Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Fast Coherent Splitting of Bose-Einstein Condensates

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Optimal-control ramps computed from a calibrated five-parameter model split a one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate into a double well in 350 microseconds with minimal sloshing and breathing, approaching the estimated speed limit near…

desk verdict A solid experimental demonstration that OC-designed ramps suppress sloshing and breathing in fast BEC splitting, with honest reporting of model limitations; deserves peer review once calibration details and data are made available. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06799 v1 pith:F34NLCRW submitted 2025-07-09 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph

Yevhenii Kuriatnikov , Nikolaus Würkner , Karthikeyan Kumaran , Tiantian Zhang , M. Venkat Ramana , Andreas Kugi , Jörg Schmiedmayer , Andreas Deutschmann-Olek
show 1 more author
Maximilian Prüfer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords Bose-Einsteincondensateoptimalcontrolcoherentsplittingdouble-wellpotentialradio-frequencydressingsloshingbreathingnumbersqueezing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports a method for splitting a one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate into two halves fast enough to beat ordinary adiabatic ramps, without shaking the atoms. The central claim is that optimal control ramps computed from a five-parameter reduced Gross-Pitaevskii model can suppress the two dominant classical excitations, inter-well sloshing and transverse breathing, across a wide range of splitting speeds. The same control tool can remove motion that a prior fast ramp deliberately created, and number squeezing below the standard quantum limit survives even at the shortest demonstrated ramp time of 350 microseconds, approaching the estimated speed limit of about 200 microseconds. If this holds, fast splitting becomes a usable starting point for preparing entangled states.

What carries the argument

The central object is a calibrated reduced Gross-Pitaevskii equation in the transverse splitting direction, with the effective double-well potential $V(x,A)=a_2(A)x^2+a_4x^4$ and free parameters $A_s, c, \kappa_1, \kappa_2, g_\perp$. Here $A_s$ marks the transition from a single-well to a double-well geometry, $c$ sets the separation of the minima, $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ set the local curvature on the two sides of the transition, and $g_\perp$ is the effective transverse interaction strength. The machinery works by fitting these parameters to measured oscillation frequencies of kicked condensates, using the fitted equation as a dynamic constraint in a boundary-value energy-minimization problem solved by indirect optimal control, and then applying a small linear time rescaling $A(t)\mapsto A((1-\gamma)t)$ with $\gamma\ll 1$ for very large final amplitudes where the model becomes less accurate.

What would settle it

Measure the post-ramp hold dynamics for the 350 microsecond OC ramp into the coupled trap with $A_{\mathrm{final}}=0.5$ and compare the variance of the fringe spatial frequency and the transverse cloud width against the linear-ramp values; if the variances are comparable, or the interference pattern is not stationary within the first millisecond, the calibrated-model chain would be refuted. A sharper check is to compare the model's predicted trap frequency at $A\gtrsim0.6$ with a direct sloshing-frequency measurement, since that is the regime where the paper must invoke the OC+ time-rescaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that optimal control turns coherent splitting of a 1D Bose-Einstein condensate into a shortcut to adiabaticity: the atoms end in the double-well ground state of motion even when the ramp is far too fast for a linear ramp. The control sequences are computed in the transverse direction from a reduced Gross-Pitaevskii equation whose effective potential is $V(x,A)=a_2(A)x^2+a_4x^4$, with five calibrated parameters: the splitting point $A_s$, a length scale $c$, two curvature scales $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$, and the effective transverse interaction $g_\perp$. The calibrated model is checked against measured trap frequencies, and the optimized ramps reduce the variance of the fringe spatial frequency and transverse cloud width nearly to zero over a range of ramp durations and final dressing amplitudes. Two-step protocols, in which a linear ramp first creates strong motion and an OC ramp then removes it, reach excitation levels comparable to a single direct OC ramp. The fastest demonstrated clean ramp is 350 microseconds, and at that speed the number-squeezing factor stays below the standard quantum limit, indicating that quantum correlations survive.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on the claim that a fixed five-parameter one-dimensional mean-field model with potential $V(x,A)=a_2(A)x^2+a_4x^4$ reproduces the real transverse splitting dynamics for every ramp the control algorithm proposes, including very fast ramps and large final dressing amplitudes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • OC ramps split cleanly in 350 microseconds, while linear ramps of the same duration fail to localize the atoms in the two wells; linear ramps typically need about 10 milliseconds or longer to avoid excitations.
  • Suppression of sloshing and breathing holds across a broad range of both ramp duration and final splitting amplitude, not just at one operating point.
  • The two-step engineering protocol shows that OC ramps can remove pre-existing classical motion, so controlled excitation followed by controlled de-excitation is a viable building block.
  • The number-squeezing factor remains below the standard quantum limit at fast ramp times, and its magnitude decreases monotonically as the ramp shortens, consistent with less time for correlations to build.
  • The estimated ballistic speed limit of about 200 microseconds is nearly reached at 350 microseconds, suggesting that further shortening is possible but limited by atomic transport timescales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the kick-and-measure calibration procedure could likely be reused for other atomchip potentials without solving the full three-dimensional potential, because it only requires local curvature and minimum position as functions of the control parameter.
  • Editorial inference: the monotonic reduction of squeezing with ramp duration makes ramp time a continuous in-situ dial for the amount of number squeezing, which the paper does not explicitly propose as a metrological resource.
  • Editorial inference: a natural test is to map the time-rescaling factor $\gamma$ as a smooth function of the final amplitude; if such a function exists, the model could be corrected globally rather than patched ramp by ramp.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental implementation of optimal-control (OC) ramps for splitting a one-dimensional 87Rb Bose-Einstein condensate into a double-well potential created by RF dressing. The authors use a reduced 1D Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a quartic double-well potential V(x,A)=a2(A)x^2+a4x^4, calibrated from measured trap frequencies, to compute control ramps that suppress sloshing and breathing. They report that OC ramps outperform linear ramps across a range of final amplitudes and ramp durations, enable clean splitting in 350 us (approaching a simulated speed limit of about 200 us), and preserve number squeezing for fast ramps. They also demonstrate two-step protocols in which OC sequences remove excitations created by a preceding linear ramp.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the work offers a practical route to fast, low-excitation splitting of BECs, which is directly relevant to quantum simulation and metrology. The experimental comparisons are strengthened by quantitative variance observables with jackknife uncertainties and by the demonstration of OC engineering starting from non-adiabatic states. The main weakness is that the central ingredient—the reduced model and its calibration—is deferred to an unpublished companion paper, and the paper itself acknowledges the need for a post hoc time-rescaling correction at large final amplitudes. These issues affect the evidential weight of the 'wide parameter range' claim but not the validity of the core experimental comparison for the regimes where the model is adequate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C and D] The reduced model V(x,A)=a2(A)x^2+a4x^4 is calibrated (Appendix D) using only trap frequencies extracted from sloshing oscillations, which constrain the local curvature at the minima and the minima positions. This does not directly validate the potential away from the minima, in particular the central barrier height and the anharmonic shape between the wells. During fast splitting, the wavefunction is strongly excited and explores exactly this region. The derivation and full validation are cited to the unpublished companion paper [22], leaving the regime of validity of the model—especially at larger A where the paper itself reports degraded performance—insufficiently established in the manuscript.
  2. [Fig. 2c and OC+] The OC+ scheme is introduced with a 'simple linear time rescaling' parameter γ after observing that OC performance degrades at larger final amplitudes. Since γ is chosen post hoc to match the experimental data, it acts as an additional fitted parameter, and its use weakens the claim that the OC ramps are purely model-predictive. The manuscript should specify how γ is selected (e.g., cross-validation on independent data) and report the sensitivity of the OC+ results to this choice. Without this, the statement that OC outperforms linear ramps 'for almost all scenarios' is not fully supported for the largest Afinal values.
  3. [Splitting-speed limit] The estimated speed limit tlim ≈ 200 us is obtained by instantaneously switching to an inverted parabolic potential and measuring the time for the density to reach the final well positions. This is a heuristic dynamical time, not a rigorous lower bound, and it depends on the same reduced model whose accuracy is questioned in the large-A regime. The phrase 'theoretical speed limit' should be qualified to avoid overstating the rigor of this estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4] The squeezing factor ξ^2_N− is shown without error bars or jackknife uncertainties; since the claim of preserved quantum correlations rests on these values, adding uncertainty estimates would make the claim more convincing.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'minimal classical excitations' is used several times; 'minimized' or 'strongly suppressed' would be more precise, since the data do not establish that excitations reach the theoretical minimum.
  3. [Appendix A] The fitting function f(x) is described with parameters σ, C, k0, and φ; it would help to state explicitly which parameters are free in the fit and how the fringe contrast C is obtained, as this affects the extraction of k0 and σ.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] There is a typo in the caption ('T op row' should be 'Top row'), and the markers for linear, OC, and OC+ are not identified in the caption, making the figure harder to read.
  5. [Reference [22]] Reference [22] is listed as 'in preparation'; for a self-contained letter, at least the key calibration equations and validation plots should be included in the supplemental material, especially because the main text relies heavily on this unpublished work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central claim is an experimentally benchmarked optimal-control result; a minor self-citation to an unpublished companion paper is flagged but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) a reduced 1D GPE with V(x,A)=a2(A)x^2+a4(A)x^4 is calibrated to measured trap frequencies by minimizing the difference between measured and simulated oscillation frequencies (Appendix D); (ii) optimal-control ramps are computed by solving an energy-minimization boundary-value problem constrained by this calibrated model (Appendix D); (iii) the resulting ramps are implemented and the suppression of sloshing and breathing is measured independently via the variances of the fringe spacing k0 and the transverse width sigma, with linear ramps as an explicit experimental baseline (Fig. 2c). No equation in this chain is defined in terms of the claimed outcome: the variances are experimental observables, not fit residuals, and the optimal-control ramps are open-loop controls computed before the measurement. The model calibration is standard parameter fitting and does not constitute a circular prediction. The only mild concern is the delegation of the model-structure derivation and calibration details to the self-cited, in-preparation companion paper [22] ("This structure is derived in detail in [22]"); however, the explicit equations are given in Appendix C, the parameters are independently calibrated from data, and the central suppression claim is validated against linear-ramp experiments. The OC+ time rescaling and adjusted hold times are explicitly labeled post hoc corrections for model error, not predictions, so they do not reduce the claimed result to a fit. Overall, no specific prediction reduces by construction to its input; the score reflects the minor unpublished self-citation rather than substantive circularity.

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

The central result depends on the calibrated effective model as the basis for designing OC ramps; the five model parameters are fitted to experimental data, and the OC+ scheme adds another fitted time-rescaling parameter. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • A_s (splitting point of double well)
    Marks onset of double-well formation; fitted to measured trap frequencies.
  • c (position scaling)
    Scales the position of trap minima vs A; fitted.
  • kappa_1 (single-well curvature scaling)
    Scales curvature for A < A_s; fitted.
  • kappa_2 (double-well curvature scaling)
    Scales curvature for A > A_s; fitted.
  • g_perp (effective 1D interaction strength)
    Effective nonlinearity in reduced GPE; fitted.
  • gamma (OC+ time-rescaling)
    Linear time rescaling of the OC trajectory to restore performance at large A; fitted post hoc.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Transverse dynamics are governed by the 1D Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a time-dependent effective potential.
    Assumed to model the classical nonlinear motion; introduced in the OC model section.
  • domain assumption The effective potential is quartic, V = a2(A)x^2 + a4 x^4, with a2 linear in A and a4 constant.
    A standard double-well ansatz, constrained by full simulations cited from refs [17,18].
  • domain assumption Longitudinal dynamics are frozen during the ramp and hold.
    Stated in the OC model section; ignored in the reduced model.
  • domain assumption Calibration from measured oscillation frequencies uniquely determines the five model parameters.
    Calibration minimizes the 2-norm of simulated vs measured frequencies (Appendix D).
  • domain assumption The OC boundary-value problem transfers the initial ground state to the final ground state without loss or temperature effects.
    Energy minimization over control field with GPE as constraint (Appendix D).
  • domain assumption The number squeezing factor inferred from atom number counting after TOF is a faithful measure of in-situ quantum correlations.
    Detection noise is acknowledged to hamper this measurement, but the inferred value is used to claim quantum correlation preservation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast Coherent Splitting of Bose-Einstein Condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F34NLCRW

@misc{pith2026250706799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast Coherent Splitting of Bose-Einstein Condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F34NLCRW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06799}
}
read the original abstract

Preparation of non-trivial quantum states without introducing unwanted excitations or decoherence remains a central challenge in utilizing ultracold atomic systems for quantum simulation. We employ optimal control methods to realize fast, coherent splitting of a one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate, achieving minimal classical excitations while preserving quantum correlations. Furthermore, we explore two-step protocols in which controlled classical motion is first induced and subsequently suppressed via tailored control sequences. Our experiments highlight the potential of optimal control for quantum state engineering and dynamical control in many-body quantum systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental scheme a. A BEC is prepared in a single-well harmonic trap. It is split into a double-well during tramp using RF-dressing; to probe the resulting state, it is held for thold, released from trap, and imaged after a TOF of 43.5 ms. Fluorescence imaging captures interference fringes, from which the transverse cloud size σ and fringe spa￾tial frequency k0 are extracted. b. Trap frequencies (green diamonds) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. OC minimization of splitting-induced excitations. Panel a.: We show averaged over multiple realizations fringe profiles taken after the end of the respective splitting ramps. Panel b. Displayed are the extracted fringe spacing k0 and transversal width σ for both linear (magenta) and OC (green) ramps (cf. a.). Diamonds represent mean values, while transparent circles are single shots. This analysis highlights the sup… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optimal control engineering. Dressing am￾plitude A as a function of time for different engineering sce￾narios. We first perform a fast linear splitting (red line) into a coupled double-well trap, introducing strong motional exci￾tations. After a hold time of 1 ms (gray segment), we apply an OC sequence to either (I) further split into a more decou￾pled trap (orange trajectory) or (II) remove excitations while stayin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameters of the trap model. This figure presents the behavior of the model used to reconstruct the trapping potential. a. Coefficient a2(A) as a function of the splitting parameter A. b. Coefficient a4(A) characterizes the anharmonic contribution. c. Position of the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Zhang, M

    T. Zhang, M. Maiw¨ oger, F. Borselli, Y. Kuriatnikov, J. Schmiedmayer, and M. Pr¨ ufer, Squeezing Oscillations in a Multimode Bosonic Josephson Junction, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011049 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, Quantum sim- ulations with ultracold quantum gases, Nat. Phys. 8, 267 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [2]

    Altman, K

    E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Dem- ler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriks- son, K.-M. C. Fu, M. Greiner, K. R. Hazzard, R. G. Hulet, A. J. Koll´ ar, B. L. Lev, M. D. Lukin, R. Ma, X. Mi, S. Misra, C. Monroe, K. Murch, Z. Nazario, K.-K. Ni, A. C. Potter, P. Roushan, M. Saffman, M. Schleier- Smith, I. Siddiqi, R. Simmonds,...

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Quantum Op- timal Control in Quantum Technologies: Strategic Re- port on Current Status, Visions and Goals for Research in Europe, EPJ Quantum Technology 9, 19 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Short- cuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applica- tions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Omran, H

    A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, et al. , Generation and manipulation of Schr¨ odinger cat states in Rydberg atom arrays, Science 365, 570 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Fast Coherent Splitting of Bose-Einstein Condensates

    and can suppress undesired excitations [7] and deco- herence, which are otherwise limiting factors in quantum technology applications. In this letter, we demonstrate fast, coherent splitting of a one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate usingOC . We introduce an effective model used for the OC pro- tocols and discuss an efficient calibration method. Our r...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    M. R. Lam, N. Peter, T. Groh, W. Alt, C. Robens, D. Meschede, A. Negretti, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, and A. Alberti, Demonstration of Quantum Brachis- tochrones between Distant States of an Atom, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011035 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Hohenester, P

    U. Hohenester, P. K. Rekdal, A. Borz ` ı, and J. Schmied- mayer, Optimal quantum control of Bose-Einstein con- densates in magnetic microtraps, Phys. Rev. A 75, 023602 (2007)

    2007

  2. [9]

    Schumm, S

    T. Schumm, S. Hofferberth, L. M. Andersson, S. Wil- dermuth, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, J. Schmiedmayer, and P. Kr¨ uger, Matter-wave interferometry in a double well on an atom chip, Nature Physics 1, 57 (2005)

    2005

  3. [10]

    A. J. Barker, S. Sunami, D. Garrick, A. Beregi, K. Luksch, E. Bentine, and C. J. Foot, Coherent split- ting of two-dimensional Bose gases in magnetic poten- tials, New Journal of Physics 22, 103040 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Est` eve, C

    J. Est` eve, C. Gross, A. Weller, S. Giovanazzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Squeezing and entanglement in a Bose–Einstein condensate, Nature 455, 1216 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    van Frank, A

    S. van Frank, A. Negretti, T. Berrada, R. B¨ ucker, S. Montangero, J.-F. Schaff, T. Schumm, T. Calarco, and J. Schmiedmayer, Interferometry with non-classical motional states of a Bose–Einstein condensate, Nature Communications 5, 4009 (2014)

    2014

  7. [14]

    Treutlein, T

    P. Treutlein, T. W. H¨ ansch, J. Reichel, A. Negretti, M. A. Cirone, and T. Calarco, Microwave potentials and opti- mal control for robust quantum gates on an atom chip, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022312 (2006)

    2006

  8. [15]

    Folman, P

    R. Folman, P. Kr¨ uger, D. Cassettari, B. Hessmo, T. Maier, and J. Schmiedmayer, Controlling Cold Atoms using Nanofabricated Surfaces: Atom Chips, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4749 (2000)

    2000

  9. [16]

    Reichel and V

    J. Reichel and V. Vuletic, Atom chips (John Wiley & Sons, 2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    Hofferberth, I

    S. Hofferberth, I. Lesanovsky, B. Fischer, J. Verdu, and J. Schmiedmayer, Radiofrequency-dressed-state poten- tials for neutral atoms, Nature Physics 2, 710 (2006)

    2006

  11. [18]

    Lesanovsky, T

    I. Lesanovsky, T. Schumm, S. Hofferberth, L. M. Ander- sson, P. Kr¨ uger, and J. Schmiedmayer, Adiabatic radio- frequency potentials for the coherent manipulation of matter waves, Phys. Rev. A 73, 033619 (2006)

    2006

  12. [19]

    Lesanovsky, S

    I. Lesanovsky, S. Hofferberth, J. Schmiedmayer, and P. Schmelcher, Manipulation of ultracold atoms in dressed adiabatic radio-frequency potentials, Phys. Rev. A 74, 033619 (2006)

    2006

  13. [20]

    B¨ ucker, A

    R. B¨ ucker, A. Perrin, S. Manz, T. Betz, C. Koller, T. Plis- son, J. Rottmann, T. Schumm, and J. Schmiedmayer, Single-particle-sensitive imaging of freely propagating ul- tracold atoms, New Journal of Physics11, 103039 (2009)

    2009

  14. [21]

    Berrada, S

    T. Berrada, S. van Frank, R. B¨ ucker, T. Schumm, J.-F. Schaff, and J. Schmiedmayer, Integrated Mach–Zehnder interferometer for Bose–Einstein condensates, Nature Communications 4, 2077 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    W¨ urkner, Y

    N. W¨ urkner, Y. Kuriatnikov, and et al, in preparation (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Dalfovo, S

    F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Theory of Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999)

    1999

  17. [25]

    Lovas, R

    I. Lovas, R. Citro, E. Demler, T. Giamarchi, M. Knap, and E. Orignac, Many-body parametric resonances in the driven sine-Gordon model, Phys. Rev. B 106, 075426 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    S.-C. Ji, T. Schweigler, M. Tajik, F. Cataldini, J. a. Sabino, F. S. Møller, S. Erne, and J. Schmiedmayer, Flo- quet Engineering a Bosonic Josephson Junction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 080402 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Sørensen, L.-M

    A. Sørensen, L.-M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, 6 Many-particle entanglement with Bose–Einstein conden- sates, Nature 409, 63 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    Shao and D

    J. Shao and D. Tu, The Jackknife and Bootstrap , 1st ed., Springer Series in Statistics (Springer New York, NY,

  21. [29]

    Mennemann, D

    J.-F. Mennemann, D. Matthes, R.-M. Weish¨ aupl, and T. Langen, Optimal control of Bose–Einstein condensates in three dimensions, New Journal of Physics 17, 113027 (2015). Appendix Appendix A. Relative phase and atom number im- balance. The measurement performed in the experime...

    2015

Pith tools

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