Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Low-dimensional Bose-Bose Mixture in Random Speckle Potential

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Repulsive speckle disorder does not destroy a Bose-Bose droplet; it turns the droplet porous and then drives it to the boundary, forming a ring in 2D and two fragments in 1D.

desk verdict Plausible-looking droplet-in-speckle numerics, but the headline ring/split states are likely metastable; needs a ground-state comparison before I'd trust the central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05833 v1 pith:7IID3RFE submitted 2025-05-09 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph

Avra Banerjee , Saswata Sahu , Dwipesh Majumder This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords quantumdropletBose-BosemixturerandomspecklepotentialLee-Huang-YangcorrectionGross-Pitaevskiiequationlow-dimensionalBose-Einsteincondensatering-shapeddisorderedultracoldgases
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 sets out to show how a self-bound Bose-Bose quantum droplet responds to a repulsive random speckle potential in one and two dimensions. Solving the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation with the Lee-Huang-Yang correction, the authors find that as impurity density rises the droplet first becomes porous, meaning riddled with density voids, and then moves out of the disordered region, ending as a sharp ring in 2D and as two symmetric fragments in 1D. The disorder-averaged energy per particle and chemical potential both increase with impurity density, peak at the porous transition, and then decrease to a saturated value. The droplet stays in the liquid phase throughout, and stronger interactions allow it to withstand higher impurity density before splitting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation for a symmetric Bose-Bose mixture, with the Lee-Huang-Yang (LHY) quantum-fluctuation term included and the disorder entering as a sum of Gaussian repulsive bumps $V(\mathbf r)=V_0\sum_i e^{-((x-x_i)^2+(y-y_i)^2)/\chi^2}$ in 2D, with a one-dimensional analogue in 1D, always at $V_0=\chi=1$. The Gaussian-bump model with uniformly random impurity positions, combined with split-step Crank-Nicolson propagation and disorder averaging over configurations, is what carries the porous-then-expelled picture. Because the LHY term is dimension-dependent, separate forms are used in 1D and 2D.

What would settle it

Solve the same GP equations with a speckle potential that has exponential intensity statistics and a realistic correlation length, scanning $V_0$ from values far below to far above the droplet's chemical potential; if the droplet does not migrate to the boundary into a ring in 2D and two fragments in 1D before evaporating, the central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a self-bound droplet of a Bose-Bose mixture in a repulsive random speckle potential is not destroyed: it remains liquid-like while the disordered region becomes porous, and at high impurity density the condensate is expelled to the boundary of the disorder region. In two dimensions the boundary is circular, so the final density profile is a sharp ring; in one dimension the linear disorder region splits the droplet into two symmetric parts. The disorder-averaged energy per particle and chemical potential grow with impurity density up to a maximum that corresponds to the porous configuration, then fall and saturate at values still above the clean-droplet values. Higher interaction strength $g$ requires larger impurity density to reach the maximum and to cause splitting.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume the speckle potential is a sum of Gaussian bumps of fixed strength and width ($V_0=1$, $\chi=1$), so if real speckle's exponential intensity statistics or much larger amplitudes change the droplet's response, the ring-and-split conclusion could be an artifact of that idealized disorder model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A self-bound Bose-Bose droplet remains in a liquid-like state even for high speckle density, so repulsive disorder by itself does not evaporate the condensate.
  • The energy per particle and chemical potential peak exactly at the porous configuration and then decline, giving a measurable signature of the porous-to-expelled transition.
  • Droplets with larger interaction strength $g$ need a higher impurity density before they split, so stronger interactions confer disorder robustness.
  • The final morphology is set by the shape of the disorder boundary: circular disorder yields a ring, linear disorder yields two symmetric fragments.
  • At saturation, the fragmented or ring-shaped droplet has higher energy than the clean droplet because its surface area is larger.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Whether real optical speckle, with its exponential intensity statistics and finite correlation length, produces the same ring-and-split response is an open question; replacing the Gaussian-bump disorder with a measured speckle intensity profile in the same solver would settle it.
  • The strong dependence on boundary shape suggests a geometric control: changing the disorder region from circular to, say, elliptical should deform the final ring accordingly, a prediction that goes beyond the paper's simulations.
  • The energy maximum at the porous transition could be read as a surface-energy barrier, and extracting its height as a function of $g$ and atom number $N$ would give an effective disorder-induced surface tension for the droplet.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a self-bound Bose-Bose quantum droplet in one and two dimensions in the presence of a repulsive random speckle potential. The speckle is modeled as a sum of independent Gaussian repellers of fixed amplitude V0=1 and width chi=1. Solving the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equations with Lee-Huang-Yang corrections numerically, the authors report that as the impurity density is increased the droplet first becomes porous and then is expelled to the disorder-free boundary, forming a sharp ring in 2D and two symmetric fragments in 1D. They compute disorder-averaged energy and chemical potential versus impurity density for several interaction strengths and atom numbers, finding a peak at the porous transition and saturation at high density. The central claim is that this expulsion and ring/fragment formation is the generic response of a self-bound droplet to high-density repulsive disorder.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper extends quantum-droplet physics to disordered environments and argues for a common qualitative response in 1D and 2D: a self-bound liquid-like state remains coherent, becomes porous, and is eventually pushed to the boundary of the disordered region. The manuscript provides a clear derivation of the reduced GP equations and the corresponding energy and chemical potential functionals, and the density-sequence figures are visually consistent with the described progression. A notable strength is that no parameter is fitted to the target outcome; all parameters are taken from the model or the literature. However, the numerical protocol is described too imprecisely to establish that the reported final states are stationary, and the idealized Gaussian-bump disorder model raises questions about the external validity of claims about optical speckle. The main conclusions are therefore conditional on additional numerical and modeling work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (2) and (7)] The manuscript does not state whether the split-step Crank-Nicolson propagation is real-time or imaginary-time, and it gives no grid spacing, time-step size, or convergence tolerance. The described procedure of slowly increasing V0 and using the previous wave function as the initial guess produces density profiles that are endpoints of an adiabatic evolution, but it does not by itself demonstrate that the profiles in Figs. 2(g) and 4(c),(f) are stationary solutions of the time-independent GP equation. The authors should run imaginary-time propagation (or an equivalent ground-state solver) from the reported final densities and from alternative initial conditions, and they should report the numerical parameters, to verify that the ring and two-fragment states are local minima of the energy functional.
  2. [Section III, Figs. 2(g) and 4(c),(f)] The ring and two-fragment configurations are unlikely to be the ground state of the model because the external potential is exactly zero outside the circular or linear disordered region. A compact droplet placed outside the disorder region has the same energy as the impurity-free droplet, E0, whereas the authors themselves state that the final energy at high impurity density is higher than the initial value because of the larger surface area of the ring or fragments. Thus the reported states have higher energy than a translated compact droplet, so they cannot be global (or even local, without further analysis) minima. The central claim that the droplet 'goes to the circumference and looks ring-shaped' must be accompanied by an energy comparison with a compact droplet outside the disorder region and a stability test under asymmetric perturbations; otherwise the figures describe transient or metastable states rather than the system's preferred configurations.
  3. [Section II, Eqs. (4) and (9)] The Gaussian-bump disorder model with V0=1 and chi=1 is not a faithful representation of optical speckle, which has exponential intensity statistics and a correlation function dictated by the imaging aperture, and whose amplitude can significantly exceed the droplet energy scales. Since the paper's title and abstract state that the subject is a random speckle potential, the authors should either implement a realistic speckle field (e.g., generated by Fourier filtering of random phases) or explicitly restrict their conclusions to a Gaussian random potential and justify this model as a controlled proxy. This issue is load-bearing because the ring/split response might be an artifact of the idealized disorder statistics rather than a general property of droplets in speckle.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, page 2] The sentence 'the boundary (60×60) is large enough to affect the system' should read 'large enough not to affect the system'; as written it contradicts the intended meaning.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (6)] The statement that NP=20 configurations are sufficient is not quantified; the authors should provide error bars or standard deviations for the disorder-averaged energy and chemical potential in Figs. 3 and 5.
  3. [Figures 1, 2, and 4] The density figures lack color bars and explicit axis scales, which makes it difficult to assess the density values and the sharpness of the ring or fragments; adding a common color scale to panels within each figure would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section III] The sentence 'The crucial aspect is that the BEC remains in the liquid phase in the presence of a high impurity potential' is not tied to a quantitative criterion; the authors should specify what observable or diagnostic (e.g., a flat-top density plateau, superfluid fraction, or phase coherence) identifies the 'liquid phase' in their simulations.
  5. [Section III, comparison to Ref. [45]] The comparison with the square-impurity results of Ref. [45] is purely qualitative; quoting the corresponding energy and chemical potential values or density profiles would make the claimed difference concrete and testable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: ring/split outcomes are un-fitted numerical solutions of literature GP equations, and self-citations are methodological or comparative only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a self-bound Bose-Bose droplet in a repulsive random speckle potential becomes porous and then migrates to the boundary, giving a ring in 2D and two fragments in 1D. This is obtained by numerically solving the extended GP equations (2) and (7), which are cited to independent sources (Petrov-Astrakharchik [17], Li et al. [21], Li et al. [22]), with the speckle potential modeled as a sum of Gaussians after Cheng-Adhikari [32]. The parameters V0, chi, g, N, and rho are fixed inputs; nothing is fitted to the ring/split density profiles, and no assumption of ring or two-fragment order is present in the equations. The self-citations ([6], [45], [52], [58]) are used for an LHY reference, for comparison with a previously studied square-impurity case, for theoretical background on lower-dimensional liquid BEC, and for the Crank-Nicolson split-step method; none carries the load of the central result, which would stand unchanged with the external method citations ([59], [60]) and external GP references. The only concern suggested by the review, that outside the finite speckle region V=0 and a compact droplet might have lower energy than the ring/fragment solutions, is a question about whether the reported states are ground states; it is a correctness or metastability concern, not a circularity, because the paper never defines 'ring' or 'split' in terms of the input potential by construction. No equation in the paper reduces to another by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the choice of LHY-corrected GP equations from the literature, the symmetric-mixture reduction, the Gaussian-bump disorder model, and numerical assumptions about box size and grid. No new entities are introduced, and the control parameters (V0, chi, g, delta_g, N) are chosen by hand rather than fitted to data.

free parameters (5)
  • V0 (speckle strength) = 1
    Set to unity by hand in both 1D and 2D (text after eq. (4) and eq. (9)); no experimental calibration. The strength of the disorder is a key control parameter for the reported transition from porous droplet to expelled ring/fragments.
  • chi (speckle correlation length) = 1
    Set to unity by hand; together with V0 it defines the disorder model. Results could change if the speckle correlation length differs from the droplet healing length.
  • g (2D interaction strength) = 10 and 25
    Chosen model interaction values in 2D; no fitting. The paper shows results for these values only.
  • g and delta_g (1D interaction) = g = 10, 20; delta_g = g
    The mean-field coupling delta_g is defined as g12 + sqrt(g11 g22) and then set numerically equal to g for convenience (Section II, 1D). This choice is ad hoc.
  • N (atom number) = 100, 200, 400
    Chosen particle numbers for the energy/chemical potential curves; qualitative results are reported for these sizes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The LHY-corrected one-component GP equations (2) and (7) are the correct effective theory for the symmetric Bose-Bose droplet in 1D and 2D.
    The equations are taken from refs [17,21,22] without derivation or validation against experiment or quantum Monte Carlo for the chosen g values. Section II equations (2) and (7).
  • domain assumption The mixture stays in the symmetric state psi1 = psi2 = phi/sqrt(2) throughout the disorder evolution.
    This reduction is made explicitly in Section II after eq. (1). Disorder could in principle induce local density imbalance between species, which is not studied.
  • domain assumption A sum of P independent Gaussian bumps (eqs. (4), (9)) with V0=chi=1 is a faithful model of an optical speckle potential.
    The paper calls this a 'Gaussian type' speckle potential and cites [32,34,35], but real optical speckle has exponential intensity statistics and different correlations; no validation is provided.
  • domain assumption The computation box (60x60 in 2D, L=140 in 1D) and grid are large/fine enough that finite-size and discretization effects do not change the conclusions.
    The text asserts the boundary is 'large enough to affect the system' (Section II), but no convergence tests or grid resolution studies are shown.
  • domain assumption Density is low enough that three-body losses are negligible, so the two-body LHY term suffices.
    Stated in Section II ('density is low enough to avoid three-body interaction'); standard for droplet studies, but unverified for the disorder-expelled high-density configurations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-dimensional Bose-Bose Mixture in Random Speckle Potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IID3RFE

@misc{pith2026250505833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-dimensional Bose-Bose Mixture in Random Speckle Potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IID3RFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05833}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we have studied the effect of the repulsive speckle potential in a mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates in one dimension (1D) and two dimension (2D). We simulated linear and circular random speckle potentials in 1D and 2D, respectively. Our calculation shows that the condensate density forms a sharp ring in 2D, and the condensate is divided into two parts in 1D at a high impurity density of speckle potential. We have calculated the energy and chemical potential of the system by solving the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation to see the stability of the condensate. In our study, we have seen that the nature of the impurity response is the same for one-dimensional and two-dimensional quantum droplets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05833 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    D’Errico, E

    C. D’Errico, E. Lucioni, L. Tanzi, L. Gori, G. Roux, I. P. McCulloch, T. Giamarchi, M. Inguscio, and G. Modugno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 095301 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    A. J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 331 (1975)

    1975

  3. [2]

    (2) Normalization of the wave function is given by Z |φ|2d2⃗ r=N

    The reduced single GP equation is given by [21] i∂φ ∂t = −∇2 2 + g2 4π|φ|2 ln(|φ|2) +V (⃗ r) φ. (2) Normalization of the wave function is given by Z |φ|2d2⃗ r=N. (3) Where N is the number of the condensed atom, the GP equation is expressed in scaled form [56, 57], where the length scale is l0 (we have chosen l0 = 1.0µm [56] for numerical convenience), the...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Droplet generation may be described by two-body interaction, and our system’s density is low enough to avoid three-body interaction

    and ml2 0/ℏ [56], respectively, where m is the mass of condensed atom. Droplet generation may be described by two-body interaction, and our system’s density is low enough to avoid three-body interaction. There have already been theoretical ideas for liquid BEC FIG. 2: (2D case): The droplet’s density (n[l−2 0 ] = |φ|2[l−2 0 ]): Impurity-free droplet is sh...

    work page

  5. [4]

    T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 105, 1119 (1957)

    work page 1957

  6. [5]

    Dalfovo, S

    F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999)

    1999

  7. [6]

    D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 155302 (2015)

    2015

  8. [7]

    C. R. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, P. Cheiney, L. Tarruell, Science359, 301 (2018)

    2018

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    T. D. Lee, K. Huang and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 106, 1135 (1957)

    1957

  2. [9]

    Banerjee and D

    A. Banerjee and D. Majumder, Annals of Physics 470, 169810 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    Higher impurity density ( ρ) is required to get maximum energy and chemical potential when interaction strength ( g) in- creases

    is higher than the initial value (ˆE atρ = 0 forg = 10) as finally the droplet’s surface area and surface energy are larger than the initial. Higher impurity density ( ρ) is required to get maximum energy and chemical potential when interaction strength ( g) in- creases. (figu...

  4. [11]

    Semeghini, G

    G. Semeghini, G. Ferioli, L. Masi, C. Mazzinghi, L. Wol- swijk, F. Minardi, M. Modugno, G. Modugno, M. Inguscio, M. Fattori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 235301 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Cheiney, C

    P. Cheiney, C. R. Cabrera, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, L. Tanzi, L. Tarruell, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 135301 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    Ferioli, G

    G. Ferioli, G. Semeghini, L. Masi, G. Giusti, G. Modugno, M. Inguscio, A. Gallemí, A. Recati and M. Fattor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 090401 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    D’Errico, A

    C. D’Errico, A. Burchianti, M. Prevedelli, L. Salasnich, F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi and C. Fort, Phys. Rev. Research 1, 033155 (2019). 6

    2019

  8. [15]

    Burchianti, C

    A. Burchianti, C. D. Errico, M. Prevedelli, F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, L. Salasnich, F. Minardi and C. Fort, Condens. Matter 5, 21 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Kadau, M

    Observation of dipolar Q.D.: H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, C. Wink, T. Maier, I. F. Barbut, and T. Pfau, Nat. Phys. 530, 194 (2016); I. F. Barbut, H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 215301 (2016); I. F. Barbut, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, H. Kada...

    2016

  10. [17]

    S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. A 95, 023606 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    V . N. Popov, Teor. Mat. Fiz.11, 565 (1972)

    1972

  12. [19]

    E. H. Lieb and W. Liniger, Phys. Rev. 130, 1605 (1963)

    1963

  13. [20]

    D. S. Petrov and G. E. Astrakharchik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100401 (2016)

    2016

  14. [21]

    G. E. Astrakharchik, B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. A 98, 013631 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    P. Zin, M. Pylak, T. Wasak, M. Gajda, Z. Idziaszek, Phys. Rev. A 98, 051603(R) (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    Dimensional crossover for the beyond-mean-field correc- tion in Bose gases, T. Ilg, J. Kumlin, L. Santos, D. S. Petrov and H. P. Büchler, Phys. Rev. A98, 051604(R) (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Y . Li, Z. Chen, Z. Luo, C. Huang, H. Tan, W. Pang, B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. A 98, 063602 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Y . Li, Z. Luo, Y . Liu, Z. Chen, C. Huang, S. Fu, H. Tan, and B. A. Malomed, New J. Phys. 19, 113043 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Rakshit, T

    D. Rakshit, T. Karpiuk, P. Zin, M. Brewczyk, M. Lewen- stein, M. Gajda, New J. Phys. 21, 073027 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    P. Zin, M. Pylak and M. Gajda, Phys. Rev. A 106, 013320 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    Fallani, C

    L. Fallani, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 56, 119 (2008)

    2008

  22. [29]

    J. E. Lye, L. Fallani, M. Modugno, D. S. Wiersma, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 070401 (2005)

    2005

  23. [30]

    R. C. Kuhn, O. Sigwarth, C. Miniatura, D. Delande and C. A. Muller, New Journal of Phys. 9, 161 (2007)

    2007

  24. [31]

    Abdullaev and A

    B. Abdullaev and A. Pelster, Eur. Phys. J. D66, 314 (2012); A. Boudjemaa, Phys. Rev. A 91, 053619 (2015)

    2012

  25. [32]

    Pilati and P

    S. Pilati and P. Pieri, scientific reports, 9, 5613 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    Y . P. Chen, J. Hitchcock, D. Dries, M. Junker, C. Welford, S. E. Pollack, T. A. Corcovilos, R. G. Hulet, Physica D238, 1321 (2009)

    2009

  27. [34]

    Kobayashi and M

    M. Kobayashi and M. Tsubota, Phys. Rev. B 66, 174516 (2002); G. M. Falco, A. Pelster and R. Graham, Phys. Rev. A 76, 013624 (2007); C. Krumnow and A. Pelster, Phys. Rev. A 84, 021608 (2011)

    2002

  28. [35]

    Cheng, S

    Y . Cheng, S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. A82 013631 (2010)

    2010

  29. [36]

    Akkermans, S

    E. Akkermans, S. Ghosh and Z. Musslimani, J. Phys. B 41, 045302 (2008)

    2008

  30. [37]

    Sajid, I

    M. Sajid, I. Ashraf, Laser Phys. 24, 115501 (2014)

    2014

  31. [38]

    Mardonov, V

    Sh. Mardonov, V . V . Konotop, B. A. Malomed, M. Mod- ugno, and E. Ya. Sherman, Phys. Rev. A98, 023604 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    Nikolic, A

    B. Nikolic, A. Balaz and A. Pelster, Phys. Rev. A 88, 013624 (2013)

    2013

  33. [40]

    Sanchez-Palencia, D

    L. Sanchez-Palencia, D. Clement, P. Lugan, P. Bouyer, G. V . Shlyapnikov, and A. Aspect, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 210401 (2007)

    2007

  34. [41]

    Modugno, Rep

    G. Modugno, Rep. Prog. Phys. 73, 102401 (2010)

    2010

  35. [42]

    Roati, C

    G. Roati, C. D’Errico, L. Fallani, M. Fattori, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, G. Modugno, M. Modugno, M. Inguscio, Nature 453, 895 (2008)

    2008

  36. [43]

    M. C. P. dos Santos and W. B. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. E 103, 052210 (2021)

    2021

  37. [44]

    Altman, Y

    E. Altman, Y . Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 150402 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    Tanzi, E

    L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, S. Chaudhuri, L. Gori, A. Kumar, C. D’Errico, M. Inguscio and G. Modugno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 115301 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Boudjemaa and K

    A. Boudjemaa and K. Abbas, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023325 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    S. Sahu, D. Majumder, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 1020 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Horak, J

    P. Horak, J. Y . Courtois and G. Grynberg, Phys. Rev. A58, 3953 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    Pilati, S

    S. Pilati, S. Giorgini, M. Modugno and N. Prokofev, New Journal of Physics 12, 073003 (2010) (28pp)

    2010

  43. [51]

    G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras, and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. A. 66, 023603v (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    Laflorencie, Euro

    N. Laflorencie, Euro. Phys. Lett. 99, 66001 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    B. Min, T. Li, M. Rosenkranz and W. Bao, Phys. Rev. A86, 053612 (2012); X. Antoine, W. Bao, C. Besse, Computer Physics Communication 184, 2621 (2013)

    2012

  46. [54]

    Acosta-Diaz, G

    R. Acosta-Diaz, G. Krein, A. Saldivar, N. F. Svaiter and C. A. D. Zarro, J. Phys. A: Math. Thro. 52, 445401 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Banerjee and D

    A. Banerjee and D. Majumder, Phys. Scr. 99, 085402 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Lugan, D

    P. Lugan, D. Clement, P. Bouyer, A. Aspect, and L. Sanchez-Palencia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 180402 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    V . I. Yukalov and R. Graham, Phys. Rev. A 75, 023619 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    Y . Su, Q. Zhang, and Z. Gao, Opt. Express 25, 30259 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Gautam, S

    S. Gautam, S. K. Adhikari, J. Phys. B 52, 055302 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Gautam, S

    S. Gautam, S. K. Adhikari, Annals of Phys. 409, 167917 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Banerjee, D

    A. Banerjee, D. Majumder, J. Low Temp. Phys. 215, 64 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Muruganandam, S

    P. Muruganandam, S. K. Adhikari, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 180, 1888 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    Vudragovi ´c, I

    D. Vudragovi ´c, I. Vidanovi ´c, A. Balaž, P. Muruganan- dam and S. K. Adhikari, Comput. Phys. Comm. 183, 2021 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.