Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Thermomagnetic anomalies in quantum magnon transport caused by tunable junction geometries in cold atomic systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetic linear junction between ferromagnetic insulators gives magnons a transmittance $T(\omega) \propto \sqrt{\omega}$, which drives the spin conductance to diverge as $1/\sqrt{h}$ and decouples spin from heat relaxation.

desk verdict Clean analytic spin-transport theory for a magnonic linear junction; the sqrt(omega) transmittance and its 1/sqrt(h) conductance divergence are new, and the interaction caveat is a scoping limitation, not a flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10147 v2 pith:6SQO4H3K submitted 2024-12-13 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yuta Sekino , Yuya Ominato , Hiroyuki Tajima , Shun Uchino , Mamoru Matsuo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords magnontransportthermomagneticcoldatomsopticallatticesmagneticlinearjunctionWiedemann-Franzlawmagnoniccriticalityspinconductance
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

The paper argues that the interface shape of a magnonic junction is not a minor detail: in a magnetic linear junction, where two ferromagnetic insulators in optical lattices are linked by a line of weak bonds, the magnon transmittance scales as $T(\omega) \propto \sqrt{\omega}$ because momentum along the coupling line is conserved. Because thermally excited magnons obey Bose-Einstein statistics, this power law makes the spin conductance diverge as $1/\sqrt{h}$ when the effective Zeeman field $h$ tends to zero, while the other conductances saturate. The same power law fixes the magnonic Lorenz number at $3/2$ in the classical regime and makes it shrink as $\sqrt{h/T}$ in the quantum regime, so the magnonic Wiedemann-Franz law is both nonuniversal and breakable. The central consequence is that magnetization and temperature differences between the two magnets relax independently with one decay time that is insensitive to field and temperature, giving cold-atom experiments a direct way to measure the conductances.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frequency-dependent magnon transmittance of Eq. (12), $T(\omega) = A\,\theta(\omega)\,\Gamma(3/2)^{-1}\sqrt{\omega}$, obtained by integrating the bulk magnon spectral functions under the conservation law $\delta(k_z^R - k_z^L)$ imposed by the linearly aligned tunneling bonds. This $\sqrt{\omega}$ power law does three jobs at once: it converts the Bose-Einstein integrals in the current formulas into the reported conductances, it sets the classical Lorenz number through $L = d+1$ with exponent $d = 1/2$, and it matches the $\sqrt{\omega}$ density of states of the three-dimensional ferromagnetic bulk, making the transport matrix proportional to the thermodynamic matrix. That final matching is the mechanism behind the decoupled, field- and temperature-independent relaxation dynamics.

What would settle it

Couple two ferromagnetic insulators in an optical lattice through a single line of bonds, prepare small magnetization and temperature differences, and record their relaxation for several values of $h$ and $T$; if the two decay times differ, or if either time changes with $h$ or $T$, the claimed proportionality between transport and thermodynamic matrices is wrong. A complementary check is to measure the spin conductance directly in the quantum regime and look for growth like $1/\sqrt{h}$ as $h \to 0$; saturation would falsify the critical enhancement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a magnetic linear junction the magnon transmittance is $T(\omega) = A\,\theta(\omega)\,\Gamma(3/2)^{-1}\sqrt{\omega}$, and that this one functional form organizes the transport anomalies. In the quantum regime $h \ll T$, the spin conductance diverges as $1/\sqrt{h}$ at fixed temperature, a stronger critical enhancement than the logarithmic growth previously found for a magnonic point contact. In the classical Boltzmann regime $T \ll h$, the ratio of thermal to spin conductance gives a constant Lorenz number $L = 3/2$, set by the transmittance exponent through $L = d+1$ with $d = 1/2$; this contrasts with the universal $L = \pi^2/3$ of Fermi liquids. Near the critical point the Lorenz number vanishes as $L \sim \sqrt{h/T}$, so the magnonic Wiedemann-Franz law breaks down when Bose-Einstein statistics dominate. Finally, because the bulk magnon density of states in three dimensions also scales as $\sqrt{\omega}$, the transport coefficients become proportional to the thermodynamic response coefficients, and the independent relaxation of magnetization and temperature follows with a decay time independent of both $h$ and $T$.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that magnons in the nearly critical regime can be treated as noninteracting bosons, because any residual magnon-magnon scattering would alter the $\sqrt{\omega}$ power law that produces both the conductance divergence and the constant relaxation time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near the magnonic critical point, the spin current responds nonlinearly to a spin bias with $I_S \sim \sqrt{\Delta h}$ at $h_L = 0$, so Ohm's law for spin transport breaks down.
  • The classical magnonic Lorenz number takes the geometry-dependent value $L = 3/2$ for the linear junction, versus $2$ for a magnonic point contact and $1$ for a planar junction, so the magnonic Wiedemann-Franz law is not universal.
  • In the quantum regime the Lorenz number shrinks as $\sqrt{h/T}$, giving a clear signature that Bose-Einstein statistics rather than classical Boltzmann statistics control the tunneling.
  • Magnetization and temperature differences relax independently with the same decay time, independent of both $h$ and $T$, so a single relaxation measurement at any field and temperature determines the conductances.
  • Because degenerate fermions keep $L = \pi^2/3$ for any junction shape, the linear-junction experiment cleanly separates magnonic from fermionic transport mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the classical Lorenz number is $L = d+1$ where $d$ is the transmittance exponent, shaping the optical barrier to interpolate between planar and point-contact geometries should tune the Lorenz number continuously, a possibility the paper does not spell out.
  • Editorial inference: the decoupled relaxation depends on the bulk density of states sharing the $\sqrt{\omega}$ exponent; in a quasi-two-dimensional ferromagnet, where the density of states is constant, the decoupling should fail and $\tau_0$ should acquire dependence on $h$ and $T$.
  • Editorial inference: the same quasistationary relaxation protocol could extract Onsager coefficients in other junction geometries; the MLJ result simply makes the extraction easier by providing a single, constant decay time.
  • Editorial inference: running the same experiment with fermionic atoms in the same linear junction should leave the Lorenz number at $\pi^2/3$, directly exposing the role of Bose-Einstein statistics in the magnonic anomalies.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies stationary and relaxation transport of magnons through a magnetic linear junction (MLJ) connecting two ferromagnetic insulators in optical lattices. Using the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism and the spin-wave approximation, the authors derive the transmittance T(ω) ∝ √ω, which leads to a spin conductance L11 ∼ 1/√h diverging near the magnonic critical point h→0, a geometry-dependent classical Lorenz number L = 3/2 (contrasting with L = 2 for a magnonic quantum point contact and L = 1 for a planar junction), a breakdown of the magnonic Wiedemann-Franz law in the quantum regime with L ∼ √(h/T), and a spin/heat relaxation dynamics that is fully decoupled with a constant, h- and T-independent decay time τ0. The results are presented as exact consequences of the noninteracting spin-wave model, with the density-of-states/transmittance power-law identity ρ(ω) ∝ T(ω) being the central mechanism behind the decoupled relaxation and the constant τ0. The paper also compares the magnon results with free-fermion junctions in Appendix C, where the universal Fermi-liquid Lorenz number π²/3 is recovered.

Significance. If the noninteracting spin-wave predictions survive interaction effects, the paper provides concrete, falsifiable predictions for cold-atom thermomagnetic experiments: a strong 1/√h divergence of the spin conductance, a junction-geometry-dependent Lorenz number in the classical regime, a quantum breakdown of the magnonic Wiedemann-Franz law, and a robust constant relaxation time. The analytic derivation is transparent and parameter-free: the power laws follow directly from the model Hamiltonian and the junction geometry, the polylog identities yield L = 3/2 exactly, and the fermionic Appendix C is a useful independent check that isolates the role of Bose-Einstein statistics. The paper is a natural and nontrivial extension of the authors' earlier MQPC work, with new physical content emerging from the linear geometry. The main source of uncertainty is the neglect of magnon-magnon interactions in the quantum regime, which the authors acknowledge and scope to T ≪ J.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B23)–(B28)] The neglect of the zz contribution I_E^(zz) to the heat current is justified by an S-counting argument: the text states that I_E^(^+−) is O(S^2) and I_E^(zz) is O(S^0) and therefore 'much smaller'. For the physical value S = 1/2, however, O(S^0) = 1 is larger than O(S^2) = 1/4, so the written argument is invalid as it stands. Since Eq. (9b), and hence all heat-transport results (Lorenz number, thermal conductance, relaxation dynamics), relies on dropping this term, please provide a valid justification. For the noninteracting spin-wave Hamiltonian the zz term in H_T depends only on magnon densities and commutes with H_L, so its contribution to dH_L/dt vanishes exactly; alternatively, give a low-density estimate showing that the zz channel is subleading in the magnon density.
  2. [Sec. III.D and Appendix D, Eqs. (17) and (28)] The central predictions L11 ∼ 1/√h and τ0 = constant rest on the delta-function spectral function A(k,ω) = πδ(ω−E_k), which ensures the power-law identity ρ(ω) ∝ T(ω). The discussion of magnon-magnon interactions in Sec. III.D is qualitative: it invokes the small magnon density for T ≪ J and cites Ref. [67] for the vanishing of the two-magnon contact interaction in the continuum limit, but no estimate of the leading interaction correction is given for the quantum regime h/T ≪ 1. Because this is precisely the regime where the magnon gas approaches the gapless critical point, a quantitative bound on the leading self-energy or decay rate (for example, a one-loop estimate) would materially strengthen the claim that the divergence exponent and the decoupled relaxation dynamics are robust. If such an estimate is not available, the noninteracting assumption should be stated more explicitly as a defining approximation of the model rather than as a demonstrated property of the Heisenberg ferromagnet in this regime.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (12) and Eq. (13a)] The displayed transmittance T(ω) = A θ(ω) Γ(3/2) √ω conflicts with Eq. (13a), which corresponds to T(ω) ∝ θ(ω)√ω/Γ(3/2). In addition, the definition A = J_T²N_z/(8√2πJ^5) appears to have a typo: the denominator should involve J^{5/2} for dimensional consistency with the later τ0 result in Eq. (28). Please correct the prefactor.
  2. [Eq. (10) vs. Eq. (28)] The number of interface bonds is denoted N_z in Eq. (10) but N_T in Eq. (28); please use a single notation for this quantity.
  3. [Sec. III.B and Table I] In Table I the quantum-magnon row for the MLJ lists L ∼ √h, while Eq. (22) gives L ∼ √(h/T) at fixed T. Please specify the fixed-temperature context in the table caption or entries.
  4. [Sec. III.A and Fig. 3] The abstract and introduction state that magnonic criticality 'dramatically enhances spin and thermal conductances.' In the MLJ only L11 diverges as h→0; L12, L21, L22, and K saturate to finite constants. Consider rewording to avoid implying a divergent thermal conductance.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (A8)] The notation Nα/N in Fig. 2 is slightly confusing because Nα is the magnon number and N is the number of lattice sites; consider adding a sentence clarifying that N is the number of sites in each ferromagnet, not the total particle number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MLJ transport coefficients, Lorenz number, and relaxation time are derived from the Hamiltonian with no fitted parameters; self-citations to Ref. [34] are comparative/methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The transmittance T(omega) in Eq. (12) follows from the tunneling Hamiltonian in Eq. (3), the spectral function A(k,omega) = pi delta(omega - Jk^2 - h) in Eq. (11), and the momentum-conservation constraint delta(kz_R - kz_L) in Eq. (10); the sqrt(omega) power law is an explicit integral result, not an assumed input. The conductances Lij in Eqs. (16) follow by expanding the Bose-Einstein integrals in Eqs. (13)-(14), and the 1/sqrt(h) divergence of L11 in Eq. (17) is the standard polylog asymptotic F_{1/2}(x) ~ sqrt(pi)/sqrt(x) as x -> 0. The classical Lorenz number L = 3/2 in Eq. (21) is the x -> infinity limit of the same expressions, and the quantum regime breakdown L ~ sqrt(h/T) in Eq. (22) follows from Eq. (17) and K/AT^{3/2} = 6 zeta(3). The relaxation-time result tau0 = (2/pi)(N/NT)(J/JT)^2/J in Eq. (28) is obtained algebraically from the quasi-stationary equations in Appendix D using the SWA thermodynamic coefficients in Eqs. (D14)-(D16); the key identity rho(omega) proportional to T(omega) is a derived consequence of using the same magnon dispersion for both the bulk density of states and the junction transmittance, not a relation imposed by hand. No parameter is fitted to any data, and no 'prediction' is a renamed input. The only self-citations are to the authors' prior MQPC work [34], used for comparison of geometric effects and for the quasi-stationary measurement formalism originally due to Refs. [2,68]; neither supplies the MLJ-specific results. Appendix C provides an independent fermionic check that the fermionic Lorenz number is universal, which strengthens rather than presupposes the magnonic contrast. The acknowledged limitations in Sec. III.D and Sec. IV.B about magnon-magnon interactions at T ~ J and about parameter mismatch between reservoirs are honest scoping statements, not circular dependencies. Overall, the central claims are derived, not assumed, so the circularity score is low; the score of 1 reflects only the presence of minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data: all transport and thermodynamic quantities are analytic functions of the physical parameters JT, J, N, Nz, h, T. The derivation rests on four domain assumptions (SWA, JT^2-order tunneling, grand-canonical Lagrange-multiplier fields, and quasi-stationary relaxation) plus the assumption that magnon-magnon interactions are negligible. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spin-wave approximation (Holstein-Primakoff to leading order in 1/S) describes the ferromagnetic insulators.
    Invoked in Sec. II.A and Appendix A; valid for low magnon density (T << J) and assumes magnons are noninteracting. All central results use the quadratic magnon dispersion Ek = h + JSk^2.
  • domain assumption Tunneling current is computed to leading (second) order in the weak inter-reservoir coupling JT.
    Used in Sec. III and Appendix B; assumes JT << J so higher-order processes are negligible.
  • domain assumption Each ferromagnet is described by a grand-canonical ensemble with chemical potential -h_alpha (effective Zeeman field acting as Lagrange multiplier for magnetization).
    Introduced in Sec. II; the density operator is rho_K = e^{-(H - hM)/T}. This is the standard treatment for cold-atom spin transport.
  • domain assumption Quasi-stationary relaxation: intra-reservoir thermalization is much faster than inter-reservoir relaxation through the junction.
    Assumed in Sec. IV.A; justified by JT << J. It underlies the extraction of conductances from relaxation dynamics.
  • domain assumption Magnon-magnon interactions are negligible even at h -> 0 because the two-magnon contact interaction vanishes by O(3) symmetry in the continuum limit and the magnon density is small for T << J.
    Argued in Sec. III.D; this is the load-bearing premise that keeps the quantum-regime results (1/sqrt(h) divergence, constant tau_0) within the noninteracting model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermomagnetic anomalies in quantum magnon transport caused by tunable junction geometries in cold atomic systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SQO4H3K

@misc{pith2026241210147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermomagnetic anomalies in quantum magnon transport caused by tunable junction geometries in cold atomic systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SQO4H3K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10147}
}
read the original abstract

We study magnon-driven spin and heat transport in a magnetic linear junction (MLJ) formed by two ferromagnets in optical lattices linked via linearly aligned bonds. Using the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism, we uncover that under weak effective Zeeman fields, where Bose-Einstein statistics of magnons dominate, magnonic criticality dramatically enhances spin and thermal conductances. These singular transport properties depend on the junction geometry, and the transport properties qualitatively differ between the linear junction in this study and the point contact in our previous work. The quantum-enhanced conductances result in the breakdown of the magnonic Wiedemann-Franz (WF) law. In the classical regime at temperatures much lower than magnon energy gaps, we find that a magnonic Lorenz number becomes independent of temperature yet dependent on junction geometry, sharply contrasting with the universal WF law for Fermi liquids. We also find that the interface geometry of MLJ decouples spin and heat relaxations between ferromagnets with decay times insensitive to temperature and effective Zeeman fields. These dynamics reveal junction-geometry-sensitive magnon transport distinct from Fermi liquids, paving the way for new avenues in thermomagnetic research leveraging the tunability of cold atomic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10147 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic for a magnetic linear junction (MLJ). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Equilibrium magnon number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quantum enhancement of the transport coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Breaking down of Ohm’s law of spin current in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The Keldysh contour C = C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We consider tunneling transport in the junction sys￾tems consisting of two Fermi gases with quadratic disper￾sion [53]. For convenience, we set the charge of fermions e and the Boltzmann constant kB unity (e = kB = 1). When the two reservoirs are weakly connected with …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the Lorenz numbers L = K/(L11T) for QPC, LJ, and PJ as functions of x = −µ/T. As for magnons in the main text, x → +∞ corresponds to the Boltzmann limit. In this case, the Lorenz numbers approach to constant values sensitive to the junction ge￾ometry as discussed…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [67]

    Filippone, F

    M. Filippone, F. Hekking, and A. Minguzzi, Violation of the wiedemann-franz law for one-dimensional ultracold atomic gases, Phys. Rev. A 93, 011602 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    Perturbative expansions By applying the formal expression of the perturbative expansions in small JT, I < µν(t1, t2) Eq. (B15) is rewritten as I < µν(t1, t2) = JT X ⟨rL,rR⟩′ TCˆsµ rR (τ1)ˆsν rL (τ2) exp −i Z C dξ ˆHT(ξ) ˆH ˆK = i3(JT)2 2nµν X ⟨rL,rR⟩′ X ⟨r′ L,r′ R⟩′ Z C dξ × Gµν;rRr′ R (τ1, ξ)Gµν;r′ LrL (ξ, τ2) + O (JT)3 , (B16) where time evolution of th...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Bulk spin correlation functions in SW A To evaluate the tunneling currents governed by magnons, we now employ SW A to compute Gβ µν;rαr′α (t). 11 These correlation functions are given by iGret µν;rαr′α (t) = θ(t)⟨[ˆsµ rα (t), ˆsν r′α (0)]⟩ ˆKα ˆKα , (B20a) iGadv µν;rαr′α (t) = −θ(−t)⟨[ˆsµ rα (t), ˆsν r′α (0)]⟩ ˆKα ˆKα , (B20b) iG< µν;rαr′α (t) = ⟨ˆsν r′α ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (B19) within SW A to derive the expression of spin and heat currents in Eqs

    Application of SW A to currents We next evaluate I < +−(t1, t2) in Eq. (B19) within SW A to derive the expression of spin and heat currents in Eqs. (9). We first evaluate I < +−(t1, t2) by substituting Eq. (B21) into Eq. (B19). Recalling that the bonds on the interface denoted by ⟨rL, rR⟩′ align along the z axis as in Fig. 1, the summation P ⟨rL,rR⟩′ is r...

    work page

  5. [4]

    L. A. Sidorenkov, M. K. Tey, R. Grimm, Y.-H. Hou, L. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Second sound and the superfluid fraction in a fermi gas with resonant interac- tions, Nature 498, 78 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    Brantut, C

    J.-P. Brantut, C. Grenier, J. Meineke, D. Stadler, S. Krinner, C. Kollath, T. Esslinger, and A. Georges, A Thermoelectric Heat Engine with Ultracold Atoms, Sci- ence 342, 713 (2013)

    2013

  7. [6]

    Krinner, T

    S. Krinner, T. Esslinger, and J.-P. Brantut, Two-terminal transport measurements with cold atoms, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 343003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Husmann, M

    D. Husmann, M. Lebrat, S. H¨ ausler, J.-P. Bran- tut, L. Corman, and T. Esslinger, Breakdown of the wiedemann–franz law in a unitary fermi gas, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 8563 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    Guardado-Sanchez, A

    E. Guardado-Sanchez, A. Morningstar, B. M. Spar, P. T. Brown, D. A. Huse, and W. S. Bakr, Subdiffusion and heat transport in a tilted two-dimensional fermi-hubbard system, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011042 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    Christodoulou, M

    P. Christodoulou, M. Ga lka, N. Dogra, R. Lopes, J. Schmitt, and Z. Hadzibabic, Observation of first and second sound in a bkt superfluid, Nature594, 191 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    D. K. Hoffmann, V. P. Singh, T. Paintner, M. J¨ ager, W. Limmer, L. Mathey, and J. Hecker Denschlag, Second sound in the crossover from the Bose-Einstein conden- sate to the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superfluid, Nature Communications 12, 7074 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    Z. Yan, P. B. Patel, B. Mukherjee, C. J. Vale, R. J. Fletcher, and M. Zwierlein, Thermography of the super- fluid transition in a strongly interacting Fermi gas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13752 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Krinner, M

    S. Krinner, M. Lebrat, D. Husmann, C. Grenier, J.-P. Brantut, and T. Esslinger, Mapping out spin and particle conductances in a quantum point contact, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113, 8144 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    Enss and J

    T. Enss and J. H. Thywissen, Universal spin transport and quantum bounds for unitary fermions, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 85 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    Sch¨ afer, T

    F. Sch¨ afer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Tools for quantum simulation with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 411 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    M. A. Nichols, L. W. Cheuk, M. Okan, T. R. Hartke, E. Mendez, T. Senthil, E. Khatami, H. Zhang, and M. W. Zwierlein, Spin transport in a Mott insulator of ultracold fermions, Science 363, 383 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Fukuhara, A

    T. Fukuhara, A. Kantian, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, S. Hild, D. Bellem, U. Schollw¨ ock, T. Gi- amarchi, C. Gross, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Quantum dynamics of a mobile spin impurity, Nat. Phys. 9, 235 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    Fukuhara, P

    T. Fukuhara, P. Schauß, M. Endres, S. Hild, M. Che- neau, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Microscopic observation of magnon bound states and their dynamics, Nature 502, 76 (2013)

    2013

  11. [18]

    S. Hild, T. Fukuhara, P. Schauß, J. Zeiher, M. Knap, E. Demler, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Far-from-equilibrium spin transport in heisenberg quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 147205 (2014)

    2014

  12. [19]

    P. N. Jepsen, J. Amato-Grill, I. Dimitrova, W. W. Ho, E. Demler, and W. Ketterle, Spin transport in a tunable heisenberg model realized with ultracold atoms, Nature 588, 403 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    P. N. Jepsen, W. W. Ho, J. Amato-Grill, I. Dimitrova, E. Demler, and W. Ketterle, Transverse spin dynamics in the anisotropic heisenberg model realized with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041054 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    P. N. Jepsen, Y. K. e. Lee, H. Lin, I. Dimitrova, Y. Mar- galit, W. W. Ho, and W. Ketterle, Long-lived phantom helix states in heisenberg quantum magnets, Nat. Phys. 18, 899 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, B. Ye, F. Machado, J. Kemp, K. Srakaew, S. Hollerith, J. Rui, S. Gopalakrishnan, N. Y. Yao, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Quantum gas mi- croscopy of Kardar-Parisi-Zhang superdiffusion, Science 376, 716 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    Sommer, M

    A. Sommer, M. Ku, G. Roati, and M. W. Zwierlein, Uni- versal spin transport in a strongly interacting Fermi gas, Nature 472, 201 (2011)

    2011

  17. [24]

    Sommer, M

    A. Sommer, M. Ku, and M. W. Zwierlein, Spin transport in polaronic and superfluid Fermi gases, New Journal of Physics 13, 055009 (2011)

    2011

  18. [25]

    Uchida, S

    K.-I. Uchida, S. Takahashi, K. Harii, J. Ieda, W. Koshibae, K. Ando, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Ob- servation of the spin Seebeck effect, Nature 455, 778 (2008)

    2008

  19. [26]

    Jaworski, J

    C. Jaworski, J. Yang, S. Mack, D. Awschalom, J. Here- mans, and R. Myers, Observation of the spin-Seebeck ef- fect in a ferromagnetic semiconductor, Nature materials 9, 898 (2010)

    2010

  20. [27]

    Uchida, J

    K.-i. Uchida, J. Xiao, H. Adachi, J.-i. Ohe, S. Takahashi, J. Ieda, T. Ota, Y. Kajiwara, H. Umezawa, H. Kawai, et al., Spin seebeck insulator, Nature materials 9, 894 (2010)

    2010

  21. [28]

    J. Xiao, G. E. Bauer, K.-c. Uchida, E. Saitoh, S. Maekawa, et al., Theory of magnon-driven spin see- beck effect, Physical Review B 81, 214418 (2010)

    2010

  22. [29]

    Adachi, J.-i

    H. Adachi, J.-i. Ohe, S. Takahashi, and S. Maekawa, Linear-response theory of spin seebeck effect in ferromag- netic insulators, Physical Review B 83, 094410 (2011). 15

    2011

  23. [30]

    Adachi, K.-i

    H. Adachi, K.-i. Uchida, E. Saitoh, and S. Maekawa, The- ory of the spin seebeck effect, Reports on Progress in Physics 76, 036501 (2013)

    2013

  24. [31]

    Ohnuma, M

    Y. Ohnuma, M. Matsuo, and S. Maekawa, Theory of the spin peltier effect, Physical Review B 96, 134412 (2017)

    2017

  25. [32]

    Matsuo, Y

    M. Matsuo, Y. Ohnuma, T. Kato, and S. Maekawa, Spin current noise of the spin seebeck effect and spin pumping, Physical review letters 120, 037201 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    T. Kato, Y. Ohnuma, M. Matsuo, J. Rech, T. Jonck- heere, and T. Martin, Microscopic theory of spin trans- port at the interface between a superconductor and a ferromagnetic insulator, Phys. Rev. B 99, 144411 (2019)

    2019

  27. [34]

    Flipse, F

    J. Flipse, F. K. Dejene, D. Wagenaar, G. E. W. Bauer, J. Ben Youssef, and B. J. van Wees, Observation of the spin peltier effect for magnetic insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 027601 (2014)

    2014

  28. [35]

    Daimon, R

    S. Daimon, R. Iguchi, T. Hioki, E. Saitoh, and K.-I. Uchida, Thermal imaging of spin peltier effect, Nat Com- mun 7, 1 (2016)

    2016

  29. [36]

    G. E. Bauer, E. Saitoh, and B. J. Van Wees, Spin caloritronics, Nature materials 11, 391 (2012)

    2012

  30. [37]

    Sekino, Y

    Y. Sekino, Y. Ominato, H. Tajima, S. Uchino, and M. Matsuo, Thermomagnetic anomalies by magnonic criticality in ultracold atomic transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 163402 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Amico, M

    L. Amico, M. Boshier, G. Birkl, A. Minguzzi, C. Miniatura, L.-C. Kwek, D. Aghamalyan, V. Ahufin- ger, D. Anderson, N. Andrei, A. S. Arnold, M. Baker, T. A. Bell, T. Bland, J. P. Brantut, D. Cassettari, W. J. Chetcuti, F. Chevy, R. Citro, S. De Palo, R. Dumke, M. Edwards, R. Fo...

    2021

  32. [39]

    Amico, D

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

    2022

  33. [40]

    van Houten and C

    H. van Houten and C. Beenakker, Quantum point con- tacts, Phys. Today 49, 22 (1996)

    1996

  34. [41]

    Y. V. Nazarov and B. M. Yaroslav, Quantum transport: introduction to nanoscience (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2009)

    2009

  35. [42]

    Nakata, P

    K. Nakata, P. Simon, and D. Loss, Wiedemann-Franz law for magnon transport, Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 92, 134425 (2015)

    2015

  36. [43]

    Nakata, J

    K. Nakata, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Magnonic quantum hall effect and wiedemann-franz law, Phys. Rev. B 95, 125429 (2017)

    2017

  37. [44]

    Nakata, S

    K. Nakata, S. K. Kim, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Magnonic topological insulators in antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 96, 224414 (2017)

    2017

  38. [45]

    Nakata, P

    K. Nakata, P. Simon, and D. Loss, Spin currents and magnon dynamics in insulating magnets, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 50, 114004 (2017)

    2017

  39. [46]

    Sano and M

    R. Sano and M. Matsuo, Breaking down the magnonic wiedemann-franz law in the hydrodynamic regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 166201 (2023)

    2023

  40. [47]

    A. Mook, B. G¨ obel, J. Henk, and I. Mertig, Taking an electron-magnon duality shortcut from electron to magnon transport, Phys. Rev. B. 97, 140401 (2018)

    2018

  41. [48]

    Nakata, Y

    K. Nakata, Y. Ohnuma, and M. Matsuo, Magnonic noise and Wiedemann-Franz law, Phys. Rev. B 98, 094430 (2018)

    2018

  42. [49]

    Nakata, Y

    K. Nakata, Y. Ohnuma, and S. K. Kim, Violation of the magnonic wiedemann-franz law in the strong nonlinear regime, Phys. Rev. B. 105, 184409 (2022)

    2022

  43. [50]

    Franz and G

    R. Franz and G. Wiedemann, Ueber die W¨ arme- Leitungsf¨ ahigkeit der metalle, Ann. Phys. 165, 497 (1853)

  44. [51]

    A. B. Kuklov and B. V. Svistunov, Counterflow Superflu- idity of Two-Species Ultracold Atoms in a Commensurate Optical Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 100401 (2003)

    2003

  45. [52]

    L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling Spin Exchange Interactions of Ultracold Atoms in Opti- cal Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 090402 (2003)

    2003

  46. [53]

    J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll and J. I. Cirac, Spin dynamics for bosons in an optical lattice, New Journal of Physics 5, 76 (2003)

    2003

  47. [54]

    Altman, W

    E. Altman, W. Hofstetter, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phase diagram of two-component bosons on an optical lattice, New Journal of Physics 5, 113 (2003)

    2003

  48. [55]

    de Hond, J

    J. de Hond, J. Xiang, W. C. Chung, E. Cruz-Col´ on, W. Chen, W. C. Burton, C. J. Kennedy, and W. Ketterle, Preparation of the spin-mott state: A spinful mott insu- lator of repulsively bound pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 093401 (2022)

    2022

  49. [56]

    G. D. Mahan, Many Particle Physics, Third Edition (Plenum, New York, 2000)

    2000

  50. [57]

    Zhang, Y

    P. Zhang, Y. Gao, X. Xu, N. Wang, H. Dong, C. Guo, J. Deng, X. Zhang, J. Chen, S. Xu, K. Wang, Y. Wu, C. Zhang, F. Jin, X. Zhu, A. Zhang, Y. Zou, Z. Tan, Z. Cui, Z. Zhu, F. Shen, T. Li, J. Zhong, Z. Bao, L. Zhao, J. Hao, H. Li, Z. Wang, C. Song, Q. Guo, H. Wang, and D. Poletti...

    2024

  51. [58]

    D. J. Papoular, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Quan- tized conductance through the quantum evaporation of bosonic atoms, Phys. Rev. A 94, 023622 (2016)

    2016

  52. [59]

    Drude, Zur elektronentheorie der metalle; II

    P. Drude, Zur elektronentheorie der metalle; II. teil. gal- vanomagnetische und thermomagnetische effecte, Ann. Phys. 308, 369 (1900)

    1900

  53. [60]

    Drude, Zur elektronentheorie der metalle, Ann

    P. Drude, Zur elektronentheorie der metalle, Ann. Phys. 312, 687 (1902)

    1902

  54. [61]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics (Holt-Saunders, 1976)

    1976

  55. [62]

    Sommerfeld, Zur elektronentheorie der metalle auf grund der fermischen statistik: I

    A. Sommerfeld, Zur elektronentheorie der metalle auf grund der fermischen statistik: I. teil: Allgemeines, stromungs- und austrittsvorgaange, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 1 (1928)

    1928

  56. [63]

    Li and E

    M.-R. Li and E. Orignac, Heat conduction and wiedemann-franz law in disordered luttinger liquids, EPL 60, 432 (2002)

    2002

  57. [64]

    A. Garg, D. Rasch, E. Shimshoni, and A. Rosch, Large violation of the wiedemann-franz law in luttinger liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 096402 (2009)

    2009

  58. [65]

    Wakeham, A

    N. Wakeham, A. F. Bangura, X. Xu, J.-F. Mercure, M. Greenblatt, and N. E. Hussey, Gross violation of the wiedemann-franz law in a quasi-one-dimensional conduc- tor, Nat. Commun. 2, 396 (2011). 16

    2011

  59. [66]

    Mahajan, M

    R. Mahajan, M. Barkeshli, and S. A. Hartnoll, Non-fermi liquids and the wiedemann-franz law, Phys. Rev. B 88, 125107 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    Uchino and J.-P

    S. Uchino and J.-P. Brantut, Bosonic superfluid transport in a quantum point contact, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023284 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Uchino, Role of nambu-goldstone modes in the fermionic-superfluid point contact, Phys

    S. Uchino, Role of nambu-goldstone modes in the fermionic-superfluid point contact, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023340 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Nakata, P

    K. Nakata, P. Simon, and D. Loss, Magnon transport through microwave pumping, Phys. Rev. B 92, 014422 (2015)

    2015

  63. [71]

    Grenier, C

    C. Grenier, C. Kollath, and A. Georges, Probing ther- moelectric transport with cold atoms, arXiv preprint arXiv:1209.3942 10.48550/arXiv.1209.3942 (2012)

    2012 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field Dependence of the Intrinsic Domain Magnetization of a Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  65. [73]

    Sekino, H

    Y. Sekino, H. Tajima, and S. Uchino, Mesoscopic spin transport between strongly interacting fermi gases, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023152 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.