Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Extreme dynamics and relaxation of quantum gases: A hydrodynamic approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum gas released from a trap is claimed to expand as a self-similar shock front, with cloud radius growing as t^(2/(2+δ)) (1D) or t^(1/(1+δ)) (2D), set by the gas's equation of state.

desk verdict The vacuum-blast headline does not conserve energy; the finite-background and trapped-gas sections are the real value. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00399 v1 pith:6KL6XUKE submitted 2025-08-30 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.flu-dyn

Ritwik Mukherjee , Abhishek Dhar , Manas Kulkarni , Samriddhi Sankar Ray This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechphysics.flu-dyn
keywords quantumgasesEulerhydrodynamicsself-similarsolutionsshockfrontblastwavetime-of-flightexpansionrelaxationdynamicspower-lawequationofstate
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 studies what happens when a zero-temperature quantum gas — bosons or fermions — is suddenly released from a trap, as in standard time-of-flight experiments. Using Euler hydrodynamics with a power-law equation of state (specific enthalpy w = Dρ^δ), the authors claim that a localized cloud expanding into vacuum develops a shock front at its leading edge and settles into self-similar motion at long times: density and velocity take the forms ρ = t^(-b) f(x/t^b), v = t^(-c) g(x/t^b), with b = 2/(2+δ) in one dimension and b = 1/(1+δ) in two dimensions. The full scaling functions are derived in closed form and verified by direct numerical simulation. Expansion into a finite-density background is instead ballistic, with the front moving at the sound speed; and a trapped gas relaxes to its steady state through damped oscillations whose frequency and decay rate follow from a linearized spectral problem. If correct, the results make the expansion of a quantum gas a direct, quantitative probe of its equation of state and connect cold-atom dynamics to the classic blast-wave problem.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the self-similar scaling Ansatz ρ = t^(-b) f(x/t^b), v = t^(-c) g(x/t^b) applied to the Euler equations with power-law enthalpy (in 2D the density prefactor is t^(-2b) and coordinates are radial). It converts the partial differential equations into ordinary differential equations for f and g, with time-independence fixing the exponents b and c. The Rankine-Hugoniot relations at the expanding front collapse to ρ_-^δ = U²/2, and mass conservation fixes the scaled front position ξ_f, closing the problem exactly — the same structure as classical blast waves.

What would settle it

Release a finite-energy gas with power-law enthalpy (e.g., δ = 1) into vacuum and integrate the Euler equations with vanishing artificial viscosity. The claim requires a genuine front shock with nonzero density jump (ρ_-^δ = U²/2) and sub-ballistic radius R ~ t^(2/(2+δ)); the classical alternative is a rarefaction edge with density → 0 and ballistic R ~ t fixed by energy conservation. Experimentally, time-of-flight expansion of a quasi-1D unitary Fermi gas (δ = 2/5) distinguishes b = 5/6 from ballistic b = 1 by measuring R(t).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At zero temperature the hydrodynamics of a quantum gas reduces to Euler equations with power-law enthalpy w = Dρ^δ. Claim: a localized mass released into vacuum develops a long-time self-similar shock-fronted solution ρ = t^(-b) f(x/t^b), v = t^(-c) g(x/t^b), with b = 2/(2+δ) in 1D, 1/(1+δ) in 2D. Rankine-Hugoniot conditions at the front reduce to ρ_-^δ = U²/2; the scaling functions close in algebraic form, and mass conservation fixes the front position. Numerical solution of the Euler equations for δ = 2/5 in one and two dimensions collapses onto these curves. The same framework gives ballistic, sound-speed-limited expansion into a finite background, and damped-oscillatory relaxation to a s

Load-bearing premise

The construction hinges on the leading edge of a gas expanding into vacuum being a genuine shock with a nonzero density jump obeying ρ_-^δ = U²/2, rather than a free rarefaction edge where density and pressure vanish; if the edge is a rarefaction, the sub-ballistic exponents R ~ t^(2/(2+δ)) give way to ballistic growth set by energy conservation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In time-of-flight expansion into vacuum, the cloud radius should grow as R(t) ~ t^(2/(2+δ)) in 1D and t^(1/(1+δ)) in 2D — measurably sub-ballistic — with the exponent fixed purely by the equation-of-state exponent δ.
  • Density and velocity profiles at long times should collapse onto the paper's closed-form scaling functions after rescaling by t^b, independent of the shape of the initial localized cloud.
  • For release into a finite background density ρ_B, the excess density propagates at the sound speed c_s = sqrt(δρ_B^δ) with an explicit x/t profile, and the front perturbation height decays as 1/√t.
  • A trapped gas excited out of equilibrium relaxes to the steady state ρ_ss ∝ (1 − x²/a²)^(1/δ) with damped oscillations whose decay rate and frequency are set by the lowest eigenvalue of a Legendre-type spectral problem.
  • Because the enthalpy exponent δ takes different values for Lieb-Liniger bosons, unitary Fermi gases, and finite-range Riesz gases, the same scaling laws should appear across these distinct quantum fluids, with R(t) ~ t^b a direct signature of which gas one has.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 1D and 2D exponents are both consistent with the general-dimensional form b = 2/(2 + dδ); if so, a 3D unitary Fermi gas (δ = 2/3) should expand with R ~ t^(1/2), a quantitative prediction the paper does not state.
  • For an isolated cloud the total energy is conserved, yet under the sub-ballistic scaling both kinetic and internal energy decay to zero at long times; how this closes — via heating, a breakdown of the zero-temperature equation of state, or a crossover to ballistic motion — is the question the analysis leaves implicit.
  • The relaxation spectrum depends on viscosity and trap frequency only through combinations such as ω²/λ, so precise measurements of the damped oscillations of a trapped gas could extract an effective hydrodynamic viscosity, which the paper notes is not yet fixed from theory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies long-time solutions of the zero-temperature Euler equations for a polytropic quantum gas with specific enthalpy w = ρ^δ. The central claim is that a finite-mass gas cloud released into vacuum develops a shock front and attains self-similar form with R(t) ~ t^b, where b = 2/(δ+2) in 1D and b = 1/(δ+1) in 2D, and the paper provides explicit scaling functions. The authors also analyze expansion into a finite background, where they find ballistic sound-wave propagation, and the relaxation of a trapped gas to a steady state through damped oscillations. Numerical simulations with artificial viscosity are presented as validation, and code is provided.

Significance. The finite-background analysis and the trapped-gas relaxation calculation are potentially useful and give concrete, testable predictions; the paper also has the virtue of providing reproducible code and detailed numerical comparisons. However, the central vacuum-blast claim—which forms the paper's main advertised result—is not a solution of the Euler equations: the claimed scaling violates energy conservation and the shock boundary condition is not a valid Rankine-Hugoniot condition. Because this flaw affects the central contribution, the significance of the manuscript as it stands is limited.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II.A, Eqs. (5)-(14)] The claimed self-similar solution does not conserve energy. With ρ = t^{-b} f(x/t^b) and v = b x/t, the total energy E = ∫[ρv²/2 + ρ^{δ+1}/(δ+1)] dx equals t^{2b-2} A + t^{-bδ} B. For b = 2/(δ+2), both exponents equal -2δ/(δ+2) < 0, so E(t) → 0. The Euler equations with no external force conserve energy for an isolated finite-mass cloud, so this solution cannot be the long-time limit of the inviscid dynamics. After pressure becomes negligible, the correct long-time behavior is ballistic free streaming, R(t) ~ t.
  2. [§II.A, Eq. (10); §IV, Eqs. (60)-(66)] The Rankine-Hugoniot conditions used to select the solution are not valid for expansion into vacuum. Across a shock with vacuum on the plus side, ρ_+ = v_+ = P_+ = 0, mass and momentum conservation impose v_- = U and P_- = 0, meaning a finite-pressure shock into vacuum cannot exist. The paper instead imposes ρ_-^δ = U²/2 (Eq. (11); see Eq. (10) and Eq. (65)). A free boundary of a polytropic gas in vacuum is a rarefaction/contact boundary with ρ → 0 continuously, not a shock. Thus the shock-front premise underlying the entire vacuum-blast construction is not a consequence of the Euler equations.
  3. [§IV, Eqs. (58)-(64)] The derivation of the second jump condition in 2D uses d/dt∫ r v dr = 0, but ∫ r v dr is not conserved by the radial Euler equations (54). Only the mass-weighted moment, d/dt∫ r ρ dr = 0, is a conservation law. Therefore Eq. (64) and the resulting relation f(ξ_f) = (b² ξ_f²/2)^{1/δ} are not derivable. This invalidates the 2D scaling solution independently of the 1D objections.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A1)] The numerical validation solves dissipative equations with artificial viscosity η∂²ρ and ν∂²v. Since the claimed Euler scaling dissipates energy at a rate t^{-2δ/(δ+2)}, agreement between DNS and the analytic formulas demonstrates only that the viscous system possesses the corresponding self-similar attractor; it does not test the inviscid claim. The assertion that 'the dissipation terms become irrelevant in the long time scaling regime' is not supported: finite ν provides exactly the energy sink needed to reach the decaying-energy solution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The expression for the second exponent is garbled. From b + c = 1, one infers c = 1 - b = δ/(δ+2). Please correct the equation and the surrounding text.
  2. [Eq. (12a)] The parentheses in the formula for f(ξ) are ambiguous. It should read f(ξ) = [ (ξ_f²(2−δ) + δ ξ²) / (δ+2)² ]^{1/δ}, assuming that is the intended expression.
  3. [Eq. (10)] The second Rankine-Hugoniot condition is written as v_-²/2 + ρ_-^δ/v_- = U, which is dimensionally unclear and is not a standard jump condition. Please rewrite it in terms of P_- and U (or remove it, since it is not a correct RH relation).
  4. [§II.B, Fig. 2(c)] The limit ρ_B → 0 is singular: the linearized sound speed c_s → 0, so the finite-background analysis cannot be expected to recover the vacuum exponents. The curve in Fig. 2(c) should be presented with this caveat.
  5. [§III, Eq. (32b)] The replacement of the density-dependent viscous term by ν∂²_x v is acknowledged, but the claim that this is a good approximation for shallow traps requires more support. It would be helpful to quantify the error or to compare with the density-dependent form in a simple test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: analytic scaling solutions are derived from the stated Euler equations and shock ansatz; numerics provide internal consistency; author self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived, not fitted. In Sec. IIA, the self-similar ansatz (Eq. 5) is substituted into the Euler equations (Eq. 3); demanding time-independence fixes the exponents b and c (Eq. 6); the ODEs (Eq. 7) are integrated with the explicitly stated shock boundary conditions (Eqs. 10-11) and mass conservation (Eq. 13). The same structure appears in 2D (Sec. IV, Eqs. 55-73). The resulting scaling functions are explicit and parameter-free, with the front position set by the total mass. No parameter is fitted to numerical data and then renamed as a prediction. Numerical simulations solve the same Euler equations (plus artificial viscosity, Appendix A), so agreement is an internal consistency check rather than independent confirmation; the paper does not claim the numerics supply the exponents. In the trap-relaxation section, the steady state is obtained from the equations and eigenvalues are computed from the linearized problem; comparing with nonlinear simulations is again a consistency test, not a circular derivation. Author self-citations (Refs. 14, 17, 56-59) provide physical values of the polytropic index or illustrate model context, but the scaling exponents b = 2/(δ+2) and b = 1/(δ+1) are derived algebraically from the Euler equations in this paper, not imported from those citations. Correctness concerns — such as whether a vacuum boundary should be treated as a Rankine-Hugoniot shock, the use of ∫ r v dr as a 'conserved quantity' in the 2D jump derivation, or the assertion that artificial viscosity becomes irrelevant at long times — are substantive physics/verification issues, but they are not circularity: they question whether the stated assumptions are physically sound, not whether the output is identical to the input by construction. No circular step can be quoted.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivations assume the Euler equations with a polytropic EOS and an ad hoc viscosity. No new particles or fields are introduced. The main burden is the shock-in-vacuum assumption and the dissipation model.

free parameters (1)
  • artificial viscosity coefficients η and ν = not stated
    Chosen for numerical stability (Appendix A); the long-time scaling is claimed to be insensitive to them for free evolution, but ν directly sets the relaxation rate in Section III.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The zero-temperature quantum gas is described by Euler equations with enthalpy w = ρ^δ
    Used throughout, Eq. (2) and following; posits a polytropic EOS for bosons and fermions.
  • ad hoc to paper The vacuum expansion front is a shock satisfying ρ_-^δ = U^2/2
    Introduced in Eqs. (10)-(11); not derived from conservation laws and not the standard free-surface condition, which requires pressure to vanish at a vacuum boundary.
  • ad hoc to paper Dissipation is modeled as ν ∂_x^2 v instead of ∂_x(ρ ∂_x v)/ρ
    Section III, after Eq. (32b); affects the computed damping eigenvalues.
  • domain assumption Artificial diffusion in Euler equations is irrelevant at long times for free evolution
    Appendix A, paragraph 2; claimed from convergence checks, not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extreme dynamics and relaxation of quantum gases: A hydrodynamic approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KL6XUKE

@misc{pith2026250900399,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extreme dynamics and relaxation of quantum gases: A hydrodynamic approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KL6XUKE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00399}
}
read the original abstract

The evolution of quantum gases, released from traps, are studied through hydrodynamics, both analytically and numerically, in one and two dimensions. In particular, we demonstrate the existence of long time self-similar solutions of the Euler equations, for the density and velocity fields, and derive the scaling exponents as well as the scaling functions. We find that the expanding gas develops a shock front and the size of the cloud grows in time as a powerlaw. We relate the associated exponent to that appearing in the corresponding equation of state of the quantum gas. Furthermore, we study the relaxation dynamics of a trapped quantum gas and show that the resulting steady state is in excellent agreement with that derived analytically. Our hydrodynamic approach is versatile and can be used to unravel several other far-from-equilibrium collective phenomenon of extreme nature, relevant to the growing experimental interests in quantum gases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00399 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Time evolution of the density and velocity profiles of a freely expanding 1D quantum gas with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Early time profiles for density and velocity for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. This plot shows the convergence of the rescaled profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spatial profiles, at different times, of the (a) density and (b) velocity fields of a gas confined in a trap (dashed blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Upper and lower half of panel (a) shows the time series of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Time series of the density ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The time evolution of the two-dimensional density for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) The early time evolution of the radial density and the velocity before developing the scaling form as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.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. Microscopic and hydrodynamic correlation in 1d hard rod gas

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Coarse-grained exact microscopic density correlations of 1D hard rods match BMFT predictions, verifying hydrodynamic fluctuation assumptions in this integrable model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bloch, J

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

    2012

  2. [2]

    Adams, L

    A. Adams, L. D. Carr, T. Sch¨ afer, P. Steinberg, and J. E. Thomas, Strongly correlated quantum fluids: ultracold quantum gases, quantum chromodynamic plasmas and holographic duality, New Journal of Physics 14, 115009 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Bulgac, M

    A. Bulgac, M. M. Forbes, and P. Magierski, The uni- tary fermi gas: From monte carlo to density function- als, in The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas, edited by W. Zwerger (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012) pp. 305–373

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Langen, R

    T. Langen, R. Geiger, and J. Schmiedmayer, Ultracold atoms out of equilibrium, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    N. P. Proukakis, S. A. Gardiner, M. Davis, and M. Szy- manska, Quantum gases: finite temperature and non- equilibrium dynamics , Vol. 1 (World Scientific, 2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Langen, Non-equilibrium dynamics of one- dimensional Bose gases (Springer, 2015)

    T. Langen, Non-equilibrium dynamics of one- dimensional Bose gases (Springer, 2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Randeria and E

    M. Randeria and E. Taylor, Crossover from bardeen- cooper-schrieffer to bose-einstein condensation and the unitary fermi gas, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 5, 209 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Defenu, A

    N. Defenu, A. Lerose, and S. Pappalardi, Out-of- equilibrium dynamics of quantum many-body systems with long-range interactions, Physics Reports 1074, 1 (2024), out-of-equilibrium dynamics of quantum many- body systems with long-range interactions

    work page 2024

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Langen, G

    T. Langen, G. Valtolina, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Quantum state manipulation and cooling of ultracold molecules, Nature Physics 20, 702 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe- Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Dipolar physics: a review of experiments with magnetic quantum gases, Reports on Progress in Physics 86, 026401 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    O’hara, S

    K. O’hara, S. Hemmer, M. Gehm, S. Granade, and J. Thomas, Observation of a strongly interacting degen- erate fermi gas of atoms, Science 298, 2179 (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    Menotti, P

    C. Menotti, P. Pedri, and S. Stringari, Expansion of an interacting fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 250402 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    Kinoshita, T

    T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, Observation of a one-dimensional tonks-girardeau gas, Science 305, 1125 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    J. A. Joseph, J. E. Thomas, M. Kulkarni, and A. G. Abanov, Observation of shock waves in a strongly inter- acting fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 150401 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Ernst, J

    U. Ernst, J. Schuster, F. Schreck, A. Marte, A. Kuhn, and G. Rempe, Free expansion of a bose–einstein condensate from an ioffe–pritchard magnetic trap, Applied Physics B 67, 719 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    Salasnich, Supersonic and subsonic shock waves in the unitary fermi gas, Europhysics Letters 96, 40007 (2011)

    L. Salasnich, Supersonic and subsonic shock waves in the unitary fermi gas, Europhysics Letters 96, 40007 (2011). 12

    2011

  9. [17]

    Kulkarni and A

    M. Kulkarni and A. G. Abanov, Hydrodynamics of cold atomic gases in the limit of weak nonlinearity, dispersion, and dissipation, Phys. Rev. A 86, 033614 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Ruggiero, P

    P. Ruggiero, P. Calabrese, B. Doyon, and J. Dubail, Quantum generalized hydrodynamics, Physical review letters 124, 140603 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    C. Cao, E. Elliott, J. Joseph, H. Wu, J. Petricka, T. Sch¨ afer, and J. E. Thomas, Universal quantum vis- cosity in a unitary fermi gas, Science 331, 58 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    X. Wang, X. Li, I. Arakelyan, and J. E. Thomas, Hydro- dynamic relaxation in a strongly interacting fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 090402 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    X. Li, J. Huang, and J. E. Thomas, Universal den- sity shift coefficients for the thermal conductivity and shear viscosity of a unitary fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042021 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    G. M. Bruun and H. Smith, Viscosity and thermal relax- ation for a resonantly interacting fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A 72, 043605 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Wlaz lowski, P

    G. Wlaz lowski, P. Magierski, and J. E. Drut, Shear vis- cosity of a unitary fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020406 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Samanta, R

    R. Samanta, R. Sharma, and S. P. Trivedi, Shear viscosity in an anisotropic unitary fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A 96, 053601 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    M. A. Cazalilla, R. Citro, T. Giamarchi, E. Orignac, and M. Rigol, One dimensional bosons: From condensed mat- ter systems to ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1405 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Inguscio, W

    M. Inguscio, W. Ketterle, and C. Salomon, Ultra-cold Fermi gases , Vol. 164 (IOS press, 2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    C. R. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, P. Cheiney, and L. Tarruell, Quantum liquid droplets in a mixture of bose-einstein condensates, Science 359, 301 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Semeghini, G

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

    2018

  21. [29]

    Sowi´ nski and M

    T. Sowi´ nski and M. ´Angel Garc ´ ıa-March, One- dimensional mixtures of several ultracold atoms: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 104401 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Capuzzi, P

    P. Capuzzi, P. Vignolo, F. Federici, and M. P. Tosi, Sound propagation in elongated superfluid fermionic clouds, Phys. Rev. A 73, 021603 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Bertaina, L

    G. Bertaina, L. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, First and second sound in cylindrically trapped gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 150402 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Joseph, B

    J. Joseph, B. Clancy, L. Luo, J. Kinast, A. Turlapov, and J. E. Thomas, Measurement of sound velocity in a fermi gas near a feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 170401 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    C. C. N. Kuhn, S. Hoinka, I. Herrera, P. Dyke, J. J. Kinnunen, G. M. Bruun, and C. J. Vale, High-frequency sound in a unitary fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 150401 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    R. R. Joseph, L. E. C. Rosales-Z´ arate, and P. D. Drum- mond, Finite-temperature dynamics of shock waves in an ultracold fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A 98, 013638 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    X. Li, X. Luo, S. Wang, K. Xie, X.-P. Liu, H. Hu, Y.-A. Chen, X.-C. Yao, and J.-W. Pan, Second sound attenua- tion near quantum criticality, Science 375, 528 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Z. Yan, P. B. Patel, B. Mukherjee, C. J. Vale, R. J. Fletcher, and M. W. Zwierlein, Thermography of the su- perfluid transition in a strongly interacting fermi gas, Sci- ence 383, 629 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Salasnich, Dynamical properties of the unitary fermi gas: Collective modes and shock waves, Few-Body Sys- tems 54, 697 (2013)

    L. Salasnich, Dynamical properties of the unitary fermi gas: Collective modes and shock waves, Few-Body Sys- tems 54, 697 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Bulgac, Y.-L

    A. Bulgac, Y.-L. Luo, and K. J. Roche, Quantum shock waves and domain walls in the real-time dynamics of a su- perfluid unitary fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 150401 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    X. Yan, J. Min, D. Sun, S.-G. Peng, X. Xie, X. Wu, and K. Jiang, Energy dynamics of a nonequilibrium unitary fermi gas, arXiv:2502.03524 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    L. I. Sedov, Similarity and dimensional methods in me- chanics (CRC press, 2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    L. I. Sedov, Propagation of strong shock waves, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 10, 241 (1946)

    1946

  34. [42]

    G. I. Taylor, The formation of a blast wave by a very in- tense explosion I. Theoretical discussion, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 201, 159 (1950)

    1950

  35. [43]

    G. I. Taylor, The formation of a blast wave by a very in- tense explosion. - II. The atomic explosion of 1945, Proc. Roy. Soc. London. Series A 201, 175 (1950)

    1945

  36. [44]

    von Neumann, Collected Works (Pergamon Press, Ox- ford, 1963)

    J. von Neumann, Collected Works (Pergamon Press, Ox- ford, 1963)

    1963

  37. [45]

    Antal, P

    T. Antal, P. L. Krapivsky, and S. Redner, Exciting hard spheres, Phys. Rev. E 78, 030301 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Barbier, D

    M. Barbier, D. Villamaina, and E. Trizac, Blast dynamics in a dissipative gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 214301 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Barbier, Kinetics of blast waves in one-dimensional conservative and dissipative gases, J

    M. Barbier, Kinetics of blast waves in one-dimensional conservative and dissipative gases, J. Stat. Mech. 2015, P11019 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    J. P. Joy, S. N. Pathak, and R. Rajesh, Shock propaga- tion following an intense explosion: Comparison between hydrodynamics and simulations, J. Stat. Phys. 182, 34 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    J. P. Joy and R. Rajesh, Shock propagation following an intense explosion: Comparison between hydrodynamics and simulations, J. Stat. Phys. 184, 3 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Chakraborti, S

    S. Chakraborti, S. Ganapa, P. L. Krapivsky, and A. Dhar, Blast in a one-dimensional cold gas: From newtonian dy- namics to hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 244503 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Ganapa, S

    S. Ganapa, S. Chakraborti, P. L. Krapivsky, and A. Dhar, Blast in the one-dimensional cold gas: Comparison of microscopic simulations with hydrodynamic predictions, Physics of Fluids 33 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    S. K. Singh, S. Chakraborti, A. Dhar, and P. L. Krapivsky, Blast waves in the zero temperature hard sphere gas: double scaling structure, J. Stat. Phys. 190, 118 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Shuryak, Physics of strongly coupled quark–gluon plasma, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 62, 48 (2009)

    E. Shuryak, Physics of strongly coupled quark–gluon plasma, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 62, 48 (2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    Sch¨ afer and D

    T. Sch¨ afer and D. Teaney, Nearly perfect fluidity: from cold atomic gases to hot quark gluon plasmas, Reports on Progress in Physics 72, 126001 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    Lewin, Coulomb and riesz gases: The known and the unknown, Journal of Mathematical Physics 63, 061101 (2022)

    M. Lewin, Coulomb and riesz gases: The known and the unknown, Journal of Mathematical Physics 63, 061101 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Agarwal, A

    S. Agarwal, A. Dhar, M. Kulkarni, A. Kundu, S. N. Majumdar, D. Mukamel, and G. Schehr, Harmonically confined particles with long-range repulsive interactions, 13 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 100603 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Kumar, M

    A. Kumar, M. Kulkarni, and A. Kundu, Particles con- fined in arbitrary potentials with a class of finite-range repulsive interactions, Phys. Rev. E 102, 032128 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Santra, J

    S. Santra, J. Kethepalli, S. Agarwal, A. Dhar, M. Kulka- rni, and A. Kundu, Gap statistics for confined parti- cles with power-law interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 170603 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    B. K. S., D. A. Huse, and M. Kulkarni, Spatiotemporal spread of perturbations in power-law models at low tem- peratures: Exact results for classical out-of-time-order correlators, Phys. Rev. E 104, 044117 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Ketterle, Experimental studies of bose–einstein con- densation, Phys

    W. Ketterle, Experimental studies of bose–einstein con- densation, Phys. Today 52, 30 (1999)

    1999

  53. [61]

    D. A. Smith, S. Aigner, S. Hofferberth, M. Gring, M. Andersson, S. Wildermuth, P. Kr¨ uger, S. Schneider, T. Schumm, and J. Schmiedmayer, Absorption imaging of ultracold atoms on atom chips, Opt. Express 19, 8471 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    Hueck, N

    K. Hueck, N. Luick, L. Sobirey, J. Siegl, T. Lompe, H. Moritz, L. W. Clark, and C. Chin, Calibrating high intensity absorption imaging of ultracold atoms, Opt. Ex- press 25, 8670 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Mukherjee, Relevant codes for quantum gases, https: //github.com/rikmukherjee/CompressibleEuler (2025)

    R. Mukherjee, Relevant codes for quantum gases, https: //github.com/rikmukherjee/CompressibleEuler (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    Ketterle and M

    W. Ketterle and M. W. Zwierlein, Making, probing and understanding ultracold fermi gases, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 31, 247 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    Hou and T

    J. Hou and T. Sch¨ afer, Dissipative superfluid hydrody- namics for the unitary fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A 104, 023313 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Salasnich, P

    L. Salasnich, P. Comaron, M. Zambon, and F. Toigo, Collective modes in the anisotropic unitary fermi gas and the inclusion of a backflow term, Phys. Rev. A88, 033610 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    A. Amo, S. Pigeon, D. Sanvitto, V. G. Sala, R. Hivet, I. Carusotto, F. Pisanello, G. Lem´ enager, R. Houdr´ e, E. Giacobino, C. Ciuti, and A. Bramati, Polariton su- perfluids reveal quantum hydrodynamic solitons, Science 332, 1167 (2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    Carusotto and C

    I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, Quantum fluids of light, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 299 (2013)

    2013

  61. [69]

    D. A. Teaney, Viscous hydrodynamics and the quark gluon plasma, in Quark-Gluon Plasma 4 , pp. 207–266

  62. [70]

    Cox and P

    S. Cox and P. Matthews, Exponential time differencing for stiff systems, Journal of Computational Physics 176, 430 (2002)

    2002

  63. [71]

    S. D. Murugan, U. Frisch, S. Nazarenko, N. Besse, and S. S. Ray, Suppressing thermalization and constructing weak solutions in truncated inviscid equations of hydro- dynamics: Lessons from the burgers equation, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033202 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Kumar and R

    A. Kumar and R. Rajesh, Blast waves in two and three di- mensions: Euler versus navier–stokes equations, J. Stat. Phys. 188, 12 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.