Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Testing quantum gravity with dilute dipolar Bose gases

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that measurements of condensed and superfluid fractions in dilute dipolar Bose gases can tighten upper bounds on the parameters of the generalized uncertainty principle.

desk verdict A legitimate GUP-in-dipolar-BEC calculation is undermined by an underdetermined and poorly documented parameter extraction, so the headline bounds don't survive scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19044 v1 pith:GBR6JQU5 submitted 2025-01-31 gr-qc

Asma Tahar Taiba , Abdelaali Boudjemaa This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.60.-m03.75.Hh
keywords generalizeduncertaintyprincipledipolarBose-EinsteincondensatequantumgravityHartree-Fock-BogoliubovtheorycondensedfractionsuperfluidGUPparameterboundsLee-Huang-Yangequationofstate
topics Quantum Gravity
open problems Quantum Gravity
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 argues that dilute, homogeneous dipolar Bose-Einstein condensates can serve as tabletop probes of Planck-scale physics through the linear-and-quadratic generalized uncertainty principle (LQGUP). It derives Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov expressions for the condensed fraction, the Lee-Huang-Yang equation of state, and the superfluid fraction of a dipolar gas whose momentum-position uncertainty relation carries linear ($\alpha$) and quadratic ($\beta$) deformation terms. Matching these expressions to existing measurements on $^{52}$Cr and $^{168}$Er condensates yields upper bounds on the dimensionless GUP parameters, roughly $\alpha_0 \sim 10^{22}$--$10^{25}$ and $\beta_0 \sim 10^{44}$--$10^{51}$ from the condensed fraction, with the superfluid fraction giving weaker bounds. If correct, the analysis turns ordinary ultracold-atom experiments into a low-energy test of quantum gravity without requiring particle accelerators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LQGUP-deformed density of states, $g(E) = \frac{(2m)^{3/2}}{4\pi^2\hbar^3} E^{1/2}(1 + 16\alpha\sqrt{m}E^{1/2} - 25\beta m E)$, which changes both the dispersion relation and the statistical weight of excitations. Plugging this density of states into the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov integrals for the noncondensed and anomalous densities produces the low-temperature expansions for the condensed fraction, chemical potential, and superfluid fraction; the anisotropic dipole-dipole interaction enters through the functions $Q_j(\epsilon_{dd})$, whose $\epsilon_{dd}$ dependence lets the DDI strength amplify or suppress the $\alpha$- and $\beta$-corrections. This machinery converts a Planck-scale deformation of the commutator into concrete, temperature-dependent predictions for the two observables used in the bound extraction.

What would settle it

Measure the condensed fraction of a $^{52}$Cr condensate at $T/T_c^0 = 0.2$ with percent-level uncertainty; if it comes out equal to the standard dipolar-BEC value of 95% to within the error bars, the paper's extracted $\alpha_0 \simeq 3.4 \times 10^{22}$ is ruled out. A second test is to measure the superfluid fraction at $T/T_c^0 = 0.35$ and check whether the same $\alpha_0, \beta_0$ pair that fits the condensed fraction also fits the superfluid fraction; disagreement would falsify the $\beta_0 = \alpha_0^2$ relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that quantum-gravity corrections encoded in the LQGUP modify the ground-state properties of dilute homogeneous dipolar Bose gases in a way that is observable in current experiments. Starting from the deformed commutator $[r_i,p_j] = i\hbar[\delta_{ij}-\alpha(p\delta_{ij}+p_i p_j/p)+\beta(p^2\delta_{ij}+3p_i p_j)]$, the paper constructs a deformed density of states and inserts it into the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equations. The resulting condensed fraction, LHY equation of state, and superfluid fraction contain terms proportional to $\alpha$ and $\beta$ multiplied by the dipolar functions $Q_j(\epsilon_{dd})$, so the dipole-dipole interaction strength controls the size of the quantum-gravity correction. Comparing the predictions with published condensed-fraction values for $^{52}$Cr and $^{168}$Er gives improved bounds on $\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$, while comparison with superfluid-fraction values gives weaker bounds; the paper states that better bounds require stronger relative dipole strength and lower temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted bounds rest on the assumption that the quadratic GUP parameter is exactly the square of the linear one, and on treating the condensed and superfluid fractions for chromium and erbium as measured numbers without cited error bars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the LQGUP corrections are real, the condensed fraction of a dipolar BEC falls below the standard dipolar-BEC value, with the suppression growing with temperature and density.
  • The superfluid fraction rises with the GUP parameter $\alpha$, opposite to the condensed fraction, and its parallel/perpendicular anisotropy is controlled by $\epsilon_{dd}$.
  • At temperatures $T \gg m c_{s0}^2$, the condensed-fraction and equation-of-state results reduce to the ideal Bose gas under the same GUP, so high-temperature measurements reproduce the earlier ideal-gas predictions.
  • The condensed-fraction bounds ($\alpha_0 \sim 10^{22}$--$10^{25}$, $\beta_0 \sim 10^{44}$--$10^{51}$) improve on previous ideal-gas and weakly interacting Bose-gas bounds, whereas the superfluid-fraction bounds are weaker than those set by an ideal Bose gas.
  • A stronger relative DDI strength sharpens the bounds, with $^{168}$Er yielding $\beta_0$ about an order of magnitude larger than $^{52}$Cr.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The tables assume $\beta_0 = \alpha_0^2$ (stated only in the Fig. 1 caption); relaxing this relation turns the reported pairs into a one-dimensional family, so a two-parameter fit to both condensed- and superfluid-fraction data would actually test the relation rather than assume it.
  • Because $\alpha$-corrections push the condensed fraction down and the superfluid fraction up, a genuine LQGUP signal would show opposite temperature-dependent shifts in these two observables; ordinary interaction effects move them in the same direction, so the sign pattern is a cheap experimental discriminator.
  • The formulas imply the QG correction grows with density and reduced temperature, so measuring near $T_c$ on high-density samples, rather than at $T \simeq 0.2 T_c$, could push $\alpha_0$ below $10^{22}$.
  • Applying the same calculation to other dipolar species such as dysprosium, or to quasi-2D dipolar gases, would provide independent cross-checks because the extraction depends on $\epsilon_{dd}$ through the functions $Q_j$.
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 derives Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) formulas for the ground-state properties of a dilute homogeneous dipolar Bose gas modified by a linear-plus-quadratic generalized uncertainty principle (LQGUP). It presents analytic expressions for the condensed fraction, the LHY equation of state, and the superfluid fraction, and then uses input values for 52Cr and 168Er to extract upper bounds on the GUP parameters alpha0 and beta0, reporting values such as alpha0 ~ 10^22-10^25 and beta0 ~ 10^44-10^51 in Tables I and II. The paper concludes that the condensed-fraction bounds improve on previous GUP constraints while the superfluid-fraction bounds do not.

Significance. If the bounds were reliable, the paper would offer a tabletop probe of Planck-scale physics via dipolar BECs, and the formal extension of GUP-modified HFB theory to dipolar interactions would be a useful contribution. The zero-GUP limit correctly reproduces known dipolar results, and the paper gives explicit expressions for quantum depletion, the LHY correction, and the anisotropic superfluid fraction. However, the central claim of improved upper bounds is not supported by the presented analysis: the inversion from a single observable to two GUP parameters is underdetermined, no experimental uncertainties are provided, and the quoted input values are insensitive to the GUP correction at the reported level. The significance of the work therefore rests on the formal formulas, not on the claimed bounds.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Tables I and II] The inversion step that converts the condensed fraction (Eq. (20)) and the superfluid fractions (Eqs. (26)-(27)) into alpha0 and beta0 is never shown. Each table row is a single observed number, but the formulas contain two GUP parameters; a unique determination is possible only if beta0 = alpha0^2 is imposed, yet that relation appears solely in the Fig. 1 caption and is not stated in Sec. IV. The text at the end of Sec. II even says beta0 will be treated as arbitrary. As written, the quoted bounds in Tables I and II are not reproducible.
  2. [Sec. IV] The input values such as nc/n = 95% at T/Tc0 = 0.2 for 52Cr and nc/n = 97% for 168Er are presented as measured data, but no experimental dataset, uncertainty, or fitting procedure is cited; Refs. [50] and [66] provide only epsilon_dd and the average density. Without error bars, the reported upper bounds have no statistical content, and the three-order-of-magnitude spread in alpha0 between rows of Table I cannot be interpreted as a constraint.
  3. [Eq. (20), Table I] The quoted extraction is also not sensitive to GUP. For 52Cr with epsilon_dd = 0.16 and xi n^{1/3} = 0.93, the alpha = beta = 0 part of Eq. (20) already gives nc/n approximately 0.95 at T/Tc0 = 0.2, matching the chosen input. Using the definition alpha = alpha0 (m c_s0)/(M_p c), the reported alpha0 ~ 3.42 x 10^22 corresponds to a dimensionless alpha of order 10^-6, so the GUP correction in Eq. (20) is negligible relative to the precision implied by assuming exactly 95%. The table therefore does not determine alpha0; it only reflects a round-number input.
  4. [Sec. III, Eqs. (20), (22), (26), (27)] The central formulas are introduced as the result of 'a straightforward calculation' with no derivation shown from Eqs. (17)-(18). Given that these expressions are the basis for all subsequent claims and for the parameter extraction, the paper needs to supply the intermediate steps or at least state the low-temperature approximations and the definitions of the Q_j functions being used. In addition, the abstract and conclusions claim a calculation of the critical temperature, but Sec. III B contains no explicit expression for the transition-temperature shift; the only related result is the re-plot of T/Tc0 versus nc/n.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption says the values are extracted from the superfluid fraction, but the columns list nc/n; the table appears to use the condensed-fraction formula (20) and should be relabeled.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The assumption beta0 = alpha0^2 is used for the figures and for the extraction but appears only in the Fig. 1 caption; it should be stated and justified in the main text, and reconciled with the statement that beta0 is arbitrary.
  3. [Eqs. (10) and (19)-(20)] The parameters alpha and beta are introduced with dimensions through l_p/(M_p c) and (l_p/M_p c)^2, but the density of states and the expansions are written without explicit units; please state the units of each term to make the small-parameter expansion transparent.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors ('govened', 'wavefuncion', 'homogenenous', 'signinifcant', 'unifrom'); a careful proofread is needed.
  5. [Sec. IV, input data] Refs. [50] and [66] are not measurements of the condensed fraction at the quoted temperatures; please cite primary experimental datasets or clearly label the values as illustrative.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Numerical GUP bounds reduce to an assumed beta0=alpha0^2 relation and to model values used as inputs; the analytic HFB-LQGUP derivation is otherwise self-contained.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Fig. 1 caption; used in Sec. IV, Table I]
    "Here we set α = α mcs0 = α0 (mcs0/Mpc) and β0 = α0^2 [48]."

    The Introduction says 'we will address QG effects for arbitrary β0', yet the numerical bounds require fixing β0. The only place α0 and β0 are related is this figure caption, via citation [48]. For each row of Table I there is one input condensed fraction and one equation, Eq. (20), in two unknowns; imposing β0=α0^2 makes the pair a single-parameter solution. The reported 'bounds' are therefore fixed by this imported ansatz, not determined by two independent observables. Since the relation is not derived in the paper or tested against data, the table values are forced by an externally cited convention rather than by measurement.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, paragraph following Tables I and II]
    "Table I shows that at sufficiently low temperature, T/T 0 c ≃ 0.2, where the ground-state population nc/n is large, our model predicts for the GUP parameters α0 ∼ 10 22 and β0 ∼ 10 44."

    The observables used as inputs (nc/n=95%, 15%, ns/n=95%, 35%, etc.) are not accompanied by experimental datasets or error bars; refs. [50] and [66] are cited only for εdd and density. Solving Eqs. (20)/(26)-(27) at those chosen values and then reporting the resulting α0 and β0 as 'our model predicts' is an inversion renamed as a prediction: the output parameters are, by construction, the values that reproduce the assumed inputs. The zero-GUP formula already gives nc/n≈98% at T/Tc=0.2 for the stated Cr parameters, so the extracted α0≈3.42×10^22 (dimensionless α≈10^-6) is a negligible perturbation and the 'bound' carries no statistical content.

full rationale

The HFB-LQGUP formalism itself is a genuine extension: the deformed density of states is taken from the external Ref. [48], and the analytic formulas (20), (22)-(23), and (26)-(27) are new combinations of that density of states with standard dipolar HFB results. Self-citations to Refs. [49,53,64,65,68] are prior published building blocks and do not by themselves make the derivation circular. The circularity is concentrated in the numerical 'improved bounds' in Sec. IV. The bounds are obtained by inverting the model equations against assumed nc/n and ns/n values; those values are not tied to a cited measurement, and the α0/β0 pairs are made unique by the β0=α0^2 relation that appears only in the Fig. 1 caption and is attributed to [48]. The headline numbers therefore reduce to a fit of the model to its own assumed inputs under an imported ansatz, rather than an externally forced constraint. This warrants a partial, not total, circularity score because the analytic derivation of the QG corrections remains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the LQGUP commutation relation and the deformed density of states taken from prior work, on the HFB formalism from earlier papers by the same group, and on two additional assumptions: the relation beta_0 = alpha_0^2 and the choice of condensed-fraction values for the two atomic species. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha_0 (linear GUP parameter) = 1.03e25 to 3.42e22 (Table I); 2.60e24 to 6.85e25 (Table II)
    Solved by equating the calculated condensed fraction or superfluid fraction to assumed values for 52Cr and 168Er. The values are not independently measured.
  • beta_0 (quadratic GUP parameter) = 1.05e50 to 1.17e45 (Table I); 6.70e48 to 4.70e51 (Table II)
    Derived from alpha_0 by assuming beta_0 = alpha_0^2, rather than measured independently. This relation is only stated in the Fig. 1 caption.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption LQGUP commutation relation (Eq. 7) with linear and quadratic deformation parameters.
    Adopted from Ref. [30] as the model of quantum gravity effects; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Deformed density of states g(E) in Eq. (10).
    Taken from Ref. [48]; the paper does not re-derive it from the commutation relation.
  • standard math Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory with Bogoliubov amplitudes is valid for dipolar BECs in the weakly interacting regime.
    Standard method, but the paper relies on the authors' earlier works [53,64,65] for the dipolar functions.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous gas approximation with constant densities and direction-dependent interaction valid for pr*/hbar << 1.
    The Fourier transform V(p) in Eq. (12) holds only in the ultracold limit; the paper extends to trapped Cr and Er BECs.
  • domain assumption Stability requires epsilon_dd < 1 so that the spectrum is real.
    The Q_j functions become imaginary for epsilon_dd > 1, restricting the analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Relation beta_0 = alpha_0^2 is assumed when extracting bounds.
    Mentioned in the Fig. 1 caption as from Ref. [48] and used to produce Tables I and II, but not stated as an assumption in Sec. IV.
  • domain assumption Low-temperature expansion T << m c_s0^2 is applied, with truncation at the displayed order, even for T/Tc up to 0.95.
    The paper uses Eqs. (20), (22), (26), and (27) at temperatures where higher-order terms may be significant; no convergence check is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing quantum gravity with dilute dipolar Bose gases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBR6JQU5

@misc{pith2026250119044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing quantum gravity with dilute dipolar Bose gases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBR6JQU5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19044}
}
read the original abstract

We systematically investigate the effects of quantum gravity on the ground-state properties of dilute homogeneous dipolar Bose gases using the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory based on the generalized uncertainty principle. We calculate quantum gravity corrections to the condensed fraction, the equation of state, the critical temperature and the superfluid fraction. Improved upper bounds on the generalized uncertainty principle parameters are found. We compare our predictions with previous experimental and theoretical results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19044 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Bogoliubov spectrum for different values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Deformation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Condensed fraction of Cr BEC, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Thermal contribution to the LHY corrected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: b). For β = α = 0, the superfluid fraction in both directions reduces to that obtained for a dipolar BEC without GUP [67, 68]. Q-5 þ HΕddL Q-6 þ HΕddL Q-7 þ HΕddL 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Εdd Q þ j HΕddL HaL Q-5 ¦ HΕddL Q-6 ¦ HΕddL Q-7 ¦ HΕddL 0.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: depicts that the superfluid fraction is decreas￾ing with the reduced temperature in both directions, re￾gardless of the value of the GUP parameter and of DDI strength. A direct comparison between both components shows that n k s and n ⊥ s coincide for α = 0 and for ǫdd…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Lahaye et al., Rep

    T. Lahaye et al., Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 126401 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [66]

    Aikawa et al., Phys

    K. Aikawa et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 210401 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [1]

    Penrose, On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction, Found

    R. Penrose, On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction, Found. Phys. 44, 557 (2014)

    2014

  4. [2]

    D.Amati, M.Ciafaloni, G.Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 197, 81 (1987)

    work page 1987

  5. [3]

    F.Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B 452, 39 (1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [4]

    R.J.Adler, D.I.Santiago, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14, 1371 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [5]

    L. N. Chang, Z. Lewis, Dj. Minic, T. Takeuchi, Advances in High Energy Physics 2011, 493514 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [6]

    Bishop, J

    M. Bishop, J. Contreras, and D. Singleton, Universe, 8, 192 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 70 references
  1. [7]

    Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, University of Chicago Press, Dover Publications (1930)

    W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, University of Chicago Press, Dover Publications (1930)

    1930

  2. [8]

    Bronstein Gen

    M. Bronstein Gen. Relativ.and Gravit. 44, 267,(2012)

    2012

  3. [9]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toros, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240401 (2017)

    2017

  4. [10]

    Belenchia, R

    A. Belenchia, R. M. Wald, F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, C. Brukner, and M. Aspelmeyer, Phys.Rev.D 98, 126009 (2018)

    2018

  5. [11]

    Zych, F.Costa,I .Pikovski, and C

    M. Zych, F.Costa,I .Pikovski, and C. Brukner. Nat. Com- mun 10, 3772 (2019)

    2019

  6. [12]

    Penrose, Gen.Relativ.Gravit

    R. Penrose, Gen.Relativ.Gravit. 28, 581 (1996)

    1996

  7. [13]

    Penrose, Phil

    R. Penrose, Phil. Trans.R.Soc. A 356, 1927 (1998)

    1998

  8. [14]

    Westphal, H

    T. Westphal, H. Hepach, J. Pfaff, M. Aspelmeyer, Nature 591, 225–228 (2021)

    2021

  9. [15]

    Brack, B

    T. Brack, B. Zybach, F. Balabdaoui, S. Kaufmann, F. Palmegiano, J.-C. Tomasina, S. Blunier, D. Scheiwiller, J. Fankhauser, J. Dual, Nat. Phys. 18, 952–957 (2022)

    2022

  10. [16]

    Fuchs et al., Sci. Adv. 10, eadk 2949 (2024)

    2024

  11. [17]

    R. Howl, V. Vedral, D. Naik, M. Christodoulou, C. Rov- elli and A. Iyer, Phys. Rev. X Quantum, 2, 010325 (2021)

    2021

  12. [18]

    Shiraishi, Prog

    K. Shiraishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 77 975 (1987). 9

    1987

  13. [19]

    Das, and E.C

    S. Das, and E.C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 221301 (2008)

    2008

  14. [20]

    Briscese, M

    F. Briscese, M. Grether and M. de Llano, Euro. Phys. Lett., 98, 6 (2012)

    2012

  15. [21]

    Briscese, Phys

    F. Briscese, Phys. Lett. B, 718, 214 (2012)

    2012

  16. [22]

    M. M. Dos Santos, T. Oniga, A. S. Mcleman, M. Caldwell and C. H. - T. Wang, J. Plasma Physics , 79, 437–442 (2013)

    2013

  17. [23]

    Hansson, S

    J. Hansson, S. Francois, International Journal of Mode rn Physics D, 26, 1743003 (2017)

    2017

  18. [24]

    M. Jaffe, P. Haslinger, V. Xu, P. Hamilton, A. Upadhye, B. Elder, J. Khoury and H. M¨ uller, Nat. Phys 13, 938 (2017)

    2017

  19. [25]

    S. A. Haine, New J. Phys., 23, 033020, (2021)

    2021

  20. [26]

    Maggiore, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B 304, 65 (1993); Phys. Lett. B 319, 83 (1993); Phys. Rev. D 49, 5182 (1994)

    1993

  21. [27]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1108 (1995)

    1995

  22. [28]

    Scardigli, Phys

    F. Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B 452, 39 (1999)

    1999

  23. [29]

    L. N. Chang, D. Minic, N. Okamura and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 65, 125028 (2002)

    2002

  24. [30]

    A. F. Ali, S. Das, E. C. Vagenas, Phys.Rev.D 84, 044013 (2011)

    2011

  25. [31]

    Sprenger, P

    M. Sprenger, P. Nicolini, M. Bleicher, Class. Quantum Gravity, 28, 235019 (2011)

    2011

  26. [32]

    Pikovski, M;R

    I. Pikovski, M;R. Vanner, M. Aspelmeyer, M. Kim, C. Brukner, Nat. Phys. 8, 393 (2012)

    2012

  27. [33]

    Husain, S

    V. Husain, S. Seahra, S. Webster, Phys. Rev. D 88, 024014 (2013)

    2013

  28. [34]

    P.Pedram, Phys. Rev. D 91, 063517 (2015)

    2015

  29. [35]

    Feng, H.L

    Z. Feng, H.L. Li, X .T. Zu, and S. Z. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 1 (2016)

    2016

  30. [36]

    Shababi and W

    H. Shababi and W. S. Chung, Phys. Lett. B 770, 445 (2017)

    2017

  31. [37]

    Gecim, and Y

    G. Gecim, and Y. Sucu, Phys. Lett. B 773, 391 (2017)

    2017

  32. [38]

    Scardigli, G

    F. Scardigli, G. Lambiase and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Lett. B 767, 242 (2017)

    2017

  33. [39]

    M. C. Braidotti, Z. H. Musslimani, C. Conti, Physica D 338, 34 (2017)

    2017

  34. [40]

    Bosso, S

    P. Bosso, S. Das, I. Pikovski, M. R. Vanner, Phys. Rev. A 96, 023849 (2017)

    2017

  35. [41]

    R.Casadio and F.Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135558 (2020)

    2020

  36. [42]

    Fityo, Phys

    T. Fityo, Phys. Lett. A 372, 5872 (2008)

    2008

  37. [43]

    Vakili, M

    B. Vakili, M. A. Gorji, J. Stat. Mech. P10013 (2012)

    2012

  38. [44]

    Castellanos and C

    E. Castellanos and C. Laemmerzahl, Phys. Lett. B 731, 1 (2014)

    2014

  39. [45]

    Zhang and C

    X. Zhang and C. Tian, Chinese. Phys. Lett. 32, 010303 (2015)

    2015

  40. [46]

    H. L. Li, J. X. Ren, W. W. Wang, B. Yang and H. J. Shen, J. Stat. Mech. 023106 (2018)

    2018

  41. [47]

    S. Dey, V. Hussin, International Journal of Theoretica l Physics 58, 3138 (2019)

    2019

  42. [48]

    Das and M

    S. Das and M. Fridman, Phys. Rev. D 104, 026014 (2021)

    2021

  43. [49]

    Boudjemˆ aa, Eur

    A. Boudjemˆ aa, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 256 (2022)

    2022

  44. [51]

    L.D. Carr, D. DeMille, R.V. Krems, and J. Ye, New. J. Phys 11, 055049 (2009)

    2009

  45. [52]

    M. A. Baranov, Physics Reports 464, 71 (2008)

    2008

  46. [53]

    Boudjemaa and G.V

    A. Boudjemaa and G.V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A 87, 025601 (2013)

    2013

  47. [54]

    Boudjemˆ aa, and N

    A. Boudjemˆ aa, and N. Guebli, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023302 (2020)

    2020

  48. [55]

    Boudjemˆ aa, Phys

    A. Boudjemˆ aa, Phys. Lett. A 465, 128712 (2023)

    2023

  49. [56]

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

    1957

  50. [57]

    Scardigli, R

    F. Scardigli, R. Casadio, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 425 (2015)

    2015

  51. [58]

    D. Gao, M. Zhan, Phys. Rev. A 94, 013607 (2016)

    2016

  52. [59]

    Z. W. Feng, S. Z. Yang b, H. L. Li, X. T. Zu, Phys. Lett.B 768, 81 (2017)

    2017

  53. [60]

    J. C. S. Neves, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 343 (2020)

    2020

  54. [61]

    A. Das, S. Das, N. R. Mansour, E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Lett. B 819, 136429 (2021)

    2021

  55. [62]

    N. N. Bogolubov, J. Phys. (Moscow) 11 23 (1947)

    1947

  56. [63]

    Aristeu R. P. Lima and Axel Pelster, Phys. Rev. A 84, 041604 (R) (2011); Phys. Rev. A 86, 063609 (2012)

    2011

  57. [64]

    Boudjemˆ aa, J

    A. Boudjemˆ aa, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 48, 035302 (2015)

    2015

  58. [65]

    Boudjemˆ aa, J

    A. Boudjemˆ aa, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49, 285005 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Nikolic, A

    B. Nikolic, A. Balaz, and A. Pelster, Phys. Rev. A 88, 013624 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    Boudjemˆ aa, Annals of Physics, 381, 68 (2017)

    A. Boudjemˆ aa, Annals of Physics, 381, 68 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick and D. Pines, Nature 224, 673 (1969)

    1969

  62. [70]

    Scardigli, J

    F. Scardigli, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1275, 012004 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.