Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Collective Excitations of Dissipative Time Crystals

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The low-frequency collective excitations of a dissipative time crystal reduce to a single complex Floquet frequency that quantitatively predicts the measured probe response.

desk verdict Useful Floquet toolkit for DTC excitations, but the main text has a factor-Δ typo in V1 that must be fixed before any of it is reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12414 v1 pith:7P4Y5RNQ submitted 2025-06-14 quant-ph

Gage W. Harmon , Giovanna Morigi , Simon B. Jäger This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Pq05.70.Fh
keywords dissipativetimecrystalFloquettheorycollectiveexcitationsDickemodelbad-cavityregimemean-fieldapproximationtruncatedWignersimulationphasetransition
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 aims to show that the low-frequency collective excitations of a dissipative time crystal — a driven, lossy atom-cavity system whose atoms spontaneously oscillate at half the drive frequency — are described by a single complex Floquet frequency $\lambda_\mathrm{Fl} = \gamma_\mathrm{Fl} - i\nu_\mathrm{Fl}$. In the bad-cavity limit, where the cavity is fast enough to be eliminated, the atoms obey three nonlinear mean-field equations, and linearizing fluctuations around the time-crystalline limit cycle yields this spectrum via Floquet theory. The spectrum behaves differently at the two kinds of transition: at the continuous transition the excitation frequency vanishes with a cusp-like non-analyticity, while at the discontinuous transition the two phases keep non-crossing frequency branches and coexist in a bistable region. When a weak probe drive is added, the full atom-cavity simulations show Lorentzian response lines whose centers and widths match the Floquet predictions, indicating that the spectrum is measurable and the theory quantitative. This gives an efficient tool for characterizing out-of-equilibrium phases without diagonalizing the full quantum master equation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is self-consistent Floquet analysis — linear theory for equations with time-periodic coefficients — applied to the fluctuation matrix $\Sigma(t)$ obtained by linearizing the atom-only mean-field equations around the time-periodic steady state. Because $\Sigma(t)$ inherits the $2T$-periodicity of the limit cycle, excitations are classified by the Floquet eigenvalues $\lambda_j$ obtained from the monodromy matrix $\Phi = \mathcal{T}\exp\!\int_0^{2T} d\tau\, \Sigma(\tau)$, with $\phi_j = e^{2\lambda_j T}$. Conservation of spin length forces one eigenvalue to zero, and the remaining pair appears as complex conjugates, so the whole spectrum reduces to one complex number $\lambda_\mathrm{Fl} = \gamma_\mathrm{Fl} - i\nu_\mathrm{Fl}$; the coherent and dissipative cavity-mediated interactions enter through the time-periodic coefficients $V_0(t)$ and $V_1(t)$ derived from the bad-cavity elimination. The same linearization, supplemented by a probe term $\Sigma_\mathrm{pr}$, gives the atom-only probe response used to interpret the full simulations.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to compare the atom-only Floquet spectrum with the probe response of the full dissipative Dicke model when the cavity is not in the bad-cavity regime (for example, with cavity linewidth $\kappa$ comparable to $\omega_\mathrm{res}$, so that $\omega\tau_c \sim 1$); a mismatch between the predicted and measured Lorentzian centers and widths in that regime would show that the adiabatic elimination is the load-bearing assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in the bad-cavity regime where the cavity adiabatically follows the atoms, the dissipative time crystal and its low-frequency excitations are fully captured by the atom-only mean-field equations (4)–(6). Linearizing fluctuations $\delta\vec{v}$ around the $2T$-periodic limit-cycle solution yields the time-periodic fluctuation matrix $\Sigma(t)$, and the Floquet eigenvalues of the monodromy matrix define a single complex excitation frequency $\lambda_\mathrm{Fl} = \gamma_\mathrm{Fl} - i\nu_\mathrm{Fl}$ for the atomic degrees of freedom. The paper shows that this spectrum behaves differently at the two phase boundaries: a cusp-like vanishing of $\nu_\mathrm{Fl}$ with a rapidly dropping $\gamma_\mathrm{Fl}$ at the continuous transition, and non-crossing frequency branches with a bistable region at the discontinuous transition. The same Floquet prediction is then compared with truncated Wigner simulations of the full cavity-atom system driven by a weak probe; the simulated probe-induced photon-number changes reproduce Lorentzian lines centered at $\nu_\mathrm{Fl}$ with width $\gamma_\mathrm{Fl}$, matching the atom-only theory.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the cavity responds much faster than the atoms, so that it can be eliminated from the dynamics entirely; if that time-scale separation fails, the atom-only equations and the predicted excitation spectrum are not guaranteed to match the full atom-cavity system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the continuous transition the excitation frequency $\nu_\mathrm{Fl}$ vanishes with a cusp-like non-analyticity, giving a direct spectral signature of the transition that can be looked for in cavity transmission.
  • At the discontinuous transition the normal-phase and time-crystal frequency branches do not cross, and the bistable region is visible in the spectrum, providing a clear way to distinguish first-order from continuous transitions.
  • A weak probe drive creates Lorentzian features in the transmitted photon number whose center and width equal $\nu_\mathrm{Fl}$ and $\gamma_\mathrm{Fl}$, so the complex spectrum is experimentally readable through the cavity output.
  • The Floquet method maps the excitation spectrum over a wide parameter range at low numerical cost, avoiding exact diagonalization of the full master equation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, left open by the paper, is that the same Floquet linearization applied to a continuous time crystal will show a gapless critical mode, because the broken symmetry is continuous rather than discrete.
  • Because $\nu_\mathrm{Fl}$ vanishes at the continuous transition, the probe response near that boundary could act as a sensitive amplifier or sensor; the paper does not explore metrological consequences.
  • The truncated-Wigner benchmark is itself semiclassical, so genuine quantum fluctuations are not tested here; a fully quantum treatment in the critical region could shift linewidths even when the bad-cavity condition holds.
  • The non-crossing branches at the discontinuous transition provide a spectral fingerprint of bistability that could be used to identify first-order character in other driven-dissipative systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the collective excitation spectrum of a dissipative Dicke time crystal. Starting from a cavity-atom master equation, the authors adiabatically eliminate the cavity in the bad-cavity limit to obtain a nonlinear, dissipative atom-only mean-field model (Eqs. (4)-(6)). Linearizing this model around the normal-phase fixed point or the 2T-periodic DTC limit cycle leads to the fluctuation matrix Sigma in Eq. (7); its Floquet eigenvalues over two drive periods define a complex excitation frequency lambda_Fl = gamma_Fl - i nu_Fl. The paper maps gamma_Fl and nu_Fl across the continuous and discontinuous transitions (Fig. 2) and, using truncated Wigner simulations of the full cavity-atom dynamics, shows that probe-induced photon-number changes are well described by Lorentzians centered at nu_Fl with width gamma_Fl (Fig. 3).

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a computationally light and experimentally feasible way to determine the low-frequency collective excitations of dissipative time crystals, complementing Liouvillian spectral methods. The approach is explicit: the atom-only equations, the fluctuation matrix, and the Floquet extraction are spelled out; the benchmark against truncated Wigner is direct, and the only fitted quantity in Fig. 3(b)-(c) is the Lorentzian amplitude. The predicted non-analytic vanishing of the frequency at the continuous transition and the non-crossing branches at the discontinuous transition are falsifiable signatures. The main obstacle to accepting the manuscript as written is the inconsistency between the printed master equations and the Supplemental derivation of the dissipative coupling V1, which affects every subsequent numerical result.

major comments (1)
  1. [Equations (4)-(6) and the definition of V1 in the main text; SM Eq. (S30)] The main text defines V1 = 4 g^2(t) delta_c kappa/(delta_c^2+kappa^2)^2, whereas the SM derivation, Eq. (S30), gives V1 = 4 delta_c Delta kappa g^2(t)/(delta_c^2+kappa^2)^2. The factor Delta is not optional: it originates from the difference |c_+|^2 - |c_-|^2 in Eqs. (S27)-(S28) and controls the asymmetry that stabilizes the limit cycle. For the parameters used in Figs. 1-3 (Delta = 0.1 kappa), the two definitions differ by an order of magnitude, so a reader who implements the main-text equations cannot reproduce the phase diagram in Fig. 2 or the Lorentzian positions and widths in Fig. 3. The main text's own definition of gamma_0 below Eq. (7) contains Delta, which underscores that the printed V1 is inconsistent with the rest of the paper. Please correct the main-text definition (or explicitly state that the numerics used the SM definition) and confirm that the Floquet spectra and all comparisons are obtained with the SM V1.
minor comments (6)
  1. [SM, 'Numerical simulation of the fluctuation matrix'] The extraction of lambda_Fl from the logarithm of the monodromy eigenvalues requires a choice of branch; since the system is 2T-periodic, nu_Fl is defined modulo omega/2. Please specify how the branch is chosen so that the plotted nu_Fl corresponds to the resonance probed in Fig. 3, especially when eigenvalues cross the branch cut.
  2. [Main text, 'Probing Excitations'] The value of the probe strength eta_0 used in the truncated Wigner simulations of Fig. 3 is not stated in the main text; please provide it (or refer explicitly to the SM section) for reproducibility.
  3. [Figures 2 and 3] The color maps in Fig. 2(a)-(b) and Fig. 3(a) have no color bars, so the quantitative values of gamma_Fl/gamma_0, nu_Fl/(omega/2), and the intensity difference cannot be read from the figures. Please add color bars or describe the scales in the captions.
  4. [Equation (7)] The matrix in Eq. (7) is typeset in a way that makes the third-row entries run together; please use a proper matrix environment with clear column separation so that each entry is unambiguous.
  5. [SM, Eq. (S20)] The expansion of c_+/- in Eq. (S20) is garbled in the typeset version; the intermediate algebra is hard to follow. Please rewrite this expansion with explicit steps.
  6. [SM, Eq. (S47)] The symbol Sigma is used both for the fluctuation matrix and for the time-evolution/monodromy operator in Eq. (S47); this notational conflict should be resolved, for example by using Phi for the monodromy operator.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Floquet excitation spectra are parameter-free eigenvalues of the linearized atom-only dynamics and are benchmarked against independent truncated-Wigner simulations; the main-text/SM V1 discrepancy is a reproducibility defect, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The chain is: (1) the SM derives the atom-only Lindblad description via a Schrieffer-Wolff displacement with the explicit ansatz beta(t)=c_+(t)J_+ + c_-(t)J_- + c_pr(t)I (SM Eqs. S15-S20), yielding the mean-field equations (S37)-(S39) and hence main-text Eqs. (4)-(6); (2) the fluctuation matrix Sigma in Eq. (7) is obtained by linearizing those same equations around the converged limit cycle or the normal-phase fixed point, and the Floquet eigenvalues are obtained by numerical propagation (SM Eq. S47) without any free parameters adjusted to match the probe response; (3) the probe response in Fig. 3 is produced by truncated-Wigner simulation of the full cavity-atom Heisenberg-Langevin equations (S10)-(S14), not by the atom-only Floquet model. The only fitted quantities are the amplitudes of the red Lorentzians in Figs. 3(b)-(c); their centers and linewidths are taken directly from gamma_Fl and nu_Fl, so the central frequency/linewidth comparison is not a fit. The citation to Ref. [52] for the atom-only approach is not load-bearing because the SM reproduces the derivation, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The known mismatch between the main-text definition V1=4g^2 delta_c kappa/(delta_c^2+kappa^2)^2 and the SM derivation V1=4 delta_c Delta kappa g^2/(delta_c^2+kappa^2)^2 (Eq. S30) is a genuine internal-reproducibility issue, but it is an error of consistency rather than a circular reduction: neither the Floquet eigenvalues nor the probe simulations are defined in terms of one another, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction is the Floquet spectrum of the atom-only mean-field system; no new physical entities are introduced. The only fitted quantity is the Lorentzian amplitude in Fig. 3. The main assumptions are the bad-cavity reduction, mean-field factorization, and semiclassical truncated-Wigner benchmark, none of which is checked against an exact quantum solution or an experiment.

free parameters (1)
  • Lorentzian amplitude (vertical scale) in Fig. 3(b)-(c) = fitted to truncated Wigner data; numerical value not reported
    The red Lorentzian curves use the Floquet-predicted center frequency and linewidth, but their amplitudes are obtained by fitting to the stochastic simulations. This is an overall response scale, not part of the spectral prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bad-cavity timescale separation: tau_c << tau_a, omega tau_c << 1, and omega tau_a ~ 1, used to eliminate the cavity and obtain the atom-only master equation.
    Invoked in the 'Dynamical description' section before Eqs. (4)-(6); the entire Floquet analysis is performed on the atom-only model, so this reduction is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Mean-field factorization: operator products are replaced by products of expectation values, leading to the classical nonlinear spin equations (4)-(6).
    Used to derive the mean-field dynamics; the excitation spectrum is then the spectrum of linearized fluctuations around a classical limit cycle, neglecting quantum correlations beyond first order.
  • domain assumption Truncated Wigner approximation gives an accurate semiclassical simulation of the full dissipative Dicke model for the parameters studied.
    Used as the benchmark in Fig. 3 and described in the SM; its validity requires large N and is not an exact solution of the master equation.
  • domain assumption Weak probe and linear response: the probe strength eta_0 is small enough that the measured intensity change is proportional to the unperturbed Floquet modes.
    The probe Hamiltonian is added as a perturbation and the Lorentzian fits assume the unperturbed gamma_Fl and nu_Fl describe the response.
  • standard math Standard Floquet theory and Trotter decomposition of the time-ordered exponential apply to the time-periodic linear system.
    Used in Eq. (8) and in the SM numerical section; this is standard but the numerical eigenvalues depend on the discretization Ncut.
  • domain assumption For the analytic normal-phase spectrum, g1 << g0 and dissipative and time-dependent terms can be neglected.
    Used in the SM to derive the approximate frequency epsilon in Eq. (S53); the authors state this gives only qualitative agreement, so it is a supporting, not central, assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collective Excitations of Dissipative Time Crystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7P4Y5RNQ

@misc{pith2026250612414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collective Excitations of Dissipative Time Crystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7P4Y5RNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12414}
}
read the original abstract

We study the dynamics of atoms interacting periodically with a dissipative optical cavity and employ Floquet theory to analyze their low-frequency behavior. By means of an effective atom-only master equation, valid in the bad cavity regime, we characterize the excitation spectrum of the atoms across the transition from a normal phase to a time-crystalline phase where the atoms undergo stable oscillations. We identify features in the complex excitation spectra when crossing second and first order transitions where the order parameter changes continuously or abruptly. Finally, we discuss how these results can be detected experimentally by probing the cavity with an additional drive. Our work provides important tools for analyzing the response of dynamical out-of-equilibrium phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12414 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of an experimentally realizable setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Damping rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Difference between the time-averaged intensity [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

  1. Semiclassical Langevin dynamics of long-range dissipative time crystals

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Semiclassical Langevin dynamics shows algebraic vanishing of finite-size decay (spin-1/2) and power-law growth of deviation time and Fourier peak (spin-1) for long-range dissipative time crystals, with robustness exte...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Domokos and H

    P. Domokos and H. Ritsch, Collective cooling and self- organization of atoms in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 253003 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    D. Nagy, G. Szirmai, and P. Domokos, Self-organization of a bose-einstein condensate in an optical cavity, The European Physical Journal D 48, 127 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    Baumann, C

    K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Dicke quantum phase transition with a superfluid gas in an optical cavity, Nature 464, 1301 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    K. J. Arnold, M. P. Baden, and M. D. Barrett, Self- organization threshold scaling for thermal atoms coupled to a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 153002 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Ritsch, P

    H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical poten- tials, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 553 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Sch¨ utz, S

    S. Sch¨ utz, S. B. J¨ ager, and G. Morigi, Thermodynamics and dynamics of atomic self-organization in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A 92, 063808 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    R. M. Kroeze, Y. Guo, V. D. Vaidya, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Spinor self-ordering of a quantum gas in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 163601 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Landig, L

    R. Landig, L. Hruby, N. Dogra, M. Landini, R. Mottl, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Quantum phases from com- peting short- and long-range interactions in an optical lattice, Nature 532, 476 (2016)

    2016

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Halati, A

    C.-M. Halati, A. Sheikhan, H. Ritsch, and C. Kol- lath, Numerically exact treatment of many-body self- organization in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 093604 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Helson, T

    V. Helson, T. Zwettler, F. Mivehvar, E. Colella, K. Roux, H. Konishi, H. Ritsch, and J.-P. Brantut, Density-wave ordering in a unitary fermi gas with photon-mediated interactions, Nature 618, 716 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Z. Wu, J. Fan, X. Zhang, J. Qi, and H. Wu, Signatures of prethermalization in a quenched cavity-mediated long- range interacting fermi gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 243401 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    M. Xu, D. A. Tieri, E. C. Fine, J. K. Thompson, and M. J. Holland, Synchronization of two ensembles of atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 154101 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    J. M. Weiner, K. C. Cox, J. G. Bohnet, and J. K. Thomp- son, Phase synchronization inside a superradiant laser, Phys. Rev. A 95, 033808 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Nadolny, C

    T. Nadolny, C. Bruder, and M. Brunelli, Nonreciprocal synchronization of active quantum spins, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011010 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Natale, A

    G. Natale, A. Baumg¨ artner, J. Stefaniak, D. Baur, S. Hertlein, D. Rivero, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Syn- chronization of quasi-particle excitations in a quantum gas with cavity-mediated interactions, arXiv:2504.17731 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    R. Lin, R. Rosa-Medina, F. Ferri, F. Finger, K. Kroeger, T. Donner, T. Esslinger, and R. Chitra, Dissipation- engineered family of nearly dark states in many-body cavity-atom systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 153601 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Rosa-Medina, F

    R. Rosa-Medina, F. Ferri, F. Finger, N. Dogra, K. Kroeger, R. Lin, R. Chitra, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Observing dynamical currents in a non- hermitian momentum lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 143602 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Dreon, A

    D. Dreon, A. Baumg¨ artner, X. Li, S. Hertlein, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Self-oscillating pump in a topological dissipative atom–cavity system, Nature 608, 494 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Zhang, D

    Z. Zhang, D. Dreon, T. Esslinger, D. Jaksch, B. Buca, and T. Donner, Dissipation-induced non-equilibrium 12 phases with temporal and spatial order, Communications Physics 8, 211 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Guerin, F

    W. Guerin, F. Michaud, and R. Kaiser, Mechanisms for lasing with cold atoms as the gain medium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 093002 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    J. G. Bohnet, Z. Chen, J. M. Weiner, D. Meiser, M. J. Holland, and J. K. Thompson, A steady-state superradi- ant laser with less than one intracavity photon, Nature 484, 78 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Gothe, D

    H. Gothe, D. Sholokhov, A. Breunig, M. Steinel, and J. Eschner, Continuous-wave virtual-state lasing from cold ytterbium atoms, Phys. Rev. A 99, 013415 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    S. L. Kristensen, E. Bohr, J. Robinson-Tait, T. Zelevin- sky, J. W. Thomsen, and J. H. M¨ uller, Subnatural linewidth superradiant lasing with cold 88Sr atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 223402 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    V. M. Sch¨ afer, Z. Niu, J. R. K. Cline, D. J. Young, E. Y. Song, H. Ritsch, and J. K. Thompson, Continuous recoil- driven lasing and cavity frequency pinning with laser- cooled atoms, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-025-02854- 4 (2025)

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Piazza and H

    F. Piazza and H. Ritsch, Self-ordered limit cycles, chaos, and phase slippage with a superfluid inside an optical resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 163601 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Iemini, A

    F. Iemini, A. Russomanno, J. Keeling, M. Schir` o, M. Dal- monte, and R. Fazio, Boundary time crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 035301 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Chitra and O

    R. Chitra and O. Zilberberg, Dynamical many-body phases of the parametrically driven, dissipative dicke model, Phys. Rev. A 92, 023815 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Z. Gong, R. Hamazaki, and M. Ueda, Discrete time- crystalline order in cavity and circuit qed systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 040404 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Keßler, P

    H. Keßler, P. Kongkhambut, C. Georges, L. Mathey, J. G. Cosme, and A. Hemmerich, Observation of a dissi- pative time crystal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 043602 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Kongkhambut, J

    P. Kongkhambut, J. Skulte, L. Mathey, J. G. Cosme, A. Hemmerich, and H. Keßler, Observation of a continu- ous time crystal, Science 377, 670 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Kongkhambut, J

    P. Kongkhambut, J. G. Cosme, J. Skulte, M. A. Moreno Armijos, L. Mathey, A. Hemmerich, and H. Keßler, Observation of a phase transition from a con- tinuous to a discrete time crystal, Reports on Progress in Physics 87, 080502 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Wilczek, Quantum time crystals, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Quantum time crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 160401 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Sacha and J

    K. Sacha and J. Zakrzewski, Time crystals: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 016401 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Bruno, Impossibility of spontaneously rotating time crystals: A no-go theorem, Phys

    P. Bruno, Impossibility of spontaneously rotating time crystals: A no-go theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 070402 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Watanabe and M

    H. Watanabe and M. Oshikawa, Absence of quantum time crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 251603 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Villa, J

    G. Villa, J. del Pino, V. Dumont, G. Rastelli, M. Micha lek, A. Eichler, and O. Zilberberg, Topologi- cal classification of driven-dissipative nonlinear systems, arXiv:2406.16591 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    T. B. Wahl, B. Han, and B. B´ eri, Topologically ordered time crystals, Nature Communications 15, 9845 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    S. B. J¨ ager, J. Cooper, M. J. Holland, and G. Morigi, Dynamical phase transitions to optomechanical superra- diance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 053601 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Liu, L.-H

    B. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, Y. Ma, Q.-F. Wang, T.-Y. Han, J. Zhang, Z.-Y. Zhang, S.-Y. Shao, Q. Li, H.-C. Chen, G.-C. Guo, D.-S. Ding, and B.-S. Shi, Bifurcation of time crystals in driven and dissipative rydberg atomic gas, Na- ture Communications 16, 1419 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    J. G. Cosme, P. Kongkhambut, A. B¨ olian, R. J. L. Tuquero, J. Skulte, L. Mathey, A. Hemmerich, and H. Keßler, Torus bifurcation of a dissipative time crystal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 223601 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Montenegro, M

    V. Montenegro, M. G. Genoni, A. Bayat, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum metrology with boundary time crystals, Communications Physics 6, 304 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Mattes, I

    R. Mattes, I. Lesanovsky, and F. Carollo, Entangled time-crystal phase in an open quantum light-matter sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A 108, 062216 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Gribben, A

    D. Gribben, A. Sanpera, R. Fazio, J. Marino, and F. Iem- ini, Boundary time crystals as AC sensors: Enhance- ments and constraints, SciPost Phys. 18, 100 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Kosior, H

    A. Kosior, H. Ritsch, and F. Mivehvar, Nonequilibrium phases of ultracold bosons with cavity-induced dynamic gauge fields, SciPost Phys. 15, 046 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Skulte, P

    J. Skulte, P. Kongkhambut, H. Keßler, A. Hemmerich, L. Mathey, and J. G. Cosme, Realizing limit cycles in dissipative bosonic systems, Phys. Rev. A 109, 063317 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Nie and W

    X. Nie and W. Zheng, Mode softening in time-crystalline transitions of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 107, 033311 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Biella, N. Bartolo, and C. Ciuti, Spec- tral theory of liouvillians for dissipative phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042118 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    G. W. Harmon, J. T. Reilly, M. J. Holland, and S. B. J¨ ager, Mean-field floquet theory for a three-level cold- atom laser, Phys. Rev. A 106, 013706 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Dimer, B

    F. Dimer, B. Estienne, A. S. Parkins, and H. J. Carmichael, Proposed realization of the dicke-model quantum phase transition in an optical cavity qed sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A 75, 013804 (2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    M. P. Baden, K. J. Arnold, A. L. Grimsmo, S. Parkins, and M. D. Barrett, Realization of the dicke model using cavity-assisted raman transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020408 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    S. B. J¨ ager, T. Schmit, G. Morigi, M. J. Holland, and R. Betzholz, Lindblad master equations for quantum sys- tems coupled to dissipative bosonic modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 063601 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    S. B. J¨ ager, J. M. Giesen, I. Schneider, and S. Eggert, Dissipative dicke time crystals: An atom’s point of view, Phys. Rev. A 110, L010202 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    G. W. Harmon, G. Morigi, and S. B. J¨ ager, Dynami- cal phases of a bose-einstein condensate in a bad optical cavity at optomechanical resonance, Phys. Rev. A 111, 013518 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    See Supplemental Material for more details

  47. [55]

    Staliunas, S

    K. Staliunas, S. Longhi, and G. J. de Valc´ arcel, Faraday patterns in bose-einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 210406 (2002)

    2002

  48. [56]

    Engels, C

    P. Engels, C. Atherton, and M. A. Hoefer, Observation of faraday waves in a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 095301 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    Liebster, M

    N. Liebster, M. Sparn, E. Kath, J. Duchene, K. Fujii, S. L. G¨ orlitz, T. Enss, H. Strobel, and M. K. Oberthaler, Observation of pattern stabilization in a driven super- fluid, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011026 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.