Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Fractional Shapiro steps in a Cavity-Coupled Josephson ring condensate

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a nondestructive, in situ, real-time optical readout in which the splitting of cavity-output sideband peaks equals the Josephson frequency, revealing integer and half-integer Shapiro steps in a ring condensate.

desk verdict A genuinely useful nondestructive cavity-readout proposal for atomtronic Josephson dynamics, with one load-bearing check missing: the mapping from peak splitting to Josephson frequency is only verified in the undriven case and is assumed under periodic drive. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01188 v1 pith:6AVDAD7I submitted 2025-07-01 cond-mat.quant-gas

Nalinikanta Pradhan , Rina Kanamoto , M. Bhattacharya , Pankaj Kumar Mishra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords JosephsoneffectShapirostepsfractionalcavityoptomechanicsringBose-EinsteincondensateatomtronicSQUIDnondestructivemeasurementphasequadraturereadout
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 authors aim to establish that the Josephson dynamics of a ring-shaped Bose-Einstein condensate with optical barriers can be read out nondestructively from the light leaving an optical cavity. They claim the cavity-output phase-quadrature spectrum develops a peak splitting equal to the Josephson oscillation frequency, so the AC and DC Josephson effects become visible without measuring atom number or destroying the gas. They further claim that periodically modulating the barriers produces plateaus in this splitting at integer multiples of the modulation frequency, and that rotating the barriers at half a flux quantum produces half-integer plateaus, i.e. fractional Shapiro steps. If correct, this gives cold-atom Josephson systems a metrology-style readout and a route to observing fractional Shapiro steps for the first time in ultracold gases.

What carries the argument

The central observable is the phase-quadrature spectrum of the cavity output field, $S(\omega)=|\mathrm{Im}[\alpha_{\mathrm{out}}(\omega)]|^2$, whose peak splitting $\Delta\omega$ is claimed to track the Josephson frequency. The dynamics are governed by a coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the condensate wave function and a cavity-field equation, with two moving optical barriers acting as weak links; rotating the barriers in the co-rotating frame imposes a flux-quantization condition on the phase differences across the two junctions, and periodic barrier motion $\phi_{b1,2}=\pm(2\pi f_{\mathrm{bar}})t+\phi_i\sin(2\pi f_m t)$ plays the role of the external microwave drive that produces Shapiro steps.

What would settle it

Run the driven simulation at $\Omega'=0.5$ with modulation frequency $f_m=70$ Hz, compute the cavity-output peak splitting $\Delta\omega$ and the Fourier peak of the atomic tunneling current $I(t)=dn/dt$ for the same barrier velocities, and check whether the $\Delta\omega$ values at the claimed half-integer plateaus (e.g. $f_{\mathrm{bar}}=0.5$ Hz) coincide with the actual Josephson frequency; a disagreement would show that the spectral plateaus do not represent Shapiro steps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in a ring condensate coupled to an optical cavity, the power spectrum of the phase quadrature of the cavity output, $S(\omega)=|\mathrm{Im}[\alpha_{\mathrm{out}}(\omega)]|^2$, exhibits sideband peaks whose splitting $\Delta\omega$ equals the Josephson frequency $\omega_J=\Delta\mu/\hbar$ set by the chemical-potential difference across the junctions. Moving the two Josephson barriers toward each other creates that potential difference and triggers coherent population oscillations; the oscillating atomic current modulates the cavity field, splitting the spectral peaks by $\omega_J$. The authors verify this mapping in the undriven case against the Fourier spectrum of the atomic tunneling current, and then use the same spectral splitting to identify the DC-to-AC Josephson transition, integer Shapiro steps under periodic barrier modulation, and half-integer Shapiro steps when the barrier pair is rotated at half the flux-quantum rotation rate $\Omega'=0.5$.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that the cavity-output peak splitting equals the atomic Josephson frequency in every driven and rotating configuration, but this equality is explicitly verified against the tunneling-current spectrum only in the undriven case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Josephson oscillation frequency can be measured in real time without destructive time-of-flight imaging or counting atoms in each half-ring.
  • The onset of peak splitting marks the DC-to-AC Josephson transition, giving a spectral signature of the critical barrier velocity.
  • Plateaus in $\Delta\omega/f_m$ at integer values of the modulation frequency constitute integer Shapiro steps observable through the cavity output.
  • Rotating the atomtronic ring at $\Omega'=0.5$ produces plateaus at half-integer multiples of $f_m$, i.e. fractional Shapiro steps not yet seen in cold atoms.
  • The periodic variation of $\Delta\omega$ with rotation rate, with period one flux quantum, provides a nondestructive rotation-sensing signal analogous to a SQUID magnetometer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The identification of Shapiro steps rests on the assumption that $\Delta\omega=\omega_J$ persists under periodic barrier modulation and rotation; this equality is explicitly checked only for the undriven case, so a direct comparison against the atomic tunneling-current spectrum under drive would settle whether the plateaus are genuine.
  • Because the paper hints that asymmetric barriers or higher-harmonic modulation could access other fractions, the same cavity readout may generalize to $1/3$, $1/4$, or other rational Shapiro plateaus.
  • A nondestructive, in situ Josephson-frequency readout could be adapted to monitor the state of an atomtronic persistent-current qubit during operation, although the paper does not demonstrate a full qubit readout.
  • The phase-quadrature approach may transfer to other Josephson platforms such as momentum-space or supersolid condensates, where destructive measurement is equally limiting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a nondestructive, in-situ, real-time optical readout of Josephson dynamics in a ring-shaped Bose-Einstein condensate with two rotating weak links (an AQUID), based on coupling the condensate to an optical cavity driven by Laguerre-Gaussian beams. The authors simulate the coupled stochastic Gross-Pitaevskii and cavity-field equations and show that the power spectrum of the phase quadrature of the cavity output exhibits a splitting whose magnitude equals the Josephson frequency in the undriven case. They then use this splitting as a proxy for the DC voltage across the junction to detect the DC-AC Josephson transition, the flux-periodic modulation of the critical current, and integer and half-integer Shapiro steps under periodic modulation of the barrier positions. The central claim is that this cavity readout provides a direct, nondestructive probe of Josephson oscillations and Shapiro steps, including fractional steps that have not yet been observed in cold atoms.

Significance. If the central identification holds under periodic drive, this would be a valuable contribution: it offers a realistic, experimentally motivated protocol for time-resolved detection of Josephson dynamics and Shapiro steps without destructive time-of-flight imaging or atom-number measurement. The simulations use plausible parameters for a 23Na ring condensate, and the undriven result in Fig. 2—where the cavity spectral splitting equals the independently computed Josephson frequency—is a clean and convincing proof of principle for that single parameter set. The extension to integer and half-integer Shapiro plateaus is an intriguing and potentially important prediction, especially because fractional Shapiro steps are highlighted as unobserved in ultracold gases. However, the manuscript does not yet provide sufficient evidence that the cavity splitting continues to track the atomic Josephson frequency under the periodic drive and rotation that generate the plateaus, and it lacks uncertainty quantification for the stochastic simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Observing Shapiro steps; Fig. 4(b)-(c); SM9] The central mapping Δω = ω_J is validated only for the undriven case (Fig. 2(d)-(e), fbar = 0.77 Hz, Ω' = 0). For the driven, rotating runs that produce the integer and half-integer plateaus, the paper never compares Δω against the atomic tunneling-current spectrum I(t) = dN/dt from the same GPE simulation. Since the barrier modulation at frequency f_m directly modulates the condensate density and hence the cavity field, a splitting at f_m or f_m/2 in the cavity spectrum could in principle be a drive-induced sideband rather than evidence of Josephson oscillations synchronized to the drive. Please add, for representative points on the plateaus (e.g., the three half-integer points in SM9(a)-(c) and the integer points in SM9(d)-(f)), the Fourier spectrum of I(t) from the same driven run, and show that its dominant frequency equals the reported Δω.
  2. [Eqs. (1)-(5); Fig. 4; SM7-SM9] All results appear to be from single stochastic trajectories of Eqs. (1)-(2) with delta-correlated noises ξ and α_in. No ensemble averaging, error bars, or noise-seed sensitivity is reported. The claims that the spectral peaks are 'well above the noise floor' and that the step heights H1 vary systematically with Ω' and f_m need uncertainty quantification to be convincing. I request ensemble averages over several noise realizations (or, at minimum, a sensitivity study) for the key curves: Fig. 4(b)-(c) and SM7-SM8.
  3. [SM5-SM6] The RCSJ comparison does not independently validate the optical readout: the parameters Ic, R, and C are fitted to the undriven GPE data in SM5, and the y-axis in SM6 is Δμ/ℏ rather than the cavity-derived Δω. The RCSJ agreement therefore confirms the GPE's voltage response, but it leaves open whether Δω continues to equal the Josephson frequency under periodic drive. Closing this gap requires the check requested in the first major comment, or an analytic argument why the cavity sideband splitting tracks the synchronized Josephson frequency under drive.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] There are typographical errors: 'measurmement' should be 'measurement', and 'In this work We consider' should be 'In this work, we consider'.
  2. [Fig. 4(b)-(c) and SM7] The step height H1 is used in the insets but never explicitly defined; please state how H1 is extracted from the plateau curves, and clarify whether the vertical axis Δω/fm is the same quantity as H1.
  3. [Fig. 2(e)] The units of the phase-quadrature spectrum S(ω) are labeled as 1/Hz, but the spectrum is computed from |Im[α_out(ω)]|^2; please specify the normalization or state that the vertical scale is arbitrary.
  4. [Fig. 2] The red dashed line marking ω_J = 34.2×2π Hz in panel (e) is difficult to discern in the printed rendering; please make the marker explicit in the caption or on the plot.
  5. [Eq. (2)] The optical detuning is written as Δ_c − U0⟨cos^2(ℓϕ)⟩_τ; a brief explanation of the sign convention for Δ_c and how it relates to the effective cavity detuning used in the simulations would improve readability.
  6. [Eq. (1)] The prefactor (i − Γ) multiplying dψ/dτ is unusual for a stochastic Gross-Pitaevskii equation; a short derivation or a reference to the convention used would help the reader reproduce the noise and damping implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the cavity-readout Shapiro-step prediction is computed from GPE-cavity simulations rather than fitted to the claimed plateaus.

full rationale

The central claim—that the cavity-output phase-quadrature peak splitting Δω equals the Josephson frequency and exhibits integer and half-integer Shapiro plateaus—is not circular. In the undriven case (Fig. 2), the Josephson frequency ωJ is first extracted independently from the tunneling current I(t)=dN/dt, and only then compared with the cavity splitting Δω, establishing the readout mapping by direct numerical evidence rather than by definition. The Shapiro-step plateaus in Fig. 4 and SM7–SM9 are produced by solving the coupled GPE-cavity equations (Eqs. 1–2) under periodic barrier modulation; the drive frequency fm is an input, but the nonlinear synchronization that produces plateaus at fm/2 and fm is a genuine simulation output, not an algebraic consequence of the input. The RCSJ comparison (SM6) uses parameters fitted to GPE data in SM5, so it is a consistency check rather than an independent validation; however, the paper does not present it as an external prediction, and the main result does not depend on this comparison. The self-citations [54–56] supply the cavity-optomechanical model, but the model equations are restated and solved directly in this work, so they are not load-bearing circularity. The principal weakness—that the Δω=ωJ mapping is verified only in one undriven case and not re-checked against the atomic tunneling spectrum under drive—is a validation gap that could affect correctness, but it is not a reduction of the output to the input by construction. Therefore, no circular step is established by the paper's own equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central GPE-cavity result does not rely on fitted parameters; its inputs are experimental parameters chosen from prior work. The fitted RCSJ parameters are used only for a supporting comparison. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • R (RCSJ shunt resistance) = 0.01 hbar (dimensionless)
    Fitted to GPE tunneling current and cavity splitting in SM5(b); used only for RCSJ comparison, not for the GPE central claim.
  • C (RCSJ shunt capacitance) = 4.33 s/hbar
    Obtained from mean n(t)/Delta_mu(t) in SM5; used for RCSJ comparison.
  • Ic (RCSJ critical current) = 40.8 x 10^3 1/s
    Fitted from sine fit to GPE tunneling current in SM5(a); used for RCSJ comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a stochastic dissipation term describes the condensate-cavity system
    Equations (1)-(2) assume this model for the coupled BEC-cavity dynamics.
  • domain assumption Single-valuedness of the condensate phase around the ring gives delta_1,2 = delta_0 +/- pi Omega'
    Supplementary Eq. (SM2) uses this standard phase quantization to describe the AQUID.
  • standard math Input-output relation alpha_out = -alpha_in + sqrt(gamma_0) alpha connects cavity field to detected spectrum
    Used to compute the cavity output field from the simulated intracavity amplitude.
  • domain assumption RCSJ circuit model with flux quantization captures the AQUID dynamics
    Supplementary SM2 assumes the RCSJ model for the comparison curves in Fig. 4(a) and SM6.
  • domain assumption A one-dimensional ring model with two point-like barriers is sufficient for the proposed experiment
    The entire numerical protocol is built on a 1D ring BEC description.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractional Shapiro steps in a Cavity-Coupled Josephson ring condensate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6AVDAD7I

@misc{pith2026250701188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractional Shapiro steps in a Cavity-Coupled Josephson ring condensate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6AVDAD7I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01188}
}
read the original abstract

The Josephson effect presents a fundamental example of macroscopic quantum coherence as well as a crucial enabler for metrology (e.g. voltage standard), sensing (e.g. Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) and quantum information processing (Josephson qubits). Recently, there has been a major renewal of interest in the effect, following its observation in Bose, Fermi, and dipolar atomic condensates, in exciton-polariton condensates, and in momentum space. We present theoretically a nondestructive, \textit{in situ} and real time protocol for observing the AC and DC Josephson effects including integer (recently observed in cold atoms) and fractional (hitherto unobserved in cold atoms) Shapiro steps, using a ring condensate coupled to an optical cavity. Our analysis presents a metrology standard that does not require measurmement of atomic number and that challenges the conventional wisdom that quantum computations cannot be observed without being destroyed. Our results have implications for the fields of atomtronics, sensing, metrology and quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01188 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of proposed experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Numerical results obtained after solving Eqs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. DC-AC Josephson transition [(a)-(d)] Time evolution of condensate density during the barrier movement. [(e)-(h)] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Variation of the amount of peak splitting (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Josephson, Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling, Physics Letters 1, 251 (1962)

    B. Josephson, Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling, Physics Letters 1, 251 (1962)

    1962

  2. [2]

    P. W. Anderson and J. M. Rowell, Probable observation of the josephson superconducting tunneling effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 230 (1963)

    1963

  3. [3]

    B. W. Petley, The josephson effects, Contemporary Physics 10, 139 (1969)

    work page 1969

  4. [4]

    D. M. Badiane, L. I. Glazman, M. Houzet, and J. S. Meyer, Ac josephson effect in topological josephson junc- tions, Comptes Rendus Physique 14, 840 (2013), topo- logical insulators / Isolants topologiques

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Jeanneret and S

    B. Jeanneret and S. Benz, Application of the joseph- 6 son effect in electrical metrology, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 172, 181 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Bobkova, A

    I. Bobkova, A. Bobkov, and M. Silaev, Magnetoelectric effects in josephson junctions, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 34, 353001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    A. F. Kockum and F. Nori, Quantum bits with josephson junctions, in Fundamentals and Frontiers of the Joseph- son Effect (Springer, 2019) pp. 703–741

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Makhlin, G

    Y. Makhlin, G. Sch¨ on, and A. Shnirman, Quantum-state engineering with josephson-junction devices, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 357 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    H. Kim, G. Jang, S. Jin, D. Shin, H.-J. Shin, J. Luo, I. Siddiqi, Y. Kim, H. H. Yoon, and L. B. Nguyen, Joseph- son junctions in the age of quantum discovery (2025), arXiv:2505.12724 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. V. Pereverzev, A. Loshak, S. Backhaus, J. Davis, and R. Packard, Quantum oscillations between two weakly coupled reservoirs of superfluid 3he, Nature 388, 449 (1997)

    1997

  3. [11]

    Albiez, R

    M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. F¨ olling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cris- tiani, and M. K. Oberthaler, Direct observation of tunnel- ing and nonlinear self-trapping in a single bosonic joseph- son junction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010402 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    R. Gati, B. Hemmerling, J. F¨ olling, M. Albiez, and M. K. Oberthaler, Noise Thermometry with Two Weakly Cou- pled Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 130404 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    S. Levy, E. Lahoud, I. Shomroni, and J. Steinhauer, The ac and dc Josephson effects in a Bose–Einstein conden- sate, Nature 449, 579 (2007)

    2007

  6. [15]

    C. Ryu, P. W. Blackburn, A. A. Blinova, and M. G. Boshier, Experimental realization of josephson junctions for an atom squid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 205301 (2013)

    2013

  7. [16]

    Biagioni, N

    G. Biagioni, N. Antolini, B. Donelli, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. Fattori, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, M. Inguscio, L. Tanzi, and G. Modugno, Measurement of the super- fluid fraction of a supersolid by josephson effect, Nature 629, 773 (2024)

    2024

  8. [17]

    Donelli, N

    B. Donelli, N. Antolini, G. Biagioni, M. Fattori, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, M. Inguscio, L. Tanzi, G. Modugno, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezze, Self-induced josephson oscillations and self-trapping in a supersolid dipolar quantum gas (2025), arXiv:2501.17142v2 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Mukhopadhyay, X.-W

    A. Mukhopadhyay, X.-W. Luo, C. Schimelfenig, M. K. H. Ome, S. Mossman, C. Zhang, and P. Engels, Observation of Momentum Space Josephson Effects in Weakly Cou- pled Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 233403 (2024)

    2024

  10. [19]

    Dutta and O

    S. Dutta and O. E. Alon, Rotation-mediated bosonic josephson junctions in position and momentum spaces (2025), arXiv:2503.10153 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Smerzi, S

    A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S. R. Shenoy, Quantum Coherent Atomic Tunneling between Two Trapped Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4950 (1997)

    1997

  12. [21]

    Giovanazzi, A

    S. Giovanazzi, A. Smerzi, and S. Fantoni, Josephson Ef- fects in Dilute Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4521 (2000)

    2000

  13. [22]

    Meier and W

    F. Meier and W. Zwerger, Josephson tunneling between weakly interacting Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A 64, 033610 (2001)

    2001

  14. [23]

    Burchianti, C

    A. Burchianti, C. Fort, and M. Modugno, Josephson plasma oscillations and the gross-pitaevskii equation: Bo- goliubov approach versus two-mode model, Phys. Rev. A 95, 023627 (2017)

    2017

  15. [24]

    Gupta, H

    M. Gupta, H. R. Krishnamurthy, and J. K. Freericks, Theoretical description of atomtronic josephson junc- tions in an optical lattice (2025), arXiv:2502.13357 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Shapiro, Josephson currents in superconducting tun- neling: The effect of microwaves and other observations, Phys

    S. Shapiro, Josephson currents in superconducting tun- neling: The effect of microwaves and other observations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 80 (1963)

    1963

  17. [26]

    V. P. Singh, J. Polo, L. Mathey, and L. Amico, Shapiro steps in driven atomic josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 093401 (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    Bernhart, M

    E. Bernhart, M. R¨ ohrle, V. P. Singh, L. Mathey, L. Amico, and H. Ott, Observation of shapiro steps in an ultracold atomic joseph- son junction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03340 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.03340 (2024)

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    G. D. Pace, D. Hern´ andez-Rajkov, V. P. Singh, N. Grani, M. F. Fern´ andez, G. Nesti, J. A. Seman, M. Ingus- cio, L. Amico, and G. Roati, Shapiro steps in strongly- interacting fermi gases (2024), arXiv:2409.03448 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2024

  20. [29]

    V. P. Singh, L. Amico, and L. Mathey, Atomic joseph- son parametric amplifier (2025), arXiv:2503.20890 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Vanneste, C

    C. Vanneste, C. C. Chi, W. J. Gallagher, A. W. Kleinsasser, S. I. Raider, and R. L. Sand- strom, Shapiro steps on current-voltage curves of dc squids, Journal of Applied Physics 64, 242 (1988), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/64/1/242/18618263/242 1 online.pdf

    1988

  22. [31]

    Early, A

    E. Early, A. Clark, and C. Lobb, Physical basis for half- integral shapiro steps in a dc squid, Physica C: Super- conductivity 245, 308 (1995)

    1995

  23. [32]

    Chern, H

    J. Chern, H. Yang, J. Lu, and H. Horng, The observation of non-integral shapiro steps of a high-tc superconducting de squid, Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applica- tions 282-287, 2451 (1997)

    1997

  24. [33]

    Sellier, C

    H. Sellier, C. Baraduc, F. m. c. Lefloch, and R. Calem- czuk, Half-integer shapiro steps at the 0 −π crossover of a ferromagnetic josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 257005 (2004)

    2004

  25. [34]

    K. Ueda, S. Matsuo, H. Kamata, Y. Sato, Y. Takeshige, K. Li, L. Samuelson, H. Xu, and S. Tarucha, Evidence of half-integer shapiro steps originated from nonsinusoidal current phase relation in a short ballistic inas nanowire josephson junction, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033435 (2020)

    2020

  26. [35]

    Y. Yao, R. Cai, S.-H. Yang, W. Xing, Y. Ma, M. Mori, Y. Ji, S. Maekawa, X.-C. Xie, and W. Han, Half-integer shapiro steps in strong ferromagnetic josephson junc- tions, Phys. Rev. B 104, 104414 (2021)

    2021

  27. [36]

    Zhang, S

    P. Zhang, S. Mudi, M. Pendharkar, J. S. Lee, C. P. Dempsey, A. P. McFadden, S. D. Harrington, J. T. Dong, H. Wu, A. H. Chen, M. Hocevar, C. J. Palmstrøm, and S. M. Frolov, Missing odd-order shapiro steps do not uniquely indicate fractional josephson effect (2025), arXiv:2211.0...

    2025 arXiv

  28. [37]

    A. I. Braginski and J. Clarke, Introduction, in The SQUID Handbook (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004) Chap. 1, pp. 1–28

    2004

  29. [38]

    Eckel, J

    S. Eckel, J. G. Lee, F. Jendrzejewski, N. Murray, C. W. 7 Clark, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, M. Edwards, and G. K. Campbell, Hysteresis in a quantized superfluid ‘atom- tronic’circuit, Nature 506, 200 (2014)

    2014

  30. [39]

    Chien, S

    C.-C. Chien, S. Peotta, and M. Di Ventra, Quantum transport in ultracold atoms, Nature Physics 11, 998 (2015)

    2015

  31. [40]

    C. Ryu, E. Samson, and M. G. Boshier, Quantum inter- ference of currents in an atomtronic squid, Nature com- munications 11, 3338 (2020)

    2020

  32. [41]

    de Go¨ er de Herve, Y

    M. de Go¨ er de Herve, Y. Guo, C. De Rossi, A. Kumar, T. Badr, R. Dubessy, L. Longchambon, and H. Perrin, A versatile ring trap for quantum gases, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 54, 125302 (2021)

    2021

  33. [42]

    C. Ryu, M. F. Andersen, P. Clad´ e, V. Natarajan, K. Helmerson, and W. D. Phillips, Observation of Per- sistent Flow of a Bose-Einstein Condensate in a Toroidal Trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 260401 (2007)

    2007

  34. [43]

    Moulder, S

    S. Moulder, S. Beattie, R. P. Smith, N. Tammuz, and Z. Hadzibabic, Quantized supercurrent decay in an an- nular Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A86, 013629 (2012)

    2012

  35. [44]

    Gildemeister, B

    M. Gildemeister, B. E. Sherlock, and C. J. Foot, Tech- niques to cool and rotate Bose-Einstein condensates in time-averaged adiabatic potentials, Phys. Rev. A 85, 053401 (2012)

    2012

  36. [45]

    Pandey, H

    S. Pandey, H. Mas, G. Drougakis, P. Thekkeppatt, V. Bolpasi, G. Vasilakis, K. Poulios, and W. von Klitz- ing, Hypersonic Bose–Einstein condensates in accelerator rings, Nature 570, 205 (2019)

    2019

  37. [46]

    K. C. Wright, R. Blakestad, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Driving phase slips in a superfluid atom circuit with a rotating weak link, Physical review letters 110, 025302 (2013)

    2013

  38. [47]

    Murray, M

    N. Murray, M. Krygier, M. Edwards, K. C. Wright, G. K. Campbell, and C. W. Clark, Probing the circulation of ring-shaped Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A 88, 053615 (2013)

    2013

  39. [48]

    Corman, L

    L. Corman, L. Chomaz, T. Bienaim´ e, R. Desbuquois, C. Weitenberg, S. Nascimb` ene, J. Dalibard, and J. Beugnon, Quench-Induced Supercurrents in an Annu- lar Bose Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 135302 (2014)

    2014

  40. [49]

    Kiehn, V

    H. Kiehn, V. P. Singh, and L. Mathey, Implementation of an atomtronic squid in a strongly confined toroidal condensate, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033024 (2022)

    2022

  41. [50]

    T. Haug, J. Tan, M. Theng, R. Dumke, L.-C. Kwek, and L. Amico, Readout of the atomtronic quantum interfer- ence device, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013633 (2018)

    2018

  42. [52]

    Pezz` e, K

    L. Pezz` e, K. Xhani, C. Daix, N. Grani, B. Donelli, F. Scazza, D. Hernandez-Rajkov, W. J. Kwon, G. Del Pace, and G. Roati, Stabilizing persistent cur- rents in an atomtronic josephson junction necklace, Na- ture Communications 15, 4831 (2024)

    2024

  43. [53]

    Voronova, A

    N. Voronova, A. Grudinina, R. Panico, D. Trypogeorgos, M. De Giorgi, K. Baldwin, L. Pfeiffer, D. Sanvitto, and D. Ballarini, Exciton-polariton ring josephson junction, Nature Communications 16, 466 (2025)

    2025

  44. [54]

    Kumar, T

    P. Kumar, T. Biswas, K. Feliz, R. Kanamoto, M.-S. Chang, A. K. Jha, and M. Bhattacharya, Cavity Optome- chanical Sensing and Manipulation of an Atomic Persis- tent Current, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 113601 (2021)

    2021

  45. [55]

    Pradhan, P

    N. Pradhan, P. Kumar, R. Kanamoto, T. N. Dey, M. Bhattacharya, and P. K. Mishra, Cavity optome- chanical detection of persistent currents and solitons in a bosonic ring condensate, Physical Review Research 6, 013104 (2024)

    2024

  46. [56]

    Pradhan, P

    N. Pradhan, P. Kumar, R. Kanamoto, T. N. Dey, M. Bhattacharya, and P. K. Mishra, Ring Bose-Einstein condensate in a cavity: Chirality detection and rotation sensing, Physical Review A 109, 023524 (2024)

    2024

  47. [57]

    Pradhan, R

    N. Pradhan, R. Kanamoto, M. Bhattacharya, and P. K. Mishra, Signature of andreev-bashkin superfluid drag from cavity optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023051 (2025)

    2025

  48. [58]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  49. [59]

    Brennecke, S

    F. Brennecke, S. Ritter, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Cavity Optomechanics with a Bose-Einstein Condensate, Science 322, 235 (2008)

    2008

  50. [60]

    Leach, B

    J. Leach, B. Jack, J. Romero, A. K. Jha, A. M. Yao, S. Franke-Arnold, D. G. Ireland, R. W. Boyd, S. M. Barnett, and M. J. Padgett, Quan- tum correlations in optical angle–orbital angu- lar momentum variables, Science 329, 662 (2010), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sci...

    2010 doi

  51. [61]

    Naidoo, K

    D. Naidoo, K. A ˘ıt-Ameur, M. Brunel, and A. Forbes, Intra-cavity generation of superpositions of La- guerre–Gaussian beams, Applied Physics B 106, 683 (2012)

    2012

  52. [62]

    Mithun, S

    T. Mithun, S. C. Ganguli, P. Raychaudhuri, and B. Dey, Signatures of two-step impurity-mediated vortex lattice melting in Bose-Einstein condensates, Europhysics Let- ters 123, 20004 (2018)

    2018

  53. [63]

    A. Das, J. Sabbatini, and W. H. Zurek, Winding up su- perfluid in a torus via Bose Einstein condensation, Sci- entific reports 2, 1 (2012)

    2012

  54. [64]

    K. C. Wright, R. B. Blakestad, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Driving Phase Slips in a Superfluid Atom Circuit with a Rotating Weak Link, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 025302 (2013)

    2013

  55. [65]

    Eckel, J

    S. Eckel, J. Lee, F. Jendrzejewski, N. Murray, C. W. Clark, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, M. Edwards, and G. K. Campbell, Hysteresis in a quantized superfluid ‘atom- tronic’ circuit, Nature 506, 200 (2014)

    2014

  56. [66]

    H. M. Cataldo, dc atomtronic quantum interference de- vice: Quantum superposition of persistent-current states and a parity-protected qubit, Phys. Rev. A 109, 033314 (2024)

    2024

  57. [67]

    C. Ryu, P. W. Blackburn, A. A. Blinova, and M. G. Boshier, Experimental Realization of Josephson Junc- tions for an Atom SQUID, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 205301 (2013)

    2013

  58. [68]

    Jendrzejewski, S

    F. Jendrzejewski, S. Eckel, N. Murray, C. Lanier, M. Ed- wards, C. J. Lobb, and G. K. Campbell, Resistive Flow in a Weakly Interacting Bose-Einstein Condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 045305 (2014)

    2014

  59. [69]

    See supplemental material at [url will be inserted by pub- lisher] for additional derivations and results. (2025)

    2025

  60. [70]

    Aghamalyan, M

    D. Aghamalyan, M. Cominotti, M. Rizzi, D. Rossini, F. Hekking, A. Minguzzi, L.-C. Kwek, and L. Amico, Coherent superposition of current flows in an atomtronic quantum interference device, New J. Phys. 17, 045023 (2015)

    2015

  61. [71]

    Suzuki and I

    M. Suzuki and I. S. Suzuki, Lecture note on solid state 8 physics josephson junction and dc squid, Department of Physics, State University of New York at Binghamton, New York , 13902 (2006). 1 Supplementary material: Fractional Shapiro steps in a Cavity-coupled Josephson ring ...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.