Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Probing Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer pairing and quasiparticle formation in ultracold gases by Rydberg atom spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rydberg impurities immersed in a BCS superfluid give an absorption spectrum that encodes the pairing gap, distinguishes broken from intact Cooper pairs, and reveals how the gap stabilizes quasiparticles.

desk verdict A clean, promising theory paper that turns a Rydberg impurity into a local gap spectrometer; the main open question is whether the assumed rigid Δ survives the strong local potential over the long times used for the OC analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.19191 v2 pith:NAIYIQ2N submitted 2025-11-24 cond-mat.quant-gas

Emilio Ramos Rodríguez , Marcel Gievers , Richard Schmidt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas PACS 03.75.Ss32.80.Ee67.85.-d
keywords BCSsuperfluidRydbergimpurityCooperpairsgapabsorptionspectrumorthogonalitycatastrophepolaronquasiparticleultracoldFermigases
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 proposes putting a Rydberg-excited atom inside a superfluid of ultracold paired fermions and using its optical absorption spectrum as a local, time-resolved sensor of the BCS state. The central claim is that the spectrum's molecular peaks are fingerprints of Cooper pairing: when one fermion is bound to the Rydberg atom, a Cooper pair must be broken and the peak shifts by the pairing gap, with Δ ≈ |E_D^(Δ) − E_D|; trimer peaks formed from two broken pairs shift by 2Δ, while trimer peaks that bind a whole Cooper pair stay fixed. This gives a direct local measurement of the gap and, by scanning the probe, a spatial map of pairing. The paper further claims that the same gap suppresses the orthogonality catastrophe that normally kills quasiparticles in an impurity in a Fermi sea, producing a sharp quasiparticle peak with weight scaling as (Δ/ε_F)^α and an exponent fixed by scattering phase shifts. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete, experiment-ready route to look inside a strongly correlated superfluid at microscopic scales.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Rydberg potential V_R(r) = 2π a_e/m_e |ψ_nRyd(r)|^2 together with the functional determinant approach applied to the BCS Hamiltonian. The impurity excitation is sudden, so the measured spectrum is determined by the Ramsey overlap S(t) = Tr{ρ e^{iH0 t} e^{-iH_R t}} between the gas with and without the Rydberg potential; the absorption spectrum is its Fourier transform. Adapting the determinant formula to Nambu fermions, the BCS Hamiltonian is diagonalized by a Bogoliubov transformation into two gapped branches, ω_{σn} = ±√(ξ_n^2 + Δ^2) in the balanced case, and S(t) becomes a determinant built from single-particle overlaps of the free and potential-perturbed states. The s

What would settle it

A decisive check is a three-dimensional self-consistent calculation of the pairing gap around the Rydberg impurity: if the local gap at the Rydberg shell deviates from the bulk value by more than the linewidth, the dimer shift will depart from Δ and the nominally unshifted same-angular-momentum trimer peak will acquire a gap dependence. Experimentally, compare the dimer-peak shift against an independent bulk-gap measurement, such as rf spectroscopy, across interaction strengths.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that a suddenly excited Rydberg atom in a BCS superfluid acts as a local spectroscopic probe of pairing. Computing the absorption spectrum with the functional determinant approach adapted to the BCS state, the authors find that dimer peaks—one fermion occupying the Rydberg bound state—shift by the superfluid gap, Δ ≈ |E_D^(Δ) − E_D|, because forming the dimer breaks a Cooper pair and must pay its binding energy. Trimer peaks with mixed angular momenta shift by 2Δ, the cost of breaking two Cooper pairs, whereas trimer peaks with both fermions in the same angular-momentum channel do not shift, revealing that an intact Cooper pair can bind to

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that during the sudden laser excitation the superconducting pairing field stays homogeneous around the Rydberg atom and the gas never equilibrates with it (stated after Eq. (4)); if the strong Rydberg potential locally deforms or depletes the pairs in three dimensions, the claimed peak-shift rules would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A dimer-peak shift gives a local, quantitative readout of the superfluid gap; scanning the Rydberg beam spatially reconstructs the pairing gap, including its variation in inhomogeneous clouds.
  • Same-angular-momentum trimer peaks identify intact Cooper-pair trapping, a process that remains possible even when the coherence length is larger than the Rydberg potential, meaning pairs can be bound without losing their internal coherence.
  • The superfluid gap suppresses the orthogonality catastrophe; the atomic branch becomes a quasiparticle peak with weight scaling as (Δ/ε_F)^α, linking local pairing to polaron quasiparticle physics.
  • A Bogoliubov sideband at 2Δ appears on the atomic peak, providing a second, complementary route to measure the gap and to excite quasiparticles across the gapped dispersion.
  • The method generalizes to finite temperature and unbalanced spin mixtures, so it could probe pairing beyond the balanced mean-field BCS case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that scanning the Rydberg probe through a trapped gas could resolve spatial structure of pairing such as vortex cores or the BCS–BEC crossover; the peak-shift rules provide a concrete observable for such maps.
  • A testable extension: because the exponent α is written purely in terms of scattering phase shifts at the Fermi energy, one could extract δ_ℓ(ε_F) from separate single-particle scattering measurements and compare the predicted (Δ/ε_F)^α scaling in the Ramsey signal.
  • The anomalous shifts for weakly bound states reported in the supplement mean the clean Δ and 2Δ rules are tied to deeply bound states; a robust measurement protocol should either avoid the weak states or model their corrections, which the paper leaves for future work.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using a Rydberg impurity as a local spectroscopic probe of a 3D BCS superfluid. The impurity is excited suddenly, and the absorption spectrum A(ω) is computed from the Ramsey signal S(t) via the functional determinant approach adapted to a mean-field BCS Hamiltonian. The central claims are: (i) the deep dimer peak shifts by the superfluid gap, Eq. (7); (ii) mixed-angular-momentum trimer peaks shift by 2Δ while same-angular-momentum trimer peaks do not shift, corresponding to breaking versus intact trapping of Cooper pairs; and (iii) the gap suppresses the orthogonality catastrophe, producing a quasiparticle residue Z_B ~ (Δ/ε_F)^α with exponent α given by the scattering phase-shift sum, Eq. (9). The Supplement gives the FDA reduction and numerical details.

Significance. If the predictions hold, this is a valuable and experimentally plausible new probe of pairing in ultracold Fermi gases. The deep dimer shift, the 2Δ trimer shifts, and the no-shift same-angular-momentum trimer peaks are concrete, falsifiable signatures, and Eq. (9) is compared with an independently computed phase-shift expression rather than extracted from the same fit. The FDA derivation in Supplement S2 is standard and carefully laid out, and the numerical implementation uses realistic parameters for the 87Rb–40K system with convergence checks in angular momentum and system size. The main weakness is that all central spectral predictions are obtained with a rigidly uniform gap Δ; the justification for this approximation is only a timescale argument, and no 3D self-consistent or time-dependent check is supplied. This issue is load-bearing for the 'direct measure' claim and must be addressed before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Model (Eq. (4))] The assumption that Δ remains homogeneous after the sudden excitation is load-bearing but is justified only by a short timescale argument. The Rydberg potential binds a deep state at |E_D|≈422 ε_F, and the measurement uses times t≳1/Δ up to t ε_F=100 (Fig. 3); over such times a local potential of this strength can deplete or reconstruct the pair condensate. The cited 1D studies [17,18] already show significant gap back-reaction near a Rydberg impurity, and no 3D self-consistent BdG calculation or time-dependent estimate is provided. Since Eq. (7) and the 2Δ trimer shifts assume uniform Δ, a spatially dependent Δ(r,t) would modify the energy bookkeeping. Please add a 3D self-consistent calculation for the final static Hamiltonian, or at least a quantitative estimate of the healing time and of the corrections to Eq. (7), and state the regime in which the rigid-Δ result is valid.
  2. [Supplement S4; Fig. 2(c)] The claim in the main text and in the caption of Fig. 2(c) that all dimer peaks shift by Δ is contradicted by the Supplement. For the weakly bound n_b=3, ℓ=2 state, Eq. (S30) gives E_D^(Δ)≈E_D+Δ−δ_D(Δ), with δ_D visible for Δ/ε_F>0.2, and Eq. (S31) gives a separate anomalous δ_T(Δ) for the corresponding trimer. These deviations from Eq. (7) are not predicted theoretically. Since a real spectrum contains several bound states, an experiment using Eq. (7) needs either a reliable identification of the deep dimer peaks or a characterization of δ_D and δ_T. The main text should restrict the generality of its 'all peaks' statement and explicitly discuss this limitation.
  3. [Orthogonality catastrophe (OC) / Fig. 3 and Supplement S5] The exponent α in Eq. (9) is a central quantitative claim, but its numerical determination is not documented with systematic uncertainties. The quasiparticle weights Z_B and Z_γ are obtained by fitting the Ramsey signal to Eq. (8) over t≳1/Δ, after a Gaussian filter, within a window limited by t_max=100/ε_F; the power law in Δ is then read from the inset of Fig. 3. The inset appears to contain few points and no error bars or sensitivity to the fit interval. Please report the fit ranges, the number of independent Δ values, the systematic error from the finite time window, and a direct numerical-versus-analytic comparison of α with Eq. (9).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'Strinkingly' should be 'Strikingly'.
  2. [Model and Supplement S3] The angular-momentum cutoff is stated as ℓmax=5 in the main text and ℓmax≈5 in the Supplement; please make the notation consistent.
  3. [Supplement S2, Eq. (S15)] The display in Eq. (S15) is unclear: the two-component vector (u_n^2, v_n^2)^T is written as a fraction with a ± sign. Please rewrite it as an explicit two-component expression.
  4. [After Eq. (4)] The phrase 'out-of-equilibrium dynamics of a three-dimensional configuration' could be misread as a time-dependent simulation of Δ. What is actually computed is the sudden-overlap spectrum with Δ held fixed. Please phrase this more precisely.
  5. [Fig. 2(c) caption] The caption's statement 'All peaks shift proportional to the gap strength Δ' is too broad, given the anomalous weak-state shifts in Supplement S4. Please qualify it as applying to the deep dimer bound states considered in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the dimer and trimer shift relations are outputs of the BCS+Rydberg Hamiltonian calculation, and the OC exponent is benchmarked against an independently computed phase-shift formula; the main caveat is an acknowledged physical assumption, not a circular fit.

full rationale

The central spectral predictions are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The dimer shift relation, Eq. (7), is an output of the functional-determinant computation (SM Eqs. S22-S29) for the BCS Hamiltonian (4), in which the order parameter Δ is an independent input appearing off-diagonally; the peak position is a computed many-body observable, so Δ≈|E_D^(Δ)-E_D| is a derived consistency relation rather than a definition of Δ. The trimer shifts (2Δ for mixed angular momenta, no shift for same angular momenta) are likewise spectral outputs interpreted as pair breaking versus intact Cooper-pair trapping; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. For the orthogonality catastrophe, the Ramsey signals are fitted to Eq. (8), but the exponent α claimed in Eq. (9) is computed independently from the scattering phase shifts (SM Eq. S32) and the established OC formula [21,22], so it is an external benchmark, not a fitted input. The self-citations present ([15],[16],[19]) are method and benchmark citations (sudden-excitation timescale, Δ=0 spectrum, FDA procedure) and do not import the target result. The paper explicitly assumes after Eq. (4) that "the order parameter Δ remains homogeneous in the vicinity of the impurity during the procedure" and acknowledges the 1D back-reaction studies [17,18]; if this assumption fails in 3D, the quantitative peak-shift relations would require corrections, but this is a physical limitation/correctness risk, not circularity. Overall, no circular step reduces a prediction to its input; the score 2 reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation is a mean-field BCS model with a standard Rydberg pseudopotential; no new physical entities are introduced. The main unpaid input is the assumption that the local gap remains homogeneous in the sudden-excitation limit. The OC exponent is extracted via a numerical fit but benchmarked against a phase-shift formula. The intact-trapping interpretation is an additional assumption that is not independently derived.

free parameters (1)
  • Asymptotic Ramsey fit parameters (Z_B, Z_γ, ω_B, ω_γ) = not stated (extracted from fits in Fig. 3)
    These fit the numerical Ramsey signal to Eq. (8); the extracted Z_B(Δ) yields the claimed power-law exponent α, which is then identified with Eq. (9).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Mean-field BCS Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with a homogeneous, real s-wave gap Δ describes the paired Fermi gas.
    The entire calculation is built on this model; beyond-mean-field fluctuations and strong-coupling corrections are neglected.
  • domain assumption Sudden excitation: the Rydberg potential is switched on without allowing the BCS state to equilibrate, and Δ remains homogeneous near the impurity.
    Used in Eqs. (3)-(4) and the text after Eq. (4). If the potential significantly deforms the gap locally, the simple shift relations and intact-trapping identification would need modification. Only 1D back-reaction studies [17,18] are cited.
  • domain assumption The Rydberg potential is the Fermi pseudopotential V_R(r) = 2π a_e m_e^{-1} |ψ_nRyd(r)|^2 (Eq. 2).
    Standard ultracold Rydberg molecule model; neglects higher-order scattering and electron spin effects.
  • standard math Klich's determinant formula (Eq. S5) is valid for fermionic bilinear operators and used for the thermal trace reduction.
    The FDA reduction in Section S2 relies on this known theorem.
  • standard math Phase shifts δ_ℓ(kR) computed from spherical Bessel/Neumann functions (Eq. S32) determine the OC exponent α in Eq. (9).
    Used to interpret the fitted power-law exponent; standard scattering phase-shift relation.
  • ad hoc to paper Unshifted same-angular-momentum trimer peaks correspond to intact Cooper-pair trapping.
    This identification is asserted to explain the numerical result but is not derived from a molecular wavefunction calculation; the authors state such a calculation is left for future research.
  • domain assumption Zero temperature and balanced spin populations with equal masses.
    The spectra and quasiparticle-weight analysis are computed at T=0 for μ_↑=μ_↓ and m_↑=m_↓; the authors note generalization is possible but not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer pairing and quasiparticle formation in ultracold gases by Rydberg atom spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAIYIQ2N

@misc{pith2026251119191,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer pairing and quasiparticle formation in ultracold gases by Rydberg atom spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAIYIQ2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.19191}
}
read the original abstract

Locally probing pairing in fermionic superfluids, ranging from micro- to macroscopic scales, has been a long-standing challenge. Here, we investigate a new approach that uses Rydberg impurities as a spectroscopic sensor of the surrounding strongly correlated state of ultracold paired fermions. The extended wavefunction of the Rydberg electron induces a finite-range potential that can bind atoms from the BCS medium, forming molecular states. As a consequence, the optical absorption spectrum of the impurity encodes key many-body properties. Using the functional determinant approach, we provide a direct measure of the superfluid gap through frequency shifts of dimer and trimer peaks. The spectra also reveal whether the Cooper pairs are broken or trapped intact. For static Rydberg atoms, we relate this signature of pairing to the suppression of the orthogonality catastrophe due to the superconducting gap resulting in the formation of well-defined polaron quasiparticles. Our work establishes Rydberg atom spectroscopy as a powerful local probe of strongly correlated matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.19191 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of a Rydberg atom immersed in a BCS superfluid. The Rydberg potential VR(r), Eq. (2), is depicted by the green curve and Cooper pairs by red and blue circles connected by a wiggly purple line. A dimer (a) is formed after breaking a Cooper pair with the energy cost of the gap ∆. A trimer is formed by either (b) binding a whole Cooper pair or (c) breaking two Cooper pairs with an energy cost of 2∆. gases … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rydberg atom spectroscopy. (a) Absorption spectrum for ∆ = 0, where each peak corresponds to the occupation of a bound state in the Rydberg potential. The energy scale is shifted such that the bare atomic Rydberg peak is at the origin. Figures (b-d) study the dependence of the spectrum on the gap parameter ∆ (light blue to red curves): (b) Magnification of the trimer state, i.e., the double occupation of the bound s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Orthogonality catastrophe. Ramsey signal for different gap strengths showing the OC for ∆ = 0 and the emergence of a quasiparticle weight for ∆ > 0 where the sig￾nal is fitted (thick lines) to Eq. (8) at times t ≳ 1/∆ (dashed lines). Inset: Quasiparticle weights of the bath and Bogoli￾ubov excitation, where ZB follows a power-law relation with scaling given by the scattering shift exponent [Eq. (9)]. of intact Coope… view at source ↗

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. Emergent Fermi polarons in Dirac materials

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Impurities in Dirac materials form robust Dirac-Fermi polarons from dressing by excitations near the Dirac point, visible as a third branch in absorption spectra for both attractive and repulsive interactions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  3. [3]

    Kolkowitz, A

    S. Kolkowitz, A. Safira, A. A. High, R. C. Devlin, S. Choi, Q. P. Unterreithmeier, D. Patterson, A. S. Zibrov, V. E. Manucharyan, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Science347, 1129 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Casola, T

    F. Casola, T. van der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Nature Reviews Materials3, 17088 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Hofstetter, J

    W. Hofstetter, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 220407 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    Bouton, J

    Q. Bouton, J. Nettersheim, D. Adam, F. Schmidt, D. Mayer, T. Lausch, E. Tiemann, and A. Widera, Phys. Rev. X10, 011018 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Baldelli, B

    N. Baldelli, B. Juli´ a-D´ ıaz, U. Bhattacharya, M. Lewen- stein, and T. Graß, Phys. Rev. B104, 035133 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    D. Adam, Q. Bouton, J. Nettersheim, S. Burgardt, and A. Widera, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 120404 (2022)

    2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Nature Physics5, 110–114 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    C. H. Greene, A. Dickinson, and H. Sadeghpour, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2458 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    B. J. DeSalvo, J. A. Aman, F. B. Dunning, T. C. Killian, H. R. Sadeghpour, S. Yoshida, and J. Burgd¨ orfer, Phys. Rev. A92, 031403 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    M. T. Eiles, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics52, 113001 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    C. Fey, F. Hummel, and P. Schmelcher, Molecular Physics118, e1679401 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Schlagm¨ uller, T

    M. Schlagm¨ uller, T. C. Liebisch, H. Nguyen, G. Lochead, F. Engel, F. B¨ ottcher, K. M. Westphal, K. S. Kleinbach, R. L¨ ow, S. Hofferberth,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 053001 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    J. Sous, H. R. Sadeghpour, T. C. Killian, E. Demler, and R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023021 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Gievers, M

    M. Gievers, M. Wagner, and R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 053401 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Chien, S

    C.-C. Chien, S. I. Mistakidis, and H. R. Sadeghpour, Phys. Rev. A110, L051303 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Chien, S

    C.-C. Chien, S. T. Rittenhouse, S. I. Mistakidis, and H. R. Sadeghpour, Phys. Rev. A111, 043316 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Schmidt, M

    R. Schmidt, M. Knap, D. A. Ivanov, J.-S. You, M. Cetina, and E. Demler, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 024401 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Wang, AAPPS Bulletin33, 20 (2023)

    J. Wang, AAPPS Bulletin33, 20 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 1049 (1967)

    1967

  14. [22]

    Nozi` eres and C

    P. Nozi` eres and C. T. d. Dominicis, Physical Review178, 1097 (1969)

    1969

  15. [23]

    Gievers, R

    M. Gievers, R. Schmidt, J. von Delft, and F. B. Kugler, Phys. Rev. B111, 085151 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    X. Chen, E. Dizer, E. R. Rodr´ ıguez, and R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 193401 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Wang, X.-J

    J. Wang, X.-J. Liu, and H. Hu, Phys. Rev. A105, 043320 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Wang, X.-J

    J. Wang, X.-J. Liu, and H. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 175301 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    [10, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26, 33, 42–44]

    See Supplemental Material for additional details; the Supplemental Material includes Refs. [10, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26, 33, 42–44]. 6

  20. [28]

    N. Y. Du and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A36, 971 (1987)

    1987

  21. [29]

    Bendkowsky, B

    V. Bendkowsky, B. Butscher, J. Nipper, J. P. Shaffer, R. L¨ ow, and T. Pfau, Nature458, 1005 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Butscher, J

    B. Butscher, J. Nipper, J. B. Balewski, L. Kukota, V. Bendkowsky, R. L¨ ow, and T. Pfau, Nature Physics 6, 970 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Cetina, M

    M. Cetina, M. Jag, R. S. Lous, I. Fritsche, J. T. Wal- raven, R. Grimm, J. Levinsen, M. M. Parish, R. Schmidt, M. Knap,et al., Science354, 96 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Zeiher, R

    J. Zeiher, R. van Bijnen, P. Schauß, S. Hild, J.-y. Choi, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Nature Physics12, 1095 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Klich, An elementary derivation of Levitov’s formula, inQuantum Noise in Mesoscopic Physics, edited by Y

    I. Klich, An elementary derivation of Levitov’s formula, inQuantum Noise in Mesoscopic Physics, edited by Y. V. Nazarov (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2003) pp. 397–402

    2003

  26. [34]

    Sch¨ onhammer, Phys

    K. Sch¨ onhammer, Phys. Rev. B75, 205329 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A61, 053409 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    I. I. Ryabtsev, I. I. Beterov, D. B. Tretyakov, V. M. Entin, and E. A. Yakshina, Physics-Uspekhi59, 196 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Liberman and J

    S. Liberman and J. Pinard, Phys. Rev. A20, 507 (1979)

    1979

  30. [38]

    Ferrari, M

    G. Ferrari, M. Inguscio, W. Jastrzebski, G. Modugno, G. Roati, and A. Simoni, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 053202 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Ospelkaus, S

    C. Ospelkaus, S. Ospelkaus, K. Sengstock, and K. Bongs, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 020401 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    M. T. Eiles, Phys. Rev. A98, 042706 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Benjamin, I

    D. Benjamin, I. Klich, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 247002 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Combescot and P

    M. Combescot and P. Nozi` eres, Journal de Physique32, 913 (1971)

    1971

  36. [44]

    D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter,Introduction to quan- tum mechanics, third edition ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York, NY, 2018). Supplemental Material: Probing BCS pairing and quasiparticle formation in ultracold gases by Rydberg atom spectroscopy Emili...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.