Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

A ring of rotating barriers makes a superfluid harder to destabilize, and adding a little disorder helps even more.

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

2026-08-03 08:56 UTC pith:7NH37BCV

load-bearing objection The numerical result—that ω_c rises with barrier number and moderate disorder—is solid and worth reporting, but the analytic explanation is partly circular and the paper contradicts its own appendix about Eq. (19). the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.15159 v2 pith:7NH37BCV submitted 2026-01-21 cond-mat.quant-gas

Increasing the stability of a superfluid in a rotating necklace potential

Giulio Nesti , Luca Pezz\`e This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas PACS 03.75.Lm67.85.-d
keywords ring Bose-Einstein condensatedynamical instabilityrotating barriersnecklace potentialcritical rotation frequencyphase slipsoliton emissiondisorder stabilization
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 asks when a superfluid flowing around a ring, with a set of potential barriers rotating through it, becomes dynamically unstable. It claims the critical effective rotation frequency ω_c grows approximately linearly with the number of barriers n, because circulation quantization forces the total phase drop to be shared among barriers, lowering the phase jump per barrier. The slope of this increase is set by barrier height and width, and the effect holds in both tunneling and hydrodynamic regimes. It also claims that adding a disordered speckle potential to the ordered barriers can push ω_c even higher, up to a maximum when the disorder amplitude is comparable to the barrier height. If true, this gives a simple, robust way to stabilize persistent supercurrents in atomtronic circuits and to engineer controlled soliton emission.

Core claim

The central result is that the critical effective rotation frequency for dynamical instability, ω_c, scales approximately linearly with the number of barriers n, following ω_c(n) ≈ (δϕ_c/2π)(1/I_c + n), where δϕ_c is the critical phase jump across a single barrier and I_c is a density-depletion integral. The authors show numerically that δϕ_c and I_c depend only weakly on n, so ω_c ∝ n, with a slope that increases with barrier height and width and decreases with interaction strength. They further find that adding a disordered speckle potential of amplitude V_dis up to about V_0 raises ω_c further, so disorder can make a ring superfluid more resilient. Quenching the system above ω_c triggers

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the redistribution of the superfluid phase drop enforced by circulation quantization on the ring. The total phase winding is fixed at 2πν, so with n barriers each carries δϕ(ω,n) = 2πω/(1/I + n), where I(ω,n) measures the density depletion inside a barrier. For fixed ω, δϕ decreases as n grows, keeping the system further from the phase-slip threshold; the instability appears when δϕ reaches a critical value δϕ_c. This phase-jump identity, together with the near-independence of δϕ_c and I_c from n, produces the linear growth of ω_c.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that ω_c grows linearly with n relies on the critical phase jump δϕ_c and the depletion integral I_c being nearly independent of n (verified only numerically), and on barriers being well separated so a uniform bulk density exists; if either fails, the clean linear scaling would break down.

What would settle it

Measure ω_c(n) for n=1 to, say, 10 in a ring BEC with tunable square barriers while holding V_0, σ, and g fixed; if ω_c(n)/ω_c(1) does not grow approximately linearly with n (or if the slope does not increase with V_0/μ or σ/ξ), the central claim fails. More sharply, a numerical extraction of δϕ_c(n) and I_c(n) at the critical point that shows strong n-dependence would make Eq. (18) lose its predictive power.

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

If this is right

  • More barriers mean a higher critical rotation rate: the ring superfluid survives larger effective rotation frequencies before becoming dynamically unstable.
  • The stabilization persists across regimes — tunneling (Josephson), hydrodynamic, weak-link, and thin-barrier — and for different barrier shapes, so it is a generic topological effect rather than a fine-tuning result.
  • Quenching above the critical frequency emits exactly n solitons simultaneously; for n=2 this reverses the circulation, and for n>2 it can drive the winding number below −ν(0), offering a switch/inverter.
  • Adding a disordered speckle potential to the ordered barriers increases ω_c, with a maximum around V_dis≈V_0; disorder can thus enhance stability rather than degrade it.
  • Non-uniform or randomly positioned barriers still give a roughly linear ω_c(n), so the effect does not require perfect periodicity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the linear scaling rests on the phase drop being shared equally, any perturbation that breaks this equipartition (e.g., very non-uniform barriers) will soften the slope; the paper's data on a single weakened barrier already shows this, suggesting a quantitative design rule for tolerances.
  • The disorder-induced stabilization echoes disorder-enhanced critical currents in other superfluid/superconducting contexts; one could test whether the same non-monotonic ω_c(V_dis) appears for fermionic ring superfluids or dipolar supersolids.
  • The simultaneous n-soliton emission offers a deterministic source of multi-soliton states; counting and timing the solitons gives a direct experimental handle on δϕ_c, which the analytical model does not derive from first principles.
  • The model treats zero temperature and one dimension; at finite temperature, thermal phase slips may preempt the dynamical instability, so the linear ω_c(n) should be tested first in the most dilute, 1D-like toroidal traps.

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. The paper studies a 1D ring Bose-Einstein condensate with n co-rotating potential barriers and investigates the critical effective rotation frequency ω_c for the onset of dynamical instability. Using stationary and real-time Gross-Pitaevskii simulations, it reports that ω_c increases roughly linearly with n, with the slope depending on barrier height, width, and interaction strength, and that adding a disordered speckle potential can further increase ω_c, peaking near V_dis ≈ V_0. The authors propose an analytical explanation based on the redistribution of the phase drop per barrier and a density-depletion integral, leading to Eq. (18) and the simplified parameter-free prediction Eq. (19).

Significance. The numerical results appear robust and extend previous work on the necklace geometry (Ref. [52]) from the maximum sustainable current to dynamical instability. The paper includes extensive parameter scans across hydrodynamic and Josephson regimes, checks for different barrier shapes, disorder averaging, a quantitative comparison with the Landau criterion, and a clear demonstration of quantized winding-number changes in the soliton-emission dynamics. If the analytical framework were made internally consistent and genuinely predictive, this would be a valuable contribution to atomtronics and ring-superfluid physics. At present, however, the analytic derivation is largely post-dictive and the printed equations contain an internal inconsistency; these issues should be addressed before the quantitative claims are accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B and Appendix A] The main text states that Eq. (19), the closed-form prediction with slope 1/4, shows 'overall good agreement' with numerics, while Appendix A (Fig. 7(d)) states that Eq. (19) gives 'the correct order of magnitude but the incorrect slope' and appears as a secant line. These statements are contradictory. Since Eq. (19) is the only parameter-free prediction and its slope is the quantitative content of the claimed linear scaling, this inconsistency must be resolved. The main text should explicitly state that Eq. (19) does not capture the n-dependent slope and that the observed slope is set by δφ_c(n) and I_c(n) through Eq. (18).
  2. [Section III.B, Eq. (18)] The derivation of Eq. (18) is not an independent prediction. It is an algebraic rearrangement of the definitions (15)-(17) evaluated at the numerically determined critical point. The linear behavior ω_c ∝ n follows only from the assertion that δφ_c(n) and I_c(n) are weakly n-dependent; this assertion is not derived from the Hamiltonian or from the analytical solutions (10)-(11), but only verified numerically. Moreover, I_c depends on σ̃, which is chosen 'sufficiently large' (footnote 59), effectively an adjustable parameter. Thus the analytic framework post-dicts the numerics rather than explaining them independently. I suggest deriving or at least bounding the n-dependence of δφ_c and I_c from the model, or explicitly reframing the central claim as a numerical observation supported by a qualitative mechanism.
  3. [Section III.B, Eqs. (16) and (18)] From the definitions in Eqs. (5), (15), and (17), the relation between δφ and ω is δφ = 2πω I/(2π+nI) = 2πω/(2π/I+n), so Eq. (18) should read ω_c = (δφ_c/(2π))(2π/I_c+n), not (δφ_c/(2π))(1/I_c+n). The printed form is missing a factor 2π multiplying 1/I_c. While this does not change the n-slope, it changes the intercept and the predicted ω_c at fixed n, and it is inconsistent with the numerical agreement claimed for Eq. (18). Please correct the equations and clarify which expression was used in the solid lines of Fig. 3.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] Typo: 'quanch' should be 'quench'.
  2. [Section IV.B] The phrase 'as in Fig. 3' appears in the discussion of soliton emission; Fig. 3 shows critical frequencies, so the cross-reference should likely be to Fig. 4.
  3. [Eq. (13) and footnote 59] The characteristic length σ̃ is introduced in Eq. (13) but its precise definition is not given; footnote 59 only says it should be 'sufficiently large'. This makes I_c non-unique. Please specify how σ̃ is extracted from the density profile or define it as a fitting parameter.
  4. [Appendix A] The discussion of Fig. 7(d) states that δφ_c 'increases slightly with n' at the critical point, but the corresponding panels (b) and (c) are not referenced in that sentence. Adding a specific panel reference would help the reader verify the claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Eq. (18) is a tautological rearrangement of critical-point inputs read from the same numerics; Eq. (19), the only parameter-free prediction, is admitted to give the wrong slope, so the analytical derivation of ω_c∝n is post-dictive.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section III.B, Eqs. (15)-(18); Appendix A, Fig. 7(d)]
    "Focusing now on the critical frequency, Eq. (16) gives ωc(n)= δϕc(n) 2π (1/Ic(n)+n), where δϕc(n)≡δϕ(ω=ωc,n) and Ic(n)≡I(ω=ωc,n) denote the values at the critical point. Equation (18) is a nonlinear implicit relation for ωc(n). However, we find numerically that both δϕc(n) and Ic(n) vary only weakly with n. This implies that ωc(n)∝n."

    Eq. (18) is Eq. (16) rearranged and evaluated at the same numerical critical point from which δφ_c and I_c are read; Eq. (16) in turn is an identity following from the definitions of δϕ (Eq. 15), I (Eq. 17) and current conservation (Eq. 5). Hence the agreement of Eq. (18) with the numerical ω_c(n) is partly guaranteed by construction, and the linear-in-n scaling is imported from the numerically verified weak n-dependence of δφ_c(n) and I_c(n), not derived from the Hamiltonian. The only closed-form version, Eq. (19), is admitted in Appendix A to give the incorrect slope, so the analytical explanation is a post-dictive interpolation rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The numerical result that ω_c increases with n (Figs. 2d, 3, 5) is self-contained and not in itself circular: it comes from direct GPE/DGPE stationary and dynamical solutions. The circularity is confined to the analytical explanation and its predictive status. Eq. (18) defines no new physics: it is the phase-jump identity Eq. (16) evaluated at criticality, with δφ_c(n) and I_c(n) taken from the very numerical solutions whose critical frequency it is used to reproduce. The paper's own Appendix weakens the independent content further: Eq. (19), the only parameter-free formula (slope 1/4), is stated to give 'the correct order of magnitude but the incorrect slope', whereas the main text claims 'overall good agreement'. Therefore the claimed derivation of ω_c∝n rests on numerically confirmed-but-not-derived weak n-dependence of I_c and δφ_c, not on a first-principles argument. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found: the citation of Ref. [52] is contextual (naming and comparison with J_c), not the basis of the scaling. Overall, this is a partial circularity: robust numerics, but the analytical 'prediction' reduces by construction to its inputs. Score 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on numerical solution of the GPE and on an approximate analytic model whose key ingredients (I_c, δϕ_c, σ̃) are either extracted from the same numerics or chosen by hand. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • σ̃ (characteristic depletion length) = 3–10 ξ_b (regime-dependent)
    Entered in Eqs. (13)-(18) to define the bulk density and the integral I(ω,n). The paper states 'σ̃ is chosen sufficiently large to cover the region where the density is depleted' (footnote [59]), making it a hand-chosen parameter that affects the predicted ω_c.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The 1D mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii equation at zero temperature describes the ring superfluid dynamics.
    Used throughout (Eq. (1)); neglects thermal and quantum fluctuations, transverse modes, and 3D effects, which the conclusions acknowledge.
  • standard math The single-valuedness/quantization condition ∫υ dθ = 2πν on the ring.
    Standard topological constraint for a multiply connected ring geometry, Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption The analytic single-barrier solutions on the infinite line (Eqs. (10)-(11), Refs. [54,55]) are valid for a ring with n well-separated barriers.
    Section III.A: requires θ_{j+1}-θ_j ≫ ξ_b, σ; the paper checks this condition in its parameter regimes.
  • ad hoc to paper The critical phase jump δϕ_c and integral I_c vary weakly with n.
    Section III.B and Appendix A: the main derivation of ω_c(n) ∝ n assumes this; it is verified numerically, not derived from the Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Landau criterion J/ρ = c_s for the critical velocity (Eq. (20)) from Ref. [48].
    External theoretical criterion used to benchmark the n=1 case; accepted from prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17286 in / 15504 out tokens · 149493 ms · 2026-08-03T08:56:25.925620+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent experiments have probed the stability of ring superfluids in the presence of Josephson barriers or Gaussian impurities. Here we present a theoretical analysis that extends beyond the regimes explored so far. We study the onset of dynamical instabilities in a ring superfluid, addressing both tunneling and hydrodynamic regimes. The stability of the system is controlled by the effective rotation frequency $\omega$, given by the difference between the initial quantized circulation and the frequency of barrier rotation. The instability occurs when $\omega$ overcomes a critical value $\omega_c$. We show that $\omega_c$ increases approximately linearly with the number of barriers, with a slope set by the barrier height and width. When the system is quenched into the dynamically unstable regime, it emits multiple solitons, which can switch or even reverse the direction of circulation. The stabilization mechanism is robust against imperfections of the potential and does not require a perfectly periodic array of barriers. In particular, we find that adding a disordered speckle potential to an ordered array of barriers can further increase $\omega_c$: disorder can therefore make a ring superfluid more resilient to dynamical instabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15159 by Giulio Nesti, Luca Pezz\`e.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic summary of the main results of this work. Our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Top panels show the analytical density profiles of the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Critical e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Joint emission of solitons in the clean necklace. Each panel shows the time evolution of the density profile (top) and the winding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Panels (a)–(c) show the critical frequency in the dirty necklace with non-uniform square barriers; examples of the corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Critical frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Phase jump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The left panel reports Critical frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Landau, Theory of the superfluidity of helium II,Phys

    L. Landau, Theory of the superfluidity of helium II,Phys. Rev. 60, 356–358 (1941)

    1941

  2. [2]

    A. J. Leggett, Bose-Einstein condensation in the alkali gases: Some fundamental concepts,Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 307 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith,Bose–Einstein Condensation in Di- lute Gases, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    A. G. Sykes, M. J. Davis, and D. C. Roberts, Drag force on an impurity below the superfluid critical velocity in a quasi-one- dimensional Bose–Einstein condensate,Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 085302 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Wu and Q

    B. Wu and Q. Niu, Landau and dynamical instabilities of the su- perflow of Bose–Einstein condensates in optical lattices,Phys. Rev. A64, 061603(R) (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    G. E. Astrakharchik and L. P. Pitaevskii, Motion of a heavy impurity through a Bose–Einstein condensate,Phys. Rev. A70, 013608 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Pinsker, Gaussian impurity moving through a Bose–Einstein superfluid,Physica B521, 36 (2017)

    F. Pinsker, Gaussian impurity moving through a Bose–Einstein superfluid,Physica B521, 36 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Raman, M

    C. Raman, M. K ¨ohl, R. Onofrio, D. S. Durfee, C. E. Kuklewicz, Z. Hadzibabic, and W. Ketterle, Evidence for a Critical Velocity in a Bose-Einstein Condensed Gas,Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 2502 (1999)

    1999

  9. [9]

    Onofrio, C

    R. Onofrio, C. Raman, J. M. V ogels, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, and W. Ketterle, Observation of Superfluid Flow in a Bose-Einstein Condensed Gas,Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2228 (2000)

    2000

  10. [10]

    M. W. Zwierlein, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, V ortices and superfluid- ity in a strongly interacting Fermi gas,Nature435, 1047–1051 (2005)

    2005

  11. [11]

    V ortices in a Bose-Einstein Condensate,

    M. R. Matthews, B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, D. S. Hall, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, “V ortices in a Bose-Einstein Condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 2498–2501 (1999)

    1999

  12. [12]

    F. S. Cataliotti, S. Burger, C. Fort, P. Maddaloni, F. Minardi, A. Trombettoni, A. Smerzi, and M. Inguscio, Josephson junc- tion arrays with Bose-Einstein condensates,Science293, 843 (2001)

    2001

  13. [13]

    Evidence for Superfluidity in a Resonantly In- teracting Fermi Gas,

    J. Kinast, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, A. Turlapov, and J. E. Thomas, “Evidence for Superfluidity in a Resonantly In- teracting Fermi Gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 150402 (2004)

    2004

  14. [14]

    Superfluid

    A. J. Leggett, Can a Solid Be “Superfluid”?,Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 1543–1546 (1970)

    1970

  15. [15]

    A. J. Leggett, On the superfluid fraction of an arbitrary many- body system atT=0,J. Stat. Phys.93, 927–941 (1998)

    1998

  16. [16]

    Chauveau, C

    G. Chauveau, C. Maury, F. Rabec, C. Heintze, G. Brochier, S. Nascimbene, J. Dalibard, J. Beugnon, S. M. Roccuzzo, and S. Stringari, Superfluid fraction in an interacting spatially mod- ulated Bose–Einstein condensate,Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 226003 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    G Biagioni, N Antolini, B Donelli, L Pezz `e, A Smerzi, M Fattori, A Fioretti, Carlo Gabbanini, Massimo Inguscio, Luca Tanzi, G Modugno, Measurement of the superfluid fraction of a supersolid by Josephson effect,Nature629, 773 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Morsch, J

    O. Morsch, J. H. M ¨uller, M. Cristiani, D. Ciampini, and E. Arimondo, Bloch Oscillations and Mean-Field Effects of Bose- Einstein Condensates in 1D Optical Lattices,Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 140402 (2001)

    2001

  19. [19]

    Fallani, L

    L. Fallani, L. De Sarlo, J. E. Lye, M. Modugno, R. Saers, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Observation of Dynamical Instability for a Bose-Einstein Condensate in a Moving 1D Optical Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 140406 (2004)

    2004

  20. [20]

    J. E. Lye, L. Fallani, M. Modugno, D. S. Wiersma, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Bose-Einstein Condensate in a Random Potential, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 070401 (2005)

    2005

  21. [21]

    Cl ´ement, A

    D. Cl ´ement, A. F. Var´on, M. Hugbart, J. A. Retter, P. Bouyer, L. Sanchez-Palencia, D. M. Gangardt, G. V . Shlyapnikov, and A. Aspect, Suppression of Transport of an Interacting Elongated Bose-Einstein Condensate in a Random Potential,Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 170409 (2005)

    2005

  22. [22]

    Pasienski, D

    M. Pasienski, D. McKay, M. White, and B. DeMarco, A dis- ordered insulator in an optical lattice,Nat. Phys.6, 677–680 (2010)

    2010

  23. [23]

    Desbuquois, L

    R. Desbuquois, L. Chomaz, T. Yefsah, J. L ´eonard, J. Beugnon, C. Weitenberg, and J. Dalibard, Superfluid behaviour of a two- dimensional Bose gas,Nat. Phys.8, 645 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    W. J. Kwon, G. Moon, S. W. Seo, and Y . Shin, Critical velocity for vortex shedding in a Bose-Einstein condensatePhys. Rev. A 91, 053615 (2015)

    2015

  25. [25]

    W. J. Kwon, J. H. Kim, S. W. Seo, and Y . Shin, Observation of von K´arm´an V ortex Street in an Atomic Superfluid Gas,Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 245301 (2016)

    2016

  26. [26]

    Gupta, K

    S. Gupta, K. W. Murch, K. L. Moore, T. P. Purdy, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Circular Waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 143201 (2005)

    2005

  27. [27]

    C. Ryu, M. F. Andersen, P. Clad e, V . Natarajan, K. Helmer- son, and W. D. Phillips, Observation of persistent flow of a Bose–Einstein condensate in a toroidal trap,Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 260401 (2007)

    2007

  28. [28]

    Tononi and L

    A. Tononi and L. Salasnich, Low-dimensional quantum gases in curved geometries,Nature Reviews Physics5, 398 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Moulder, S

    S. Moulder, S. Beattie, R. P. Smith, N. Tammuz, and Z. Hadzibabic Quantized supercurrent decay in an annular Bose- Einstein condensate.Phys. Rev. A86, 013629 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    Corman, L

    L. Corman, L. Chomaz, T Bienaim ´e, R Desbuquois, C Weit- enberg, S. Nascimb `ene, J Dalibard, and J Beugnon, Quench- induced supercurrents in an annular Bose gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 135302 (2014)

    2014

  31. [31]

    Del Paceet al., Imprinting persistent currents in tunable fermionic rings,Phys

    G. Del Paceet al., Imprinting persistent currents in tunable fermionic rings,Phys. Rev. X12, 041037 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Per- sistent Currents in Rings of Ultracold Fermionic Atoms,

    Y . Cai, D. G. Allman, P. Sabharwal, and K. C. Wright, “Per- sistent Currents in Rings of Ultracold Fermionic Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 150401 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    atom- tronic

    S. Eckelet al., Hysteresis in a quantized superfluid “atom- tronic” circuit,Nature506, 200–203 (2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    Eckel, F

    S. Eckel, F. Jendrzejewski, A. Kumar, C. J. Lobb, and G. K. Campbell, Interferometric measurement of the current- phase relationship of a superfluid weak link,Phys. Rev. X4, 031052 (2014)

    2014

  35. [35]

    Piazza, L

    F. Piazza, L. A. Collins, and A. Smerzi, V ortex-induced phase- slip dissipation in a toroidal Bose-Einstein condensate flowing 11 through a barrier,Phys. Rev. A80, 021601 (2009)

    2009

  36. [36]

    Ramanathanet al., Superflow in a toroidal Bose–Einstein condensate: An atom circuit with a tunable weak link,Phys

    A. Ramanathanet al., Superflow in a toroidal Bose–Einstein condensate: An atom circuit with a tunable weak link,Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130401 (2011)

    2011

  37. [37]

    K. C. Wright, R. B. Blakestad, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Driving phase slips in a superfluid atom circuit with a rotating weak link,Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 025302 (2013)

    2013

  38. [38]

    K. C. Wright, R. B. Blakestad, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Threshold for creating excitations in a stirred superfluid ring.Phys. Rev. A88, 063633 (2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    J. Polo, R. Dubessy, P. Pedri, H. Perrin, and A. Minguzzi, Os- cillations and decay of superfluid currents in a one-dimensional Bose gas on a ring.Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 195301 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Xhani, G

    K. Xhani, G. Del Pace, F. Scazza, and G. Roati, Decay of per- sistent currents in annular atomic superfluids,Atoms11, 109 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Frisch, Y

    T. Frisch, Y . Pomeau, and S. Rica, Transition to dissipation in a model of superflow,Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 1644–1647 (1992)

    1992

  42. [42]

    T. A. Bell, J. A. P. Glidden, L. Humbert, M. W. J. Brom- ley, S. A. Haine, M. J. Davis, T. W. Neely, M. A. Baker, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, Bose–Einstein condensation in large time-averaged optical ring potentials, New J. Phys.18, 035003 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    Resistive Flow in a Weakly Interacting Bose-Einstein Condensate,

    F. Jendrzejewski, S. Eckel, N Murray, C Lanier, M Edwards, C J Lobb, and G K Campbell, “Resistive Flow in a Weakly Interacting Bose-Einstein Condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 045305 (2014)

    2014

  44. [44]

    Observation of V ortex Dipoles in an Oblate Bose-Einstein Condensate,

    T. W. Neely, E. C. Samson, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, and B. P. Anderson, “Observation of V ortex Dipoles in an Oblate Bose-Einstein Condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 160401 (2010)

    2010

  45. [45]

    Generating Solitons by Phase Engineering of a Bose-Einstein Condensate,

    J. Denschlag, J. E. Simsarian, D. L. Feder, C. W. Clark, L. A. Collins, J. Cubizolles, L. Deng, E. W. Hagley, K. Helmer- son, W. P. Reinhardt, S. L. Rolston, B. I. Schneider, and W. D. Phillips, “Generating Solitons by Phase Engineering of a Bose-Einstein Condensate,” Science287, 97–101 (2000)

    2000

  46. [46]

    Stabilization of Solitons Generated by a Supersonic Flow of a Bose-Einstein Condensate Past an Obstacle,

    A. M. Kamchatnov and S. V . Korneev, “Stabilization of Solitons Generated by a Supersonic Flow of a Bose-Einstein Condensate Past an Obstacle,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 160402 (2008)

    2008

  47. [47]

    Hakim, Nonlinear Schr¨odinger flow past an obstacle in one dimension,Phys

    V . Hakim, Nonlinear Schr¨odinger flow past an obstacle in one dimension,Phys. Rev. E55, 2835–2845 (1997)

    1997

  48. [48]

    Watanabe, F

    G. Watanabe, F. Dalfovo, F. Piazza, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Critical velocity of superfluid flow through single- barrier and periodic potentials,Phys. Rev. A80, 053602 (2009)

    2009

  49. [49]

    F. Kh. Abdullaev, R. M. Galimzyanov, and Kh. N. Ismatullaev, Quasi-1D Bose–Einstein condensate flow past a nonlinear bar- rier,Phys. Lett. A376, 3372–3376 (2012)

    2012

  50. [50]

    C. Ryu, P. W. Blackburn, A. A. Blinova, and M. G. Boshier, Experimental realization of Josephson junctions for an atom SQUID,Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 205301 (2013)

    2013

  51. [51]

    C. Ryu, E. C. Samson, and M. G. Boshier, Quantum interfer- ence of currents in an atomtronic SQUID,Nat. Commun.11, 3338 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Pezz `e, K

    L. Pezz `e, K. Xhani, C. Daix, N. Grani, B. Donelli, F. Scazza, D. Hernandez-Rajkov, W. J. Kwon, G. Del Pace, and Giacomo Roati, Stabilizing persistent currents in an atomtronic Joseph- son junction necklace,Nat. Commun.15, 4831 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    Xhani, G

    K. Xhani, G. Del Pace, N. Grani, D. Hern ´andez-Rajkov, B. Donelli, G. Roati, and L. Pezz `e, Tuning the critical current in toroidal superfluids via controllable impurities, arXiv:2501.12345 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Baratoff, J

    A. Baratoff, J. A. Blackburn, and B. B. Schwartz, Current-phase relationship in short superconducting weak links,Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 1738 (1970)

    1970

  55. [55]

    Piazza, L

    F. Piazza, L. A. Collins, and A. Smerzi, Current-phase relation of a Bose–Einstein condensate flowing through a weak link, Phys. Rev. A81, 033613 (2010)

    2010

  56. [56]

    the coefficients entering Eqs. (10) and (11) are: ∆ = ρ0− 2(µ0−V 0) g !2 − 4J 2 gρ 0 ρ1 = 3 2ρ0− µ0−V 0 g − √ ∆ 2 α2 1 =g( √ ∆ +ρ 1) m1 = √ ∆√ ∆ +ρ 1 ρ2 = √ 2ρ2 0−ρ 0 µ0−V0 g + J2 2gρ 0 1/2 α2 2 =4gρ 2 m2 = ρ2−ρ 1− √ ∆ 2 2ρ2 cb =ρ b− 2ξ 2 b J2 gρb ϕ0 =arctanh( q (ρσ−2ξ 2 b J2/ρb)/cb) ρσ = g 2V0 ρ2 0−ρ 2 b + 2µ0ρb g − (µ0−V 0)ρ0 g + J2 g ρ−1 b −ρ−1 0 !

  57. [57]

    Mu ˜noz Mateo, A

    A. Mu ˜noz Mateo, A. Gallem ´ı, M. Guilleumas, and R. Mayol, Persistent currents supported by solitary waves in toroidal Bose-Einstein condensates,Phys. Rev. A91, 063625 (2015)

    2015

  58. [58]

    Syafwanet al., Superfluid flow past an obstacle in annular Bose–Einstein condensates,J

    M. Syafwanet al., Superfluid flow past an obstacle in annular Bose–Einstein condensates,J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.49, 235301 (2016)

    2016

  59. [59]

    In all cases, ˜σis chosen sufficiently large to cover the region where the density is depleted, i.e., ˜σ∼3–10ξ b

  60. [60]

    Xhaniet al., Critical transport and vortex dynamics in a thin atomic Josephson junction,Phys

    K. Xhaniet al., Critical transport and vortex dynamics in a thin atomic Josephson junction,Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 045301 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Piazza, L

    F. Piazza, L. A. Collins, and A. Smerzi, V ortex-induced phase- slip dissipation in a toroidal Bose–Einstein condensate flowing through a barrier,Phys. Rev. A80, 021601(R) (2009)

    2009

  62. [62]

    Sanchez-Palencia, D

    L. Sanchez-Palencia, D. Cl ´ement, P. Lugan, P. Bouyer, G. V . Shlyapnikov, and A. Aspect, Anderson Localization of Expand- ing Bose-Einstein Condensates in Random Potentials,Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 210401 (2007)

    2007

  63. [63]

    J Billy, et al., Direct observation of Anderson localization of matter waves in a controlled disorder,Nature453, 891 (2007)

    2007

  64. [64]

    Pezz `e, and L Sanchez-Palencia, Localized and extended states in a disordered trapPhys

    L. Pezz `e, and L Sanchez-Palencia, Localized and extended states in a disordered trapPhys. Rev. Lett.106, 040601 (2011)

    2011

  65. [65]

    Its intensityI(θ j)=|ψ(θ j)|2 is shifted to be non–negative and re-normalized such that its maximum value is unity

    The speckle is generated on the discrete gridθ j =2πj/Nby Fourier filtering a complex random field with a top–hat aperture in momentum space. Its intensityI(θ j)=|ψ(θ j)|2 is shifted to be non–negative and re-normalized such that its maximum value is unity

  66. [66]

    Neverov, Correlated disorder as a way towards robust super- conductivity,Commun

    V . Neverov, Correlated disorder as a way towards robust super- conductivity,Commun. Phys.5, 177 (2022)

    2022

  67. [67]

    M. N. Gastiasoro and B. M. Andersen, Enhancing supercon- ductivity by disorder,Phys. Rev. B98, 184510 (2018)

    2018

  68. [68]

    Leroux, V

    M. Leroux, V . Mishra, J. P. C. Ruff, H. Claus, M. P. Smylie, C. Opagiste, P. Rodie‘re, A. Kayani, G. D. Gu, J. M. Tran- quada, W.-K. Kwok, Z. Islam, and U. Welp, Disorder raises the critical temperature of a cuprate superconductor,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA116, 10691 (2019). 12

    2019

  69. [69]

    W.-K. Kwok, U. Welp, A. Glatz, A. E. Koshelev, K. J. Kihlstrom, and G. W. Crabtree, V ortices in high-performance high-temperature superconductors,Rep. Prog. Phys.79, 116501 (2016)

    2016

  70. [70]

    T ¨uzemen, A

    B. T ¨uzemen, A. Barresi, G. Wlazłowski, P. Magierski, and K. Xhani, Pair-breaking as the fundamental limit to persistent-current stabilization in fermionic superfluids, arXiv:2510.24309

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [71]

    M. N. Tengstrand, D. Boholm, R. Sachdeva, J. Bengtsson, and S. M. Reimann, Persistent currents in toroidal dipolar super- solids,Phys. Rev. A103, 013313 (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    Sindik, T

    M. Sindik, T. Zawislak, A. Recati, and S. Stringari, Sound, su- perfluidity, and layer compressibility in a ring dipolar super- solid,Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 146001 (2024)

    2024

  73. [73]

    Donelli, N

    B. Donelli, N. Antolini, G. Biagioni, M. Fattori, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, M. Inguscio, L. Tanzi, G. Modugno, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz`e, Self-induced Josephson oscillations and self-trapping in a supersolid dipolar quantum gas,Phys. Rev. A112, L051302 (2025)

    2025

  74. [74]

    Preti, N

    N. Preti, N. Antolini, C. Drevon, P. Lombardi, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, G. Ferioli, G. Modugno, and G. Biagioni, Single- fluid model for rotating annular supersolids and its experimen- tal implications, arXiv:2510.26753

    arXiv

  75. [75]

    Amico, A

    L. Amico, A. Osterloh, and F. S. Cataliotti, Quantum many par- ticle systems in ring-shaped optical lattices,Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 063201 (2005)

    2005

  76. [76]

    Snizhko, K

    K. Snizhko, K. Isaieva, Y . Kuriatnikov, Y . Bidasyuk, S. Vilchin- skii, and A. Yakimenko, Stochastic phase slips in toroidal Bose- Einstein condensates,Phys. Rev. A94, 063642 (2016)

    2016

  77. [77]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. Eckel, F. Jendrzejewski, and G. K. Campbell, Temperature-induced decay of persistent currents in a super- fluid ultracold gas,Phys. Rev. A95, 021602(R) (2017)

    2017

  78. [78]

    Mehdi, A

    Z. Mehdi, A. S. Bradley, J. J. Hope, and S. S. Szigeti, Superflow decay in a toroidal Bose gas: the effect of quantum and thermal fluctuations,SciPost Phys.11, 080 (2021)

    2021

  79. [79]

    B. T. Seaman, M. Kr ¨amer, D. Z. Anderson, and M. J. Hol- land, Atomtronics: Ultracold-atom analogs of electronic de- vices,Phys. Rev. A75, 023615 (2007)

    2007

  80. [80]

    Amico, D

    L. Amico, D. Anderson, M. Boshier, J. P. Brantut, L. C. Kwek, A. Minguzzi, and W. von Klitzing, Atomtronic circuits: From many-body physics to quantum technologies,Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 041001 (2022)

    2022

Showing first 80 references.