases and shift the reported boundaries. The statement that σ 'does not differ significantly' is not quantified. I ask for a test in which σ is an independent variational parameter for each modulated phase, or at least a numerical comparison of the optimized vs. homogeneous σ at representative points in the phase diagram.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III] The phrase 'all transition lines contain first- and second-order regions' is not defined precisely; please clarify whether each phase boundary changes order at an isolated critical point or whether the statement refers only to the three critical lines.
  2. [Sec. IV] The claim that the single-mode approximation becomes exact for the stripes-homogeneous boundary is asserted rather than derived; a short argument showing that higher harmonics vanish at that boundary would strengthen the statement.
  3. [Eq. (6)] The derivation of the effective potential F(qx,qy,α) is compressed; in particular, the scaling of qx and qy by σ/cos(α) and its relation to the rotated coordinate system would benefit from an explicit intermediate step.
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The pink stripe marking the transition region is said to have width 1°, but the criterion used to locate the transition from the computed data is not specified; please state how the transition point and the width were determined.
  5. [References] References [60] and [64] are the same paper by Blakie; please merge them to avoid duplicate citations.
  6. [General] There are minor typographical issues, including 'anzats' for 'ansatz' in Sec. II.C and inconsistent use of 'C.P.'/'T.P.' acronyms in the figure captions; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central phase diagram is obtained by variational minimization of an explicit energy functional, benchmarked at alpha=0 against external works, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the extended Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional (Eq. 1), substitutes a product ansatz (Eq. 3) with a Thomas-Fermi transverse profile (Eq. 4), and then minimizes the resulting energy over three explicitly stated variational families (Eqs. 7-9). The phase diagram in Figs. 2-3 is the output of this minimization, not an input. The zero-tilt limit is checked against the independent results of Zhang et al. [48] and Ripley et al. [49], so the alpha=0 benchmark is externally anchored. The central new claim, that a tilt turns the critical point into three critical lines, follows from the tilt-dependent effective interaction Veff in Eq. (6) and the subsequent energy comparison, not from any fitted parameter. The superfluid tensor is computed from the standard definition (Eqs. 10-12) using the ground-state density, again without fitting. The self-citations in the introduction are background references and are not load-bearing for the main derivation. The only notable assumption is the restriction of the variational search to homogeneous, x-oriented stripes, and axially deformed hexagonal/honeycomb Ansatze (Eqs. 8-9); this is an approximation and robustness limitation rather than a circular step, because the paper does not define its predictions in terms of that choice. Hence no circularity.

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

The paper's central claim rests on a mean-field energy functional, a Thomas-Fermi transverse factorization, and variational ansätze restricted to hexagonal/stripe symmetries. No free parameters are fitted to external data; all variational parameters are determined by energy minimization, with ω=0.08 chosen as an experimentally realistic trap. The main unvalidated load-bearing choice is the symmetry-restricted ansatz and single-mode truncation for most phase diagrams.

free parameters (3)
  • trap frequency ω = 0.08 (dimensionless)
    Chosen by hand as an experimentally realistic confinement; the phase diagram is computed only at this value, so quantitative boundaries could depend on this choice.
  • transverse width σ = not reported; variational optimum of homogeneous energy
    The modulated-phase calculations reuse the homogeneous σ (Sec. II A), an approximation that affects the effective potential and the energy balance between phases.
  • lattice distortion angle θ and wavevector k0 = energy-minimized per phase
    Variational parameters in Eq. (9) controlling Dx/Dd; they are optimized, not fitted to data, but they define the limited set of candidate lattice geometries.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 3D ground state factorizes as ψ = ϕ(x,y) χ(z⊥)/√A with a Thomas-Fermi transverse profile χ²(z⊥) (Eqs. 3-4).
    This reduction from 3D to 2D is the foundation of the effective potential Veff in Eqs. (5)-(6); it neglects transverse kinetic energy and assumes the transverse profile is independent of the in-plane density modulation.
  • domain assumption The energy functional in Eq. (1) with the Lee-Huang-Yang term is the correct zero-temperature description of a dipolar BEC in this regime.
    Standard extended Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field approximation; omits beyond-LHY correlations and nonlocal quantum fluctuations.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground states are confined to homogeneous, x-oriented stripes, and x/y-reflection-symmetric compressed or stretched hexagonal lattices (Eqs. 8-9).
    No variational freedom for oblique, rotated, or other lattice symmetries; this is the weakest structural assumption in the phase diagram construction.
  • ad hoc to paper For most of the phase diagrams (Fig. 2), only the first Fourier harmonic is retained in each ansatz (single-mode approximation).
    The many-mode comparison is performed only at α=30° (Fig. 3); the single-mode truncation can shift first-order boundaries, as the authors acknowledge.
  • standard math The superfluid fraction tensor is computed from the moving-wall linear response formula (Eqs. 10-12), with ρ(r)=|ϕ(x cos α, y)|².
    This is an established relation for supersolids; the paper solves the auxiliary Poisson-like problem variationally.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supersolid dipolar phases in planar geometry: effects of tilted polarization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGCLCRSM

@misc{pith2026250109641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supersolid dipolar phases in planar geometry: effects of tilted polarization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGCLCRSM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09641}
}
read the original abstract

The behavior of dipolar Bose-Einstein condensates in planar geometries is investigated, focusing on the effects of the polarization orientation. While perpendicular polarization produces a phase diagram with hexagonal, stripes, and honeycomb phases ending at a single critical point, the presence of an in-plane polarization component transforms the critical point into three critical lines, separating two phases at a time and changing radically the appearance of the phase diagram. All transition lines contain first- and second-order regions, while the phase diagram itself shows a resemblance with those displayed by quasi-one-dimensional dipolar systems. Finally, we investigate the effect of introducing an in-plane polarization on the structural properties of the phases and determine the superfluid fraction. Our results show that this process induces an axial deformation on the hexagonal and honeycomb phases, resulting in an anisotropic behavior in the long distance properties of the system like superfluidity. We expect that the rich phenomenology observed provides motivation for new experiments and theoretical works.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09641 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phase diagram and modulated phases developed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ground state phase diagrams for a fixed trap frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between the many modes phase dia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of structural properties with the tilting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. Berg, E. Fradkin, E.-A. Kim, S. A. Kivelson, V. Oganesyan, J. M. Tranquada, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 127003 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    D. G. Barci, A. Mendoza-Coto, and D. A. Stariolo, Phys. Rev. E 88, 062140 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Mendoza-Coto, D

    A. Mendoza-Coto, D. A. Stariolo, and L. Nicolao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 116101 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Mendoza-Coto, D

    A. Mendoza-Coto, D. E. B. de Oliveira, L. Nicolao, and R. D ´ ıaz-M´ endez, Phys. Rev. B101, 174438 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Mendoza-Coto, D

    A. Mendoza-Coto, D. G. Barci, and D. A. Stariolo, Phys. Rev. B 95, 144209 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Radzihovsky, Phys

    L. Radzihovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 267601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Lahiri, A

    A. Lahiri, A. Klein, and R. M. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. B 106, L140503 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Prestipino and F

    S. Prestipino and F. Saija, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics 141, 184502 (2014), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4901302/15488727/184502 1 online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4901302/15488727/184502 2014

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Prestipino, A

    S. Prestipino, A. Sergi, and E. Bruno, Phys. Rev. B 98, 104104 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Mendoza-Coto, R

    A. Mendoza-Coto, R. Cenci, G. Pupillo, R. D ´ ıaz-M´ endez, and E. Babaev, Soft Matter 17, 915 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Mendoza-Coto, D

    A. Mendoza-Coto, D. d. S. Caetano, and R. D ´ ıaz- M´ endez, Phys. Rev. A104, 013301 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    de Mello, R

    M. de Mello, R. D ´ ıaz-M´ endez, and A. Mendoza-Coto, Entropy 25 (2023), 10.3390/e25020356

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Ciardi, F

    M. Ciardi, F. Cinti, G. Pellicane, and S. Prestipino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 026001 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Dotera, T

    T. Dotera, T. Oshiro, and P. Ziherl, Nature 506, 208 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Barkan, M

    K. Barkan, M. Engel, and R. Lifshitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 098304 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Mendoza-Coto, R

    A. Mendoza-Coto, R. Turcati, V. Zampronio, R. D ´ ıaz- M´ endez, T. Macr ` ı, and F. Cinti, Phys. Rev. B 105, 134521 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Ciardi, A

    M. Ciardi, A. Angelone, F. Mezzacapo, and F. Cinti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 173402 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Grossklags, M

    M. Grossklags, M. Ciardi, V. Zampronio, F. Cinti, and A. Mendoza-Coto, Results in Physics 65, 107991 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Zampronio, A

    V. Zampronio, A. Mendoza-Coto, T. Macr ` ı, and F. Cinti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 196001 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Podoliak, P

    N. Podoliak, P. Salamon, L. Lejˇ cek, P. Kuˇ zel, and V. Novotn´ a, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 228101 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Xia and Y

    J. Xia and Y. Han, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033232 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Bianconi, International Journal of Modern Physics B 14, 3289 (2000), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979200003769

    A. Bianconi, International Journal of Modern Physics B 14, 3289 (2000), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979200003769

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    Superstripes,

    A. Bianconi, D. Di Castro, N. Saini, and G. Bian- coni, “Superstripes,” in Phase Transitions and Self- Organization in Electronic and Molecular Networks , edited by M. F. Thorpe and J. C. Phillips (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2001) pp. 375–388

    2001

  16. [24]

    T. D. Farokh Mivehvar, Francesco Piazza and H. Ritsch, Advances in Physics 70, 1 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2021.1969727

    2021

  17. [25]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe- Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Reports on Progress in Physics 86, 026401 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ultra- cold atomic gases: Novel states of matter,

    L. Mathey, S.-W. Tsai, and A. H. Castro Neto, “Ultra- cold atomic gases: Novel states of matter,” in Encyclope- dia of Complexity and Systems Science , edited by R. A. Meyers (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2009) pp. 9679–9705

    2009

  19. [27]

    Sch¨ afer, T

    F. Sch¨ afer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 411 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Tanzi, E

    L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, F. Fam` a, J. Catani, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and G. Modugno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130405 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    M. Lu, N. Q. Burdick, S. H. Youn, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 190401 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Aikawa, A

    K. Aikawa, A. Frisch, M. Mark, S. Baier, A. Rietzler, R. Grimm, and F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 210401 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Chomaz, D

    L. Chomaz, D. Petter, P. Ilzh¨ ofer, G. Natale, A. Traut- 9 mann, C. Politi, G. Durastante, R. M. W. van Bijnen, A. Patscheider, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, and F. Fer- laino, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021012 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    B¨ ottcher, J.-N

    F. B¨ ottcher, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, J. Hertkorn, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011051 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    T. D. Lee, K. Huang, and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 106, 1135 (1957)

    1957

  26. [34]

    Baillie, R

    D. Baillie, R. M. Wilson, R. N. Bisset, and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 94, 021602 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    R. N. Bisset, R. M. Wilson, D. Baillie, and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033619 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Bombin, J

    R. Bombin, J. Boronat, and F. Mazzanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 250402 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    E. P. Gross, Phys. Rev. 106, 161 (1957)

    1957

  30. [38]

    Boninsegni and N

    M. Boninsegni and N. V. Prokof’ev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 759 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    P. B. Blakie, D. Baillie, L. Chomaz, and F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043318 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    M. A. Norcia, C. Politi, L. Klaus, E. Poli, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and F. Ferlaino, Nature 596, 357 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Bland, E

    T. Bland, E. Poli, C. Politi, L. Klaus, M. A. Norcia, F. Ferlaino, L. Santos, and R. N. Bisset, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 195302 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Z.-K. Lu, Y. Li, D. S. Petrov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 075303 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Zhang, F

    Y.-C. Zhang, F. Maucher, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 015301 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Metastable patterns in one- and two-component dipolar bose- einstein condensates,

    Y.-C. Zhang, T. Pohl, and F. Maucher, “Metastable patterns in one- and two-component dipolar bose- einstein condensates,” (2023), arXiv:2310.04738 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    E. Poli, T. Bland, C. Politi, L. Klaus, M. A. Norcia, F. Ferlaino, R. N. Bisset, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. A 104, 063307 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Hertkorn, J.-N

    J. Hertkorn, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Guo, F. B¨ ottcher, K. S. H. Ng, S. D. Graham, P. Uerlings, T. Langen, M. Zwierlein, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033125 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Schmidt, L

    M. Schmidt, L. Lassabli` ere, G. Qu´ em´ ener, and T. Lan- gen, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013235 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Zhang, T

    Y.-C. Zhang, T. Pohl, and F. Maucher, Phys. Rev. A 104, 013310 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    B. T. E. Ripley, D. Baillie, and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053321 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Zhang, T

    Y.-C. Zhang, T. Pohl, and F. Maucher, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023023 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Kora and M

    Y. Kora and M. Boninsegni, J. Low Temp. Phys. 197, 337 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Cinti and M

    F. Cinti and M. Boninsegni, Phys. Rev. A 96, 013627 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Macr ` ı, F

    T. Macr ` ı, F. Maucher, F. Cinti, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. A 87, 061602 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Kunimi and Y

    M. Kunimi and Y. Kato, Phys. Rev. B 86, 060510 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Hsueh, T.-C

    C.-H. Hsueh, T.-C. Lin, T.-L. Horng, and W. C. Wu, Phys. Rev. A 86, 013619 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Saccani, S

    S. Saccani, S. Moroni, and M. Boninsegni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 175301 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    A. R. P. Lima and A. Pelster, Phys. Rev. A 84, 041604 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    A. R. P. Lima and A. Pelster, Phys. Rev. A 86, 063609 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Here is important to notice that the areal density along the plane of the system ( ρ⊥) set by the harmonic trap can be written as ρ⊥ = ρ cos(α)

  52. [61]

    Josserand, Y

    C. Josserand, Y. Pomeau, and S. Rica, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 195301 (2007)

    2007

  53. [62]

    Sep´ ulveda, C

    N. Sep´ ulveda, C. Josserand, and S. Rica, The European Physical Journal B 78, 439 (2010)

    2010

  54. [63]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Theory of Elasticity , 3rd ed., Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 7 (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1986)

    1986

  55. [64]

    P. B. Blakie, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 57, 115301 (2024)

    2024

  56. [65]

    Raghunandan, C

    M. Raghunandan, C. Mishra, K. Lakomy, P. Pedri, L. Santos, and R. Nath, Phys. Rev. A 92, 013637 (2015)

    2015

  57. [66]

    Mishra and R

    C. Mishra and R. Nath, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033633 (2016)

    2016

  58. [67]

    Shen and K

    P. Shen and K. F. Quader, Phys. Rev. A 103, 043317 (2021)

    2021

  59. [68]

    Tononi and L

    A. Tononi and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 160403 (2019)

    2019

  60. [69]

    Tononi, F

    A. Tononi, F. Cinti, and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 010402 (2020)

    2020

  61. [70]

    Tononi and L

    A. Tononi and L. Salasnich, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 398 (2023)

    2023

  62. [71]

    L. E. Young-S. and S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053323 (2023)

    2023

  63. [72]

    Chomaz, R

    L. Chomaz, R. M. W. van Bijnen, D. Petter, G. Faraoni, S. Baier, J. H. Becher, M. J. Mark, F. W¨ achtler, L. San- tos, and F. Ferlaino, Nat. Phys. 14, 442 (2018)

    2018

  64. [73]

    Kadau, M

    H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, C. Wink, T. Maier, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and T. Pfau, Nature 530, 194 (2016)

    2016

  65. [74]

    Schmitt, M

    M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, F. B¨ ottcher, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and T. Pfau, Nature 539, 259 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.