Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Non-Equilibrium Probing of Topological Supersolids in Spin-Orbit-Coupled Dipolar Condensates

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin-orbit coupled dipolar condensates host topological supersolids whose superfluid fraction can be read from driven current oscillations.

desk verdict Plausible new square-skyrmion supersolid phase; the claimed ω_d–f_NCRI mapping is a numerical correlation, not a derivation, and needs controls before the probe can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14578 v2 pith:QV6MAHYR submitted 2025-04-20 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Biao Dong , Xiao-Fei Zhang , Wei Han , Renyuan Liao , Xue-Ying Yang , Wu-Ming Liu , Yong-Chang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords topologicalsupersolidspin-orbitcouplingdipolarBose-EinsteincondensatemeronlatticeskyrmionnonclassicalrotationalinertiaPT-symmetricdissipationnonequilibriumdynamics
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 a two-component spin-orbit coupled dipolar Bose-Einstein condensate can host topological supersolids, phases where crystalline order, superfluidity, and chiral spin textures coexist. It identifies two distinct transitions: a first-order transition from a single-skyrmion superfluid to a triangular meron supersolid, and a second-order transition from that superfluid to a square skyrmion supersolid. The paper further claims that under parity-time symmetric gain and loss, the condensate develops an oscillating current whose frequency tracks the equilibrium superfluid fraction, so that a nonequilibrium measurement can quantify supersolidity. This matters because directly measuring the superfluid fraction in supersolids has been an outstanding experimental challenge, and because the predicted skyrmion and meron textures could be useful for spintronic or topological devices.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the mean-field energy functional of a Rashba spin-orbit coupled dipolar condensate, together with the angle-averaged Leggett formula for the nonclassical rotational inertia fraction, f_NCRI = 1/(⟨1/ρ_s(r)⟩⟨ρ(r)⟩), and a PT-symmetric driven-dissipative term that creates localized gain and loss. The spin-orbit coupling twists the spin texture into skyrmions or merons, the dipolar interaction selects the lattice symmetry, and the driven current J(t) responds to the resulting superfluid fraction through oscillations whose frequency ω_d is extracted numerically. The claimed connection between ω_d and f_NCRI is carried by the numerical results in Fig. 3(d), which show a monotone relation between the two quantities across the supersolid phases.

What would settle it

Run the same numerical calculation at fixed superfluid fraction f_NCRI while changing the gain-loss positions, widths, or amplitude, or while changing the trap anisotropy; if the oscillation frequency ω_d shifts by any amount while f_NCRI stays constant, the claimed one-to-one mapping between ω_d and the superfluid fraction is not unique and the proposed probe would require a separate calibration for each geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that tuning the dipolar-to-contact interaction ratio and spin-orbit coupling strength in a two-component dipolar BEC produces a single-skyrmion superfluid at weak spin-orbit coupling, then either a triangular meron supersolid with alternating meron-antimeron pairs or a square skyrmion supersolid with unit topological charge as the coupling grows. The superfluid-to-meron-supersolid transition is first order, while the superfluid-to-skyrmion-supersolid transition is second order, with both transitions visible in the nonclassical rotational inertia fraction and in the nonequilibrium current response. Under PT-symmetric localized gain and loss, the current oscillation frequency ω_d shows discontinuous jumps at the phase boundaries and correlates with the superfluid fraction f_NCRI, leading the authors to propose that mapping oscillation frequency to superfluid fraction via driven nonequilibrium currents provides a new way to measure supersolidity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the frequency of the driven current oscillation is controlled by the equilibrium superfluid fraction, so that measuring that frequency gives a direct readout of supersolidity; if the frequency instead responds mainly to lattice stiffness, trap confinement, or the particular arrangement of gain and loss, the proposed measurement would not uniquely quantify the superfluid fraction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The oscillation frequency and its discontinuities could serve as an in-situ, nondestructive probe of both the superfluid-to-supersolid transition and the transition between meron and skyrmion supersolids.
  • A measured relation between ω_d and f_NCRI would give a quantitative estimate of the superfluid fraction in a dipolar supersolid without requiring direct rotational-inertia experiments.
  • The damping of the current oscillations depends on lattice symmetry as well as superfluid fraction, so the time trace of J(t) could distinguish triangular meron lattices from square skyrmion lattices.
  • The predicted phases appear accessible with ultracold magnetic atoms such as chromium, dysprosium, or erbium under Raman-induced spin-orbit coupling, making the proposal experimentally testable with current technology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the f_NCRI-to-ω_d mapping is robust, the same nonequilibrium protocol could be adapted to other supersolid platforms, including single-component dipolar supersolids, giving a generic tool for measuring superfluid fraction from sloshing or oscillating currents.
  • Because the Leggett formula is angle-averaged, the mapping may depend on lattice orientation and symmetry; a systematic scan of gain-loss position and trap anisotropy could reveal whether ω_d carries extra geometric information beyond f_NCRI.
  • The second-order transition to the square skyrmion lattice is tied to orthogonal pairs of modulation wavevectors; an analogous construction in three dimensions or with different spin-orbit couplings might stabilize other square or rectangular topological supersolids.
  • A concrete extension would be to test whether the oscillation frequency remains fixed when f_NCRI is held constant but the gain-loss amplitude, width, or positions are varied; if it changes, the proposed measurement would need a calibration curve for each experimental geometry.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies a two-component spin-orbit-coupled dipolar Bose-Einstein condensate in a quasi-2D harmonic trap. Using Gross-Pitaevskii (GPE) energy minimization, the authors identify a phase diagram with a single-skyrmion superfluid at weak spin-orbit coupling, a triangular meron supersolid at weak dipolar interaction, and a square skyrmion supersolid at strong dipolar interaction. They report a first-order superfluid-to-meron-supersolid transition and a second-order superfluid-to-skyrmion-supersolid transition, characterized by crystalline order and the nonclassical rotational inertia fraction f_NCRI. They then introduce parity-time-symmetric gain/loss terms and observe damped current oscillations, claiming that the oscillation frequency ω_d is directly linked to f_NCRI and can be used to quantitatively probe supersolidity. The manuscript also discusses experimental feasibility with magnetic atoms such as 52Cr, 164Dy, and 168Er.

Significance. If the central mapping between the driven current oscillation frequency and the equilibrium superfluid fraction were established, this work would offer a new nonequilibrium probe of supersolidity in dipolar quantum gases, complementing recent experiments on superfluid fraction measurement. The phase diagram with two distinct topological supersolids, including a square skyrmion lattice that is uncommon in single-component dipolar systems, is a valuable contribution. The paper makes specific, falsifiable predictions for transition order and for the behavior of current oscillations. However, the central quantitative claim about ω_d and f_NCRI is currently only a numerical correlation, and the numerical evidence lacks convergence tests and code; these weaknesses limit the present significance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Nonequilibrium probing via driven-oscillation (Fig. 3)] The claim that ω_d is 'directly linked' to f_NCRI is not derived. Equations (3) and (4) introduce the gain/loss profile and the current, but no equation or argument connects the response frequency to the equilibrium Leggett formula in Eq. (2). Figure 3(d) plots f_NCRI versus ω_d for a single parameter path (ε_dd=0.02 with κ varied), so ω_d, κ, the lattice constant, and the crystalline order C all vary together. The text itself concedes that damping 'depends not only on the superfluid fraction ... but also on the lattice symmetry,' which indicates that the nonequilibrium response encodes more than f_NCRI. Without a control in which f_NCRI is varied while lattice stiffness, trap, and gain/loss geometry are held fixed, or an analytic linear-response derivation, the central abstract and conclusion claim that 'mapping the oscillation frequency to the superfluid fraction' quantifies supersolidity is not established.
  2. [Topological supersolid phase transitions (Fig. 1)] The order of the two phase transitions is inferred from discontinuous or continuous changes in C and f_NCRI, but no metastability, energy crossing, or finite-size scaling is shown to support the first-order assignment, and the claimed 'vanishing cubic term' explaining the second-order transition is only asserted with a citation [58]. A definitive assignment of transition order for a GPE calculation would require either a demonstration of hysteresis in the variational parameters or an analysis of energy barriers; the present evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive.
  3. [Numerical methods and reproducibility] No numerical details are provided: the grid size, time step, imaginary-time propagation scheme, convergence criteria, particle number N (or the way gN is set), and the procedure for extracting ω_d are all absent. This prevents an independent check of the phase boundaries and of Fig. 3(d). The omission of the Lee-Huang-Yang correction is justified only by a footnote stating that it 'has been verified numerically' [reference 47], but no verification data are shown; this is particularly relevant because the phase diagram extends to ε_dd=0.4, which is not obviously the 'weak dipolar interaction' regime mentioned in the footnote.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The definitions of the averages in Eq. (2), ⟨1/ρ_s(r)⟩ and ⟨ρ(r)⟩, are not specified; moreover, the formula f_NCRI = 1/(⟨1/ρ_s(r)⟩⟨ρ(r)⟩) appears dimensionally inconsistent as written, since the left-hand side is dimensionless but the right-hand side involves products of densities with possibly different powers. Please clarify the integration domains and the normalization of ρ_s(r).
  2. [Fig. 3(a) and text] The text describes J_x(t) in the singly-skyrmion phase as 'undamped', but the vertical scale in Fig. 3(a) is much smaller than in (b) and (c) and the trace shows a slight decay; please quantify the damping rate or adjust the wording.
  3. [Reference [47]] Reference [47] is a footnote embedded in the reference list rather than a standard citation; if the LHY correction is asserted to be negligible based on numerical checks, the check should be shown in the main text or a supplement, not only asserted in a footnote.
  4. [Fig. 1(a)] The phase diagram in Fig. 1(a) does not indicate how the critical κ_c values were determined from the numerical data; a short description of the criterion (e.g., where C first exceeds a threshold) would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the superfluid fraction and the driven-current oscillation frequency are computed independently from the same model, with no fitted parameter or constructional identity forcing the reported relation.

full rationale

The paper's central claimed prediction is that, under PT-symmetric driving-dissipation, the current oscillation frequency ω_d is directly linked to the equilibrium Leggett nonclassical rotational inertia fraction f_NCRI (Eq. (2)). Walking the derivation chain: f_NCRI is a functional of the angle-averaged equilibrium density in Eq. (2), while ω_d is extracted from real-time Gross-Pitaevskii dynamics with the dissipation term Eq. (3) and the current Eq. (4). No parameter in Eq. (2) is fitted to ω_d, and no equation defines f_NCRI in terms of the oscillation frequency; the connection is presented as a numerical correlation in Fig. 3(d) over a parameter path in κ. The absence of an analytic derivation or of a control where f_NCRI is varied independently of lattice stiffness and gain/loss geometry is a legitimate concern about whether the mapping is unique, but that is a rigor/correctness issue, not a circularity: the two quantities are not equal by construction. The self-citations are also not load-bearing in a circular way. Reference [58] (Zhang & Maucher) is cited to explain the vanishing cubic term behind the second-order square-skyrmion transition, but the transition itself is supported by the continuous evolution of C and f_NCRI shown in Figs. 1(b1,b2); reference [48] is used only to note consistency of the triangular meron lattice with earlier work; the experimental-feasibility citations [36–38] do not supply any input that is later renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force a choice, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. Accordingly, the computation is self-contained: every reported phase and the ω_d–f_NCRI relation is generated from the stated Hamiltonian and measured order parameters, not imported as fitted input. The correct finding is no significant circularity (score 0), with the caveat that the direct-link claim needs further analytic or experimental support to establish uniqueness.

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

The central claim rests on standard mean-field inputs plus a few hand-set parameters (interaction strengths, drive geometry). The only genuinely unproven load-bearing premises are the validity of the Leggett f_NCRI as the equilibrium quantity that non-equilibrium current frequency tracks, and the neglect of LHY corrections. No fitted parameters are used to force the f_NCRI-frequency relation.

free parameters (7)
  • gN = 0.5
    Dimensionless contact interaction strength used for the phase diagram in Fig. 1(a); chosen by hand, not fitted to data.
  • kappa (SOC strength) = varied 1 to 15
    Control parameter; critical value kappa_c ~ 9 at epsilon_dd=0.02; the quantitative phase boundaries depend on it.
  • epsilon_dd (dipolar ratio) = varied 0 to 0.5
    Control parameter; phase boundary between meron and skyrmion TSS around 0.2.
  • gamma_0 (PT drive amplitude) = 0.02
    Amplitude of gain/loss in Eq. (3); chosen for the dynamics in Fig. 3, affects damping timescale.
  • sigma (gain/loss width) = 0.1
    Width of localized gain/loss; chosen by hand, affects PT geometry.
  • gain/loss positions x_L, x_R = +/-0.8
    Localized drive positions; chosen by hand, affect the current oscillation pattern.
  • aspect ratio lambda = 10
    Axial-to-radial trap frequency ratio used to justify quasi-2D; standard experimental value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field theory with contact, dipolar, and Rashba SOC terms (Eq. 1) describes the zero-temperature two-component dipolar BEC.
    The entire phase diagram and dynamics are produced by minimizing Eq. (1); beyond-mean-field effects are not included except a footnote.
  • ad hoc to paper Lee-Huang-Yang (LHY) quantum corrections are negligible in the parameter range studied.
    Footnote [47] asserts LHY is negligible 'verified numerically' but shows no verification; this is an unproven input to Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption The angle-averaged Leggett formula in Eq. (2) is a valid measure of superfluid fraction for these trapped, two-dimensional lattices.
    Used to compute f_NCRI and to interpret the current oscillation frequency; no derivation or validity check is given.
  • domain assumption PT-symmetric local gain and loss (Eq. 3) is an appropriate model for the driven-dissipative experiment.
    The non-equilibrium results rest on this open-system model; no comparison to a microscopic reservoir model is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Equilibrium Probing of Topological Supersolids in Spin-Orbit-Coupled Dipolar Condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QV6MAHYR

@misc{pith2026250414578,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Equilibrium Probing of Topological Supersolids in Spin-Orbit-Coupled Dipolar Condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QV6MAHYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14578}
}
read the original abstract

A chiral supersolid is a quantum phase that simultaneously exhibits crystalline order, superfluidity, and topological spin texture, with spontaneously broken translational, U(1) gauge, and chiral symmetries. Here, we demonstrate a chiral supersolid with tunable non-equilibrium dynamics in a spin-orbit coupled dipolar Bose-Einstein condensate. By adjusting dipolar interaction and spin-orbit coupling, we uncover two distinct quantum phase transitions: (i) a first-order transition from a single skyrmion superfluid to a triangular meron supersolid, and (ii) a second-order transition from this superfluid to a square skyrmion supersolid. These phases are characterized by their lattice symmetries, nonclassical rotational inertia, and spin textures. Under parity-time symmetric dissipation, we predict phase-dependent damping of the current oscillations, directly linked to the superfluid fraction. The predicted chiral supersolid phase can be experimentally observed in ultracold magnetic atoms with spin-orbit coupling. Our results establish dipolar quantum gases as a platform for designing topological matter with spintronic functionality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14578 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The phase diagram shows ground states of singly skyrmion (blue), skyrmion-type (orange), and meron-type (green) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Density profiles of (a) meron-type and (b) skyrmion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time evolution of the current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    B. Dong, Q. Sun, W.-M. Liu, A.-C. Ji, X.-F. Zhang, and S.-G. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 96, 013619 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [48]

    H. Hu, B. Ramachandhran, H. Pu, and X.-J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 010402 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [47]

    (1), since the following discussion is focused on the weak dipolar interaction case

    We would like to point out that the Lee-Huang-Yang (LHY) correction [45, 46] has been omitted in our the- ory Eq. (1), since the following discussion is focused on the weak dipolar interaction case. In such condition, the LHY effect is reasonably negligible which has been veri- fied numerically

    work page

  4. [58]

    Zhang and F

    Y.-C. Zhang and F. Maucher, Atoms 11, 102 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [1]

    Boninsegni and N

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

    2012

  6. [2]

    A. F. Andreev and I. M. Lifshitz, Sov. Phys. JETP 29, 1107 (1969)

    1969

  7. [3]

    G. V. Chester, Phys. Rev. A 2, 256 (1970)

    1970

  8. [4]

    A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1543 (1970)

    1970

Show all 82 references
  1. [5]

    Tanzi, S

    L. Tanzi, S. M. Roccuzzo, E. Lucioni, F. Fam` a, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, G. Modugno, A. Recati, and S. Stringari, Nature (London) 574, 382 (2019)

    2019

  2. [6]

    M. Guo, F. B¨ ottcher, J. Hertkorn, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, H. P. B¨ uchler, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Nature (London) 574, 386 (2019)

    2019

  3. [7]

    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

  4. [8]

    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

  5. [9]

    Chomaz, D

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

    2019

  6. [10]

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

    2021

  7. [11]

    Hertkorn, J.-N

    J. Hertkorn, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Guo, F. B¨ ottcher, K. S. H. Ng, S. D. Graham, P. Uerlings, H. P. B¨ uchler, T. Langen, M. Zwierlein, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 155301 (2021)

    2021

  8. [12]

    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

  9. [13]

    Griesmaier, J

    A. Griesmaier, J. Werner, S. Hensler, J. Stuhler, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 160401 (2005)

    2005

  10. [14]

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

    2011

  11. [15]

    Aikawa, A

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

    2012

  12. [16]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe- Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Rep. Prog. Phys. 86, 026401 (2023)

    2023

  13. [17]

    Balibar, Nature (London) 464, 176 (2010)

    S. Balibar, Nature (London) 464, 176 (2010)

    2010

  14. [18]

    Casotti, E

    E. Casotti, E. Poli, L. Klaus, A. Litvinov, C. Ulm, C. Politi, M. J. Mark, T. Bland, and F. Ferlaino, Nature (London) 635, 327 (2024)

    2024

  15. [19]

    Tanzi, J

    L. Tanzi, J. G. Maloberti, G. Biagioni, A. Fioretti, G. Gabbanini, and G. Modugno, Science 371, 1162 (2021)

    2021

  16. [20]

    Biagioni, N

    G. Biagioni, N. Antolini, B. Donelli, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. Fattori, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, M. Inguscio, L. Tanzi, and G. Modugno, Nature (London) 629, 773 (2024)

    2024

  17. [21]

    Chauveau, C

    G. Chauveau, C. Maury, F. Rabec, C. Heintze, G. Brochier, S. Nascimbene, J. Dalibard, J. Beugnon, S. M. Roccuzzo, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 226003 (2023)

    2023

  18. [22]

    L´ eonard, A

    J. L´ eonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Nature (London) 543, 87 (2017)

    2017

  19. [23]

    J.-R. Li, J. Lee, W. Huang, S. Burchesky, B. Shteynas, F. C ¸ . Top, A. O. Jamison, and W. Ketterle, Nature (Lon- don) 543, 91 (2017)

    2017

  20. [24]

    Gopalakrishnan, I

    S. Gopalakrishnan, I. Martin, and E. A. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 185304 (2013)

    2013

  21. [25]

    Y. Deng, J. Cheng, H. Jing, C.-P. Sun, and S. Yi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 125301 (2012)

    2012

  22. [26]

    Zhou and X

    Q. Zhou and X. Cui, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 140407 (2013)

    2013

  23. [27]

    Y. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Fan, W. Pang, S. Fu, and B. A. Mal- omed, Phys. Rev. A 95, 063613 (2017)

    2017

  24. [28]

    Liao, Phys

    R. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 140403 (2018)

    2018

  25. [29]

    Han, X.-F

    W. Han, X.-F. Zhang, D.-S. Wang, H.-F. Jiang, W. Zhang, and S.-G. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 030404 (2018)

    2018

  26. [30]

    K. T. Geier, G. I. Martone, P. Hauke, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 115301 (2021)

    2021

  27. [31]

    K. T. Geier, G. I. Martone, P. Hauke, W. Ketterle, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 156001 (2023)

    2023

  28. [32]

    Stenger, S

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

    1998

  29. [33]

    Saito, Y

    H. Saito, Y. Kawaguchi, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6 102, 230403 (2009)

    2009

  30. [34]

    Soumyanarayanan, N

    A. Soumyanarayanan, N. Reyren, A. Fert, and C. Panagopoulos, Nature (London) 539, 509 (2016)

    2016

  31. [35]

    M. A. Baranov, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Chem. Rev. 112, 5012 (2012)

    2012

  32. [36]

    Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, L

    K. Jim´ enez-Garc´ ıa, L. J. LeBlanc, R. A. Williams, M. C. Beeler, C. Qu, M. Gong, C. Zhang, and I. B. Spielman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 125301 (2015)

    2015

  33. [37]

    N. Q. Burdick, Y. Tang, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031022 (2016)

    2016

  34. [38]

    See Supplemental Material for more details on the exper- imental implementation of our proposal

  35. [39]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. S. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  36. [40]

    W. E. Shirley, B. M. Anderson, C. W. Clark, and R. M. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 165301 (2014)

    2014

  37. [42]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensa- tion in Dilute Gases (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2002)

    2002

  38. [43]

    Pitaevskii and S

    L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensa- tion and Superfluidity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016)

    2016

  39. [44]

    U. R. Fischer, Phys. Rev. A 73, 031602(R) (2006)

    2006

  40. [45]

    T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 105, 1119 (1957)

    1957

  41. [46]

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

    1957

  42. [49]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 899 (2013)

    2013

  43. [50]

    Juzeli¯ unas, J

    G. Juzeli¯ unas, J. Ruseckas, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. A 81, 053403 (2010)

    2010

  44. [51]

    C.-J. Wu, I. Mondragon-Shem, and X.-F. Zhou, Chin. Phys. Lett. 28, 097102 (2011)

    2011

  45. [52]

    R. Liao, O. Fialko, J. Brand, and U. Z¨ ulicke, Phys. Rev. A 92, 043633 (2015)

    2015

  46. [53]

    Heinze, K

    S. Heinze, K. von Bergmann, M. Menzel, J. Brede, A. Ku- betzka, R. Wiesendanger, G. Bihlmayer, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Nat. Phys. 7, 713 (2011)

    2011

  47. [54]

    Sinha, R

    S. Sinha, R. Nath, and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 270401 (2011)

    2011

  48. [55]

    Zhang, F

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

    2019

  49. [56]

    E. Poli, T. Bland, S. J. M. White, M. J. Mark, F. Fer- laino, S. Trabucco, and M. Mannarelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 223401 (2023)

    2023

  50. [57]

    Henkel, F

    N. Henkel, F. Cinti, P. Jain, G. Pupillo, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 265301 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243 (1998)

    1998

  52. [60]

    Hu, H.-Y

    Y.-M. Hu, H.-Y. Wang, Z. Wang, and F. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 050402 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    V. V. Konotop, J. Yang, and D. A. Zezyulin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035002 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    C. M. Bender and D. W. Hook, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 045002 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, J. Marino, and S. Diehl, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 025004 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    E. Zhao, Z. Wang, C. He, Ting Fung Jeffrey Poon, K. K. Pak, Y.- J. Liu, P. Ren, X.-J. Liu, and G.-B. Jo, Nature (London) 637, 565 (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    L. Pan, X. Chen, Y. Chen, and H. Zhai, Nat. Phys. 16, 767 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    V. A. Brazhnyi, V. V. Konotop, V. M. P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, and H. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 144101 (2009)

    2009

  59. [67]

    Barontini, R

    G. Barontini, R. Labouvie, F. Stubenrauch, A. Vogler, V. Guarrera, and H. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 035302 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    Labouvie, B

    R. Labouvie, B. Santra, S. Heun, and H. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 235302 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    Williams, R

    J. Williams, R. Walser, J. Cooper, E. Cornell, and M. Holland, Phys. Rev. A 59, R31 (1999)

    1999

  62. [70]

    Lecomte, A

    M. Lecomte, A. Journeaux, J. Veschambre, J. Dalibard, and R. Lopes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 013402 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Griesmaier, J

    A. Griesmaier, J. Stuhler, and T. Pfau, Appl. Phys. B 82, 211 (2006)

    2006

  64. [72]

    Pasquiou, G

    B. Pasquiou, G. Bismut, Q. Beaufils, A. Crubellier, E. Mar´ echal, P. Pedri, L. Vernac, O. Gorceix, and B. Laburthe-Tolra, Phys. Rev. A 81, 042716 (2010)

    2010

  65. [73]

    Santos, M

    L. Santos, M. Fattori, J. Stuhler, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. A 75, 053606 (2007)

    2007

  66. [74]

    Giovanazzi, A

    S. Giovanazzi, A. G¨ orlitz, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 130401 (2002)

    2002

  67. [75]

    Y. Tang, W. Kao, K.-Y. Li, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 230401 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    Lahaye, T

    T. Lahaye, T. Koch, B. Fr¨ ohlich, M. Fattori, J. Metz, A. Griesmaier, S. Giovanazzi, and T. Pfau, Nature (London) 448, 672 (2007)

    2007

  69. [77]

    P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 013401 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    Lepoutre, A

    S. Lepoutre, A. Journeaux, J. Veschambre, J. Dalibard, and R. Lopes, Phys. Rev. A 111, 033310 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    L. M. Platt, D. Baillie, and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 111, 053305 (2025)

    2025

  72. [80]

    Donelli, N

    B. Donelli, N. Antolini, G. Biagioni, M. Fattori, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, M. Inguscio, L. Tanzi, G. Mod- ugno, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz` e, arXiv:2501.17142

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    A. P. Petrovi´ c, C. Psaroudaki, P. Fischer, M. Garst, and C. Panagopoulos, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 031001 (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Nat. Phys. 20, 730 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.