Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Potential-defect-driven collective modes of one-dimensional two-component quantum droplets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A central repulsive barrier drives a one-dimensional binary quantum droplet through a polarization transition at a critical atom number, and the excitation spectrum exposes the switch as a discontinuity and six near-zero modes.

desk verdict A conventional but useful droplet-defect study whose headlined result is stated backwards in the abstract and conclusion, and whose ground-state transition lacks an energy comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29292 v1 pith:C2SEQXCR submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.quant-gas

Harsimranjit Kaur , Kuldeep Suthar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords quantumdropletstwo-componentBosemixturesLee-Huang-YangcorrectionpolarizationtransitionBogoliubov-deGennesspectrumdouble-wellpotentialpopulationimbalancequenchdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies a one-dimensional two-component ultradilute quantum droplet — a self-bound state stabilized by the balance between attractive mean-field interactions and repulsive Lee-Huang-Yang quantum fluctuations — placed in a harmonic trap with a central Gaussian defect. Its central claim is that a repulsive barrier makes the ground state polarize spontaneously: for fewer than a critical number of atoms (Ncr = 126 for g12 = -0.9, V0 = 0.3, sigma = 1, lambda = 0) the droplet sits entirely in one well of the double-well potential, while at and above Ncr it becomes symmetric and occupies both wells. That polarization transition appears in the Bogoliubov excitation spectrum as a discontinuity and a strong softening of low-lying modes, with up to six modes clustering near zero energy in the unpolarized phase. The authors also examine how Ncr shifts with intercomponent attraction and how sudden or adiabatic quenches of the interaction and defect produce breathing, localized filaments, and fragmentation into multiple droplets. If the picture is right, the droplet in a double well is a clean, controllable example of an atom-number-driven symmetry-breaking transition with a measurable spectral fingerprint.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation (eGPE) with the exact one-dimensional Lee-Huang-Yang correction, solved by imaginary-time propagation, and linearized through Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equations on a basis of 200 harmonic-oscillator states. The central diagnostic is the population imbalance I = (NL - NR)/(NL + NR), which acts as the order parameter: it jumps from 1 (polarized) to 0 (unpolarized) at Ncr. The spectral signatures — softening of the dipole mode, a discontinuity in mode frequencies, and the clustering of six modes near zero — connect the ground-state transition to observable collective dynamics.

What would settle it

Directly compare the energies of the polarized and symmetric stationary states for N around 126 at g12 = -0.9, V0 = 0.3, sigma = 1, lambda = 0; if the symmetric state has lower energy below 126, the claimed transition is a solver artifact. A second check is to scan N upward and downward for hysteresis: a genuine ground-state transition should reproduce Ncr from both directions, while a metastable branch would jump at different N depending on the direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the competition between barrier-induced localization and interaction-driven delocalization produces a sharp ground-state transition in a one-dimensional two-component quantum droplet. Below a critical atom number Ncr (126 for g12 = -0.9, V0 = 0.3, sigma = 1, lambda = 0), the LHY-stabilized droplet is fully polarized in one well of the double-well potential, with population imbalance |I| = 1. At Ncr it discontinuously rearranges into an unpolarized state with equal occupation of both wells (I = 0). The transition is not only static: the Bogoliubov-de Gennes quasiparticle spectrum shows a discontinuity at Ncr, and the unpolarized phase supports u

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that imaginary-time propagation from random and mixed-symmetry initial states converges to the global energy minimum at every atom number, so the polarized branch below Ncr is the true ground state rather than a metastable artifact of the solver.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the transition is real, a 1D two-component droplet in a double-well trap is a clean model system for an atom-number-driven symmetry-breaking transition, with Ncr as a tunable control parameter.
  • The six near-zero modes predicted in the unpolarized phase imply slow inter-well dynamics, including Josephson-type oscillations and coupled dipole excitations, that could be seen in real-time imaging of droplet mixtures.
  • The softening of the dipole mode with increasing N, and as the defect is tuned from attractive to zero, provides a measurable precursor of the transition and of the restoration of translational invariance.
  • The quench protocols — breathing for weak quenches, filaments and fragmentation for strong quenches — offer experimental routes to controllably create localized fragments or multi-droplet arrays.
  • The discontinuity in the quasiparticle spectrum at Ncr gives an observable, frequency-domain marker of the ground-state switch, complementary to density-imaging measurements of population imbalance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The stated direction of the Ncr(g12) trend is internally inconsistent: the abstract and conclusion say stronger attraction lowers Ncr, while Sec. III and the Fig. 2 caption say weaker attraction lowers Ncr. The figure as drawn appears to follow the body's version; the discrepancy is unresolved in the text.
  • Editorial: Because no energy comparison between the polarized and symmetric stationary states is shown, and no hysteresis scan is reported, the transition boundary Ncr(g12) should be read as a property of the solver's converged state rather than a proven ground-state phase boundary.
  • Editorial: The six near-zero modes depend on a BdG basis of 200 oscillator states with no reported convergence test; checking against larger bases or against real-time evolution spectra would confirm they are physical rather than numerical.
  • Editorial: A natural extension is to map Ncr as a function of barrier height V0 and width sigma, and to compare the predicted spectral discontinuity with sum-rule or many-body estimates for the 1D Bose mixture.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a one-dimensional two-component Bose-Bose quantum droplet in a harmonic trap with a localized Gaussian defect, using the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation with the exact LHY correction and Bogoliubov–de Gennes theory. It reports a polarization transition as a function of atom number in the presence of a repulsive central barrier: for N < N_cr the ground state is fully polarized (the droplet lies in one well), while for N >= N_cr it becomes symmetric. The transition is claimed to appear as a discontinuity and softening of the low-lying collective spectrum, with up to six near-zero modes in the unpolarized regime. The paper also studies the dependence of N_cr on the intercomponent attraction, the role of harmonic confinement, and the real-time dynamics after quenches of the interaction and of the defect strength.

Significance. If the reported transition is a genuine ground-state property, the paper would add a useful example of how a localized defect controls droplet self-binding, polarization, and collective excitations. The theoretical framework is standard and imported from established references (Petrov 2015; Ilg et al. 2018; Mistakidis et al. 2023), and the paper computes outputs rather than fitting parameters. The main claims are falsifiable by direct numerical energy comparison and by experiments with tunable barriers. However, the manuscript currently contains a direct internal contradiction about the direction of the N_cr(g12) trend, and the central ground-state transition is not verified against metastability or basis-convergence artifacts. These issues are load-bearing for the main phase-diagram claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. III.A; Sec. IV (Conclusions)] The abstract states that "the critical number of atoms for the transition decreases as the attractive intercomponent interaction increases" (i.e., stronger attraction -> smaller N_cr), and the Conclusions state that "the unpolarized state becomes energetically favourable at a smaller number of atoms for larger intercomponent interactions." In direct opposition, Sec. III.A (text near Fig. 2) states "with less attractive g12, N_cr decreases," and the discussion says "with less attractive g12, N_cr decreases... attributed to the attraction that inhibits the transition." The body and Fig. 2 therefore claim weaker attraction -> smaller N_cr. Both cannot be correct. This is a central claim of the paper, not a minor typo, because the abstract and conclusions advertise the opposite trend from the main figure.
  2. [Sec. III, opening; Sec. III.A; Fig. 2] The ground state is found by imaginary-time propagation starting from "a random initial state and a superposition of symmetric and asymmetric functions." For a first-order-like transition, both the polarized (N < N_cr) and symmetric (N >= N_cr) solutions can be local minima of the eGPE energy functional. The paper does not compare the energies of these two candidate states, nor does it perform a hysteresis scan (e.g., sweeping N upward and downward while seeding with the previous solution). Thus N_cr = 126 at g12 = -0.9 is not established as a genuine ground-state transition; it may reflect the point where the solver's basin of attraction changes. This concern is load-bearing for the phase diagram and the interpretation of the BdG discontinuity in Fig. 5(c). A direct E_polarized(N) vs. E_symmetric(N) comparison and a hysteresis test should be reported.
  3. [Sec. III, opening; Sec. III.B; Figs. 5-6] The Bogoliubov–de Gennes matrix is diagonalized in a basis of only 200 harmonic-oscillator states, with no convergence test as a function of basis size. The central spectral claims include up to six modes clustered near zero energy and a spectral discontinuity at the transition. If the basis is insufficient for the broad, flat-top droplets at large N or for the strongly localized fragments in a double well, the near-zero modes could be numerical artifacts. The authors should report a convergence check for at least a few representative points, e.g., N = 150 and N = 200 at V0 = 0.3 and V0 = -0.5, with larger bases (300-500 states) and possibly a spatial-grid check.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1(a) caption and text] The caption labels the V0 = -0.5 case as an "attractive barrier." A negative V0 is a potential well/dimple, not a barrier. Please use consistent terminology.
  2. [Fig. 2 inset] The inset axis labels are unclear: the horizontal axis is presumably N and the vertical axis is |I|, but no axis titles are shown. Also the jump from |I| = 1 to 0 at N around 126 would be easier to assess with a marker or a vertical dashed line.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 5(c) discussion] The text says that for small N the dipole mode "possesses a small finite energy, which overlaps with zero-energy modes." It would help to state explicitly in the figure or text that the green star at small N is not exactly zero, since the legend otherwise appears to show a zero-energy branch.
  4. [Sec. III.B, mode counting] The text says the unpolarized state has six modes clustered around zero, but the list in Sec. III.B mentions two U(1) modes and four low-lying modes (i-iv). That totals six, yet the subsequent sentence says "consists of six modes clustered around zero" and then "in addition, two nearly degenerate breathing modes emerge." Please clarify whether the six include the breathing pair or are only the symmetry-related modes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; computation is self-contained from established eGPE and BdG formalism.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation with the exact 1D LHY correction (Eq. 5) is adopted from independent references (Petrov 2015; Ilg et al. 2018; Mistakidis et al. 2023), and the full LHY functional form is quoted. The reported results—N_cr=126, the polarization transition, excitation frequencies, and dynamics—are computed outputs of imaginary-time propagation and Bogoliubov–de Gennes diagonalization, not fitted parameters. No quantity in the final predictions is defined in terms of another reported prediction; the population imbalance (Eq. 9) is a diagnostic of the computed density. The Bogoliubov spectrum is derived by linearizing the same equations with no adjustable constants. The only self-citation, Ref. [39] (a prior paper by the authors on Gaussian-barrier droplets), is cited alongside Refs. [29,30] simply as a geometry using a localized Gaussian barrier; it does not supply the model, a uniqueness theorem, an ansatz, or any fitted value, so it is not load-bearing. There is a non-circular inconsistency worth noting: the abstract and Sec. IV say N_cr decreases with stronger attraction, while Sec. III.A says 'with less attractive g12, N_cr decreases.' Also, the ground-state search may converge to a metastable polarized branch rather than the global minimum, but that is a numerical correctness concern, not a circular derivation.

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

All parameters are hand-chosen model inputs in dimensionless units, not fitted to experimental data; the paper makes no measured-data comparison. The genuine epistemic burden sits in the model choice (eGPE + exact LHY), the unchecked ground-state-identification and 200-state-basis assumptions, and the wide hand-chosen parameter regime, not in fitted constants. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • g (dimensionless intracomponent interaction) = 1
    Hand-chosen model input; sets the mean-field/LHY balance that determines droplet stability and the N_cr scale. No experimental fit.
  • g12 (dimensionless intercomponent attraction) = -0.9 (varied from about -0.9 to -0.55 in Fig. 2)
    Hand-chosen to place the mixture in the LHY-stabilized regime just above the 1D collapse threshold (g12 = -g). The central N_cr(g12) curve is the output of the numerics in this chosen range.
  • V0 (defect strength) = 0.3 (barrier); -0.5 (well); 1.0 in Fig. 7 inset
    Hand-chosen; the polarization transition and its N_cr value depend directly on the barrier height, so the headline result is conditional on this choice.
  • sigma (Gaussian defect width) = 1.0 a_osc; 0.1-1.3 in Fig. 4 inset
    Hand-chosen; controls the effective barrier curvature and the dipole-mode softening shown in Fig. 4.
  • lambda (axial harmonic trap strength) = 0 for most results; 0-0.2 in Fig. 7
    Set to zero so the droplet is self-bound and the translational Goldstone mode appears; the hardening of modes with lambda is an output of the chosen lambda range.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The extended Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional (multicomponent GP + exact 1D LHY correction) describes the droplet ground state and low-energy dynamics.
    Eq. (1) is the standard droplet model (Petrov 2015; Ilg et al. 2018), but its validity at |g12| < sqrt(g11 g22) (away from collapse) and for N = 10-200 is assumed, not derived, and the paper's claim that it is valid for 'any value of the interaction strength' is incorrect.
  • domain assumption Bogoliubov linearization: fluctuations around the stationary ground state are small, and the BdG spectrum (Eqs. 7-8) captures the low-lying collective modes.
    Standard linearization, but relies on the stability of the computed ground state and on the alpha-approximation for the LHY contribution, which assumes a balanced mixture (g11 = g22, n1 = n2).
  • ad hoc to paper The ground state found by imaginary-time propagation from random and symmetric/asymmetric initial states is the global energy minimum for every N.
    Sec. III (Methods): no energy comparison between polarized and symmetric candidate states and no hysteresis scan are shown, so the claimed ground-state polarization transition at N_cr may rest on a metastable branch.
  • ad hoc to paper The 200 harmonic-oscillator-state basis is sufficient for the BdG diagonalization, and the spatial grid for the eGPE is converged.
    Sec. III: no convergence tests are reported as N, V0, or lambda vary; at lambda = 0 the droplet extends to +/- (15-30) a_osc, making basis adequacy nontrivial.
  • standard math U(1) gauge symmetry and translational invariance imply the zero-energy Goldstone modes identified in Figs. 4-5.
    Standard symmetry argument used to interpret the two U(1) modes and the up-to-six near-zero modes in the double-well phase.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Potential-defect-driven collective modes of one-dimensional two-component quantum droplets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C2SEQXCR

@misc{pith2026260729292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Potential-defect-driven collective modes of one-dimensional two-component quantum droplets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C2SEQXCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29292}
}
read the original abstract

We examine a one-dimensional binary mixture of ultradilute quantum droplets in the presence of a central potential defect. The properties of the potential strength and the number of atoms exhibit distinct polarization transitions and low-lying ollective excitation spectra. The balance of (attractive) Lee-Huang-Yang quantum fluctuations and repulsive mean-field interactions results in a self-bound quantum droplet in a potential well. However, the potential barrier causes the polarization transition with the number of atoms, which is reflected in the excitation spectrum as a discontinuity and softening of the quasiparticle modes. We reveal that the critical number of atoms for the transition decreases as the attractive intercomponent interaction increases. Finally, the quench time dynamics of the interaction in potential barrier and well show the localization and diffusive fragmented droplets of two-component systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29292 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The ground state density profiles of bosonic quantum droplet mixtures for different numbers of atoms at three barrier strengths: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The chemical potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The frequency of low-lying collective modes as the poten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Low-lying collective excitation frequencies as a function of the number of atoms for three different barrier strengths: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Quasiparticle amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Time evolution of the atomic density of quantum droplet under a sudden quench of intercomponent interaction for different potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Time evolution of the density of quantum droplet following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

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

    2015

  2. [2]

    It has recently been considered in recent studies of quantum droplets [26, 46] and mobile impurities [47]

    The exact correction allows us to examine the collective modes away from the mean-field sta- bility regime. It has recently been considered in recent studies of quantum droplets [26, 46] and mobile impurities [47]. The Euler-Lagrange or Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equations de- scribing the dynamics of the system are iℏ ∂ψi ∂t = " − ℏ2 2m ∂2 ∂x2 +V(x) +g ii|ψi|...

  3. [3]

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

    2018

  4. [4]

    Cheiney, C

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

    2018

  5. [5]

    Ferioli, G

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

    2019

  6. [6]

    D’Errico, A

    C. D’Errico, A. Burchianti, M. Prevedelli, L. Salasnich, F. An- cilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi, and C. Fort, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033155 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Burchianti, C

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

    2020

  8. [8]

    Böttcher, J.-N

    F. Böttcher, J.-N. Schmidt, J. Hertkorn, K. S. Ng, S. D. Graham, M. Guo, T. Langen, and T. Pfau, Rep. Prog. Phys.84, 012403 (2021)

    2021

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe-Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Rep. Prog. Phys.86, 026401 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Ferrier-Barbut, H

    I. Ferrier-Barbut, H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 215301 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Schmitt, M

    M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, F. Böttcher, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and T. Pfau, Nature539, 259 (2016). 10

    2016

  4. [12]

    Z.-H. Luo, W. Pang, B. Liu, Y .-Y . Li, and B. A. Malomed, Front. Phys.16, 32201 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    B. A. Malomed, Front. Phys.16, 22504 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Wächtler and L

    F. Wächtler and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. A94, 043618 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

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

    1957

  8. [16]

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

    2016

  9. [17]

    T. Ilg, J. Kumlin, L. Santos, D. S. Petrov, and H. P. Büchler, Phys. Rev. A98, 051604 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Chen and C.-L

    C.-A. Chen and C.-L. Hung, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 023604 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Cappellaro, T

    A. Cappellaro, T. Macrì, and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. A97, 053623 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Semeghini, G

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

    2018

  13. [21]

    Tylutki, G

    M. Tylutki, G. E. Astrakharchik, B. A. Malomed, and D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. A101, 051601(R) (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Stürmer, M

    P. Stürmer, M. N. Tengstrand, R. Sachdeva, and S. M. Reimann, Phys. Rev. A103, 053302 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Y . Fei, X. Du, X.-L. Chen, and Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. A109, 053309 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    P. Zin, M. Pylak, and M. Gajda, New J. Phys.23, 033022 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Baillie, R

    D. Baillie, R. M. Wilson, R. N. Bisset, and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A94, 021602 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Albiez, R

    M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. Fölling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 010402 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    I. A. Englezos, P. Schmelcher, and S. I. Mistakidis, SciPost Phys.19, 133 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    J. C. Pelayo, G. Bougas, T. Fogarty, T. Busch, and S. I. Mis- takidis, SciPost Phys.18, 129 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Smerzi, S

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

    1997

  22. [30]

    S. Levy, E. Lahoud, I. Shomroni, and J. Steinhauer, Nature449, 579 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Y . Shin, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, and A. E. Leanhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 050405 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    Schumm, S

    T. Schumm, S. Hofferberth, L. M. Andersson, S. Wildermuth, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, J. Schmiedmayer, and P. Krüger, Nat. Phys.1, 57 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Jo, J.-H

    G.-B. Jo, J.-H. Choi, C. A. Christensen, T. A. Pasquini, Y .-R. Lee, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 180401 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    H. Uncu, D. Tarhan, E. Demiralp, and O. E. Müstecaplıo ˘glu, Phys. Rev. A76, 013618 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    M. C. Garrett, A. Ratnapala, E. D. van Ooijen, C. J. Vale, K. Weegink, S. K. Schnelle, O. Vainio, N. R. Heckenberg, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, and M. J. Davis, Phys. Rev. A83, 013630 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Morsch and M

    O. Morsch and M. Oberthaler, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 179 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    Bloch, Nat

    I. Bloch, Nat. Phys.1, 23 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    A. L. Gaunt, T. F. Schmidutz, I. Gotlibovych, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 200406 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Navon, A

    N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Nature 539, 72 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Kaur and K

    H. Kaur and K. Suthar, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.58, 195301 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Ramanathan, K

    A. Ramanathan, K. C. Wright, S. R. Muniz, M. Zelan, W. T. Hill, C. J. Lobb, K. Helmerson, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 130401 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Raghavan, A

    S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. A59, 620 (1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    Cavicchioli, C

    L. Cavicchioli, C. Fort, F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi, and A. Burchianti, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 093401 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    L. P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari,Bose-Einstein Condensation and Superfluidity(Oxford University Press, 2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    H. Xiao, X. Zhang, J. Liu, X. Du, X.-L. Chen, and Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. A113, 063301 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    Mistakidis, A

    S. Mistakidis, A. V olosniev, R. Barfknecht, T. Fogarty, T. Busch, A. Foerster, P. Schmelcher, and N. Zinner, Phys. Rep. 1042, 1 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Bristy, G

    F. Bristy, G. A. Bougas, G. C. Katsimiga, and S. I. Mistakidis, Chaos Solit. Fractals201, 117383 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Sinha, S

    S. Sinha, S. Biswas, L. Santos, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. A108, 023311 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    N. N. Bogoliubov, J. Phys. (USSR)11, 23 (1947)

    1947

  42. [50]

    A. L. Fetter, Ann. Phys.70, 67 (1972)

    1972

  43. [51]

    D. S. Petrov, (2023), arXiv:2312.05336 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Görlitz, J

    A. Görlitz, J. M. V ogels, A. E. Leanhardt, C. Raman, T. L. Gus- tavson, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Gupta, S. Inouye, T. Rosenband, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 130402 (2001)

    2001

  45. [53]

    Moritz, T

    H. Moritz, T. Stöferle, M. Köhl, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 250402 (2003)

    2003

  46. [54]

    Romero-Ros, G

    A. Romero-Ros, G. C. Katsimiga, S. I. Mistakidis, S. Mossman, G. Biondini, P. Schmelcher, P. Engels, and P. G. Kevrekidis, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 033402 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Navon, R

    N. Navon, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Nat. Phys.17, 1334 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Tajik, B

    M. Tajik, B. Rauer, T. Schweigler, F. Cataldini, J. Sabino, F. S. Møller, S.-C. Ji, I. E. Mazets, and J. Schmiedmayer, Opt. Ex- press27, 33474 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    G. E. Astrakharchik and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. A98, 013631 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    X. Du, Y . Fei, X.-L. Chen, and Y . Zhang, Phys. Rev. A108, 033312 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Trenkwalder, G

    A. Trenkwalder, G. Spagnolli, G. Semeghini, S. Coop, M. Lan- dini, P. Castilho, L. Pezzè, G. Modugno, M. Inguscio, and A. Smerzi, Nat. Phys.12, 826 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Wysocki, K

    P. Wysocki, K. Jachymski, G. E. Astrakharchik, and M. Ty- lutki, Phys. Rev. A110, 033303 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Juliá-Díaz, M

    B. Juliá-Díaz, M. Melé-Messeguer, M. Guilleumas, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. A80, 043622 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    E. G. Charalampidis and S. I. Mistakidis, Phys. Rev. A111, 013318 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.