Hilbert Space Black Hole Analog: Unidirectional Transport without Driving

Denys I. Bondar; Elvira Bilokon; Frank Gro{\ss}mann; Jason R. Williams; Valeriia Bilokon

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Hilbert Space Black Hole Analog: Unidirectional Transport without Driving

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Interacting bosons in a static optical-lattice barrier can tunnel in one direction only, with no driving or dissipation—a quantum analog of a black-hole event horizon in Hilbert space.

desk verdict A concrete exact-diagonalization observation of direction-dependent transport for interacting bosons behind a static asymmetric barrier, but the headline claim that interactions alone cause the effect lacks the U=0 control. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.20508 v2 pith:4H4VHT52 submitted 2026-02-24 quant-ph

Elvira Bilokon , Valeriia Bilokon , Frank Gro{ss}mann , Jason R. Williams , Denys I. Bondar This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords Bose-Hubbardmodelunidirectionaltransportopticallatticemany-bodyinteractionseigenstateprojectionquantumquenchatomtronicsblackholeanalog

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 claims that many-body interactions alone can rectify quantum transport in a closed, undriven system. In a one-dimensional optical lattice with a static asymmetric two-site barrier, bosons prepared on one side tunnel across readily, while bosons prepared on the mirror-image side stay trapped—provided the on-site repulsion sits in the right window (around U≈1.42J for the studied parameters). The directionality is traced to how the barrier shape projects the initial state onto eigenstates that either contain or exclude particles on the far side. If correct, this gives a new mechanism for building directional elements in atomtronic circuits without reservoirs or time-dependent potentials.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the combination of (i) an asymmetric two-site barrier—two neighboring lattice sites with heights h and h/2, in two mirror configurations Ha and Hb—and (ii) on-site repulsion U in the Bose-Hubbard model. The observable is the population imbalance Δn between the two configurations after the same quench. The barrier asymmetry, together with U, reshapes the many-body eigenstates: from one side the initial state lands almost entirely on an eigenstate with no weight beyond the barrier; from the other side it lands on a superposition with weight on Fock states that have particles past the barrier. That eigenstate-selective projection, not time-reversal breaking by driving or dissip

What would settle it

Run the identical quench protocol for Ha and Hb with U=0 (noninteracting bosons) for the same lattice, barrier height, and initial state, and measure Δn(t); any significant nonzero imbalance would falsify the claim that interactions are the source of directionality. A complementary check is to compute single-particle wave-packet transmission through the two finite barriers and see whether the instantaneous left-vs-right difference vanishes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a purely static asymmetric potential plus bosonic interactions produces unidirectional transport: for a lattice with two adjacent barrier sites of heights h and h/2, swapping which site carries the taller barrier reverses the role of 'easy' and 'hard' tunneling directions. At U≈1.42J and h=10J, bosons tunnel from the 'vertical' side (h then h/2) with large oscillations, while from the 'angled' side (h/2 then h) post-barrier population stays below 0.1. The authors show the same qualitative behavior for both Fock and coherent initial states and across lattice sizes and particle numbers. Eigenstate analysis attributes the asymmetry to the barrier selecting a nearly sin

Load-bearing premise

The claim that interactions cause the directionality assumes that with U=0 the same two barrier configurations give no population imbalance; the paper never computes that noninteracting baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Atomtronic diodes could be built from static lattices with interaction-tuned barriers, requiring only Feshbach control of U rather than engineered dissipation or periodic driving.
The direction of rectification can be chosen by which of the two mirror barriers is used, so a single device could switch transport direction by swapping the barrier profile.
The effect persists for coherent (condensate-like) initial states and for several lattice sizes and fillings, suggesting it is not a fine-tuned single-Fock-state artifact.
The required interaction precision (δU/U ≈ 3.5%) is within reach of Feshbach resonance control in cold-atom experiments.
Because the mechanism is eigenstate selection, it defines a new class of black-hole analogs located in Hilbert space rather than in curved spacetime.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mechanism is eigenstate selection, varying U or the barrier shape should allow continuously tuning from one-way to bidirectional transport or even reversing the preferred direction; the paper shows multiple windows with opposite signs at higher U, which supports this but does not map the full phase diagram.
The paper's central attribution to interactions would be tested directly by running the same quench with U=0; that baseline is not shown, and if a nonzero Δn appears there, the Hilbert-space-horizon interpretation would need revision.
A natural extension is to two or three barriers or to fermionic species: the same eigenstate-selection logic might produce directionality in other many-body settings, but that is beyond what the paper demonstrates.
The coherent-state result suggests the effect may survive the classical limit, which would make it observable in relatively warm condensates rather than requiring deep quantum degeneracy.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this paper reports a genuine, reproducible numerical observation—for four bosons on six sites, a quench from a left-localized initial state into one of two mirror-image asymmetric barriers gives a stark asymmetry in how much population ends up on the right. The strong imbalance at U≈1.42J is real, and the authors show it persists for coherent initial states and in larger systems (L=8,10,12) in the supplement. That specific demonstration is not in the cited literature. The eigenstate-overlap explanation (angled side projects almost entirely onto one eigenstate with no post-barrier weight, vertical side spreads over several) is plausible and consistent with the numbers.

The soft spot is the one the reader flagged: there is no U=0 baseline. The abstract claims directionality "emerges purely from many-body interactions," but the paper never shows that the noninteracting limit gives zero population imbalance for the same quench. The cited single-particle transmission symmetry is about asymptotic scattering at fixed energy, not the finite-time, open-boundary observable in Eq. (4). It is entirely possible that a noninteracting boson wave packet launched from the same initial trap already shows an asymmetry between the two barrier orientations—the initial state is a fragmented condensate, not a plane wave, and the two Hamiltonians are related by reflection, not by any symmetry of the protocol. Without the U=0 row, the "interactions as a new route" claim collapses to "some interaction strength gives a large imbalance," which is weaker and less interesting.

A few smaller issues. The "opposite direction" is never simulated directly; the authors infer it by comparing the two barrier orientations with the same left-side initial state. That comparison does encode directionality, but only after reflection of the barrier and initial state—not a direct test of right-incidence. The headline U is a selected peak, and narrower resonance-like features are excluded; the claim of robustness rests on a 3.5% window, which is fine but should be stated as such. The black-hole language is a stretch: the dynamics are transient oscillations in a finite closed system, not an irreversible horizon, and the "Hilbert-space event horizon" adds no predictive content. The eigenstate mechanism is interpretive—read off the same exact-diagonalization data—but it is at least a concrete, checkable statement about overlaps.

The paper is worth a serious referee. The missing baseline is addressable and should be requested; the rest of the numerics look solid and reproducible. If the U=0 control comes out zero, this becomes a nice, modest result about interaction-tuned transport asymmetry in small lattices. If it does not, the central claim needs substantial reworking. My recommendation: send it to review, with a firm request for the U=0 baseline and a direct right-incidence check.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a Bose-Hubbard model on a one-dimensional lattice with a static asymmetric two-site barrier. An initial state is prepared by loading bosons into a cooling trap on the left, then quenching to one of two mirror-related barrier configurations H_a and H_b. The central observable is the population imbalance Δn = n_after^a - n_after^b (Eq. 4). For L=6, N=4, h=10J, and U≈1.42J, exact diagonalization shows a positive Δn, i.e., more particles cross when the high barrier is encountered first ('vertical side') than when the low barrier is first ('angled side'). The authors attribute this to interaction-induced projection of the initial state onto transport-enabled versus transport-forbidden eigenstates, and present this as a new 'Hilbert space black hole analog' with unidirectional transport in a closed, undriven system. They support the result with a coherent-state initial condition and finite-size scans in supplementary material.

Significance. If the claim holds—that interactions alone can rectify transport in a closed, undriven system—this would be a conceptually novel mechanism with potential atomtronic applications. The exact-diagonalization data for small systems appear numerically reliable, and the use of QuSpin makes the results reproducible. The main weakness is that the central attribution to interactions is not backed by a U=0 control, and the 'robust unidirectional' claim is stronger than the narrow parameter windows shown. The paper is thus suggestive but not yet definitive; the missing control is a fixable omission.

major comments (3)

[§Model and Methods, Eq. (4); §Discussion, Fig. 2(a)] The central claim—that directionality emerges 'purely from many-body interactions'—requires a zero-interaction control. The paper never computes Δn(t) at U=0 for the same cooling-barrier quench and the same H_a/H_b comparison. The single-particle transmission symmetry cited from Refs. [44–46] applies to asymptotic left-vs-right transmission at fixed energy, not to the finite-time observable in Eq. (4). Because the initial state is left-localized, H_a and H_b are mirror images but the protocol is not mirror-symmetric; there is no general symmetry forcing Δn(U=0)=0. If the U=0 baseline is already nonzero, the observed Δn at U≈1.42J is not purely interaction-driven. Please add the U=0 (and a small-U) baseline and discuss its behavior.
[§Discussion, Fig. 2; §Model and Methods] The term 'unidirectional' is inferred by comparing two barrier orientations with the same left-incident initial state. To claim one-way transport, the equivalence between this comparison and a true left-vs-right incidence test should be stated explicitly: H_b = R H_a R with R the spatial reflection, and the right-incident initial state should be the reflected cooling-trap ground state. The paper does not define this mapping, so the reader cannot verify that the protocol isolates direction rather than merely an orientation-dependent transient. Add a sentence or a short derivation making this equivalence precise.
[§Discussion, Fig. 2(a); Supplementary Note 1] The adjective 'robust' is not supported by the presented data. For the main case (L=6, N=4), the strong positive Δn occurs in a narrow window of width ΔU≈0.05J (3.5% in U), and the paper explicitly excludes 'narrower resonance-like features' at higher U. The supplementary scans show that the structure fragments with N and shifts with L. The conclusions state 'for a broad range of system parameters,' but no quantitative robustness measure (e.g., a range of h and U over which Δn exceeds a threshold) is given. Please either soften the claim or provide such an analysis.

minor comments (5)

[References] Reference [47] is incomplete ('L. Amico and et al.') and reference [54] is truncated after 'P. Thekkeppatt'; please complete the bibliography.
[§Discussion, coherent-state paragraph] The coherent-state initial condition is not defined unambiguously: the same symbol n_j is used for the coherent-state amplitude and for the particle number. Please clarify the notation, e.g., use α_j for the coherent-state amplitude.
[Fig. 2(a) caption] The heatmap is described as red/blue regions, but no color scale or numerical Δn values are provided in the caption. Adding a colorbar or stating the saturation level would improve interpretability.
[§Discussion] The text switches between 'vertical side' and 'angled side' without consistently connecting to Eq. (2) vs Eq. (3). Define the mapping once and use it throughout.
[Abstract and Conclusions] The analogy to a black-hole event horizon is heuristic; the paper does not define any causal structure or horizon in Hilbert space. As a metaphor it is evocative, but it should be presented as an analogy rather than a rigorous result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the numerical transport result is self-contained and the eigenstate analysis is an explanatory decomposition, not a redefinition.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central observable, Delta n in Eq. (4), is directly computed by exact diagonalization (QuSpin) for two mirror-image barrier configurations, with no parameter fitted to the target phenomenon. The interaction strength U is scanned, and U ≈ 1.42J is identified as the strongest directional regime; this is an observation from the simulation, not a prediction forced by an input. The eigenstate-overlap mechanism in Fig. 3 is a diagnostic that decomposes the same dynamics into eigenstate contributions; it explains the asymmetry rather than defining it. The absence of an explicit U=0 baseline for the same quench is a missing control and a legitimate correctness concern, but it is not a circular step: the paper does not define directionality in terms of the noninteracting limit, nor does it fit a parameter to the observed imbalance. Self-citations [40], [56], and [57] are motivational or methodological and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The exact-diagonalization result stands on its own computation, so no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central numerical claim rests on model parameters (U≈1.42J, h=10J, 3h cooling potential, L=6,N=4) that are chosen or tuned by hand rather than derived. The axioms are standard quantum-lattice modeling assumptions plus an ideal quench protocol. No new physical entity is required; the 'Hilbert-space event horizon' is an interpretation without independent falsifiable content.

free parameters (4)

Interaction strength U = 1.42J (ΔU≈0.05J)
Selected as the strongest imbalance band in Fig. 2(a); the entire directional-transport claim is demonstrated at this resonance.
Barrier height h = 10J
Chosen for concreteness; no systematic h scan is shown in the main text, and the text's claim of persistence over h is unquantified.
Cooling-barrier height = 3h
Initial localization potential height; chosen by hand and not scanned; it shapes the prepared state.
System size and filling = L=6,N=4 (plus L=8,10,12; N=3-6)
Chosen for exact-diagonalization tractability; the main eigenstate analysis is only at L=6,N=4.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Bose-Hubbard model with open boundary conditions accurately describes the ultracold-boson optical-lattice experiment.
Eq. (1) is taken as the exact system Hamiltonian; no lattice-depth, temperature, or interaction corrections are considered.
domain assumption The ground state of the cooling-barrier Hamiltonian is the prepared initial state, and switching to the triangular barrier is instantaneous (ideal quench).
Section 'Model and Methods'; experimental fidelity of this two-step protocol is not modeled.
standard math Exact diagonalization (QuSpin) and the variational coherent-state method are numerically exact for the reported sizes.
Time evolution uses QuSpin (Refs. [51,52]) and multi-configuration coherent states (Refs. [56,57]); no error bars or convergence checks are reported.
domain assumption No coupling to the environment; evolution is unitary.
Hamiltonian (1) has no dissipative or reservoir terms; the 'without dissipation' claim relies on this.
standard math Single-particle tunneling probabilities are symmetric under left/right incidence for a time-independent 1D potential (Refs. [44-46]).
Invoked in the Introduction to argue interactions are necessary; however Δn in Eq. (4) compares two mirror-image barriers with the same incidence, so this theorem may not apply.

invented entities (1)

Hilbert-space event horizon / effective one-way boundary
purpose: To frame the interaction-driven eigenstate selection as a black-hole analog.
A metaphor with no falsifiable handle outside the numerics; in a finite closed system, unitary dynamics are recurrent, so the 'horizon' is not a physical one.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hilbert Space Black Hole Analog: Unidirectional Transport without Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4H4VHT52

@misc{pith2026260220508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hilbert Space Black Hole Analog: Unidirectional Transport without Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4H4VHT52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.20508}
}

read the original abstract

Black holes permit matter to cross their event horizon in only one direction. We show that interacting bosons in optical lattices with asymmetric barrier exhibit an analogous phenomenon, creating unidirectional quantum transport without external driving or dissipation. This directionality emerges purely from many-body interactions, which cause asymmetric projection of the initial state onto transport-enabled or transport-forbidden sectors. The resulting dynamics create an effective one-way boundary in Hilbert space, forming a quantum analog of a black-hole event horizon. Our results establish interactions as a fundamentally new route to directional transport, enabling coherent rectification in atomtronic circuits by the use of intrinsic properties of the system only.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20508 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Directional transport in the asymmetric Bose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Eigenstate structure underlying directional transport [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] 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

Klein tunneling through an asymmetric barrier: Symmetric transmission and directional pair creation
quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Transmission through a Klein barrier is equal for left and right incidence in single-channel leads; the barrier's asymmetry is expelled into a direction-dependent negative-energy population under the barrier.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

L. J. Garay, J. R. Anglin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4643 (2000)

2000
[2]

Balbinot, A

R. Balbinot, A. Fabbri, S. Fagnocchi, A. Recati, and I. Carusotto, Phys. Rev. A78, 021603 (2008)

2008
[3]

Carusotto, S

I. Carusotto, S. Fagnocchi, A. Recati, R. Balbinot, and A. Fabbri, New Journal of Physics10, 103001 (2008)

2008
[4]

Macher and R

J. Macher and R. Parentani, Phys. Rev. A80, 043601 (2009)

2009
[5]

Lahav, A

O. Lahav, A. Itah, A. Blumkin, C. Gordon, S. Rinott, A. Zayats, and J. Steinhauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 240401 (2010)

2010
[6]

Steinhauer, Nature Physics12, 959 (2016)

J. Steinhauer, Nature Physics12, 959 (2016)

2016
[7]

T. G. Philbin, C. Kuklewicz, S. Robertson, S. Hill, F. K¨ onig, and U. Leonhardt, Science319, 1367 (2008)

2008
[8]

Elazar, V

M. Elazar, V. Fleurov, and S. Bar-Ad, Phys. Rev. A86, 063821 (2012)

2012

Show all 57 references

[9]

Rousseaux, C

G. Rousseaux, C. Mathis, P. Ma ¨ ıssa, T. G. Philbin, and U. Leonhardt, New Journal of Physics10, 053015 (2008)

2008
[10]

Weinfurtner, E

S. Weinfurtner, E. W. Tedford, M. C. J. Penrice, W. G. Unruh, and G. A. Lawrence, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 021302 (2011)

2011
[11]

Euv´ e, F

L.-P. Euv´ e, F. Michel, R. Parentani, T. G. Philbin, and G. Rousseaux, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 121301 (2016)

2016
[12]

Euv´ e, S

L.-P. Euv´ e, S. Robertson, N. James, A. Fabbri, and G. Rousseaux, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 141101 (2020)

2020
[13]

G. G. Rozenman, F. Ullinger, M. Zimmermann, M. A. Efremov, L. Shemer, W. P. Schleich, and A. Arie, Com- munications Physics7, 165 (2024)

2024
[14]

S. K. Manikandan and A. N. Jordan, Phys. Rev. D96, 124011 (2017)

2017
[15]

S. K. Manikandan and A. N. Jordan, Phys. Rev. D98, 124043 (2018)

2018
[16]

Shi, R.-Q

Y.-H. Shi, R.-Q. Yang, Z. Xiang, Z.-Y. Ge, H. Li, Y.-Y. Wang, K. Huang, Y. Tian, X. Song, D. Zheng, K. Xu, R.-G. Cai, and H. Fan, Nature Communications14, 3263 (2023)

2023
[17]

H¨ anggi and F

P. H¨ anggi and F. Marchesoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 387 (2009)

2009
[18]

Rousselet, L

J. Rousselet, L. Salome, A. Ajdari, and J. Prostt, Nature 370, 446 (1994)

1994
[19]

R. D. Astumian and P. H¨ anggi, Physics Today55, 33 (2002)

2002
[20]

Reimann, Physics Reports361, 57 (2002)

P. Reimann, Physics Reports361, 57 (2002)

2002
[21]

Linke, T

H. Linke, T. E. Humphrey, A. L¨ ofgren, A. O. Sushkov, R. Newbury, R. P. Taylor, and P. Omling, Science286, 2314 (1999)

1999
[22]

Mennerat-Robilliard, D

C. Mennerat-Robilliard, D. Lucas, S. Guibal, J. Tabosa, C. Jurczak, J.-Y. Courtois, and G. Grynberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 851 (1999)

1999
[23]

S´ anchez and M

D. S´ anchez and M. B¨ uttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 106802 (2004)

2004
[24]

Lignier, C

H. Lignier, C. Sias, D. Ciampini, Y. Singh, A. Zen- esini, O. Morsch, and E. Arimondo, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 220403 (2007)

2007
[25]

Denisov, S

S. Denisov, S. Flach, and P. H¨ anggi, Physics Reports 538, 77 (2014)

2014
[26]

Lohse, C

M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, O. Zilberberg, M. Aidelsburger, and I. Bloch, Nature Physics12, 350 (2016)

2016
[27]

Nakajima, T

S. Nakajima, T. Tomita, S. Taie, T. Ichinose, H. Ozawa, L. Wang, M. Troyer, and Y. Takahashi, Nature Physics 12, 296 (2016)

2016
[28]

Salger, S

T. Salger, S. Kling, T. Hecking, C. Geckeler, L. Morales- Molina, and M. Weitz, Science326, 1241 (2009)

2009
[29]

C. E. Creffield and F. Sols, Phys. Rev. A84, 023630 (2011)

2011
[30]

Smerzi, S

A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 4950 (1997)

1997
[31]

Albiez, R

M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. F¨ olling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cris- tiani, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 010402 (2005)

2005
[32]

Anker, M

T. Anker, M. Albiez, R. Gati, S. Hunsmann, B. Eier- mann, A. Trombettoni, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 020403 (2005)

2005
[33]

S. I. Mistakidis, K. Mukherjee, S. M. Reimann, and H. R. Sadeghpour, Phys. Rev. A110, 013323 (2024)

2024
[34]

Ala˜ na, M

A. Ala˜ na, M. Modugno, P. Capuzzi, and D. M. Jezek, Phys. Rev. A111, L051307 (2025)

2025
[35]

Basko, I

D. Basko, I. Aleiner, and B. Altshuler, Annals of Physics 321, 1126 (2006)

2006
[36]

Nandkishore and D

R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics6, 15–38 (2015)

2015
[37]

Schreiber, S

M. Schreiber, S. S. Hodgman, P. Bordia, H. P. L¨ uschen, M. H. Fischer, R. Vosk, E. Altman, U. Schneider, and I. Bloch, Science349, 842–845 (2015)

2015
[38]

Sierant, M

P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 026502 (2025)

2025
[39]

Eckstein, M

M. Eckstein, M. Kollar, and P. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 056403 (2009)

2009
[40]

Bilokon, V

E. Bilokon, V. Bilokon, D. R. Lindberg, L. Kaplan, A. Sotnikov, and D. I. Bondar, Communications Physics 8, 259 (2025)

2025
[41]

Morales-Molina and S

L. Morales-Molina and S. Flach, New Journal of Physics 10, 013008 (2008)

2008
[42]

J. P. Ronzheimer, M. Schreiber, S. Braun, S. S. Hodg- man, S. Langer, I. P. McCulloch, F. Heidrich-Meisner, I. Bloch, and U. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 205301 (2013)

2013
[43]

Haller, R

E. Haller, R. Hart, M. J. Mark, J. G. Danzl, L. Re- ichs¨ ollner, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 200403 (2010)

2010
[44]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Quantum mechanics: non-relativistic theory, Vol. 3 (Elsevier, 1981)

1981
[45]

D. J. Tannor,Introduction to Quantum Mechanics : a time-dependent perspective(Univ. Science Books, 2007)

2007
[46]

M. R. A. Shegelski and C. Sample, Eur. J. Phys.41, 035405 (2020)

2020
[47]

Amico and et al., A VS Quantum Science3, 039201 (2021)

L. Amico and et al., A VS Quantum Science3, 039201 (2021)

2021
[48]

Amico, D

L. Amico, D. Anderson, M. Boshier, J.-P. Brantut, L.- C. Kwek, A. Minguzzi, and W. von Klitzing, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 041001 (2022)

2022
[49]

Christian Gross and Immanuel Bloch , Science357, 995 (2017)

2017
[50]

A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Nature Physics17, 1324 (2021)

2021
[51]

Weinberg and M

P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, SciPost Phys.2, 003 (2017)

2017
[52]

Weinberg and M

P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, SciPost Phys.7, 020 (2019)

2019
[53]

Marte, T

A. Marte, T. Volz, J. Schuster, S. D¨ urr, G. Rempe, E. G. M. van Kempen, and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 283202 (2002)

2002
[54]

Borkowski, L

M. Borkowski, L. Reichs¨ ollner, P. Thekkeppatt, 6 V. Barb´ e, T. van Roon, K. van Druten, and F. Schreck, Review of Scientific Instruments94, 073202 (2023)

2023
[55]

E. H. Lieb, R. Seiringer, and J. Yngvason, Reports on Mathematical Physics59, 389 (2007)

2007
[56]

Werther and F

M. Werther and F. Großmann, Phys. Rev. B101, 174315 (2020)

2020
[57]

BLACK-HOLE

Y. Qiao, F. Großmann, P. Schlagheck, and G. M. Lando, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 060404 (2025). 7 Supplementary Note 1: DEPENDENCE OF “BLACK-HOLE” REGIME ON P AR TICLE NUMBER AND SYSTEM SIZE In this section we analyze how the “black-hole” region— identified by a large and persistent...

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

L. J. Garay, J. R. Anglin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4643 (2000)

2000

[2] [2]

Balbinot, A

R. Balbinot, A. Fabbri, S. Fagnocchi, A. Recati, and I. Carusotto, Phys. Rev. A78, 021603 (2008)

2008

[3] [3]

Carusotto, S

I. Carusotto, S. Fagnocchi, A. Recati, R. Balbinot, and A. Fabbri, New Journal of Physics10, 103001 (2008)

2008

[4] [4]

Macher and R

J. Macher and R. Parentani, Phys. Rev. A80, 043601 (2009)

2009

[5] [5]

Lahav, A

O. Lahav, A. Itah, A. Blumkin, C. Gordon, S. Rinott, A. Zayats, and J. Steinhauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 240401 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

Steinhauer, Nature Physics12, 959 (2016)

J. Steinhauer, Nature Physics12, 959 (2016)

2016

[7] [7]

T. G. Philbin, C. Kuklewicz, S. Robertson, S. Hill, F. K¨ onig, and U. Leonhardt, Science319, 1367 (2008)

2008

[8] [8]

Elazar, V

M. Elazar, V. Fleurov, and S. Bar-Ad, Phys. Rev. A86, 063821 (2012)

2012