Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Universal non-thermal fixed point for quasi-1D Bose gases

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that far-from-equilibrium quasi-1D Bose gases relax through the same non-thermal fixed point regardless of interaction strength, showing identical scaling exponents and a universal scaling function.

desk verdict A serious and mostly convincing scaling-collapse paper whose broadest universality claim rests on a partly shared comparison and on a momentum-measurement correction that changes the key universal-function exponent. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20213 v1 pith:2YMNHPDL submitted 2025-05-26 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Qi Liang , RuGway Wu , Pradyumna Paranjape , Ben Schittenkopf , Chen Li , Jörg Schmiedmayer , Sebastian Erne This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords non-thermalfixedpointsself-similarscalingquasi-1DBosegasFeshbachmoleculesBose-Einsteincondensatequantumquenchsolitonicdefectsuniversaldynamics
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

The paper tries to establish that far-from-equilibrium quasi-1D Bose gases relax through a single universal non-thermal fixed point, regardless of interaction strength or how the system was driven out of equilibrium. It reports experiments on strongly interacting $^6\mathrm{Li}_2$ Feshbach molecules whose phase was scrambled by a speckle pulse, and shows that their longitudinal momentum distribution evolves with self-similar scaling—collapsing to one time-independent curve when rescaled by powers of time—with the same exponents and universal function previously seen in weakly interacting $^{87}\mathrm{Rb}$ atoms. If correct, this would be the first direct experimental evidence that microscopically different systems approach the same non-thermal fixed point, giving a universality-class description for far-from-equilibrium dynamics similar to critical phenomena.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-thermal fixed point (NTFP), an attractor solution for the far-from-equilibrium evolution of an isolated quantum system, near which dynamics simplify to self-similar scaling. The argument is carried by the scaling ansatz $n(k,t) = (t/t_0)^\alpha f_S\!\left((t/t_0)^\beta k\right)$, which reduces the full time-dependent momentum distribution to a time-independent function $f_S$ and two exponents $(\alpha, \beta)$; a maximum-likelihood collapse analysis identifies the time windows and exponents. The random defect model, which describes the quenched state as a dilute ensemble of solitonic defects with density $n_s$ and width $\xi_s$, supplies the initial-condition characterization and the timescale $\omega_s = 2\hbar n_s^2/m$ used to map the basin of attraction, while matter-wave focusing converts spatial images into momentum distributions.

What would settle it

Perform an in-trap probe of the longitudinal momentum distribution, for example by Bragg spectroscopy, during the same quench and scaling windows, and check whether the same exponents ($\alpha \approx \beta \approx 0.1$) and universal curve are recovered without the $k_\mathrm{int} \approx 0.05\ \mu\mathrm{m}^{-1}$ offset correction; if the collapse exists only after correction, the universal fixed point could be a measurement artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the relaxation of a strongly perturbed quasi-1D Bose gas—here a molecular condensate of $^6\mathrm{Li}_2$ with tunable s-wave scattering length—follows the spatio-temporal scaling ansatz $n(k,t) = (t/t_0)^\alpha \, f_S\!\left((t/t_0)^\beta k\right)$ over two distinct time windows. In the earlier “1D” window the exponents are $\alpha \approx \beta \approx 0.1$, consistent with particle-number-conserving transport in one dimension, and the universal scaling function $f_S(k)$ is independent of interaction strength, with shape consistent with $1/(1+|k|^\zeta)$ ($\zeta \approx 1.6$). The later “crossover” window shows $\alpha/\beta \approx 0.5$ and is tied to transverse dynamics. The same exponents and function match those found in the weakly interacting $^{87}\mathrm{Rb}$ experiment, so the paper concludes that a single non-thermal fixed point with a large basin of attraction governs quasi-1D bosonic relaxation, with the initial state described as a random ensemble of soliton-like defects whose width must be below the healing length for scaling to occur.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the measured post-expansion momentum distributions faithfully represent the in-trap distribution during evolution, corrected only by a small fitted offset for unaccounted interaction energy release along the axial direction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same scaling exponents and universal function should describe relaxation in other quasi-1D bosonic systems, including those with different quench protocols, once they enter the fixed point's basin of attraction.
  • Strongly interacting far-from-equilibrium dynamics can be studied in weakly interacting analogues, because interaction strength drops out of the universal exponents and scaling function.
  • The 1D scaling window's $\alpha = \beta \approx 0.1$ follows from particle-number conservation in the scaling region, giving a direct check of universality through moment scaling.
  • The crossover window's $\alpha/\beta \approx 0.5$ implies a conserved quantity $\sim 1/\sqrt{k}$ transported to low momenta, which the paper attributes to coupling to radial degrees of freedom.
  • The basin-of-attraction map in the $(\xi_s/\xi_h,\ \mu/\hbar\omega_\perp)$ plane provides a practical criterion—defect width below the healing length—for when quasi-1D bosons will exhibit universal coarsening.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a single NTFP truly governs quasi-1D bosons, a testable extension would be to measure the same scaling exponents in other one-dimensional quantum gases, such as photons or magnons in spin chains, provided the effective nonlinearity and dimensionality match.
  • The fitted offset $k_\mathrm{int} \approx 0.05\ \mu\mathrm{m}^{-1}$ used to correct for interaction energy released along the axis suggests that equivalent universal collapse in other experiments could be sensitive to release geometry; an independent in-trap measurement technique would remove this systematic.
  • The paper's evidence leaves open whether the “crossover” window is itself a separate fixed point or a finite-time dimensional-crossover effect; a controlled experiment varying the transverse confinement at fixed interaction could distinguish these.
  • One could test the universality claim by quenching a quasi-1D gas from a completely different initial state, e.g., a density-modulated state rather than a phase-scrambled one, and checking that the same $(\alpha, \beta, f_S)$ emerge.
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. Liang et al. report experiments on 6Li2 Feshbach molecules in an elongated trap, quenched by a speckle pulse that imprints a white-noise phase, and they measure the longitudinal momentum distribution via matter-wave focusing after variable hold times. They identify two time windows in which n(k,t) collapses according to n(k,t) = (t/t0)^α f_S((t/t0)^β k): a "1D" window with α ≈ β ≈ 0.1, robust for chemical potentials up to about 100 Hz, and a "crossover" window with α/β ≈ 0.5, whose exponents vary with interaction strength. The scaling function f_S is fitted to [1+|k|^ζ]^{-1} with ζ ≈ 1.60 (1D) and ζ ≈ 1.77 (crossover). The initial post-quench momentum distributions are described by a random-defect model, and the 1D-window exponents match those previously reported for shock-cooled 87Rb. The authors conclude that a single non-thermal fixed point with a large basin of attraction governs relaxation of quasi-1D bosonic systems, independent of microscopic details and interaction strength. The supplement describes the scaling analysis, the random-defect model, a k_int offset correction for interaction-energy release during expansion, and control measurements with different trap geometries and a double-speckle quench.

Significance. If the scaling interpretation survives scrutiny, this is an important result: it would be the first direct experimental evidence that two microscopically different quasi-1D bosonic systems—strongly interacting 6Li2 molecules and weakly interacting 87Rb atoms—approach the same non-thermal fixed point, with shared exponents and scaling function. The paper is also constructive in testing the random-defect model against the initial state, in mapping the basin of attraction in Fig. 4(e), and in providing cross-checks such as the double-speckle protocol and variable transverse confinement. However, the central claim rests on the fidelity of the axial momentum measurement and on the post hoc identification of scaling windows; both need additional validation before the universality statement can be taken at face value. The paper does not supply machine-checked proofs or deposited data, so the quantitative reliability of the exponents and scaling functions depends on the completeness of the supplementary analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary G, 'Universal Function', Fig. S9] The central measurement assumption is not yet secured. The manuscript states that adding an offset k_int ≈ 0.05 µm^-1 to the universal function changes the fitted exponent ζ from 1.60 to 2.56, and attributes this offset to release of interaction energy along the axial direction during matter-wave focusing. Because the reported scaling window extends down to k ≈ 0.05–0.1 µm^-1, the low-momentum part of f_S—the part that carries the infrared transport information and is used for comparison with the 87Rb result—is determined by an estimated correction rather than by a directly calibrated measurement. Furthermore, the correction is implemented as a constant offset in the functional form, whereas the in-trap interaction energy, and hence the axial release distortion at the moment of trap release, is expected to evolve across the 5–10 ms scaling window. The authors should quantify the systematic uncertainty in α, β and ζ from this correction, test whether a time-dependent release model changes the collapse, and, if possible, validate the axial momentum measurement against a method that is not affected by the release (e.g., Bragg or lattice modulation spectroscopy). Without this, the apparent self-similar collapse could in principle be distorted by the measurement.
  2. [Supplementary E, 'Scaling Analysis', Fig. S4] The identification of scaling windows is performed post hoc: a narrow analysis window and a small momentum cutoff are scanned through the data, and a scaling window is accepted when the ratio χ2_0,0/χ2_α,β exceeds 0.7 of its maximum. This procedure can, in principle, find transient collapses in noisy or non-scaling data, and the reported robustness check (varying the reference time t0 in Fig. S6) does not test the window-selection rule itself. The authors should add a control analysis on simulated data without scaling (e.g., randomized time ordering of the measured profiles, or synthetic non-scaling profiles with the same noise) and report the false-positive rate of the window-selection criterion. This is important because the existence and duration of the scaling windows is the primary evidence for the fixed point.
  3. [Fig. 3(a), Fig. 3(e), Table S1] The universality claim is stronger than what the data demonstrate. The 1D scaling window is observed only for µ/h ≲ 100 Hz; for the stronger-interaction datasets (1449–3121 a0) no 1D window is found, and the crossover-window exponents vary substantially across interaction strengths (e.g., β from 0.574(128) at 622 a0 to 0.228(63) at 3121 a0 in Table S1). The manuscript attributes the disappearance to limited statistics and window duration, but no quantitative upper bound is given. The abstract's claim of a single NTFP 'independent of interaction strength' should therefore be restricted to the parameter range actually covered, or supported by additional data or analysis showing that the absence is purely a statistical limitation.
  4. [Main text, final comparison paragraph; Table S1] The claim that the two experiments share the same scaling function f_S is not directly evidenced in the paper. The main text states consistency of exponents and refers to the supplement, but no figure overlays the scaled 87Rb profiles (or the 87Rb f_S) with the 6Li2 f_S over a common k range. Given that the two papers share two authors and the same maximum-likelihood scaling analysis, an explicit, side-by-side comparison of f_S—including the same treatment of the k_int correction for both datasets—is necessary to support the central 'single fixed point' conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1) and Fig. 3 caption] The notation for the scaling function should be written as f_S(y) = [1 + (y/y0)^ζ]^{-1} or similar; as printed, '(1 + kζ)−1' is dimensionally ambiguous.
  2. [Supplementary G] The sentence 'fs = 1/(1 + |k|ζ)−1' contains a typo in the exponent placement; clarify whether the offset enters as (|k| + k_int)^ζ or as |k|^ζ + constant, and state the units of k_int explicitly.
  3. [Table S1] The in-trap chemical potential µint is missing for the two largest scattering lengths (2522 a0 and 3121 a0); state whether in-situ density was not measured for those datasets and how the corresponding µ/h ≈ 100 Hz bound was estimated or omitted.
  4. [Fig. S9(b)] The axes and plotted quantity in the ratio plot are described only in the caption text; define the ordinate and abscissa explicitly and include uncertainty estimates for the ratio.
  5. [Fig. 4(e) caption] The phrase 'The inset plot' should read 'The inset plots', and the dimensionless duration Δt·ω_s should be defined in the caption rather than only in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 6Li2 scaling collapse is self-contained; the prior 87Rb comparison is self-cited but independent.

full rationale

The paper's central evidence is an empirical scaling collapse of the measured longitudinal momentum distributions n(k,t) of strongly interacting 6Li2 Feshbach molecules. The scaling exponents alpha and beta are extracted from the data via a maximum-likelihood collapse procedure (Eq. S1-S3) without assuming the form of fS, and the universal function fS = (1+|k|^zeta)^{-1} is then fitted to the collapsed profiles. This part of the argument is self-contained and does not reduce to any fitted input. The claim of a single universal NTFP for quasi-1D bosons rests on comparing these exponents and fS with the previously published 87Rb experiment [13]. That citation shares two authors (Erne and Schmiedmayer) and the same scaling-analysis methodology, so the cross-system comparison is not fully independent in an authorship sense. However, [13] is a separately published experiment on a different species, apparatus, and quench protocol, and no equation in the present paper forces the 6Li2 result to equal the 87Rb result by construction. The random-defect model [21] is used to fit the initial momentum distributions and to define omega_s = 2 hbar n_s^2 / m from the fitted initial defect density; the resulting dimensionless duration Delta t * omega_s is a rescaling of independently measured scaling-window durations, not a prediction statistically forced by the fit. The k_int offset discussed in Supplementary G (changing zeta from 1.60 to 2.56) is an acknowledged systematic correction for axial interaction release during matter-wave focusing; it is a measurement-distortion estimate, not a self-referential definition of the scaling function. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz is imported solely by self-citation. The main scaling result therefore has independent empirical content, and the minor self-citation overlap does not make the derivation circular.

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

The central experimental result rests on a scaling ansatz, a quasi-1D effective model, and a measurement mapping; no new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The random-defect model introduces fitted defect densities and widths from the same initial-state data used to set the time scale, so part of the interpretation is self-referential, though the main exponents are compared with an external 87Rb experiment.

free parameters (5)
  • 1D-window scaling exponents (alpha, beta) = e.g., alpha = 0.095 +/- 0.011, beta = 0.108 +/- 0.015 at add = 623 a0; alpha = 0.076 +/- 0.042, beta = 0.099 +/- 0.092…
    Fitted by maximum likelihood to collapse momentum profiles to a single curve; they carry the universality claim and are central fitted quantities.
  • Crossover-window scaling exponents (alpha, beta) = e.g., alpha = 0.20 +/- 0.05, beta = 0.46 +/- 0.07 for the representative 740 a0 dataset
    Second scaling window; fitted similarly to the 1D window and not predicted from the first window.
  • Universal function exponent zeta = zeta = 1.604 +/- 0.011 (1D), 1.766 +/- 0.014 (crossover)
    Fitted to the collapsed profiles; deviates from the random-defect-model prediction until an offset is added.
  • Random-defect-model parameters (xi_s, n_s) = e.g., xi_s = 1.29 to 1.85 micrometers, n_s = 0.29 to 0.48 inverse micrometers across datasets
    Fitted to the initial momentum distribution; used to define the solitonic defect ensemble and the time scale omega_s.
  • Interaction-release offset k_int = k_int approximately 0.05 inverse micrometers
    Phenomenological offset added to the universal function so that the fitted exponent zeta matches the random-defect-model prediction; attributed to about 1.5% of the chemical potential released along the axial direction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Self-similar scaling ansatz n(k,t) = (t/t0)^alpha f_S((t/t0)^beta k) is a valid description of the relaxation.
    The whole analysis searches for time windows where this ansatz collapses the data; no alternative non-scaling explanation is tested.
  • domain assumption The longitudinal momentum distribution after matter-wave focusing equals the in-trap momentum distribution along x.
    Required for all extracted exponents; the authors flag a small distortion and correct it with k_int.
  • domain assumption The random defect model (Eq. S6) describes the quenched initial state.
    Used to extract defect density and width; assumes a dilute ensemble of solitonic defects with a Lorentzian low-momentum part and an exponential high-momentum cutoff.
  • domain assumption The quasi-1D effective interaction g1D = 16 hbar^2 a_dd / (3 m R_perp^2) and chemical potential mu = n0 g1D characterize the system.
    Used to compare different interaction strengths and to compare with the 87Rb experiment; assumes a transverse Thomas-Fermi profile and a separable quasi-1D description.
  • domain assumption Particle number conservation within the scaling region, expressed by alpha = d beta with d = 1, applies.
    Used to interpret the 1D-window ratio alpha/beta approximately 1; this is a known consequence of the scaling form when particle transport is conserved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal non-thermal fixed point for quasi-1D Bose gases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2YMNHPDL

@misc{pith2026250520213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal non-thermal fixed point for quasi-1D Bose gases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2YMNHPDL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20213}
}
abstract

Spatio-temporal scaling dynamics connected to non-thermal fixed points has been suggested as a universal framework to describe the relaxation of isolated far-from-equilibrium systems. Experimental studies in weakly-interacting cold atom systems have found scaling dynamics connected to specific attractors. In our experiments, we study a quantum gas of strongly interacting $^6$Li$_2$ Feshbach molecules, brought far out of equilibrium by imprinting a white-noise phase profile. The observed relaxation follows the same universal dynamics as for the previously observed formation of the order parameter in a shock-cooled gas of weakly interacting $^{87}$Rb atoms. Our results point to a single universal fixed point with a large basin of attraction governing the relaxation of quasi-1D bosonic systems, independent of their specific initial conditions and microscopic details.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20213 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    S. Erne, R. B¨ ucker, T. Gasenzer, J. Berges, and J. Schmiedmayer, Universal dynamics in an isolated one- dimensional bose gas far from equilibrium, Nature 563, 225 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed in- teracting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  3. [2]

    1D”(left) and the “Crossover

    enabled the identification and deep understanding of phenomena based on their critical exponents. In recent years, growing evidence of spatio-temporal scaling dy- namics emerged even for far-from-equilibrium systems, both from theoretical considerations and experimental observation (see e.g. [3]). On the theoretical side it was suggested that far- from-eq...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    Schmied, A

    C.-M. Schmied, A. N. Mikheev, and T. Gasenzer, Non- thermal fixed points: Universal dynamics far from equi- librium, International Journal of Modern Physics A 34, 1941006 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Berges, A

    J. Berges, A. Rothkopf, and J. Schmidt, Nonthermal fixed points: Effective weak coupling for strongly cor- related systems far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 041603 (2008)

    2008

  6. [5]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  7. [6]

    Gasenzer, B

    T. Gasenzer, B. Nowak, and D. Sexty, Charge separation in reheating after cosmological inflation, Physics Letters B 710, 500 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    Chatrchyan, K

    A. Chatrchyan, K. T. Geier, M. K. Oberthaler, J. Berges, and P. Hauke, Analog cosmological reheating in an ultra- cold bose gas, Phys. Rev. A 104, 023302 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Pi˜ neiro Orioli, K

    A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli, K. Boguslavski, and J. Berges, Univer- sal self-similar dynamics of relativistic and nonrelativistic field theories near nonthermal fixed points, Phys. Rev. D 92, 025041 (2015)

    2015

  2. [9]

    Berges, K

    J. Berges, K. Boguslavski, S. Schlichting, and R. Venu- gopalan, Universality far from equilibrium: From super- fluid bose gases to heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 061601 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    R. Walz, K. Boguslavski, and J. Berges, Large- n kinetic theory for highly occupied systems, Phys. Rev. D 97, 116011 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Mazeliauskas and J

    A. Mazeliauskas and J. Berges, Prescaling and far-from- equilibrium hydrodynamics in the quark-gluon plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 122301 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Pr¨ ufer, P

    M. Pr¨ ufer, P. Kunkel, H. Strobel, S. Lannig, D. Lin- nemann, C.-M. Schmied, J. Berges, T. Gasenzer, and M. K. Oberthaler, Observation of universal dynamics in a spinor Bose gas far from equilibrium, Nature 563, 217 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and T. Preis, Prescal- ing relaxation to nonthermal attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 071602 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    M. Gazo, A. Karailiev, T. Satoor, C. Eigen, M. Ga lka, and Z. Hadzibabic, Universal coarsening in a ho- mogeneous two-dimensional bose gas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09248 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Martirosyan, C

    G. Martirosyan, C. J. Ho, J. c. v. Etrych, Y. Zhang, A. Cao, Z. Hadzibabic, and C. Eigen, Observation of sub- diffusive dynamic scaling in a driven and disordered bose gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 113401 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    J. A. P. Glidden, C. Eigen, L. H. Dogra, T. A. Hilker, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Bidirectional dynamic scaling in an isolated bose gas far from equilibrium, Na- ture Phys. 17, 457 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Martirosyan, M

    G. Martirosyan, M. Gazo, J. Etrych, S. M. Fischer, S. J. Morris, C. J. Ho, C. Eigen, and Z. Hadzibabic, A uni- versal speed limit for spreading of quantum coherence (2024), arXiv:2410.08204 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024

  11. [19]

    Lannig, M

    S. Lannig, M. Pr¨ ufer, Y. Deller, I. Siovitz, J. Dreher, T. Gasenzer, H. Strobel, and M. K. Oberthaler, Obser- vation of two non-thermal fixed points for the same mi- croscopic symmetry (2023), arXiv:2306.16497

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. Huh, K. Mukherjee, K. Kwon, J. Seo, S. I. Mistakidis, H. R. Sadeghpour, and J. yoon Choi, Universality class of a spinor bose–einstein condensate far from equilibrium, Nature Phys. 20, 402 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Schmidt, S

    M. Schmidt, S. Erne, B. Nowak, D. Sexty, and T. Gasen- zer, Non-thermal fixed points and solitons in a one- dimensional bose gas, New Journal of Physics 14, 075005 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Fujii and T

    K. Fujii and T. Enss, Hydrodynamic attractor in ultra- cold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 173402 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Jochim, M

    S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, S. Riedl, C. Chin, J. Hecker Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Bose-einstein condensation of molecules, Science 302, 2101 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    J. E. Lye, L. Fallani, M. Modugno, D. S. Wiersma, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Bose-einstein condensate in a random potential, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 070401 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Nagler, S

    B. Nagler, S. Barbosa, J. Koch, G. Orso, and A. Widera, Observing the loss and revival of long-range phase co- herence through disorder quenches, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2111078118 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Durnin, M

    J. Durnin, M. J. Bhaseen, and B. Doyon, Nonequilib- rium dynamics and weakly broken integrability, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 130601 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    A. E. Muryshev, H. B. van Linden van den Heuvell, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Stability of standing matter waves in a trap, Phys. Rev. A 60, R2665 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    D. J. Frantzeskakis, Dark solitons in atomic bose–einstein condensates: from theory to experiments, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 43, 213001 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    P. A. Murthy, D. Kedar, T. Lompe, M. Neidig, M. G. Ries, A. N. Wenz, G. Z¨ urn, and S. Jochim, Matter- wave Fourier optics with a strongly interacting two- dimensional Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A 90, 043611 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Panfil, S

    M. Panfil, S. Gopalakrishnan, and R. M. Konik, Ther- malization of interacting quasi-one-dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 030401 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Doyon, S

    B. Doyon, S. Gopalakrishnan, F. Møller, J. Schmied- mayer, and R. Vasseur, Generalized hydrodynamics: A perspective, Phys. Rev. X 15, 010501 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Gresista, T

    L. Gresista, T. V. Zache, and J. Berges, Dimensional crossover for universal scaling far from equilibrium, Phys- ical Review A 105, 013320 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Bartenstein, A

    M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, R. Geursen, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, R. Grimm, A. Si- moni, E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, and P. S. Juli- enne, Precise determination of 6Li cold collision param- eters by radio-frequency spectroscopy on weakly bound molecules,...

    2005

  26. [34]

    Jochim, M

    S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, S. Riedl, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Bose- 13 Einstein condensation of molecules, Science 302, 2101 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Liang, C

    Q. Liang, C. Li, S. Erne, P. Paranjape, R. Wu, and J. Schmiedmayer, Diffraction of strongly interacting molecular Bose-Einstein condensate from standing wave light pulses, SciPost Phys. 12, 154 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Weakly bound dimers of fermionic atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 090404 (2004)

    2004

  29. [38]

    Z¨ urn, T

    G. Z¨ urn, T. Lompe, A. N. Wenz, S. Jochim, P. S. Julienne, and J. M. Hutson, Precise characterization of 6Li Feshbach resonances using trap-sideband-resolved RF spectroscopy of weakly bound molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 135301 (2013)

    2013

  30. [739]

    𝟖𝒂𝟎 FIG. S4. Scaling windows determination: χ2 0,0/χ2 α,β calculation and Scaling window analysis results for B = 620 G, add = 739.8a0. Two distinct peaks suggest two separate scaling regimes. Τ𝜇 ℏ𝜔 0.48 0.60 0.67 0.82 1.01 Normalized 𝑛(𝑘, 𝑡 = 0) 𝑘 ( Τ1 𝜇𝑚) FIG. S5. Fitting in...

  31. [1222]

    1D-scaling

    𝟑𝒂𝟎 40 60 80 100 50 100 150 (a) (b) 𝜶 𝜷 (c) (d) 𝑛(𝑘) 𝑛(𝑘) 48 60 67 82 101 106 121 147 𝜇(Hz) (e) FIG. 3. Scaling properties and time windows: Scal- ing exponents and the ratio of ( a)1D and ( b)crossover win- dows versus chemical potential (µ calculated from initial den- sity)....

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.