Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 113 references

Nonreciprocal and long-range three-body interactions in Bose-Einstein condensates induced by optical feedback

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 A quasi-2D Bose-Einstein condensate in a two-mirror optical feedback setup can be made to interact purely through a long-range, nonreciprocal three-body force that self-organizes droplet and ring states and accelerates the condensate's…

desk verdict Clean derivation of a pure long-range nonreciprocal three-body interaction, but the stationary-state predictions rest on an unchecked density truncation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21044 v1 pith:RMTONCOO submitted 2025-05-27 cond-mat.quant-gas

Yi-Qing Zhang , Liang-Jun He , Han Pu , Zheng-Wei Zhou , Yong-Chang Zhang This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords three-bodyinteractionsopticalfeedbackBose-Einsteincondensatesnonreciprocallong-rangeself-accelerationdropletclusterstatesGross-Pitaevskiiequation
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 proposes a way to make a quasi-two-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate interact with itself through a pure three-body force. Placing the condensate between two mirrors and illuminating it with two laser frequencies makes light pass through the atoms twice, and after the light is eliminated the atoms feel a long-range, oscillatory interaction that is nonreciprocal: two atoms alone feel nothing, but three atoms do. The two light-induced two-body terms cancel exactly for a chosen ratio of mirror distances and detunings, leaving the three-body term alone and tunable in sign. With this interaction alone, the condensate self-organizes into droplet clusters shaped from equilateral triangles and, for positive interaction strength, a self-bound ring state; strong coupling instead drives a diffusive, multi-spot collapse. Starting from an asymmetric density, the condensate's center of mass accelerates without an external force, which contradicts Newton's law within the atomic-only model but is reconciled because the backward light fields carry the opposite momentum.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective three-body potential of Eq. (11), derived by expanding the feedback dipole potential (Eq. (4)) to second order in the atomic density under the thin-medium condition and using the paraxial diffraction kernel $f_\sigma(r) \approx -i k_\sigma/(2 d_\sigma) \exp(i k_\sigma r^2/(4 d_\sigma))$. The expansion is organized so that the term quadratic in density (the two-body interaction) is exactly cancelled by choosing $k_1/d_1 = k_2/d_2$, $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = \alpha$, and $\beta_1 = -\beta_2 = \beta$, while the cubic term — the product of two density integrals with a cosine kernel minus a local sine-kernel term — survives with strength $C_3 = 2\alpha\beta^2 m k/(\hbar d)$. This potential does the work in the paper: its oscillatory long-range character selects the boundaries of the self-bound states, and its asymmetry under particle exchange produces the self-acceleration. The machinery is completed by the closed Gross-Pitaevskii equation (Eq. (10)) in which the light fields have been adiabatically eliminated.

What would settle it

Numerically evolve the full potential of Eq. (4) without the density expansion for the asymmetric initial states and parameters of Fig. 5(c) and compare the center-of-mass displacement with the truncated-model result; if the full potential does not reproduce the self-acceleration, the effect is an artifact of the small-phase expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that optical feedback in the two-mirror, dichromatic setup generates an effective atom-atom interaction whose lowest nontrivial order is genuinely three-body. The interaction potential (Eq. (11)) consists of a squared convolution of the density with a quadratic-phase kernel plus a term where two particles must coincide, and it is asymmetric under exchange of the field point with a source point, which is what makes the force nonreciprocal. Because the two-body light-induced potential is made to vanish by the parameter choice of Eq. (9), the dynamics of the condensate is described by a Gross-Pitaevskii equation (Eq. (10)) that contains only contact two-body and long-range three-body terms. Solving this equation, the authors find stable self-bound droplet clusters whose elementary unit is an equilateral triangle, a stable self-organized ring state for positive $C_3$, and a diffusive collapse for strong coupling. They further find that an initially asymmetric density acquires a spontaneously accelerating center of mass, an effect they attribute to the nonreciprocity, and they show that the missing momentum is transferred to the transverse momentum of the backward light beams, so total momentum is conserved.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the small-phase expansion of the feedback potential being accurate when truncated at second order in the density, together with the paraxial kernel approximation for mirror distances much larger than the optical wavelength; if higher-order density terms contribute substantially, the derived three-body interaction and its predicted states and dynamics would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pure three-body interaction, with the competing light-induced two-body interaction exactly zero, is available in a continuum gas and its sign can be flipped by changing the detuning.
  • The predicted self-bound droplet clusters, with the three-droplet equilateral triangle as the minimal unit, and the self-organized ring state should form without any external trapping potential.
  • At sufficiently strong coupling the condensate should undergo diffusive collapse into multiple separated high-density spots rather than a single singularity.
  • An initially asymmetric density profile should produce a center-of-mass self-acceleration whose direction depends on the asymmetry; measuring the transverse momentum of the back-reflected beams should reveal the compensating recoil.
  • The parameter cancellation condition of Eq. (9) gives experimental control to isolate multi-body physics from two-body feedback effects, testable with current mirror-feedback setups.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, a direct numerical comparison of the stationary states found from the truncated potential Eq. (11) with those from the full potential Eq. (4) would show how the second-order expansion shifts the droplet and ring stability boundaries.
  • The momentum-conservation argument implies a concrete experimental signature: the transverse deflection of the back-reflected beams should track the center-of-mass acceleration, providing a direct test of where the missing momentum goes.
  • Because the effective interaction is non-Hamiltonian, the system has no energy functional; the imaginary-time relaxation used to find stationary states may select only certain metastable configurations, so the observed pattern could depend on the preparation history.
  • Keeping the next order in the density expansion would generate four-body light-induced interactions, and a natural question is whether the two-body cancellation condition of Eq. (9) still holds at that order, which would determine how clean the pure three-body regime is.
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 proposes an optical-feedback scheme for generating a long-range, nonreciprocal effective three-body interaction in a quasi-2D BEC. The authors derive the feedback-induced dipole potential, expand it to second order in the atomic density, isolate a three-body potential V_III, and show that the induced two-body potential can be eliminated by a dichromatic cancellation condition. Using a dimensionless GPE with only this three-body interaction, they numerically obtain droplet-cluster and ring stationary states, study real-time self-organization dynamics, and report center-of-mass self-acceleration from asymmetric initial states, with a momentum-conservation argument for the coupled atom-light system.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides a conceptually new route to pure, tunable three-body interactions in a continuum quantum gas, with properties (long range, spatially oscillating, nonreciprocal) not present in earlier lattice or mixture proposals. The paper is explicit about the derivation from a microscopic light-atom coupling, the cancellation condition is stated in closed form, and the numerical exploration covers stationary states, dynamics, and parameter dependence. The main scientific value is the proposed mechanism and the qualitative predictions: self-bound droplet clusters, a self-organized ring state, diffusive collapse, and self-acceleration. However, the quantitative predictions rest on approximation steps that are not yet fully validated, so the significance is conditional on the requested checks.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (4)-(11)] The small-phase expansion truncated at second order in the density is the load-bearing step, but its validity is never checked for the high-density self-bound states used in Sec. III. The stated condition, k_sigma mu^2/(2 epsilon_0 hbar Delta_sigma^+) |psi(r')|^2 << 1, is not evaluated for the converged droplet or ring states, and all stationary-state results in Figs. 2 and 3 are computed only from the truncated Eq. (11). If higher-order density terms contribute at the density maxima, V_III and hence the phase boundaries, thresholds, and the existence of the ring branch would change. The authors should report the maximum phase excursion for representative states or recompute at least the main branches with the full potential Eq. (4).
  2. [Sec. III, imaginary-time evolution] The imaginary-time relaxation is used to obtain 'stable stationary states' even though the evolution is explicitly non-Hermitian and the authors state that no energy exists. The meaning of 'chemical potential' in Figs. 2(a) and 3(a) is therefore undefined, and the converged states could be artifacts of the relaxation algorithm. The authors should verify that representative converged states are stationary and stable under real-time evolution with the same V_III, and should substantiate the non-Hermiticity claim, e.g., by showing that V_III is not the functional derivative of any translation-invariant energy functional, or by demonstrating that total momentum of the truncated model is not conserved.
  3. [Sec. IVB, full-potential check] The only validation of the truncated three-body potential against the full potential Eq. (4) is a single real-time run whose result is reported only as 'not shown'. This is insufficient to support the robustness of the self-acceleration claim and provides no check for the stationary-state results of Sec. III. Please show the comparison (for example, the COM trajectory with the full and truncated potentials for the same initial condition), and additionally redo at least one stationary-state calculation, such as the ring state near C3N^2 = 280, with Eq. (4) to confirm that the phase diagram is not a truncation artifact.
  4. [Sec. IVB, Eqs. (14)-(16)] The momentum-conservation argument uses integration by parts and assumes that boundary terms at infinity vanish; this should be stated explicitly. More importantly, the argument compares the force on the atoms in the effective model with the momentum flux of the optical fields in the full model, but the consistency of this comparison for the same order of approximation is not discussed. A concrete check would be to evaluate dP_total/dt from the full feedback model numerically for the self-accelerating trajectory and show that it vanishes to the same order as the truncation used to derive V_III.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states that the simulations use the effective three-body interactions Eq. (7), but the dimensionless simulations use Eq. (11), which is the rescaled version of Eq. (7); please correct the reference.
  2. [Sec. III, last paragraph] The sentence describing the effect of contact repulsion for the positive and negative cases appears to reverse the signs: the text says the stable region expands with increasing contact interaction 'in contrast' to the positive case, but the previous paragraph described the negative case as shrinking; please clarify which case is which.
  3. [Sec. IVB, first paragraph] The phrase 'manifestly violates Newton's law of motion' is too strong for a subsystem that exchanges momentum with the eliminated optical fields; the abstract's wording 'seemingly violating' is more appropriate and should be used consistently.
  4. [Sec. III, Figs. 2(a) and 3(a)] If the system has no energy functional, the quantity plotted as the chemical potential needs a definition; otherwise the reader cannot interpret the vertical axis.
  5. [Sec. IVA, Fig. 4] The caption and text label the cases as 'positive three-body interactions' and 'negative three-body interactions', but the figures use C3N^2 values of both signs; please label the rows with the actual sign and value to remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the three-body potential is derived from the light-matter model, and the predicted states and self-acceleration are numerical outputs rather than inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central object, the effective three-body interaction, is obtained by an explicit derivation rather than by fitting or definition. Equation (4) combines the density-dependent forward phase shift of Eq. (1), the diffractive backward propagator of Eq. (2), and the dipole potential of Eq. (3); Eqs. (5)-(7) then follow from a stated small-phase expansion retaining terms up to second order in |psi|^2, and Eq. (11) is the resulting dimensionless three-body term under the two-color cancellation condition of Eq. (9). All parameters (alpha_sigma, beta_sigma, C3, g2D) are expressed in terms of laser detunings, Rabi frequencies, wavelengths, mirror distances, and atomic properties; none is fitted to the droplet clusters, ring state, collapse, or center-of-mass motion. Thresholds such as |C3|N^2 ~ 15 and the stability branches in Figs. 2 and 3 are outputs of imaginary-time and real-time evolution. The authors' prior work [36,37] is cited for the standard feedback configuration, the thin-medium phase expression, and the paraxial kernel approximation, but not as a uniqueness theorem or as the target result; the new dichromatic cancellation and the three-body term are derived in the present paper. The paper itself discloses the main limitations, namely that stationary states are obtained by imaginary-time relaxation of a non-Hamiltonian system and that only self-acceleration was rechecked against the full potential of Eq. (4). These are truncation and robustness concerns, not circular reductions. No step could be exhibited where a prediction is identical to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on standard paraxial diffraction and mean-field GPE, plus a set of domain assumptions (large detuning, thin medium, polarization isolation, equal dipole matrix elements) and the specifically engineered cancellation condition Eq. (9). No new microscopic particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The main unverified ingredients are the truncation to second order in density and the use of imaginary-time evolution for a non-Hamiltonian effective dynamics.

free parameters (1)
  • Three-body interaction strength C3N^2 = Scanned over ranges such as -500 to 500 in dimensionless units
    Not fitted to experimental data; it is a dimensionless control parameter derived from laser parameters and scanned in simulations. All predicted phenomena, including droplet thresholds and self-acceleration, are functions of this scanned strength.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fresnel/paraxial diffraction integral Eq. (2) with the approximation f_sigma(r) approximately -i k_sigma/(2 d_sigma) exp(i k_sigma r^2/(4 d_sigma)) for d_sigma >> k_sigma^{-1}.
    Introduced at Eq. (2) and below Eq. (7); the entire feedback potential depends on this propagation kernel.
  • domain assumption Large detuning and thin-medium conditions: excited-state population and diffraction within the BEC are negligible, and the forward field acquires a local density-dependent phase as in Eq. (1).
    Stated in Sec. II before Eq. (1); used to adiabatically eliminate the optical fields and write the dipole potential Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Expansion of the feedback potential in powers of |psi|^2 is truncated at second order, yielding V_II and V_III, with higher-order density terms neglected.
    Sec. II, text around Eq. (5): 'retaining terms up to second order in the density |psi|^2'. This truncation is load-bearing for both the stationary-state and dynamical results, except for the partial full-potential check in Sec. IVB.
  • domain assumption No interference between forward and backward propagating beams, achieved by circular polarization and a quarter-wave plate.
    Sec. II, paragraph after Fig. 1; this justifies using summed intensities rather than field interference in the dipole potential.
  • domain assumption Equal dipole matrix elements mu for the two V-type atomic transitions.
    Sec. II immediately after Eq. (1): 'we have assumed equal dipole matrix elements mu for the two atomic transitions'. This is required for the cancellation condition to work cleanly.
  • ad hoc to paper Cancellation condition Eq. (9): k1/d1 = k2/d2, alpha_1 = alpha_2 = alpha, beta_1 = -beta_2 = beta.
    This is the designed parameter choice that eliminates the two-body interaction and isolates V_III. The paper's central results all assume this condition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonreciprocal and long-range three-body interactions in Bose-Einstein condensates induced by optical feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMTONCOO

@misc{pith2026250521044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonreciprocal and long-range three-body interactions in Bose-Einstein condensates induced by optical feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMTONCOO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21044}
}
read the original abstract

We propose generating long-range and nonreciprocal three-body interactions in quantum gases via optical feedback. By placing a quasi-two-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) in front of two reflecting mirrors and illuminating it with dichromatic laser beams, these driving optical fields traverse the BEC twice, thereby inducing a feedback effect on the atoms. We demonstrate that this optical feedback gives rise to an effective three-body atom-atom interaction with remarkable long-range and nonreciprocal properties. Due to its long-range nature, this three-body interaction can cause unique spatial symmetry-breaking behaviors in the BEC, resulting in various stable stationary states as well as unexpected diffusive collapse. Notably, a distinct ring state emerges through a purely self-organizing process. Furthermore, by analyzing the real-time dynamics of the BEC, we show that the nonreciprocal nature of this interaction can lead to intriguing self-acceleration of the condensate, seemingly violating Newton's law of motion. Additionally, our scheme offers a highly controllable setting, where pairwise two-body interactions can be tuned to vanish. This flexibility provides a promising route for exploring exotic physics associated with multi-body interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21044 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic illustration of the proposed setup: A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The chemical potentials of the stable stationary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The chemical potentials of the stable stationary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Snapshots of the condensate’s density profiles during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Snapshots of the condensate’s density profiles dur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Snapshots of the BEC’s density profiles during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The COM displacement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Science269, 198 (1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    K. B. Davis, M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3969 (1995)

    1995

  3. [3]

    Ketterle, Rev

    W. Ketterle, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 1131 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. L. Cornish, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell, and C. E. Wieman, Nature 412, 295 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    Khaykovich, F

    L. Khaykovich, F. Schreck, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, L. D. Carr, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, Science296, 1290 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, A. G. Truscott, and R. G. Hulet, Nature417, 150 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    S. L. Cornish, S. T. Thompson, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 170401 (2006). 11

    2006

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    G. D. McDonald, C. C. N. Kuhn, K. S. Hardman, S. Bennetts, P. J. Everitt, P. A. Altin, J. E. Debs, J. D. Close, and N. P. Robins, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 013002 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    J. H. V. Nguyen, D. Luo, and R. G. Hulet, Science356, 422 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Y. V. Kartashov, G. E. Astrakharchik, B. A. Malomed, and L. Torner, Nature Reviews Physics1, 185 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    G. V. Chester, Phys. Rev. A2, 256 (1970)

    1970

  5. [13]

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

    1970

  6. [14]

    Balibar, Nature464, 176 (2010)

    S. Balibar, Nature464, 176 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Boninsegni and N

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

    2012

  8. [16]

    Henkel, R

    N. Henkel, R. Nath, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 195302 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Henkel, F

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

    2012

  10. [18]

    Panas, M

    J. Panas, M. Barbier, A. Geißler, and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. A99, 063625 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    F.Cinti, T.Macrì, W.Lechner, G.Pupillo, andT.Pohl, Nature Communications5, 3235 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Góral, L

    K. Góral, L. Santos, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 170406 (2002)

    2002

  14. [22]

    L.Santos, G.V.Shlyapnikov, andM.Lewenstein,Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 250403 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    123, 015301 (2019)

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

    2019

  16. [24]

    Tanzi, E

    L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, F. Famà, J. Catani, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and G. Mod- ugno, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 130405 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Chomaz, D

    L. Chomaz, D. Petter, P. Ilzhöfer, G. Natale, A. Traut- mann, C. Politi, G. Durastante, R. M. W. van Bijnen, A. Patscheider, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, and F. Fer- laino, Phys. Rev. X9, 021012 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Böttcher, J.-N

    F. Böttcher, J.-N. Schmidt, M. Wenzel, J. Hertkorn, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. X9, 011051 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    M. A. Norcia, C. Politi, L. Klaus, E. Poli, M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and F. Ferlaino, Nature596, 357 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Biagioni, N

    G. Biagioni, N. Antolini, A. Alaña, M. Modugno, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, L. Tanzi, and G. Modugno, Physical Review X12, 021019 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Landig, L

    R. Landig, L. Hruby, N. Dogra, M. Landini, R. Mottl, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Nature532, 476 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Léonard, A

    J. Léonard, A. Morales, P. Zupancic, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Nature543, 87 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Hruby, N

    L. Hruby, N. Dogra, M. Landini, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 3279 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    J. Qin, G. Dong, and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 023901 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    J. Qin, G. Dong, and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. A 94, 053611 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Mivehvar, S

    F. Mivehvar, S. Ostermann, F. Piazza, and H. Ritsch, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 123601 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Mivehvar, F

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, Ad- vances in Physics70, 1 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Zhang, V

    Y.-C. Zhang, V. Walther, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 073604 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Zhang, V

    Y.-C. Zhang, V. Walther, and T. Pohl, Phys. Rev. A 103, 023308 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    G. R. M. Robb, J. G. M. Walker, G.-L. Oppo, and T. A. Ackemann, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L032004 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Rajaraman and H

    R. Rajaraman and H. A. Bethe, Rev. Mod. Phys.39, 745 (1967)

    1967

  32. [40]

    Chen, S.-W

    Y.-X. Chen, S.-W. Li, and Z. Yin, Phys. Rev. A82, 052320 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    A. Kay, D. K. K. Lee, J. K. Pachos, M. B. Plenio, M. E. Reuter, and E. Rico, Optics and Spectroscopy99, 339 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    S. E. Pollack, D. Dries, and R. G. Hulet, Science326, 1683 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Yudkin, R

    Y. Yudkin, R. Elbaz, J. P. D’Incao, P. S. Julienne, and L. Khaykovich, Nature Communications15, 2127 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

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

    2015

  37. [45]

    Dynamics of becs with two- and three-body interactions,

    W.-M. Liu and E. Kengne, “Dynamics of becs with two- and three-body interactions,” (Springer, 2019) pp. 265– 318

    2019

  38. [46]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, S

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, S. Wessel, H. P. Büchler, P. Zoller, and G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. B79, 020503 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    K. P. Schmidt, J. Dorier, and A. M. Läuchli, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 150405 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Zhang, Y.-C

    X.-F. Zhang, Y.-C. Wen, and Y. Yu, Phys. Rev. B83, 184513 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Bonnes, H

    L. Bonnes, H. Büchler, and S. Wessel, New Journal of Physics12, 053027 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Christianen and J

    A. Christianen and J. Sous, Phys. Rev. A101, 063610 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Y. Kuno, T. Orito, and I. Ichinose, Phys. Rev. A106, 012435 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    A. Nath, J. Bera, M. R. Pathak, and U. Roy, The European Physical Journal D76, 241 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    C. Fey, J. Yang, S. T. Rittenhouse, F. Munkes, M. Baluktsian, P. Schmelcher, H. R. Sadeghpour, and J. P. Shaffer, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 103001 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    J. Yang, S. Pang, Z. Chen, A. N. Jordan, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 160505 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Hapka, L

    M. Hapka, L. Rajchel, M. Modrzejewski, R. Schäffer, G. Chałasiński, and M. M. Szczęśniak, The Journal of Chemical Physics147, 084106 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Guo and H

    Y. Guo and H. Tajima, Phys. Rev. A108, 043303 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Guo and V

    P. Guo and V. Gasparian, Phys. Rev. D97, 014504 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Dobrzyniecki, X

    J. Dobrzyniecki, X. Li, A. E. B. Nielsen, and T. Sow- iński, Phys. Rev. A97, 013609 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    F. K. Abdullaev, A. Gammal, and L. Tomio, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics49, 025302 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    X. Peng, J. Zhang, J. Du, and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 140501 (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A93, 033644 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    Wang and R

    L. Wang and R. J. Sadus, Phys. Rev. E74, 021202 (2006)

    2006

  55. [63]

    Akhmediev, M

    N. Akhmediev, M. P. Das, and A. Vagov, International Journal of Modern Physics B13, 625 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    Gammal, T

    A. Gammal, T. Frederico, L. Tomio, and P. Chomaz, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics33, 4053 (2000). 12

    2000

  57. [65]

    Marcelli and R

    G. Marcelli and R. J. Sadus, The Journal of Chemical Physics111, 1533 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    Y. E. Kim and A. L. Zubarev, Phys. Rev. A69, 023602 (2004)

    2004

  59. [67]

    A. J. Daley, J. M. Taylor, S. Diehl, M. Baranov, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 040402 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    Schemmer and I

    M. Schemmer and I. Bouchoule, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 200401 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Feng and D.-W

    W. Feng and D.-W. Wang, Phys. Rev. A101, 062312 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    H. P. Büchler, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics 3, 726 (2007)

    2007

  63. [71]

    J. K. Pachos and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 056402 (2004)

    2004

  64. [72]

    J. K. Pachos and E. Rico, Phys. Rev. A70, 053620 (2004)

    2004

  65. [73]

    P. R. Johnson, E. Tiesinga, J. V. Porto, and C. J. Williams, New Journal of Physics11, 093022 (2009)

    2009

  66. [74]

    Mazza, M

    L. Mazza, M. Rizzi, M. Lewenstein, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A82, 043629 (2010)

    2010

  67. [75]

    Chen, X.-B

    B.-L. Chen, X.-B. Huang, S.-P. Kou, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A78, 043603 (2008)

    2008

  68. [76]

    F. M. Gambetta, W. Li, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 043402 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 103201 (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    Hammond, L

    A. Hammond, L. Lavoine, and T. Bourdel, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 083401 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Guo and H

    Y. Guo and H. Tajima, Phys. Rev. A109, 013319 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    Bermudez, D

    A. Bermudez, D. Porras, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Phys. Rev. A79, 060303 (2009)

    2009

  73. [81]

    Seif, Quantum Science and Technology7, 034001 (2022)

    B.Andrade, Z.Davoudi, T.Graß, M.Hafezi, G.Pagano, and A. Seif, Quantum Science and Technology7, 034001 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    F. M. Gambetta, C. Zhang, M. Hennrich, I. Lesanovsky, and W. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 133602 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    M. J. Gullans, J. D. Thompson, Y. Wang, Q.-Y. Liang, V. Vuletić, M. D. Lukin, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 113601 (2016)

    2016

  76. [84]

    Bai and G

    Z. Bai and G. Huang, Opt. Express24, 4442 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Xue, Phys

    P. Xue, Phys. Rev. A81, 052331 (2010)

    2010

  78. [86]

    H.-N. Dai, B. Yang, A. Reingruber, H. Sun, X.-F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Nature Physics 13, 1195âĂŞ1200 (2017)

    2017

  79. [87]

    Goban, R

    A. Goban, R. B. Hutson, G. E. Marti, S. L. Campbell, M. A. Perlin, P. S. Julienne, J. P. D’Incao, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Nature563, 369 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    Liang, A

    Q.-Y. Liang, A. V. Venkatramani, S. H. Cantu, T. L. Nicholson, M. J. Gullans, A. V. Gorshkov, J. D. Thomp- son, C. Chin, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuletić, Science359, 783 (2018)

    2018

  81. [89]

    B. J. DeSalvo, K. Patel, G. Cai, and C. Chin, Nature 568, 61 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    O. Katz, L. Feng, A. Risinger, C. Monroe, and M. Cetina, Nature Physics19, 1452 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    Kryuchkov, L

    N. Kryuchkov, L. Mistryukova, I. Aliev, and S. Yurchenko, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1135, 012093 (2018)

    2018

  84. [92]

    M. J. Bowick, N. Fakhri, M. C. Marchetti, and S. Ra- maswamy, Phys. Rev. X12, 010501 (2022)

    2022

  85. [93]

    A. V. Ivlev, J. Bartnick, M. Heinen, C.-R. Du, V. Nosenko, and H. Löwen, Phys. Rev. X5, 011035 (2015)

    2015

  86. [94]

    Chiu and A

    Y.-J. Chiu and A. K. Omar, The Journal of Chemical Physics158, 164903 (2023)

    2023

  87. [95]

    B. Wu, B. VanSaders, M. X. Lim, and H. M. Jaeger, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, e2301625120 (2023)

    2023

  88. [96]

    Wimmer, A

    M. Wimmer, A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, S. Batz, G. Onishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, Nature Physics9, 780 (2013)

    2013

  89. [97]

    W. Ma, Y. Zhuang, Z. Wang, P. Jia, P. Zhang, Y. Hu, Z. Chen, and J. Xu, Laser & Photonics Reviews17, 2200177 (2023)

    2023

  90. [98]

    Poncet and D

    A. Poncet and D. Bartolo, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 048002 (2022)

    2022

  91. [99]

    E. V. Moreva, G. A. Maslennikov, S. S. Straupe, and S. P. Kulik, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 023602 (2006)

    2006

  92. [100]

    V. S. Asadchy, Y. Ra’di, J. Vehmas, and S. A. Tretyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 095503 (2015)

    2015

  93. [101]

    D. S. Petrov, M. Holzmann, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2551 (2000)

    2000

  94. [102]

    Lahaye, C

    T. Lahaye, C. Menotti, L. Santos, M. Lewenstein, and T. Pfau, Reports on Progress in Physics72, 126401 (2009)

    2009

  95. [103]

    C. Ryu, M. F. Andersen, P. Cladé, V. Natarajan, K. Helmerson, and W. D. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 260401 (2007)

    2007

  96. [104]

    Mason and N

    P. Mason and N. G. Berloff, Phys. Rev. A79, 043620 (2009)

    2009

  97. [105]

    A. C. White, Y. Zhang, and T. Busch, Phys. Rev. A 95, 041604 (2017)

    2017

  98. [106]

    Eckel, J

    S. Eckel, J. G. Lee, F. Jendrzejewski, N. Murray, C. W. Clark, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, M. Edwards, and G. K. Campbell, Nature506, 200 (2014)

    2014

  99. [107]

    Zhang, M

    X.-F. Zhang, M. Kato, W. Han, S.-G. Zhang, and H. Saito, Phys. Rev. A95, 033620 (2017)

    2017

  100. [108]

    A75, 013611 (2007)

    C.Lannert, T.-C.Wei, andS.Vishveshwara,Phys.Rev. A75, 013611 (2007)

    2007

  101. [109]

    Tononi, F

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

    2020

  102. [110]

    F. Jia, Z. Huang, L. Qiu, R. Zhou, Y. Yan, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 243402 (2022)

    2022

  103. [111]

    Ackemann, Phys

    G.Labeyrie, J.G.M.Walker, G.R.M.Robb, R.Kaiser, and T. Ackemann, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 143402 (2024)

    2024

  104. [112]

    Zwierz, C

    M. Zwierz, C. A. Pérez-Delgado, and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 180402 (2010)

    2010

  105. [113]

    Beau and A

    M. Beau and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 010403 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

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