Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Ten strongly interacting atoms can expand like a fluid, a task-force report argues.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 05:39 UTC pith:RMPEH44M

load-bearing objection A useful, honest workshop survey whose central 'smoking gun' claim for N=10 hydrodynamics rests on one aspect-ratio match with fitted inputs; worth reading as a roadmap, not as new evidence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05049 v2 pith:RMPEH44M submitted 2025-09-05 cond-mat.quant-gas hep-phnucl-thquant-ph

Few is different: deciphering many-body dynamics in mesoscopic quantum gases

Juergen Berges , Sandra Brandstetter , Jasmine Brewer , Georg Bruun , Tilman Enss , Stefan Floerchinger , Keisuke Fujii , Maciej Galka
show 22 more authors
Giuliano Giacalone Qingze Guan Carl Heintze Lars H. Heyen Ilya Selyuzhenkov Selim Jochim Jesper Levinsen Philipp Lunt Silvia Masciocchi Aleksas Mazeliauskas Nir Navon Alice Ohlson Meera Parish Stephanie M. Reimann Francesco Scazza Thomas Schaefer Derek Teaney Joseph Thywissen Raju Venugopalan Yangqian Yan Matteo Zaccanti Torsten V. Zache
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas hep-phnucl-thquant-ph
keywords few-body Fermi gaselliptic flowmesoscopic quantum gaseshydrodynamics without scale separationunitary Fermi gashydrodynamic attractorsmall-system collectivityquantum gas dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper is the report of a rapid-reaction task force that tries to establish that hydrodynamic-like behavior can emerge in systems with only about ten particles, where the textbook separation of microscopic and macroscopic scales is absent. The central evidence is the observation of elliptic flow in a gas of 5+5 strongly interacting fermions; the report calls this a smoking gun for hydrodynamic behavior even though system size, interparticle spacing, and mean free path cannot be separated. It supports this claim with a hydrodynamic model that reproduces the measured aspect-ratio inversion, with few-body calculations showing that static many-body properties converge already at two to ten atoms, and with hydrodynamic-attractor arguments that explain how universal behavior can set in before local equilibrium. The report also identifies three frontiers, size, equilibrium, and interaction, along which the boundaries of effective descriptions can now be probed quantitatively. If the claim holds, the conventional criterion that hydrodynamics requires many particles and clear scale separation is not a necessary condition.

Core claim

The report's central claim is that collective, fluid-like dynamics can appear in mesoscopic systems that violate the scale-separation condition normally required for effective theories. The concrete anchor is an experiment with ten strongly interacting fermionic atoms (5+5) released from an elliptic trap: the cloud's aspect ratio inverts during expansion, and momentum space becomes anisotropic, a signature interpreted as interaction-driven elliptic flow. The paper reports that solving ideal superfluid hydrodynamics with an initial density fitted to the trapped system and an equation of state fitted to macroscopic quasi-2D Fermi gas data reproduces the time evolution of the aspect ratio, alth

What carries the argument

The load-bearing observable is elliptic flow, the conversion of an initial spatial anisotropy into a momentum-space anisotropy, quantified here by the inversion of the aspect ratio δrx/δry after trap release. The theoretical machinery is ideal superfluid hydrodynamics closed by a polytropic equation of state, with a generalized Gaussian initial density fitted to the experimentally prepared state; a second-order derivative (quantum-pressure) correction to the hydrodynamic equation sharpens the predicted density tails. Supporting mechanisms are the hydrodynamic attractor, which lets initially different far-from-equilibrium configurations converge to a universal curve before hydrodynamics forma

Load-bearing premise

The hydrodynamic model applies an initial density fitted to the same experimental system and an equation of state fitted to macroscopic Fermi gas data to a system of only ten atoms, and only the aspect ratio, not the absolute expansion speed, matches.

What would settle it

A time-resolved measurement of the absolute width of a ten-atom cloud during expansion, compared with an exact few-body calculation and with the hydrodynamic model, would settle whether the aspect-ratio agreement is a genuine hydrodynamic prediction or a consequence of the fitted initial condition.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, the textbook requirement that hydrodynamics requires a separation of scales between microscopic and macroscopic lengths is not a necessary condition for collective flow.
  • A fluid-dynamic description can capture at least one collective observable, the aspect-ratio inversion, in a system of only ten atoms, even though the same model fails to reproduce the absolute expansion speed.
  • Universal static properties of the unitary Fermi gas, such as the Bertsch parameter and the contact, can be extracted from few-body systems with two to ten particles, so the few-to-many crossover is partially accessible from the few-body side.
  • Hydrodynamic attractors provide a mechanism by which universal behavior can emerge before local equilibrium is reached, and cold-atom experiments can test this directly.
  • The same framework connects the small-system puzzle in high-energy collisions to mesoscopic quantum gases: in both cases, collective signatures appear in systems where conventional hydrodynamics should not work.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The report's own admission that only the aspect ratio, not the absolute expansion rate, is reproduced by hydrodynamics suggests a decisive next test: measure the absolute expansion timescale at N=10 and compare with exact few-body dynamics, which would separate genuine hydrodynamic behavior from a geometric coincidence.
  • One could map the few-to-many crossover continuously by varying N from 2 to about 30 in the same anisotropic trap and locating where the hydrodynamic prediction becomes quantitatively accurate, thereby sharpening the meaning of 'few is different.'
  • If attractor convergence rather than scale separation is what justifies hydrodynamics, then the relevant criterion is dynamical, not geometric; this could be tested by driving the scattering length in time and watching whether the contact follows the predicted universal attractor curve.
  • The same elliptic-flow signal in few-fermion gases could serve as a tabletop analogue for small-system collectivity in high-energy collisions, where initial geometry is harder to control; quantitative comparison of v2 responses across these platforms would test the universality of the emergent description.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is the summary report of the EMMI Rapid Reaction Task Force on emergent many-body dynamics in mesoscopic quantum gases. It surveys recent experimental and theoretical work across two frontiers: ultracold few-fermion gases and high-energy small-collision systems. The central scientific claim, stated in the abstract and in Section 2.2.1, is that elliptic flow has been observed in a system of ten strongly interacting fermions (5+5) after release from an anisotropic trap, and that this is considered a smoking gun for hydrodynamic behavior even though the system size, interparticle spacing, and mean free path are not separable. The report also reviews few-body exact methods, a hydrodynamic model of the few-fermion expansion (Section 2.3.2), non-hydrodynamic modes, hydrodynamic attractors, entanglement and thermalization in small systems, and the parallel small-system collectivity program in high-energy collisions. It closes with a proposed research program organized around the size, equilibrium, and interaction frontiers.

Significance. If the few-fermion elliptic-flow observation is interpreted as genuine emergent hydrodynamic behavior, the report addresses a question of broad interdisciplinary significance: whether effective fluid descriptions can arise without the conventional separation of scales. The manuscript is valuable as a survey that connects the cold-atom and heavy-ion communities, and it is candid about several limitations of the supporting hydrodynamic calculation, notably the admission in Section 2.3.2 that the simulated absolute expansion is significantly slower than observed. However, the report is a perspective/review rather than a new derivation, and its strongest claim—the smoking-gun status of the few-fermion elliptic flow—is not backed by a quantitative, falsifiable discriminator between hydrodynamic and non-hydrodynamic few-body dynamics. With appropriately tempered language and a clearer statement of the status of the hydrodynamic comparison, the report would be a useful contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3.2, Eq. (8) and Eq. (11)] The hydrodynamic model used to support the few-fermion elliptic-flow claim is not an independent prediction. The initial density in Eq. (8) is fitted to the trapped density of the same 5+5 system, and the polytropic equation of state in Eq. (11) is fitted to macroscopic quasi-2D Fermi gas measurements. The authors state that the simulation 'leads to an expansion that is significantly slower than the observed one' and that only the aspect ratio δrx/δry agrees. This means the agreement is a consistency check whose success may be controlled by the fitted initial geometry. The text should explicitly frame Section 2.3.2 as such and state what observable (e.g., absolute expansion, momentum anisotropy time-dependence, particle-number scaling) would discriminate hydrodynamic from ballistic or few-body correlated dynamics.
  2. [§2.3.2, Eq. (15) and Fig. 6] There is an internal inconsistency regarding the quantum-pressure coefficient λ. The text says that for λ=1 one obtains a generalized Gross-Pitaevskii equation, and then states that the agreement with the measured tails 'comes naturally and without adding any extra model parameters.' However, the green dotted curves in Fig. 6(c,d) are described as 'the results obtained with λ=1.5 in Eq. (15).' If λ=1.5 is chosen by hand to match the data, then the claim of no extra model parameters is inaccurate; if λ=1.5 is derived from some condition, that derivation should be given. This should be clarified because it bears on the degree to which the initial condition is fitted.
  3. [§2.2.1 and Abstract] The phrase 'smoking gun for hydrodynamic behavior' is stronger than the evidence presented. The report itself notes in §2.2.1 that a single particle in an elliptic trap also shows aspect-ratio inversion, albeit from a different mechanism, and Section 3.1 acknowledges that alternative, non-hydrodynamic explanations exist for small-system collectivity in heavy-ion collisions. For the few-fermion case, the only hydrodynamic comparison in Section 2.3.2 reproduces the aspect ratio but not the absolute expansion, and the initial condition is fitted to the same experimental system. The claim should be tempered to 'consistent with hydrodynamic-like behavior' unless a quantitative test is provided that excludes non-hydrodynamic few-body dynamics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3.2, paragraph after Eq. (11)] Typo: 'a very satisfactory fit of the measure equation of state' should read 'measured equation of state'.
  2. [§2.3.2, last paragraph] Typo: 'with a separation of scales between the trap size the the fermion-fermion pair size' should read 'between the trap size and the fermion-fermion pair size'.
  3. [§1.2, first paragraph] Typo: 'recent experiment imply' should be 'recent experiments imply' or 'recent experiment implies'.
  4. [§1.4, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is labeled (2.34) although it appears in Section 1.4; the equation numbering should be made consistent throughout the manuscript.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Hydrodynamic 'smoking gun' for N=10 fermions rests on an aspect-ratio match whose initial condition is fitted to the same data, and on a quantum-pressure coefficient λ=1.5 that is chosen by hand while claimed to add no parameters.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3.2, Eq. (8) and following comparison]
    "we empirically observe that an excellent fit of the trapped gas for 5+5 fermions (N= 5, see Fig. 4) can be achieved through a generalized Gaussian distribution ... with parameters a_x = 2.21 µm, b_x = 3, a_y = 1.04 µm, b_y = 2 ... For the absolute magnitude, the hydrodynamic simulation leads to an expansion that is significantly slower than the observed one. On the other hand, the aspect ratio of the system, δr_x/δr_y, ... is in excellent agreement with the data."

    The initial density used as the hydrodynamic initial condition is fit to the same 5+5 experimental system whose expansion the simulation is then said to predict. The only matched observable is the aspect ratio, which is closely tied to the fitted initial anisotropy (a_x/a_y ≈ 2.1); the absolute expansion, which would be a more discriminating test, is explicitly not reproduced. Thus the 'excellent agreement' is not an independent prediction but a consistency check with inputs taken from the target data.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3.2, Eq. (15) and Fig. 6 caption/text]
    "For λ= 1, this is equivalent to a generalized Gross-Pitaevskii equation with an equation of state chosen suitably to match that of the 6Li gas. ... The green dotted lines in panels (c) and (d) represent the results obtained with λ= 1.5 in Eq. (15). ... We stress that this comes naturally and without adding any extra model parameters."

    The quantum-pressure coefficient λ is not derived; it is set to 1.5, and the figure shows this choice reproduces the measured tails. The text then claims this comes 'without adding any extra model parameters.' The predicted density profile is therefore tuned to the data it is supposed to explain: the λ=1.5 curve is selected post hoc, so the agreement is a fit, not a first-principles result.

full rationale

The report's central experimental observation — elliptic flow of 5+5 strongly interacting atoms — is an independent experimental fact, so the paper is not wholly circular. However, the theoretical support for interpreting this as hydrodynamic behavior contains two fitted inputs that are presented as predictions. First, the hydrodynamic initial condition (Eq. 8) is fit to the same experimental system whose expansion is then compared; only the aspect ratio matches, and that observable is strongly controlled by the fitted initial geometry, while the absolute expansion is admitted to be too slow. Second, the quantum-pressure coefficient λ in Eq. (15) is chosen as λ=1.5 to match the observed density tails, yet the text claims the result comes 'without adding any extra model parameters.' These steps mean the 'predictions' of the aspect-ratio dynamics and of the initial-density tails reduce substantially to fits to the target data. The equation-of-state parameters in Eq. (11) are fitted to macroscopic samples rather than the few-body data, so that is an external input rather than circular, though its transferability to N=10 is an assumption. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the self-citations to the experimental paper and to the second-order derivation are not the source of the circularity. Overall, the circularity is partial: the experimental observation stands, but the hydrodynamic validation is partly circular, warranting a score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central few-fermion analysis rests on several fitted inputs (initial density, EOS, quantum pressure coefficient) and domain assumptions (reverse LDA, Drude form of bulk viscosity, equivalence of scattering-length drive to expansion). No new particles, mediators, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the report reuses existing concepts such as hydrodynamic attractors and E2I2.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial density parameters a_x, b_x, a_y, b_y = a_x=2.21 um, b_x=3, a_y=1.04 um, b_y=2
    Fitted to the measured trapped density of 5+5 atoms in Eq. (8), then used as initial condition for the hydrodynamic model whose output is compared to the same experiment.
  • EOS fit parameters alpha, beta = alpha=0.216(8), beta=0.67(5)
    Fitted to macroscopic quasi-2D Fermi gas pressure data [188,189] and used to close the hydrodynamic equations in Eq. (11).
  • Quantum pressure coefficient lambda = lambda=1.5
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (15) to match the experimental density tails; text claims it comes "without adding any extra model parameters", but the caption specifies lambda=1.5.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Local density approximation applies in reverse to N <= 10 trapped fermions
    Section 2.1 uses LDA to infer uniform-space Bertsch parameter and contact from few-body harmonic trap energies; if LDA breaks down at N=10, the extraction is invalid.
  • domain assumption The unitary Fermi gas is scale invariant
    Used in Section 2.1 to relate trapped energy E to E0 via the Bertsch parameter xi; scale invariance is a property of the unitary limit, cited from prior work.
  • domain assumption The 2D polytropic equation of state P = g rho^kappa applies to the ten-atom system
    Section 2.3.2 closes Eqs. (9) with a parametrized EOS from macroscopic measurements; its validity for N=10 atoms is assumed without direct verification.
  • domain assumption Contact relaxation is well described by a Drude form at low frequencies
    Section 2.3.6 uses this to define the relaxation time tau_zeta in the drive protocol proposed for observing hydrodynamic attractors.
  • domain assumption Time-varying scattering length at fixed volume is equivalent to isotropic fluid expansion
    Section 2.3.6 relies on this equivalence from Ref [128] to map the scattering-length drive protocol to a fluid expansion.
  • domain assumption The rho-meson decay acts as a unitary entangling transformation enabling E2I2
    Section 3.3.2 interprets STAR UPC rho-meson data via the Cotler-Wilczek mechanism; the report notes the quantitative computation is in progress [299].

pith-pipeline@v1.4.0-alltime-deepseek-medium · 52767 in / 17484 out tokens · 177159 ms · 2026-08-05T05:39:43.967853+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Few is different: deciphering many-body dynamics in mesoscopic quantum gases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMPEH44M

@misc{pith2026250905049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Few is different: deciphering many-body dynamics in mesoscopic quantum gases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMPEH44M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05049}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Emergent macroscopic descriptions of matter, such as hydrodynamics, are central to our description of complex physical systems across a wide spectrum of energy scales. The conventional understanding of these many-body phenomena has recently been shaken by a number of experimental findings. Collective behavior of matter has been observed in \emph{mesoscopic} systems, such as high-energy hadron-hadron collisions, or ultra-cold gases with only few strongly interacting fermions. In such systems, the separation of scales between macroscopic and microscopic dynamics (at the heart of any effective theory) is inapplicable. To address the conceptual challenges that arise from these observations and explore the universality of emergent descriptions of matter, the EMMI Rapid Reaction Task Force was assembled. This document summarizes the RRTF discussions on recent theoretical and experimental advances in this rapidly developing field. Leveraging technological breakthroughs in the control of quantum systems, we can now quantitatively explore what it means for a system to exhibit behavior beyond the sum of its individual parts. In particular, the report highlights how the (in)applicability of hydrodynamics and other effective theories can be probed across three principal frontiers: the size frontier, the equilibrium frontier, and the interaction frontier.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05049 by Aleksas Mazeliauskas, Alice Ohlson, Carl Heintze, Derek Teaney, Francesco Scazza, Georg Bruun, Giuliano Giacalone, Ilya Selyuzhenkov, Jasmine Brewer, Jesper Levinsen, Joseph Thywissen, Juergen Berges, Keisuke Fujii, Lars H. Heyen, Maciej Galka, Matteo Zaccanti, Meera Parish, Nir Navon, Philipp Lunt, Qingze Guan, Raju Venugopalan, Sandra Brandstetter, Selim Jochim, Silvia Masciocchi, Stefan Floerchinger, Stephanie M. Reimann, Thomas Schaefer, Tilman Enss, Torsten V. Zache, Yangqian Yan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Signatures of emergent hydrodynamic behavior are observed in microscopic systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Regimes of the two-component 3D Fermi gas, with density parameterized by the Fermi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Bertsch parameter and (b) contact of a unitary Fermi gas in a uniform system, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Elliptic flow of ten fermions. We prepare 5+5 strongly interacting spin up and down atoms (black/white dots) in the ground state of an elliptically shaped trap. We measure their positions (a-c) or momenta (e-g). The two dimensional histograms show the density distribution, obtained from averaging over many experimental realizations of the same quantum state. The initial system has an elliptic density distr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) “Yrast” states of maximal angular momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Initial condition for the hydrodynamic expansion of the mesoscopic Fermi gas. Predic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Left) The driving protocol for the scattering length to realize the hydrodynamic attractor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (left panel) Two particle correlation v2{2} vs. charged particle density in Pb–Pb and pp collisions (figure adapted from [251]). Two-particle correlations C(∆η, ∆φ) in (middle panel) high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions at √ s = 7 TeV, adapted from Ref. [13] and (right panel) ep photoproduction reactions at √ s = 318 GeV [258, 259]. Here φi (i = 1 . . . 4) are the azimuthal angles of the produced par… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (left panel) Comparison of the ratio of the final state two- and four-particle anisotropies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of hydrodynamic attractor phenomena in QGP undergoing Bjorken expan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Two-particle correlation data from the exclusive production of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Frontiers of hydrodynamic (in)applicability as a function of the system size, closeness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Fermi-liquid view of viscosity in cold and dense nucleon matter

    nucl-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    In a quasiparticle Fermi liquid with medium-dependent mass, imposing Landau matching makes the bulk viscosity manifestly non-negative and parametrically smaller than shear viscosity at low temperature, ζ/η ∝ (T/μ*)⁴.

  2. Relativistic Dispersion Spectra across Lorentz boosted frames: Spurious modes and the enigma of causality

    hep-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

    Rest-frame dispersion modes can be mapped into Lorentz-boosted frames through a parametric re-parametrization; the boost-generated 'spurious' roots appear exactly when the mode count is not conserved, which the author...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

298 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    More Is Different

    P. W. Anderson, “More Is Different”,Science177(1972), 393–396,doi:10.1126/science. 177.4047.393. [2]Deciphering many-body dynamics in mesoscopic quantum gases.https://indico.gsi.de/ event/19234/. Mar 18-21, 2024, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Heidelberg Univeristy

    doi:10.1126/science 1972

  2. [3]

    Rezzolla and O

    L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti,Relativistic Hydrodynamics. Oxford University Press, Sept. 2013.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528906.001.0001

    arXiv 2013

  3. [4]

    Observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic va- por

    M. H. Andersonet al., “Observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic va- por”,Science269(1995), 198–201,doi:10.1126/science.269.5221.198

    doi:10.1126/science.269.5221.198 1995

  4. [5]

    Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms

    K. B. Daviset al., “Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 75(1995), 3969–3973,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3969

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.3969 1995

  5. [6]

    Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC colli- sions

    J. Adamset al., “Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC colli- sions”,Nucl. Phys. A757(2005), 102–183,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.085, arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [7]

    Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration

    K. Adcoxet al., “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration”,Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005), 184–283,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [8]

    The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC

    B. B. Backet al., “The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC”,Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005), 28–101,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.084, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [9]

    Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The Perspec- tive from the BRAHMS experiment

    I. Arseneet al., “Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The Perspec- tive from the BRAHMS experiment”,Nucl. Phys. A757(2005), 1–27,doi:10.1016/j. nuclphysa.2005.02.130, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  9. [10]

    Nearly perfect fluidity: from cold atomic gases to hot quark gluon plasmas

    T. Sch¨ afer and D. Teaney, “Nearly perfect fluidity: from cold atomic gases to hot quark gluon plasmas”,Reports on Progress in Physics72(2009), 126001,doi:10.1088/0034- 4885/72/12/126001, arXiv:0904.3107 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  10. [12]

    Centrality Dependence of Dihadron Correlations and Azimuthal anisotropy Harmonics in PbPb Collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV

    S. Chatrchyanet al., “Centrality Dependence of Dihadron Correlations and Azimuthal anisotropy Harmonics in PbPb Collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012), 2012,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2012-3, arXiv:1201.3158 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [13]

    Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC

    V. Khachatryanet al., “Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC”,JHEP09(2010), 091,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010) 091, arXiv:1009.4122 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  12. [14]

    Observation of a Strongly Interacting Degenerate Fermi Gas of Atoms

    K. M. O’Haraet al., “Observation of a Strongly Interacting Degenerate Fermi Gas of Atoms”,Science298(2002), 2179–2182,doi:10.1126/science.1079107, arXiv:cond- mat/0212463 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    arXiv 2002

  13. [15]

    Emergent interaction-driven elliptic flow of few fermionic atoms

    S. Brandstetteret al., “Emergent interaction-driven elliptic flow of few fermionic atoms”, Nature Phys.21(2025), 52–56,doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02705-8, arXiv:2308.09699 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. 46

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [16]

    Observing droplets of near-perfect fluid in high-energy nu- clear collisions

    J. Velkovska and S.V. Greene, “Observing droplets of near-perfect fluid in high-energy nu- clear collisions”,Innovation News Network(May 2021),url:https://www.innovationnewsnetwork. com / observing - droplets - of - near - perfect - fluid - in - high - energy - nuclear - collisions/12067/

    2021

  15. [17]

    Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, “Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68(2018), 339–376,doi:10.1146/annurev- nucl-101917-020852, arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [18]

    The exploration of hot and dense nuclear matter: introduction to relativistic heavy-ion physics

    H. Elfner and B. M¨ uller, “The exploration of hot and dense nuclear matter: introduction to relativistic heavy-ion physics”,J. Phys. G50(2023), 103001,doi:10 . 1088 / 1361 - 6471/ace824, arXiv:2210.12056 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [19]

    Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow

    J.Y. Ollitrault, “Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow”,Phys. Rev. D46 (1992), 229–245,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.229

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.229 1992

  18. [20]

    Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV

    S. S. Adleret al., “Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.91(2003), 182301,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.182301, arXiv: nucl-ex/0305013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  19. [21]

    Azimuthal anisotropy in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV

    J. Adamset al., “Azimuthal anisotropy in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV”,Phys. Rev. C72(2005), 014904,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.014904, arXiv:nucl-ex/0409033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  20. [22]

    Elliptic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV

    K Aamodtet al., “Elliptic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010), 252302,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252302, arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  21. [23]

    Measures of azimuthal anisotropy in high-energy collisions

    J.Y. Ollitrault, “Measures of azimuthal anisotropy in high-energy collisions”,Eur. Phys. J. A59(2023), 236,doi:10 . 1140 / epja / s10050 - 023 - 01157 - 7, arXiv:2308 . 11674 [nucl-ex]

    2023

  22. [24]

    Viscosity Information from Relativistic Nuclear Col- lisions: How Perfect is the Fluid Observed at RHIC?

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, “Viscosity Information from Relativistic Nuclear Col- lisions: How Perfect is the Fluid Observed at RHIC?”,Phys. Rev. Lett.99(2007), 172301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.172301, arXiv:0706.1522 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  23. [25]

    Collision geometry fluctuations and triangular flow in heavy-ion collisions

    B. Alver and G. Roland, “Collision geometry fluctuations and triangular flow in heavy-ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. C81(2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 82, 039903 (2010)], 054905,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.039903, arXiv:1003.0194 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [26]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke,Relativistic Fluid Dynamics In and Out of Equilibrium. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, May 2019. doi:10.1017/9781108651998. arXiv:1712.05815 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [27]

    Hydrodynamic description of ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions

    P. F. Kolb and U. W. Heinz, “Hydrodynamic description of ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions” (2003), 634–714, arXiv:nucl-th/0305084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  26. [28]

    Bayesian estimation of the specific shear and bulk viscosity of quark–gluon plasma

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, and S. A. Bass, “Bayesian estimation of the specific shear and bulk viscosity of quark–gluon plasma”,Nature Phys.15(2019), 1113–1117,doi:10. 1038/s41567-019-0611-8

    2019

  27. [29]

    Phenomenological constraints on the transport properties of QCD matter with data-driven model averaging

    D. Everettet al., “Phenomenological constraints on the transport properties of QCD matter with data-driven model averaging”,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021), 242301,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.126.242301, arXiv:2010.03928 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [30]

    Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions

    G. Nijset al., “Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021), 202301,doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 126 . 202301, arXiv: 2010.15130 [nucl-th]. 47

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [31]

    Early-Times Yang-Mills Dynamics and the Characterization of Strongly Interacting Matter with Statistical Learning

    M. R. Heffernanet al., “Early-Times Yang-Mills Dynamics and the Characterization of Strongly Interacting Matter with Statistical Learning”,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024), 252301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.252301, arXiv:2306.09619 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [32]

    Enhancing Bayesian parameter estimation by adapt- ing to multiple energy scales in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC and at the LHC

    M. Virta, J. Parkkila, and D. J. Kim, “Enhancing Bayesian parameter estimation by adapt- ing to multiple energy scales in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC and at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. C 111(2025), 044903,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.044903, arXiv:2411.01932 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [33]

    Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics

    P. K. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, “Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics”,Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005), 111601,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.94.111601, arXiv:hep-th/0405231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  32. [34]

    Observation of Conformal Symmetry Breaking and Scale Invariance in Expanding Fermi Gases

    E. Elliott, J. A. Joseph, and J. E. Thomas, “Observation of Conformal Symmetry Breaking and Scale Invariance in Expanding Fermi Gases”,Physical Review Letters112(2014),doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.112.040405, arXiv:1308.3162 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [35]

    Determination of the density and temperature depen- dence of the shear viscosity of a unitary Fermi gas based on hydrodynamic flow

    M. Bluhm, J. Hou, and T. Sch¨ afer, “Determination of the density and temperature depen- dence of the shear viscosity of a unitary Fermi gas based on hydrodynamic flow”,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017), 065302,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.065302, arXiv:1704.03720 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [36]

    Viscosity and thermal relaxation for a resonantly interacting Fermi gas

    G. M. Bruun and H. Smith, “Viscosity and thermal relaxation for a resonantly interacting Fermi gas”,Physical Review A72(2005),doi:10 . 1103 / physreva . 72 . 043605, arXiv: cond-mat/0504734

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  35. [37]

    Dissipative superfluid hydrodynamics for the unitary Fermi gas

    J. Hou and T. Sch¨ afer, “Dissipative superfluid hydrodynamics for the unitary Fermi gas”, Phys. Rev. A104(2021), 023313,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104.023313, arXiv:2105.05284 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [38]

    Shear viscosity of a superfluid Fermi gas in the unitarity limit

    G. Rupak and T. Sch¨ afer, “Shear viscosity of a superfluid Fermi gas in the unitarity limit”, Phys. Rev. A76(2007), 053607,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.76.053607, arXiv:0707.1520 [cond-mat.other]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  37. [39]

    Universal Sound Diffusion in a Strongly Interacting Fermi Gas

    P. B. Patelet al., “Universal Sound Diffusion in a Strongly Interacting Fermi Gas”,Science 370(2020), 1222–1226,doi:10.1126/science.aaz5756, arXiv:1909.02555 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [40]

    Measuring the Hydrodynamic Linear Response of a Unitary Fermi Gas

    L. Bairdet al., “Measuring the Hydrodynamic Linear Response of a Unitary Fermi Gas”, Physical Review Letters123(2019),doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.160402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.160402 2019

  39. [41]

    Universal density shift coefficients for the ther- mal conductivity and shear viscosity of a unitary Fermi gas

    X. Li, J. Huang, and J. E. Thomas, “Universal density shift coefficients for the ther- mal conductivity and shear viscosity of a unitary Fermi gas”,Physical Review Research 6(2024), L042021,doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevResearch . 6 . L042021, arXiv:2402 . 14104 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024

  40. [42]

    Long-range angular correlations on the near and away side inp-Pb colli- sions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV

    B. Abelevet al., “Long-range angular correlations on the near and away side inp-Pb colli- sions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B719(2013), 29–41,doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2013.01.012, arXiv:1212.2001 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [43]

    Small System Collectivity in Relativistic Hadronic and Nuclear Collisions

    J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, “Small System Collectivity in Relativistic Hadronic and Nuclear Collisions”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68(2018), 211–235,doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl- 101916-123209, arXiv:1801.03477 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [44]

    The smallest fluid on Earth

    B. Schenke, “The smallest fluid on Earth”,Rept. Prog. Phys.84(2021), 082301,doi:10. 1088/1361-6633/ac14c9, arXiv:2102.11189 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [45]

    Creation of quark–gluon plasma droplets with three distinct geometries

    C. Aidalaet al., “Creation of quark–gluon plasma droplets with three distinct geometries”, Nature Phys.15(2019), 214–220,doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0360-0, arXiv:1805.02973 [nucl-ex]. 48

    arXiv 2019

  44. [46]

    Measurements of the Elliptic and Triangular Azimuthal Anisotropies in Central 3He+Au, d+Au and p+Au Collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV

    M. I. Abdulhamidet al., “Measurements of the Elliptic and Triangular Azimuthal Anisotropies in Central 3He+Au, d+Au and p+Au Collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023), 242301,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.242301, arXiv:2210.11352 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  45. [47]

    Opportunities of OO andpO collisions at the LHC

    J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, “Opportunities of OO andpO collisions at the LHC” (2021), arXiv:2103.01939 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [48]

    Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at LHC

    C. Loizides, “Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at LHC” (2025), arXiv: 2507.05853 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [49]

    Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, “Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions”, Phys. Rev. C102(2020), 044905,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.102.044905, arXiv:2005.14682 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [50]

    QCD thermalization: Ab initio approaches and interdisciplinary connec- tions

    J. Bergeset al., “QCD thermalization: Ab initio approaches and interdisciplinary connec- tions”,Rev. Mod. Phys.93(2021), 035003,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035003, arXiv: 2005.12299 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [51]

    Hydrodynamic attractors in heavy ion collisions: a review

    A. Soloviev, “Hydrodynamic attractors in heavy ion collisions: a review”,Eur. Phys. J. C 82(2022), 319,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10282-4, arXiv:2109.15081 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [52]

    Progress and challenges in small systems

    J. Noronhaet al., “Progress and challenges in small systems”,Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33 (2024), 2430005,doi:10.1142/9789811294679_0004, arXiv:2401.09208 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [53]

    A Decade of Collectivity in Small Sys- tems

    J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus and U. A. Wiedemann, “A Decade of Collectivity in Small Sys- tems” (2024), arXiv:2407.07484 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [54]

    Viscous Hydrodynamics and the Quark Gluon Plasma

    D. Teaney, “Viscous Hydrodynamics and the Quark Gluon Plasma”.Quark-gluon plasma

  53. [55]

    arXiv:0905.2433 [nucl-th]

    2010, 207–266.doi:10.1142/9789814293297_0004. arXiv:0905.2433 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [56]

    Flow in AA and pA as an interplay of fluid- like and non-fluid like excitations

    A. Kurkela, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, “Flow in AA and pA as an interplay of fluid- like and non-fluid like excitations”,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), 965,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-019-7428-6, arXiv:1905.05139 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [57]

    Opacity dependence of transverse flow, preequilibrium, and applicability of hydrodynamics in heavy-ion collisions

    V. E. Ambrus, S. Schlichting, and C. Werthmann, “Opacity dependence of transverse flow, preequilibrium, and applicability of hydrodynamics in heavy-ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. D 107(2023), 094013,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094013, arXiv:2211.14379 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [58]

    Establishing the Range of Applicability of Hydrodynamics in High-Energy Collisions

    V. E. Ambrus, S. Schlichting, and C. Werthmann, “Establishing the Range of Applicability of Hydrodynamics in High-Energy Collisions”,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023), 152301,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.152301, arXiv:2211.14356 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [59]

    Theory of Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped gases

    F. Dalfovoet al., “Theory of Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped gases”,Rev. Mod. Phys. 71(1999), 463–512,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.71.463, arXiv:cond-mat/9806038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  58. [60]

    A Glimpse at the Quantum Behavior of a Uniform Gas

    M. Parish,“A Glimpse at the Quantum Behavior of a Uniform Gas”.url:https : / / physics.aps.org/articles/v18/89. [60]Quark Gluon Plasma meets Cold Atoms, Episodes I, II and III.https://www.gsi.de/ emmi/emmi_events/emmi_workshops. 2008, 2009, 2012

    2008

  59. [61]

    Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect: An Incompressible Quantum Fluid with Fractionally Charged Excitations

    R. B. Laughlin, “Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect: An Incompressible Quantum Fluid with Fractionally Charged Excitations”,Phys. Rev. Lett.50(1983), 1395–1398,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.50.1395

    1983

  60. [62]

    From few to many: observing the formation of a Fermi sea one atom at a time

    A.N. Wenzet al., “From few to many: observing the formation of a Fermi sea one atom at a time”,Science342(2013), 457,doi:10.1126/science.1240516, arXiv:1307.3443 [cond-mat.quant-gas]. 49

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  61. [63]

    Observation of Cooper pairs in a mesoscopic two-dimensional Fermi gas

    M. Holtenet al., “Observation of Cooper pairs in a mesoscopic two-dimensional Fermi gas”, Nature606(2022), 287–291,doi:10 . 1038 / s41586 - 022 - 04678 - 1, arXiv:2109 . 11511 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022

  62. [64]

    Trapped one-dimensional ideal Fermi gas with a single impurity

    G. E. Astrakharchik and I. Brouzos, “Trapped one-dimensional ideal Fermi gas with a single impurity”,Phys. Rev. A88(2013), 021602,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.88.021602, arXiv: 1303.7007 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  63. [65]

    Crossover between few and many fermions in a harmonic trap

    T. Grininget al., “Crossover between few and many fermions in a harmonic trap”,Phys. Rev. A92(2015), 061601,doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRevA . 92 . 061601, arXiv:1507 . 03174 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2015

  64. [66]

    SU(N) fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap

    E. K. Lairdet al., “SU(N) fermions in a one-dimensional harmonic trap”,Phys. Rev. A96 (2017), 032701,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.96.032701, arXiv:1707.07781 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [67]

    When does a Fermi puddle become a Fermi sea? Emergence of pairing in two-dimensional trapped mesoscopic Fermi gases

    E. K. Lairdet al., “When does a Fermi puddle become a Fermi sea? Emergence of pairing in two-dimensional trapped mesoscopic Fermi gases”,SciPost Phys.17(2024), 163,doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.17.6.163, arXiv:2408.17015 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [68]

    Many-body physics with ultracold gases

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, “Many-body physics with ultracold gases”,Rev. Mod. Phys.80(2008), 885,doi:10 . 1103 / RevModPhys . 80 . 885, arXiv:0704 . 3011 [cond-mat.other]

    2008

  67. [69]

    Theory of ultracold atomic Fermi gases

    S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, “Theory of ultracold atomic Fermi gases”,Rev. Mod. Phys.80(2008), 1215–1274,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.1215, arXiv:0706.3360 [cond-mat.other]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  68. [70]

    Zwerger, ed.,The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas

    W. Zwerger, ed.,The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21978-8

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21978-8 2012

  69. [71]

    Thermodynamics of Fermi Gases

    F. Chevy and C. Salomon, “Thermodynamics of Fermi Gases”.The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas. Ed. by Wilhelm Zwerger. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, 407–446.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21978-8_11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21978-8_11 2012

  70. [72]

    Few-body physics with ultracold atomic and molecular systems in traps

    D. Blume, “Few-body physics with ultracold atomic and molecular systems in traps”,Re- ports on Progress in Physics75(2012), 046401, arXiv:1111.0941 [cond-mat.quant-gas], url:http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/75/i=4/a=046401

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  71. [73]

    Virial expansion for a strongly correlated Fermi system and its application to ultracold atomic Fermi gases

    X.J. Liu, “Virial expansion for a strongly correlated Fermi system and its application to ultracold atomic Fermi gases”,Physics Reports524(2013), 37–83,doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.10.004, arXiv:1210.2176 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  72. [74]

    Universality of the unitary Fermi gas: a few-body perspective

    J. Levinsenet al., “Universality of the unitary Fermi gas: a few-body perspective”,Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics50(2017), 072001,doi:10.1088/1361- 6455/aa5a1e, arXiv:1612.02131 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [75]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith,Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 2008.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802850

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802850 2008

  74. [76]

    Crossovers in Unitary Fermi Systems

    H. Heiselberg, “Crossovers in Unitary Fermi Systems”.The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas. Ed. by Wilhelm Zwerger. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2012, 49–97. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21978-8_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21978-8_3 2012

  75. [77]

    Two Cold Atoms in a Harmonic Trap

    T. Buschet al., “Two Cold Atoms in a Harmonic Trap”,Foundations of Physics28(1998), 549–559,doi:10.1023/A:1018705520999. 50

    doi:10.1023/a:1018705520999 1998

  76. [78]

    Correlated Gaussian hyperspherical method for few-body systems

    J. von Stecher and C. H. Greene, “Correlated Gaussian hyperspherical method for few-body systems”,Phys. Rev. A80(2009), 022504,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.022504, arXiv: 0904.1405 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  77. [79]

    Trapped Unitary Two-Component Fermi Gases with up to Ten Particles

    X. Y. Yin and D. Blume, “Trapped Unitary Two-Component Fermi Gases with up to Ten Particles”,Phys. Rev. A92(2015), 013608,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92.013608, arXiv: 1504.04414 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  78. [80]

    Revealing the Superfluid Lambda Transition in the Universal Thermo- dynamics of a Unitary Fermi Gas

    M. J. H. Kuet al., “Revealing the Superfluid Lambda Transition in the Universal Thermo- dynamics of a Unitary Fermi Gas”,Science335(2012), 563–567,doi:10.1126/science. 1214987, arXiv:1110.3309 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  79. [81]

    Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method for strongly paired fermions

    J. Carlsonet al., “Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method for strongly paired fermions”, Phys. Rev. A84(2011), 061602,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.84.061602, arXiv:1107.5848 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  80. [82]

    Energetics of a strongly correlated Fermi gas

    S. Tan, “Energetics of a strongly correlated Fermi gas”,Ann. of Phys.323(2008), 2952– 2970,doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2008.03.004, arXiv:cond-mat/0505200 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

Showing first 80 references.