Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Nonlinear management of the miscibility-immiscibility transition in binary Bose-Einstein condensates

T0 review · 5 major / 2 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 Periodic modulation of the inter-component repulsion can drive a binary Bose-Einstein condensate across the miscibility-immiscibility threshold and erase its domain walls.

desk verdict Worth refereeing: the exact DW solutions are real, the NM-of-MIM scenario is credible, but the numerical miscibility criterion must be quantified and Eq. (11) is an algebraic slip. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13683 v1 pith:OZP4K6ZA submitted 2025-07-18 cond-mat.quant-gas nlin.PS

B. B. Baizakov , B. A. Malomed , M. Salerno This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasnlin.PS MSC 35Q5535C0882D50
keywords binaryBose-Einsteincondensatemiscibility-immiscibilitytransitiondomainwallsnonlinearitymanagementRabicouplingsine-GordonapproximationFeshbachresonanceGross-Pitaevskiiequation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether a binary Bose-Einstein condensate can be switched between its mixed (miscible) and separated (immiscible) phases by periodically changing the strength of the repulsion between the two components. Using approximate analytical solutions, exact domain-wall solutions, and direct numerical simulation of the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations, the authors show that weak modulation at the domain-wall eigenfrequency excites a nonlinear resonance, while stronger modulation that repeatedly crosses the miscibility-immiscibility threshold drives the system into the miscible state and destroys the separating domain walls. If correct, the result makes the transition dynamically controllable through Feshbach-resonance modulation rather than a fixed parameter. The paper also supplies new analytical domain-wall solutions, including an exact one for a repulsive Pöschl-Teller potential, and a phase diagram in the plane of modulation amplitude and frequency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the phase-only sine-Gordon reduction. With the ansatz (27) fixing the total density to the constant n0 and retaining only the relative phase χ and common phase θ, substitution into the Gross-Pitaevskii Lagrangian produces the effective Lagrangian density (28) and the associated Euler-Lagrange equations. Near the MIM transition the stationary problem reduces to a double sine-Gordon equation (31), whose exact narrow and broad kink solutions (44)-(45) describe the two types of domain walls, and whose linearization gives the dispersion relation (36) and the critical Rabi-coupling condition (42). This same reduction interprets weak-management beatings as a nonlinear resonance. The exact Pöschl-Teller solution (20) extends the machinery to inhomogeneous trapping.

What would settle it

In a quasi-one-dimensional ring trap holding the binary condensate at g0=2.1 with κ=0.5, modulate the cross-repulsion as g(t)=2.1+0.4 sin(2t). The paper predicts the two domain walls disappear around t≈10 and the condensate becomes miscible; if the domain walls persist indefinitely, or the same transition requires a substantially different amplitude or frequency, the central claim is false. Conversely, at ε=0.2 and ω=2 the walls should survive: failure there is equally disqualifying.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that nonlinearity management — the time-periodic modulation g(t)=g0+ε sin(ωt) of the inter-component repulsion — can itself act as a switch for the miscibility-immiscibility transition. For a ring trap with g0=2.1 and Rabi coupling κ=0.5, where Eq. (42) gives the critical value g_MIM=2, management with ε=0.4 and ω=2 pulls the condensate from the immiscible into the miscible state around t≈10, wiping out the domain-wall pair; management with ε=0.2 preserves the walls despite periodically crossing the critical point. Weak management applied at the DW eigenfrequency produces amplitude beatings, interpreted as a nonlinear resonance. The analytical backbone is a sine-Gordon approximation that reduces the two-component dynamics to a single relative-phase field, yielding the threshold κcrit = (g−1)/2 and two families of narrow and broad domain-wall solutions; for the Pöschl-Teller potential the paper constructs an exact DW solution that is stable when the potential is repulsive and unstable when it is attractive.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that near the transition the total density stays locked at a constant value, so only the relative phase and common phase evolve; if density fluctuations or emitted sound cannot be neglected under the strong periodic drive, the predicted thresholds and resonance features could be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A periodic Feshbach modulation can switch a binary condensate between separated and mixed states on the timescale set by the modulation frequency.
  • The computed (ε,ω) phase diagram maps the control: larger amplitude favours miscibility, higher frequency suppresses it.
  • Weak modulation at the domain-wall eigenfrequency produces persistent amplitude beatings without destroying the wall, which can be used as a diagnostic of the wall's internal mode.
  • Rabi coupling raises the critical repulsion to 1+2κ/n0, so combining a fixed Rabi term with management tunes how close to threshold the system operates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same periodic-drive principle may extend beyond 1D mixtures, for example to two-dimensional binary condensates or spin-orbit-coupled gases; a natural test is whether the critical amplitude scales inversely with dimension.
  • Because the phase-only reduction ignores density fluctuations, strong management may heat the cloud or emit sound; measuring condensate temperature or density ripples after driving would test the approximation's limits.
  • One may view high-frequency NM as dynamical stabilization of the immiscible state, analogous to Kapitza-type effects; constructing a high-frequency effective potential for the relative phase would test this analogy.
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

5 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies the miscibility-immiscibility (MIM) transition in quasi-one-dimensional binary Bose-Einstein condensates under nonlinearity management (NM), i.e., periodic modulation of the inter-component repulsion g(t) = g0 + ε sin(ωt). It derives approximate domain-wall (DW) solutions using a sine-Gordon (SG) reduction, including the effect of Rabi coupling, and presents an exact DW solution for a Pöschl-Teller potential. The paper then reports numerical simulations of the full Gross-Pitaevskii equations showing that weak NM at the DW eigenfrequency produces nonlinear-resonance beatings, while stronger NM that periodically crosses the MIM point can either preserve the DW structure or drive the system into a miscible state depending on ε and ω. A phase diagram in the (ε,ω) plane is constructed.

Significance. If the numerical results are properly quantified, the work would establish NM as a practical control knob for the MIM transition in toroidal binary condensates, providing analytical DW profiles that serve as accurate initial conditions. The paper provides explicit comparisons between analytical and numerical density profiles (Figs. 4–5) and full-GPE simulations of the management dynamics. However, the absence of a quantitative miscibility criterion in the phase diagram and the several algebraic errors in the analytical derivations currently limit the verifiability of the central claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [§II.A, Eq. (11)] Substituting the perturbed fields (10) into the quartic terms of the energy (9) gives the second-order contribution ∫ [(6−2g)u_symm^2 δu^2 + (1+g)δu^4] dx, i.e., 2∫(3−g)u_symm^2δu^2 dx to leading order in δu, not 2∫(3−2g)u_symm^2δu^2 dx as stated in Eq. (11). Consequently, the analytic estimate of the upshifted MIM threshold at g=3/2 is not supported by the calculation as written. Please re-derive this estimate, stating any additional approximations (e.g., inclusion of the chemical-potential term or the mode structure of δu).
  2. [§IV.B, Fig. 9] The phase diagram in Fig. 9 marks M and I regions in the (ε,ω) plane, but the text does not define the quantitative criterion used to classify a dynamical state as miscible or immiscible. The reader cannot tell whether the classification is based on visual loss of the domain-wall structure, an overlap integral, a density variance, or some other measure, nor what threshold is applied. Please define an order parameter, plot its time evolution for the representative cases in Fig. 8 (e.g., for ε=0.2 and ε=0.4 at ω=2), and state the threshold used to draw the boundary in Fig. 9. Without this, the central claim that stronger NM drives the transition to miscibility is not quantitatively verifiable.
  3. [§V Conclusions] The Conclusions state that 'All the DW states are found to be stable,' which is inconsistent with the body of the paper: Fig. 4d shows that the broad DW solution (45) breaks down by t=20, and §II.B reports that the exact DW solution with an attractive Pöschl-Teller potential is unstable (Fig. 1e,f). Please correct the Conclusions to reflect these unstable cases.
  4. [§III.A, Eqs. (27) and (34)] The ansatz (27) assigns the same phase exp(+iθ) to both components, but the effective Lagrangian (28) contains a Rabi term n0κ sin(2χ) cos(2θ) and the time-derivative term −(n0/2)cos(2χ)θ_t, which are inconsistent with that phase convention: substituting (27) into (26) yields a Rabi term without cos(2θ) and a time-derivative term with a different coefficient. Furthermore, linearization of Eq. (29) about the uniform mixed state χ=π/4, θ=0 gives θ_t + δχ_xx − [2n0(1−g)+4κ]δχ = 0, not the first equation in (34). The dispersion relation (36) appears physically correct, but the intermediate steps need to be corrected and the ansatz and Lagrangian made mutually consistent. Please re-derive the SG reduction carefully or explicitly state the phase convention used.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract's final sentence, 'Stronger NM, under which the system periodically crosses the MIM-transition point, restricts the miscibility,' is inconsistent with the results in §IV.B, where the stronger modulation (ε=0.4 in Fig. 8) is shown to drive the system from an immiscible DW state into a miscible state. The phrase should be corrected to indicate that stronger NM promotes miscibility (or 'controls' the transition), matching the Conclusions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [General] The typesetting of several equations is corrupted, notably Eq. (19) ('W = 3 −g g − 1 g − 1 − 2κ 4') and parts of the captions of Figs. 4 and 8 contain garbled symbols. The manuscript should be carefully proofread and reset in clean LaTeX form.
  2. [§II.B, Eq. (20)] The exact DW solution (20) is stated to exist for g>1+2κ, but the parameter conditions following Eq. (19) should be spelled out more clearly, including the domains of validity of the square roots in the definitions of A and B.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: analytical thresholds and DW solutions are derived from the stated GP/SG model and checked against independent full-GPE numerics; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The stationary and dynamical DW results are obtained from the stated GP system (2)-(3)/(22)-(23): the SG approximation (27)-(31) is an explicit reduction of the Lagrangian (26), and the thresholds (36), (42) are algebraic consequences of that model, not fits to the target MIM result. The trapping-potential estimate from Eq. (11) is likewise an energy-perturbation computation with stated validity conditions (12); it does not presuppose the g>3/2 conclusion. The Pöschl-Teller solution (20)-(21) is a manufactured exact solution with W and alpha chosen in Eq. (19); this is construction, not circular prediction. The NM claims in Sec. IV rest on full-GPE simulations initialized from numerical ground states, not from the phase-only ansatz, so the SG approximation is not the source of the central management claim. The self-citations [4,27,31,32] supply known exact solutions, an ansatz, and ring-geometry context, but none is used as an external authority to force a conclusion: Eq. (42) is derived in the paper, the exact solution (13) is explicit and verifiable by substitution, and the ansatz (27) is stated and worked out in the text. Figure 4d shows the broad DW unstable while the Conclusions say all DW states are stable; this is an internal inconsistency and a missing-qualification issue, not a circularity. Similarly, the absence of a quantitative miscibility criterion in Fig. 9 is an operational/reproducibility gap, not a derivation that reduces to its own input. Overall score 2 reflects minor non-load-bearing self-citation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions are derived from the Gross-Pitaevskii model plus the phase-only sine-Gordon ansatz; no new entities are introduced. The main burden is the validity of the constant-density ansatz and the mean-field description under rapid modulation. No parameters are fitted to experimental data; n0 is set to 1 by rescaling and the simulation parameters are chosen for illustration.

free parameters (2)
  • n0 (total background density) = 1 (rescaling)
    Set to 1 by rescaling; enters the MIM threshold (42) and K (39). This is a normalization, not a fit to data.
  • Simulation parameter set = g0=2.1, kappa=0.5, L=24*pi, epsilon=0.1 to 0.5, omega about 1 to 3
    Hand-chosen for the numerical study; the phase diagram (Fig. 9) is only for this set and is not compared to experimental data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Phase-only constant-density ansatz Eq. (27): total density fixed to n0, only relative phase chi and common phase theta vary
    Underlies the sine-Gordon reduction in Section III and all analytical domain-wall solutions and threshold (42). It is stated to be valid near the MIM transition.
  • domain assumption One-dimensional mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii model with contact interactions, no temperature or losses
    Adopted in Eqs. (2)-(3) and (22)-(23) without justification; ignores quantum fluctuations, three-body losses, and beyond-mean-field effects relevant to real Feshbach sweeps.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous sinusoidal modulation of the inter-component repulsion, Eq. (24)
    Assumes the scattering length follows g(t)=g0+epsilon*sin(omega*t) with no delay or additional loss; experimental Feshbach modulation may not be instantaneous.
  • ad hoc to paper Pöschl-Teller potential parameters W and alpha are chosen by the special relation (19) to admit an exact solution
    The exact domain-wall solution (20) exists only for this tuned potential, and stability of the domain wall is established only in this special case.
  • standard math Standard calculus of variations used to derive Euler-Lagrange equations from Lagrangian (28)
    Background mathematical toolkit, not original.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear management of the miscibility-immiscibility transition in binary Bose-Einstein condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZP4K6ZA

@misc{pith2026250713683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear management of the miscibility-immiscibility transition in binary Bose-Einstein condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZP4K6ZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13683}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate application of the nonlinearity management (NM, i.e., periodic variation of the strength of the inter-component repulsion) to the miscibility-immiscibility (MIM) transition across the critical point of a two-component BEC, both with and without the linear mixing (Rabi coupling, RC) between the components. To this end, we first identify, by means of a variational approximation and numerical solution, diverse stationary domain-wall (DW) structures supported by the system in the absence of the management. The approximate analytical solutions for the DWs are found to be in excellent agreement with their numerical counterparts. An analytical estimate is also produced for the upshift of the MIM transition caused by the pressure of the trapping potential in the case of a confined system. An exact DW solution is produced for the system including the P\"{o}schl-Teller potential, which is stable (unstable) if the potential is repulsive (attractive). Further, we find the spectrum of linear excitations in the spatially uniform mixed state, and thus establish parameter regions where the system is stable/unstable against demixing. In particular, RC upshifts the critical strength of the inter-component repulsion for the onset of the MIM transition. Eigenfrequencies of excitations on top of DW states are identified from numerical simulations through monitoring the evolution of perturbed states. Weak NM applied at the DW eigenfrequency reveals features of the nonlinear resonance. Stronger NM, under which the system periodically crosses the MIM-transition point, restricts the miscibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: a), d): Snapshots of the solutions produced by the sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The dispersion relation (36) for the modulational pe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The effective potential Eq. (38) for parameter values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: a), d): Snapshots of the solutions produced by the sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Component densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: a) Oscillations of the atom numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: a) The initial density profile for simulations of the e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The density profiles of the binary condensate evolvin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Naturally, the increase of ε favors the transition to the miscibility, while the increase of ω attenuates the effect of the time-periodic modulations and thus helps to keep the system in the immiscible phase. V. CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have obtained approximate an…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The phase diagram for the MIM (miscibility-immiscib [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Spontaneous symmetry breaking in continuous waves, dark solitons, and vortices in linearly coupled bimodal systems

    nlin.PS 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A linearly coupled two-component defocusing system supports spontaneous symmetry breaking with exact asymmetric states, dark solitons at g=3, and shifted-core vortices.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    V. P. Mineev, The theory of the solution of two near-ideal Bose gases, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 263-272 (1974) [English translation: Sov. Phys. – JETP 40, 132-136 (1974)]

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    Timmermans, Phase Separation of Bose-Einstein Conde nsates, Phys

    E. Timmermans, Phase Separation of Bose-Einstein Conde nsates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5718-5721 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein condensation i n dilute gases (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 200 2)

    work page

  4. [4]

    M. I. Merhasin, B. A. Malomed, and R. Driben, Transition t o miscibility in a binary Bose-Einstein condensate induced by linear coupling, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 38, 877-892 ( 2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    F. Wang, X. Li, D. Xiong and D. Wang, A double species 23Na and 87Rb Bose-Einstein condensate with tunable miscibility via an interspecies Feshbach resonance, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49, 015302 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Feshbach resonances in ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (201 0)

    work page

  7. [7]

    Roati, M

    G. Roati, M. Zaccanti, C. D’Errico, J. Catani, M. Modugno , A. Simoni, M. Inguscio, and G. Modugno, 39K Bose-Einstein Condensate with Tunable Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 010403 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Cabrera, L

    C. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, P. Che iney, and L. Tarruell, Quantum liquid droplets in a mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates, Science 359, 301-304 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Semeghini, G

    G. Semeghini, G. Ferioli, L. Masi, C. Mazzinghi, L. Wolsw ijk, F. Minardi, M. Modugno, G. Modugno, M. Inguscio, and M. Fattori, Self-bound quantum droplets of atomic mixtures in free space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 235301 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    D’Errico, A

    C. D’Errico, A. Burchianti, M. Prevedelli, L. Salasnic h, F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi, and C. Fort, Observa tion of quantum droplets in a heteronuclear bosonic mixture, Phy s. Rev. Res. 1, 033155 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Bakkali-Hassani, C

    B. Bakkali-Hassani, C. Maury, Y.-Q. Zou, ´E. Le Cerf, R. Saint-Jalm, P. C. M. Castilho, S. Nascimbene, J . Dalibard, and J. Beugnon, Realization of a Townes Soliton in a Two-Compone nt Planar Bose Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 023603 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Bakkali-Hassani, C

    B. Bakkali-Hassani, C. Maury, S. Stringari, S. Nascimb ene, J. Dalibard, and J. Beugnon, The cross-over from Townes solitons to droplets in a 2D Bose mixture, New J. Phys. 25, 013 007 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    G. S. Rohrer, Grain boundary energy anisotropy: a revie w, J. Materials Science, 46, 5881-5895 (2001). 13

    2001

  6. [14]

    H. Lim, M. G. Lee, and R. H. Wagoner, Simulation of polycr ystal deformation with grain and grain boundary effects, Int . J. Plasticity 27, 1328-1354 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Rudolph, Dislocation patterning and bunching in cry stals and epitaxial layers - a review, Cryst

    P. Rudolph, Dislocation patterning and bunching in cry stals and epitaxial layers - a review, Cryst. Res. Tech. 52, 1 600171 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    W. Yao, B. Wu, Y. Liu, Growth and grain boundaries in 2D ma terials, ACS Nano 14, 9320-9346 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Atxitia, D

    U. Atxitia, D. Hinzke, and U. Nowak, Fundamentals and ap plications of the Landau-Lifshitz-Bloch equation, J. Phys . D: Appl. Phys. 50, 033003 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    E. G. Galkina and B. A. Ivanov. Dynamic solitons in antif erromagnets, Low Temp. Phys. 44, 618-633 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Casado, W

    S. Casado, W. Gonzalez-Vinas, H. Mancini, Testing the K ibble-Zurek mechanism in Rayleigh-B´ enard convection, Ph ys. Rev. E 74, 047101 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    M. A. Miranda, D. Laroze, W. Gonzalez-Vinas, The Kibble -Zurek mechanism in a subcritical bifurcation, J. Phys. Con d. Matt. 25, 404208 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    M. C. Cross, Ingredients of a theory of convective textu res close to onset, Phys. Rev. A 25, 1065-1076 (1982)

    1982

  14. [22]

    Manneville, Y

    P. Manneville, Y. Pomeau, A grain-boundary in cellular structures near the onset of convection, Phil. Mag. A 48, 607 -621 (1983)

    1983

  15. [23]

    Steinberg, G

    V. Steinberg, G. Ahlers, D. S. Cannell, Pattern formati on and wave-number selection by Rayleigh-B´ enard convection in a cylindrical container, Physica Scripta 32, 534-547 (1985)

    1985

  16. [24]

    B. A. Malomed, A. A. Nepomnyashchy, M. I. Tribelsky, Dom ain boundaries in convection patterns, Phys. Rev. A 42, 7244-7263 (1990)

    1990

  17. [25]

    Haragus, A

    M. Haragus, A. Scheel, Grain boundaries in the Swift-Ho henberg equation, Eur. J. Appl. Math. 23, 737-759 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Haragus, G

    M. Haragus, G. Iooss, Bifurcation of symmetric domain w alls for the B´ enard-Rayleigh convection problem, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 239, 733-781 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Filatrella, B

    G. Filatrella, B. A. Malomed, and M. Salerno, Domain wal ls and bubble droplets in immiscible binary Bose gases, Phys . Rev. A 90, 043629 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Nicklas, H

    E. Nicklas, H. Strobel, T. Zibold, C. Gross, B. A. Malome d, P. G. Kevrekidis, and M. K. Oberthaler, Rabi flopping induc es spatial demixing dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 193001 (20 11)

  21. [29]

    B. A. Malomed, H. E. Nistazakis, D. J. Frantzeskakis, an d P. G. Kevrekidis, Static and rotating domain-wall crosses in Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A 70, 043616 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    Alama, L

    S. Alama, L. Bronsard, A. Contreras, and D. E. Pelinovsk y, Domain Walls in the Coupled Gross-Pitaevskii Equations, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 215, 579–610 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    B. A. Malomed, Optical domain walls, Phys. Rev. E 50, 156 5 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    B. A. Malomed, New findings for the old problem: Exact sol utions for domain walls in coupled real Ginzburg-Landau equations, Phys. Lett. A 422, 127802 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Fl¨ ugge, Practical Quantum Mechanics (Springer-Ve rlag, Berlin, 1998)

    S. Fl¨ ugge, Practical Quantum Mechanics (Springer-Ve rlag, Berlin, 1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    A. L. Marchant, T. P. Billam, T. P. Wiles, M. M. H. Yu, S. A. Gardiner, and S. L. Cornish, Controlled formation and reflection of a bright solitary matter-wave, Nature Comm. 4, 1865 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    D. K. Campbell, M. Peyrard, and P. Sodano, Kink-antikin k interactions in the double sine-Gordon equation, Physica D 19, 165-205 (1986)

    1986

  28. [36]

    Wang and X

    M. Wang and X. Li, Exact solutions to the double Sine-Gor don equation, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 27, 477-486 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    M. L. Chiofalo, S. Succi, M. P. Tosi, Ground state of trap ped interacting Bose-Einstein condensates by an explicit i maginary- time algorithm, Phys. Rev. E 62, 7438 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    S. K. Adhikari and P. Muruganandam, Bose-Einstein cond ensation dynamics from the numerical solution of the Gross- Pitaevskii equation, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 35, 2831 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Beattie, S

    S. Beattie, S. Moulder, R. J. Fletcher, Z. Hadzibabic, P ersistent currents in spinor condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 025301 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    R. Z. Sagdeev, D. A. Usikov, G. M. Zaslavsky, Nonlinear P hysics: From the Pendulum to Turbulence and Chaos (Harwood Academic Publishers, 1988)

    1988

  33. [41]

    H, Zhai, Degenerate quantum gases with spin-orbit coup ling: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 026001 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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