Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Light-induced localized vortices in multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Two laser beams in a Λ-type configuration can pin a tightly localized vortex inside a second, non-rotating condensate component, and moving the beams moves the vortex and measures the superfluid critical velocity.

desk verdict Solid stationary-state result with a moving-vortex protocol whose diagnostics need one more quantity. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08683 v2 pith:65DQMN3O submitted 2025-06-10 cond-mat.quant-gas

Y. Braver , D. Burba , S. S. Nair , G. Žlabys , E. Anisimovas , Th. Busch , G. Juzeliūnas This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords Bose-Einsteincondensatedark-statemanifoldLaguerre-GaussianbeamorbitalangularmomentumquantizedvortexsuperfluidcriticalvelocityLambda-typeatom-lightcoupling
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

Two laser beams in a Λ-type atomic configuration, one a Laguerre–Gaussian beam carrying orbital angular momentum, can put a trapped two-component Bose–Einstein condensate into a stationary dark state in which one component is a vortex tightly localized inside the other, vortex-free component. The rotating atoms can be squeezed into a region much smaller than the volume of the surrounding component, and their vorticity is set by the winding number of the light beam. When the length scale of the vortex beam is much smaller than the condensate radius, this inverted profile is the lowest-energy state of the dark-state manifold, so no stirring or phase imprinting is needed to create it. The paper also shows numerically that translating the laser beams carries the vortex with it, and that the heating rate stays negligible until the beam speed reaches about 0.8 times the sound speed, which the authors identify as the superfluid critical velocity of the surrounding component.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dark-state manifold of the Λ system and the artificial gauge potentials it produces. The key ratio is $\zeta=\Omega_1/\Omega_2=(\rho/a)^\nu e^{i\nu\phi}$ of the two Rabi frequencies; it defines the dark state and, through the geometric potentials, generates an azimuthal vector potential $\mathbf A$ and a scalar potential $U$. The argument is carried by the cancellation condition $l=-\nu$: when the dark-state wave function carries phase $e^{-i\nu\phi}$, the vector-potential contribution to the velocity field vanishes, making the localized-vortex state the lowest-energy solution of the dark-state Gross–Pitaevskii equation in the small-$a$ regime. The same ratio also sets the localization length $a$ and the population imbalance between the two condensate components.

What would settle it

Track the excited-state population, norm loss, or heating rate while sweeping the beams at speeds just below the sound speed: if the vortex distorts, atoms leave the dark state, or heating appears already at low speed, the adiabatic assumption fails. A second decisive check is to vary the localization parameter $a$ and look for the predicted switch from the $l=-\nu$ localized-vortex ground state in the small-$a$ regime to the $l=0$ filled-core profile as $a$ approaches the condensate radius.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that continuous illumination of a two-component condensate by a Laguerre–Gaussian beam and a Gaussian beam in a Λ scheme creates a stationary vortex whose location, size, and motion are controlled by light rather than by atomic interactions. The atoms adiabatically follow the dark state $|D\rangle=(|1\rangle-\zeta|2\rangle)/\sqrt{1+|\zeta|^2}$, with $\zeta=\Omega_1/\Omega_2\propto(\rho/a)^\nu e^{i\nu\phi}$. This state generates the geometric vector and scalar potentials $\mathbf A$ and $U$; for $a\ll R$ the vector potential approaches $-\hbar\nu/\rho\,\mathbf e_\varphi$, and choosing the dark-state phase $\psi=f(\rho)e^{-i\nu\phi}$ cancels the vector potential in the velocity field. As a result, component 1 carries a vortex of vorticity $-\nu$ while component 2 has zero vorticity and surrounds it, with the vortex density concentrated on the scale set by $a$. The paper verifies these stationary states by solving the full three-component Gross–Pitaevskii equations with rubidium-87 parameters, and shows that sweeping the beams in a circle leaves the vortex intact below roughly $0.8 v_s$, with the excited-state population below $10^{-7}$ and the total norm conserved.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes atoms stay in the non-decaying dark state while the beams move, with no general proof that faster or more complicated beam motion will not excite the bright or excited states and spoil the loss-free vortex probe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the small-$a$ regime, the ground state of the dark-state manifold is the localized vortex with component 1 in vorticity $-\nu$ and component 2 vortex-free, so the vortex forms without stirring or phase imprinting.
  • Because the vortex is pinned by the laser beams, it cannot break free from the beam center, and moving the beams below roughly the sound speed transports it without creating extra vortices in the surrounding component.
  • For vortex beams with higher winding number $\nu=2$, the same scheme creates localized vortices of vorticity $-2$, so the mechanism generalizes beyond unit winding.
  • The heating rate of the surrounding condensate follows $\kappa(v)=\kappa_0+b\max(v^2-v_c^2,0)$ with $v_c\simeq 0.8 v_s$, providing a practical protocol for measuring the superfluid critical velocity with a localized, nearly dissipation-free impurity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the vortex is created and steered purely by the beam geometry, the same dark-state mechanism could be extended to non-circular or time-dependent beam paths, letting one write and erase vortex trajectories at will; the paper only demonstrates circular sweeps.
  • The reported $v_c\simeq 0.8 v_s$ is specific to the chosen impurity size, circular trajectory, and two-dimensional geometry, so a natural testable extension is to map how the measured critical velocity depends on $a$ and on the beam speed.
  • If the adiabatic protection holds beyond the simulated trajectories, this scheme is a candidate for a long-lived, loss-free vortex probe that could be used to shuttle angular momentum between components or to study quantum turbulence; the paper itself stops at stirring and critical-velocity measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a trapped two-component BEC driven by two co-propagating light fields in a Λ configuration, one of which is a Laguerre–Gaussian beam with vorticity ν. It derives the effective dark-state GPE with geometric vector and scalar potentials A and U, and analyzes stationary vortex solutions of the form f_i(ρ)e^{il_iφ}. In the small-a regime (a much smaller than the trap radius), the analytic argument in Sec. III A2 predicts that the lowest-energy dark-state solution has l=-ν, so that the first component is a vortex localized near the origin while the second component is vortex-free and surrounds it. Full three-component GPE simulations in Sec. III B confirm this ordering for ν=1 and ν=2, and also show the 'inverted' core-filled states at larger a. The paper then moves the laser beams on circular trajectories and reports that the vortex follows the beams; from the heating rate of the second component it extracts a critical velocity v_c=0.8v_s. The central stationary-state prediction is well supported, but the dynamical critical-velocity claim is not fully substantiated.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a concrete and rather elegant way to create a stable, pinned, localized vortex whose position is controlled by laser beams, and to use it as a stirring impurity for measuring the superfluid critical velocity. The analytic small-a argument in Sec. III A2 is transparent and the full three-component GPE numerics in Sec. III B support the existence and energy ordering of the stationary states; the comparison between the dark-state reduction and the full calculation is a particular strength. The localized-vortex ground state for ν=1 and ν=2 is a falsifiable prediction that should be testable in current Λ-system BEC experiments. However, the dynamical part of the paper—the claim that the moving vortex remains a dark-state object and that the extracted v_c characterizes the superfluid—rests on diagnostics that are not sufficient, and the fit that yields v_c has no reported uncertainty. These gaps prevent the manuscript from being accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (12)–(13) and Fig. 6] The moving-beam simulations monitor only |Φ3|^2 (reported as essentially zero) and total norm, but these diagnostics do not establish that the system remains in the dark-state manifold. The bright state |B⟩ defined in Eq. (6) contains no |3⟩ component, so a state with a significant bright-state admixture can have Φ3≈0 at a given instant. Moreover, the decoupling of ΦD from ΦB and Φ3 in Eqs. (12)–(13) is derived for static beams and equal scattering lengths; for a beam speed v the relevant non-adiabatic coupling is of order (v/a)/Ω, and the paper provides no bound on the induced bright-state population. The authors should report the time-resolved population of the bright-state component, obtained by projecting the full GPE solution onto |D⟩ and |B⟩, or otherwise bound the non-adiabatic transition probability. Without this, the heating rate shown in Fig. 7 and the extracted v_c=0.8v_s cannot be unambiguously attributed to stirring by the dark-state vortex, because bright-state admixture followed by decay through |3⟩ would produce heating and atom loss of the same qualitative kind.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (20) and Fig. 7] The critical-velocity claim v_c=0.8v_s rests on a three-parameter fit of the empirical form κ(v)=κ0+b max(v^2-v_c^2,0) to simulation data with no reported error bars, no number of independent runs, and no residuals or goodness-of-fit measure. The paper should provide confidence intervals for κ0, b, and v_c, or at least demonstrate the sensitivity of v_c to the choice of fit function and to the fixed simulation duration of 0.1 s. As it stands, the abstract's statement that the system allows one to 'determine the superfluid flow's critical velocity' is not quantitatively supported by the presented analysis.
  3. [Sec. III B, Figs. 3–5] The stationary-state search is restricted to the axisymmetric ansatz Φ_i=f_i(ρ)e^{il_iφ}. The imaginary-time evolution uses trial functions with a fixed angular momentum l, and the paper notes that states with different l are orthogonal, so the algorithm cannot find a lower-energy state with a different symmetry or a deformed (off-axis) vortex. While cylindrical symmetry makes the axisymmetric ground state plausible, the claim that the localized vortex state is the lowest-energy state of the dark-state manifold would be stronger if the authors performed at least one fully two-dimensional imaginary-time run with a symmetry-breaking initial condition or random noise, to exclude non-axisymmetric competitors.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II C and Appendix, Eq. (A1)] The same symbol ∆ is used for both the Laplacian and the single-photon detuning; in the dimensionless equations this is confusing. Please use distinct symbols, such as ∇² and Δ_L.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 7] The figure showing the heating rate as a function of velocity would be much more informative with error bars or at least markers on the individual data points, so the reader can assess the scatter around the fitted curve.
  3. [Introduction and Sec. III A2] The introduction states that the localized-vortex state becomes the ground state when the 'relative strength' of the two beams exceeds a threshold, but the threshold is never defined in terms of the physical parameters; the small-a limit is clear, but a brief quantitative statement of the crossover would help.
  4. [Sec. III A2 and Conclusions] The conclusion that the vortex density 'falls off as [1+(ρ/a)^2]^{-1/2}' appears to be stated for the envelope of |Φ1|^2 through Eq. (17); a direct derivation or a reference to the relevant equation would avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the localized-vortex ground state follows from minimizing the dark-state gauge kinetic term and is confirmed by full-GPE numerics; the only self-referential input is a standard self-cited gauge-potential formula.

full rationale

The central prediction (small-a ground state has l=-nu, so component 1 carries a localized vortex and component 2 is vortex-free) is derived internally. In Sec. III A 2 the paper starts from Eq. (19) and observes that for rho >> a the vector-potential term rho A_phi tends to -nu, so the centrifugal term (l - rho A_phi)^2 is minimized by l = -nu, giving the J0 Bessel solution; Eq. (17) then fixes the component vorticities. The inputs are the beam profile (Eq. (1)), the dark-state definition (Eq. (4)), and the dark-state GPE (Eq. (13)). The dark-state GPE and the gauge potentials A and U are attributed to Refs. [27,28], which include current authors, but that cited work is an independent, parameter-free derivation of effective magnetic fields from OAM beams and does not contain the stationary-state ground-state result; hence no conclusion is imported by construction. The full three-component numerical solutions are obtained with trial functions seeded by the dark-state solution, but the energies are evaluated from the full GPE system (Eq. (10)) and the ground state is selected by energy ordering, not by enforcing the predicted vorticity. The critical velocity v_c = 0.8 v_s is obtained by fitting the heating-rate data to Eq. (20); it is an empirical extraction used for characterization, not a fitted parameter fed back into the vortex-state derivation. The dynamical section monitors only the excited-state population |Phi_3|^2 and does not report the bright-state fraction; that is a validation gap for the moving-beam protocol, but it is a correctness risk, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The geometric vector and scalar potentials A and U are effective gauge potentials from the atom-light coupling, not new entities. The free parameters are experimental control knobs (a) and fit parameters from the heating-rate analysis (v_c, kappa_0, b).

free parameters (4)
  • a = 0.02 R (0.3 micrometers)
    Length scale in the LG beam Rabi frequency (Eq. 1). Controls the vortex localization and defines the small-a regime where the localized vortex is the ground state. Chosen by hand as an experimental knob, not fitted to data.
  • v_c = 0.8 v_s (about 320 micrometers/s)
    Critical velocity extracted by fitting the heating rate data to Eq. (20). Used to support the stirring/critical velocity claim, not the stationary-state claim.
  • kappa_0 and b = fit parameters in Eq. (20)
    Baseline heating rate and proportionality constant from the least-squares fit in Fig. 7.
  • trap parameters V0, b_trap, rho_0 = V0=1000, b=17, rho_0=0.7
    Logistic wall parameters for the cylindrical trap (Appendix). Numerical convenience; they do not affect the central physics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Rotating wave approximation and two-photon resonance epsilon=0
    Used to write the internal-space Hamiltonian (3) and the dark state (4). Standard in Lambda-scheme treatments.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic following of the dark state: bright and excited state populations negligible
    Justifies the dark-state GPE (13). Checked numerically: Phi_3 population is below 1e-7 and the total norm is conserved.
  • domain assumption Equal intra- and inter-component scattering lengths g11=g12=g22
    Required to derive the dark-state GPE (13). Justified by the 87Rb values (100, 98, 95.4 Bohr radii). The full numerics use distinct g's and agree with the dark-state result.
  • domain assumption Thomas-Fermi approximation along z, reducing the system to 2D
    Takes Z(z)=1/sqrt(d), neglecting z-dynamics. Standard for a cylindrical trap with d=R.
  • domain assumption Beam waist term e^{-rho^2/w0^2} can be set to unity
    Assumes the waist w0=2R is much larger than the cloud radius. The authors state that including the term does not change the results.
  • ad hoc to paper The trial-state ansatz restricts the search to f_i(rho) e^{i l_i phi} with a few l values
    Ground-state energies are compared for l in {0, +/-1, +/-2} for nu=1. The analytic argument identifies l=-nu as the only state that cancels the vector potential far from the origin, but no exhaustive variational search over all configurations is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light-induced localized vortices in multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/65DQMN3O

@misc{pith2026250608683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light-induced localized vortices in multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/65DQMN3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08683}
}
abstract

We study continuous interaction of a trapped two-component Bose-Einstein condensate with light fields in a $\Lambda$-type configuration. Using light beams with orbital angular momentum, we theoretically show how to create a stable, pinned vortex configuration, where the rotating component is confined to the region surrounded by the second, non-rotating component. The atoms constituting this vortex can be localized in volumes much smaller than the volume occupied by the second component. We also show that the vortex position can be changed dynamically by moving the laser beams, provided the beams' movement speed remains below the speed of sound. This allows us to use the localized vortex to stir the second component, and to determine the superfluid flow's critical velocity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the relevant energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The potentials U, ρAφ and the solutions of Eq. (19). Panels (a1)–(a5) show, respectively, the curves U, ρAφ, and three solutions of Eq. (19) (with β = 0) for ν = 1 and a = 10. In panels (a3)–(a5), curves ˜f (l) (ρ) depict the solution obtained under an additional assumption U = 0. Panels (b1)–(b5) show the same as panels (a1)–(a5) for ν = 1 and a = 0.01. The depicted wave functions are normalized such that R S |ψ (l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The potentials U and ρAφ, as well as the solutions of Eq. (10) for ν = 1 and a = 0.5. (a) Potentials U and ρAφ. (b), (c), and (d) show, respectively, three lowest-energy solutions of Eq. (10); wave function normalization is P3 i=1 R S |ψi| 2 dS = 1. The black lines in the upper and lower panels show, respectively, the radial cuts of the densities |ψ1| 2 and |ψ2| 2 of the first and the second component. The gray line… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wave functions of components 1 and 2 after completing one circular sweep of the laser beams around the origin. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Condensate heating rate as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Then, according to Eq

    Large a First, we consider the case when the distancea is large compared to the system radiusR, so thatρ≪a. Then, according to Eq. (15), forl̸= 0 one can neglect the term ρAφ ≈ −(ρ/a)2νν in comparison with l in Eq. (19), whereas forl = 0 this term may be disregarded because A2 φ≪µ. In a similar way, the geometric scalar potential U is small in comparison ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    completely

    Small a Now let us consider the case when the distancea is small compared to the system radius,a≪ R. In that case, one hasρ≫a for most of the area occupied by the condensate, except for a small area close to the center, ρ ⪅a in which the geometric scalar and vector potentials are concentrated. For ρ≫ a, it follows from Eq. (15) that ρAφ(ρ)→− ν. The ground...

    work page

  3. [3]

    M. T. Reeves, K. Goddard-Lee, G. Gauthier, O. R. Stockdale, H. Salman, T. Edmonds, X. Yu, A. S. Bradley, M. Baker, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, M. J. Davis, and T. W. Neely, Turbulent relaxation to equilibrium in a two-dimensional quantum vortex gas, Phys. Rev. X12, 011031 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Light-induced localized vortices in multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates

    and the structure of neutron stars [5]. A key challenge in the study of BEC vortices is their controlled creation and manipulation. Typically, the vor- tices are produced by transferring angular momentum to the atoms using optical means: through phase imprinting [6], stirring [7, 8], or using beams carrying orbital angular momentum, such as Laguerre–Gauss...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Moving the vortex at twice the speed,v2 = 2v1, results in setting the whole of the second component in circular motion

    = 400 µm/s. Moving the vortex at twice the speed,v2 = 2v1, results in setting the whole of the second component in circular motion. The distortion of the density is apparent in Fig. 6(b). Finally, the case of supersonic movement is studied in Fig. 6(c) corresponding to the movement speedv3 = 2vs. The density profiles of both components are strongly dis- t...

    work page

  6. [6]

    A. L. Fetter and A. A. Svidzinsky, Vortices in a trapped dilute Bose-Einstein condensate, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 13, R135 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Tsubota, M

    M. Tsubota, M. Kobayashi, and H. Takeuchi, Quantum hydrodynamics, Phys. Rep.522, 191 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Harada, T

    K. Harada, T. Matsuda, J. Bonevich, M. Igarashi, S. Kondo, G. Pozzi, U. Kawabe, and A. Tonomura, Real- time observation of vortex lattices in a superconductor by electron microscopy, Nature360, 51 (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Magierski, A

    P. Magierski, A. Barresi, A. Makowski, D. Pęcak, and G. Wlazłowski, Quantum vortices in fermionic superflu- ids: From ultracold atoms to neutron stars., Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 186 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Dobrek, M

    Ł. Dobrek, M. Gajda, M. Lewenstein, K. Sengstock, G. Birkl, and W. Ertmer, Optical generation of vortices in trapped Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A60, R3381 (1999)

    1999

  3. [11]

    K. W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dal- ibard, Vortex formation in a stirred Bose-Einstein con- densate, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 806 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, and W. Ket- terle, Observation of vortex lattices in Bose-Einstein con- densates, Science 292, 476 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    Marzlin, W

    K.-P. Marzlin, W. Zhang, and E. M. Wright, Vortex cou- pler for atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4728 (1997)

    1997

  6. [14]

    R. Dum, J. I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and P. Zoller, Cre- ation of dark solitons and vortices in Bose-Einstein con- densates, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2972 (1998)

    1998

  7. [15]

    Nandi, R

    G. Nandi, R. Walser, and W. P. Schleich, Vortex creation in a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate by stimulated Ra- man adiabatic passage, Phys. Rev. A69, 063606 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    K. T. Kapale and J. P. Dowling, Vortex phase qubit: Generating arbitrary, counterrotating, coherent superpo- sitions in Bose-Einstein condensates via optical angular momentum beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 173601 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    Juzeli¯ unas and P

    G. Juzeli¯ unas and P. Öhberg, Creation of an effective magnetic field in ultracold atomic gases using electro- magnetically induced transparency, Opt. Spectrosc.99, 357 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    M. F. Andersen, C. Ryu, P. Cladé, V. Natarajan, A. Vaziri, K. Helmerson, and W. D. Phillips, Quantized rotation of atoms from photons with orbital angular mo- mentum, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 170406 (2006). 12

    2006

  11. [19]

    K. C. Wright, L. S. Leslie, and N. P. Bigelow, Optical control of the internal and external angular momentum of a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A77, 041601 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    K. C. Wright, L. S. Leslie, A. Hansen, and N. P. Bigelow, Sculpting the vortex state of a spinor BEC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 030405 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Majumder, Dynamics of the creation of a ro- tatingBose–EinsteincondensationbytwophotonRaman transition using a Laguerre–Gaussian laser pulse, Atoms 9, 14 (2021)

    K.Mukherjee, S.Bandyopadhyay, D.Angom, A.M.Mar- tin, and S. Majumder, Dynamics of the creation of a ro- tatingBose–EinsteincondensationbytwophotonRaman transition using a Laguerre–Gaussian laser pulse, Atoms 9, 14 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Juzeli¯ unas, J

    G. Juzeli¯ unas, J. Ruseckas, P. Öhberg, and M. Fleis- chhauer, Formation of solitons in atomic Bose–Einstein condensates by dark-state adiabatic passage, Lith. J. Phys. 47, 351 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    A. V. Gorshkov, L. Jiang, M. Greiner, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, Coherent quantum optical control with subwavelength resolution, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 093005 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Dark State

    M. Łącki, M. A. Baranov, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Nanoscale “Dark State” optical potentials for cold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 233001 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Gvozdiovas, I

    E. Gvozdiovas, I. B. Spielman, and G. Juzeli¯ unas, Interference-induced anisotropy in a two-dimensional dark-state optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A 107, 033328 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    H. R. Hamedi, G. Žlabys, V. Ahufinger, T. Halfmann, J. Mompart, and G. Juzeli¯ unas, Spatially strongly con- fined atomic excitation via a two dimensional stimu- lated Raman adiabatic passage, Opt. Express30, 13915 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Dutton and J

    Z. Dutton and J. Ruostekoski, Transfer and storage of vortex states in light and matter waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 193602 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Thanvanthri, K

    S. Thanvanthri, K. T. Kapale, and J. P. Dowling, Ar- bitrary coherent superpositions of quantized vortices in Bose-Einstein condensates via orbital angular momen- tum of light, Phys. Rev. A77, 053825 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Dum and M

    R. Dum and M. Olshanii, Gauge structures in atom-laser interaction: Bloch oscillations in a dark lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1788 (1996)

    1996

  22. [30]

    Juzeli¯ unas and P

    G. Juzeli¯ unas and P. Öhberg, Slow light in degenerate Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 033602 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    Juzeli¯ unas, P

    G. Juzeli¯ unas, P. Öhberg, J. Ruseckas, and A. Klein, Ef- fectivemagneticfieldsindegenerateatomicgasesinduced by light beams with orbital angular momenta, Phys. Rev. A 71, 053614 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    G.Juzeli¯ unas, J.Ruseckas,andP.Öhberg,Effectivemag- netic fields induced by EIT in ultra-cold atomic gases, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.38, 4171 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Jendrzejewski, S

    F. Jendrzejewski, S. Eckel, T. G. Tiecke, G. Juzeli¯ unas, G. K. Campbell, L. Jiang, and A. V. Gorshkov, Subwavelength-width optical tunnel junctions for ultra- cold atoms, Phys. Rev. A94, 063422 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  27. [35]

    L. P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari,Bose-Einstein Conden- sation and Superfluidity (Oxford University Press, Ox- ford, 2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    A. L. Gaunt, T. F. Schmidutz, I. Gotlibovych, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Bose-Einstein condensation of atoms in a uniform potential, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 200406 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    R. F. Gutterres, C. Amiot, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, M. Mazzoni, and O. Dulieu, Determination of the87Rb 5pstatedipolematrixelementandradiativelifetimefrom the photoassociation spectroscopy of theRb2 0− g (P 3/2) long-range state, Phys. Rev. A66, 024502 (2002)

    2002

  30. [38]

    Egorov, B

    M. Egorov, B. Opanchuk, P. Drummond, B. V. Hall, P. Hannaford, and A. I. Sidorov, Measurement ofs-wave scatteringlengthsinatwo-componentBose-Einsteincon- densate, Phys. Rev. A87, 053614 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Patrick, A

    S. Patrick, A. Gupta, R. Gregory, and C. F. Barenghi, Stability of quantized vortices in two-component conden- sates, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033201 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Richaud, G

    A. Richaud, G. Lamporesi, M. Capone, and A. Recati, Mass-driven vortex collisions in flat superfluids, Phys. Rev. A 107, 053317 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Ao and S

    P. Ao and S. T. Chui, Binary Bose-Einstein condensate mixtures in weakly and strongly segregated phases, Phys. Rev. A 58, 4836 (1998)

    1998

  34. [42]

    Timmermans, Phase separation of Bose-Einstein con- densates, Phys

    E. Timmermans, Phase separation of Bose-Einstein con- densates, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5718 (1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    L. Wen, W. M. Liu, Y. Cai, J. M. Zhang, and J. Hu, Controlling phase separation of a two-component Bose- Einstein condensate by confinement, Phys. Rev. A85, 043602 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Di, Y.-H

    X. Di, Y.-H. Nie, and T. Yang, Manipulating vortices with a rotating laser beam in Bose–Einstein condensates, Laser Phys. 33, 085501 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith,Bose–Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Raman, M

    C. Raman, M. Köhl, R. Onofrio, D. S. Durfee, C. E. Kuklewicz, Z. Hadzibabic, and W. Ketterle, Evidence for a critical velocity in a Bose-Einstein condensed gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2502 (1999)

    1999

  39. [47]

    Onofrio, C

    R. Onofrio, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, and W. Ketterle, Observation of super- fluid flow in a Bose-Einstein condensed gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2228 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Desbuquois, L

    R. Desbuquois, L. Chomaz, T. Yefsah, J. Léonard, J. Beugnon, C. Weitenberg, and J. Dalibard, Superfluid behaviour of a two-dimensional Bose gas, Nat. Phys.8, 645 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Luick, L

    W.Weimer, K.Morgener, V.P.Singh, J.Siegl, K.Hueck, N. Luick, L. Mathey, and H. Moritz, Critical velocity in the BEC-BCS Crossover, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 095301 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Luick, H

    V.P.Singh, W.Weimer, K.Morgener, J.Siegl, K.Hueck, N. Luick, H. Moritz, and L. Mathey, Probing superfluid- ity of Bose-Einstein condensates via laser stirring, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023634 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    V. P. Singh, C. Weitenberg, J. Dalibard, and L. Mathey, Superfluidity and relaxation dynamics of a laser-stirred two-dimensional Bose gas, Phys. Rev. A 95, 043631 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Kiehn, V

    H. Kiehn, V. P. Singh, and L. Mathey, Superfluidity of a laser-stirred Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A 105, 043317 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    G. E. Astrakharchik and L. P. Pitaevskii, Motion of a heavy impurity through a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A70, 013608 (2004)

    2004

  46. [54]

    Antoine and R

    X. Antoine and R. Duboscq, GPELab, a Matlab toolbox to solve Gross–Pitaevskii equations I: Computation of stationary solutions, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 2969 13 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Antoine and R

    X. Antoine and R. Duboscq, GPELab, a Matlab tool- box to solve Gross–Pitaevskii equations II: Dynamics and stochastic simulations, Comput. Phys. Commun.193, 95 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    Danisch and J

    S. Danisch and J. Krumbiegel, Makie.jl: Flexible high- performance data visualization for Julia, J. Open Source Soft. 6, 3349 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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