Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Universality of dissipative discrete time crystal formation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 This paper claims that quenches into discrete time crystals obey Kibble-Zurek scaling set by a single damped oscillator class, with both classical and quantum lattice models falling into the same universality class.

desk verdict First credible KZM scaling evidence for DTC formation, but the universality class claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18950 v2 pith:E4PMIC6Z submitted 2025-07-25 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.quant-gasnlin.PSquant-ph

Roy D. Jara Jr. , Jayson G. Cosme This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.quant-gasnlin.PSquant-ph
keywords discretetimecrystalsKibble-Zurekmechanismdissipativelinearparametricoscillatoradiabatic-impulseapproximationuniversalityclassSine-GordonmodelDickelatticedynamicalphasetransition
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 forming a discrete time crystal by driving a dissipative many-body system through its critical point is a genuine phase transition governed by the Kibble-Zurek mechanism, the standard scaling theory for how defects appear when a system is quenched across a transition. Its central claim is that any system that can be mapped onto a single damped, parametrically driven harmonic oscillator should show the same universal scaling: the delay before time-crystal order appears and the number of spatial defects both follow power laws in the quench time, with the product of the static and dynamical critical exponents equal to one. The authors verify this in a classical chain of driven pendula and in a quantum array of lossy spin-cavity systems. If correct, the result extends the notion of universality from static phases to dynamical, periodically ordered phases and gives concrete predictions for any experiment that quenches into a time crystal.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dissipative linear parametric oscillator (DLPO), a damped harmonic oscillator with periodically modulated drive amplitude. In the resonance limit, a multi-scale analysis yields relaxation times $\tau_\pm = 8(A_c \pm A)^{-1}$, and the slower one diverges at the critical drive amplitude $A_c = 2\gamma/\Omega$. That divergence is exactly what the adiabatic-impulse approximation requires, and it sets the exponent product $vz=1$; through the Kibble-Zurek scaling formulas, it determines the power laws for the transition delay, correlation length, and defect density. The DLPO serves as a template: any lattice or cavity model mappable onto it is predicted to belong to the same universality class.

What would settle it

Measure the relaxation time directly by holding the system just below the period-doubling threshold, perturbing it, and observing the decay rate across a range of drive amplitudes near $A_c$; if the divergence exponent is not 1, the predicted $\beta_{\hat t}=1/2$ should fail. Alternatively, in any DTC-forming array, extract the transition-delay exponent from a slow linear ramp of drive amplitude: a value measurably different from $1/2$ in the scaling regime would falsify membership in the DLPO universality class.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the adiabatic-impulse approximation—the assumption that a system freezes as its relaxation time diverges while a control parameter is ramped—holds for the dissipative linear parametric oscillator (DLPO), the damped harmonic oscillator whose restoring force is modulated at twice its natural frequency. Near resonance, the oscillator's relaxation time diverges as $(A_c-A)^{-1}$ as the drive amplitude approaches the period-doubling threshold, giving $vz=1$. Since many DTC-forming models reduce to a DLPO, any such system quenched from disorder into a discrete time crystal should exhibit Kibble-Zurek scaling: transition delay proportional to $\tau_q^{1/2}$, correlation length proportional to $\tau_q^{v/(1+vz)}$, and defect number proportional to $\tau_q^{-v/(1+vz)}$, which in one dimension with point defects gives exponents $1/4$ and $-1/4$. The paper shows numerically that both the classical Sine-Gordon model and the open Dicke lattice follow these laws, and that their measured $\beta_{\hat t}=1/2$ and $\beta_{n_d}/\beta_\xi=1$ place them in the same universality class even though their individual static and dynamical exponents differ.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the assumption that near the transition the many-body Sine-Gordon and Dicke-lattice systems really are captured by the single-oscillator dissipative linear parametric oscillator description, so that their relaxation time diverges as $|A-A_c|^{-1}$; if that mapping is inaccurate, the predicted $vz=1$ scaling would not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any open DTC-forming system mappable onto a DLPO, classical or quantum, should show a transition delay scaling as $\tau_q^{1/2}$ in the slow-quench regime, independent of microscopic details.
  • Defect production and correlation growth during DTC formation obey the Kibble-Zurek mechanism: in one dimension with point defects, defect number scales as $\tau_q^{-1/4}$ while correlation length grows as $\tau_q^{1/4}$, with $\beta_{n_d}/\beta_\xi = 1$.
  • The classical Sine-Gordon model and the open Dicke lattice belong to the same universality class, characterized by $vz=1$, even though their individual $v$ and $z$ values differ; universality therefore extends to spatiotemporally ordered dynamical phases.
  • Fast quenches should show a universal breakdown of scaling, with delay, correlation length, and defect number saturating at finite values, consistent with the reference prediction.
  • The work implies that DTC formation is a genuine phase transition with a many-body character, not merely a single-oscillator nonlinear effect, because the observed scaling is set by collective critical exponents.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the DLPO mapping is as general as the paper claims, existing experimental arrays of coupled nanomechanical resonators, superconducting parametric oscillators, and atom-cavity lattices should exhibit the same $\tau_q^{1/2}$ transition-delay law when driven across their period-doubling threshold; this is a direct test that does not require measuring full correlation functions.
  • Because the universality class is fixed by the product $vz$, measuring the transition-delay exponent alone may suffice to classify a DTC-forming system, simplifying experimental protocols.
  • In the strong-noise regime, the closed-loop spatiotemporal defects the paper observes arise from fluctuations, not from Kibble-Zurek correlation build-up, so their density should not follow quench-time scaling; this suggests a separate theory is needed for fluctuation-seeded defects.
  • For effectively zero-dimensional all-to-all coupled systems, the same reasoning predicts only the temporal part of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism (transition delay, with no spatial defect network), so single-mode cavity experiments could test the universality class by measuring delay scaling alone.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the Kibble-Zurek mechanism (KZM) applies to quenches from a disordered phase into a discrete time crystal (DTC), and that systems mappable onto a dissipative linear parametric oscillator (DLPO) form a universality class with critical exponent product vz = 1. An analytic multi-scale calculation for the DLPO shows the relaxation time diverges as |A - A_c|^{-1}, and this is used to predict transition-delay, correlation-length, and defect-number power laws. The authors test the prediction numerically in two one-dimensional models: the classical Sine-Gordon model (SGM) and the open Dicke lattice model (DLM) simulated with a truncated Wigner approximation. For both models and for both ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic DTC configurations, they report scaling exponents consistent with the predicted KZM forms, and they extract v and z separately, finding values near the mean-field Ising class for the SGM and somewhat different values for the DLM.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the work would meaningfully extend the KZM to dynamical (spatiotemporal) order and offer a concrete, falsifiable criterion: any DTC-forming system that can be mapped to a DLPO should exhibit vz = 1 scaling. The analytic DLPO derivation in Sec. II and Appendix A is clean and self-contained, and the numerical study of two very different models (classical coupled pendula and a dissipative spin-boson lattice) is a valuable consistency test. The paper also explicitly identifies the regime of fast-quench breakdown and checks the relation between correlation length and defect number, which strengthens the case for KZM behavior. However, the universality-class claim is only as solid as the asserted DLPO mapping for the SGM and DLM, and that mapping is not derived here; moreover, the numerical extraction of the critical point partly assumes the scaling it is used to verify. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion, so the present version is not yet fully convincing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (6), and Sec. III] The central universality claim requires that the finite-lattice SGM and DLM near their DTC transitions be described by a DLPO whose slow mode has relaxation time diverging as |A - A_c|^{-1}. This mapping is not derived in the manuscript: the general statement is delegated to Ref. [78] (same group) and the DLM mapping to Refs. [43,77], and no effective DLPO parameters (effective gamma, Omega, and the coupling of the soft spatial mode to other modes) are provided for either model. If the linearized relaxation rate of the soft mode vanishes as |A - A_c|^theta with theta different from 1, or with a logarithmic correction, the prediction vz = 1 and the shared-universality-class conclusion would not follow. I ask the authors to either derive the mapping for the two lattice models or provide a direct numerical verification, for example by measuring the exponential decay rate of small perturbations toward the disordered state as a function of A - A_c.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C2), and Sec. IV] The critical point A_c used to compute t_c is obtained by fitting <A(t_p)> to the KZM-derived functional form A(tau_q) = A_0 tau_q^{-1/(1+vz)} + A_c. The same KZM scaling is then used to measure beta_t, beta_xi, and beta_nd, so the reported consistency with vz = 1 is partially built into the analysis: the extrapolated A_c can shift t_c in a way that favors the assumed exponent. Please determine A_c independently (for instance, from the static phase boundary or from the divergence of the relaxation time), or at least report the fitted exponent b from Eq. (C2) and show that the extracted A_c is stable when the assumed fitting form is changed.
  3. [Sec. V, Figs. 5(b) and 6] The DLM exponents are only weakly constraining for the claimed universality class: the paper reports vz_FM = 0.8(5) and vz_AFM = 0.8(2), so consistency with vz = 1 is established only within large error bars, and the extracted v and z differ between models and between FM and AFM configurations. The manuscript should state the confidence intervals on beta_t for each model and configuration and quantify whether the differences in v and z between the SGM and DLM are statistically significant. As written, the separate v and z values do not independently support a common universality class; only the product vz is used, and that product is the quantity imported from the asserted DLPO mapping.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption says '(a)-(b)' but the panels are labeled (a)-(d), and the text refers to '(c) the SGM' and '(d) the DLM'; the caption should be corrected to match the panel labels.
  2. [Eq. (A1)] Equation (A1) ends with a stray prime after 'theta = 0'; this appears to be a typo and should be removed.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (14)] The threshold delta = 0.15 is arbitrary; please report a sensitivity check (e.g., delta = 0.1 and 0.2) to show that the extracted scaling exponents do not depend on the chosen threshold.
  4. [Fig. 4 and Sec. IV] The dashed lines in Fig. 4 correspond to v = 1/2, z = 2, i.e., the mean-field Ising universality class. Since the DLPO prediction fixes only the product vz = 1, the dashed lines are not predictions of the DLPO universality class alone but involve an additional assumption about v; this should be clarified in the text.
  5. [References] Reference [47] contains a typo: 'time crsytals' should be 'time crystals'.
  6. [Sec. VI] The phrase 'Given that our results here are in the regime in which the noise is sufficiently weak to preserve the coherence of the DTCs' is grammatically awkward; consider revising for clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the transition-delay exponent is constructed from the same KZM-form fit used to locate A_c, and the DLPO mapping for the SGM and DLM is imported from same-group citations.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix C (Eqs. C1-C2) with Eq. (15) and Sec. V]
    "We obtain the critical point by fitting the function A(tau_q)=a tau_q^{-b}+c on the scaling of <A(t_p)>. This is justified by how, in the KZM regime, it is predicted that ... A(t_p)=A_0 tau_q^{-1/(1+vz)}+A_c (C2) makes it apparent that the fitting parameters a and b corresponds to the scaling coefficients and exponents of epsilon(t_p), respectively, while the fitting parameter c corresponds to the critical point."

    By the ramp, A(t_p)=A_i+(A_f-A_i)t_p/tau_q, and Eq. (15) gives t_c=(A_c-A_i)tau_q/(A_f-A_i). Hence t_hat=t_p-t_c=tau_q(A(t_p)-A_c)/(A_f-A_i). If A(t_p) is fitted to Eq. (C2), A(t_p)-A_c=a tau_q^{-b}, so t_hat=(a/(A_f-A_i)) tau_q^{1-b}. The exponent beta_t extracted from t_hat is therefore 1-b by construction, using the same fit that determined A_c. The paper's claim that beta_t=1/2 confirms the DLPO prediction is a restatement of the fitted b=1/2; the observed power-law form of t_hat is not an independent check of KZM because the KZM form was used to define A_c. The specific value 1/2 is still free, so this is partial rather than total circularity.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. II after Eq. (6); Sec. III for the DLM]
    "As shown in Ref. [78], a huge class of systems that can form DTCs can be mapped onto a DLPO. ... since in this regime, the DLM can be mapped onto a DLPO [43, 77]."

    The paper's universality statement is conditional: 'if a system with dimension D>=1 can be mapped onto a DLPO, then the AI approximation must hold.' The placement of the SGM and DLM in this class is not rederived here; the text cites Ref. [78] for a 'huge class' of DTC systems and Refs. [43,77] for the DLM, with Refs. [78] and [43] sharing authors with the present paper. No effective DLPO parameters or a decoupling check for the lattice soft mode are supplied. Since the beta_t verification is itself partly constructed from the KZM-form fit (previous step), the same-author mapping citation is load-bearing for the claim that the two models belong to the DLPO universality class. This is a normal citation pattern, but it does not provide independent evidence within this paper.

full rationale

The analytic core is self-contained: the DLPO relaxation rate tau_+-=8(A_c+-A)^{-1} is derived in Appendix A, giving the vz=1 prediction without fitting. The KZM scalings of xi(t_p) and n_d are measured directly from spatial correlations and defect counts and do not use the A_c fit; these are independent evidence for KZM in the SGM and DLM. The circularity is confined to the transition-delay verification: t_c is obtained from a KZM-form fit to A(t_p), making beta_t=1-b by construction, so the reported beta_t=1/2 is a consistency check of the fit rather than a fully independent confirmation. The DLPO-mapping step also relies on same-group citations. Overall, the central derivation is not equivalent to its inputs, but the numerical confirmation of the universality class is partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard KZM assumptions, the DLPO mapping imported from Ref. [78], and the truncated Wigner approximation. The numerical protocol adds hand-set or fitted parameters: delta, A_c, and the correlation-fit offset c_0. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • delta threshold for transition-time detection = 0.15
    In Eq. (14), t_p is defined as the first time the summed order-parameter amplitude reaches delta times its maximum. This arbitrary threshold directly enters the transition delay t_hat and all extracted exponents, and its robustness is not tested.
  • Critical point A_c per model and DTC configuration
    A_c is obtained by fitting A(t_p) = a tau_q^{-b} + c to the numerical scaling, a KZM-derived form (Eq. C2). The fitted c is used to compute t_c via Eq. (15), so any bias in A_c propagates into t_hat and the extracted exponents.
  • Correlation-fit offset c_0 and wave vector k_r
    In Eq. (18), the correlation length xi(t_p) is extracted from a fit that includes a finite offset c_0 and an oscillation wave vector k_r. These are fitted to the same data, making xi dependent on the chosen fitting function.
  • Initial spin perturbation epsilon in DLM = 1e-6
    The truncated Wigner simulations initialize each site with S_x = epsilon N/2 (Eq. B3). This seeds symmetry breaking and could affect early-time dynamics, though it likely does not control the asymptotic scaling.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption KZM assumptions: t_hat is proportional to tau(A(t_p)) and n_d is proportional to xi(t_p)^{-(D-d_f)}.
    Used in Sec. II Eqs. (2)-(3) to translate critical slowing down into power-law scalings. These are standard KZM assumptions, but their validity for a dynamically ordered phase is part of what the paper tests.
  • domain assumption The SGM and DLM can be mapped onto a DLPO near the DTC transition, giving tau diverging as |A-A_c|^{-1}.
    Invoked after Eq. (6) in Sec. II and supported by the same-authors' prior Ref. [78], not rederived in this paper. If the mapping fails for either model, the analytic prediction vz=1 does not apply to it.
  • domain assumption The truncated Wigner approximation captures the critical scaling of the open quantum DLM.
    Appendix B replaces Lindblad dynamics with semiclassical stochastic equations that keep only first-order quantum corrections. The paper uses this as its quantum-regime verification but does not benchmark against exact small-system results, and it leaves the deep quantum regime to future work.
  • domain assumption Weak driving and weak dissipation limits for the DLPO: A << 1, gamma << Omega, omega_d = 2 Omega.
    The multi-scale solution in Appendix A and the relaxation-time expression Eq. (6) are valid only in these limits, and the simulations operate in this regime.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universality of dissipative discrete time crystal formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4PMIC6Z

@misc{pith2026250718950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universality of dissipative discrete time crystal formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4PMIC6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18950}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that the Kibble-Zurek mechanism (KZM) holds for open systems transitioning from a disordered phase to a discrete time crystal (DTC). Specifically, we observe the characteristic power-law scaling with quench time of the number of spatial defects and the transition delay measured from the time at which the system crosses the critical point. We show analytically that this universal behavior can be traced back to how systems that can be mapped onto a dissipative linear parametric oscillator (DLPO) satisfy the adiabatic-impulse (AI) approximation, evinced by the divergence of the relaxation time of the DLPO near a critical point. We verify our predictions in both the classical and quantum regimes by considering two systems: the Sine-Gordon model, which is a paradigmatic system for emulating classical DTCs; and the open Dicke lattice model, an array of spin-boson systems subject to quantum fluctuations. We establish a universality class for DTC formation in systems that can be mapped onto a DLPO and show that the classical and quantum models considered here belong to this class.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Sketch of the adiabatic-impulse approximation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a)–(b) Sketch of the (a) Sine-Gordon model and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a)–(b) Left panels show the exemplary spatiotem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Ratio of the scaling exponents of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a)–(b) Extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a)–(b) Left panels show the exemplary spatiotem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Exemplary defect dynamics of the DLM in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Prospect of Measuring the Cosmic Dipole by Associating Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves with Galaxy Surveys

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Simulations for Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer forecast that decade-scale samples of strongly lensed GWs can constrain the cosmic dipole magnitude at the few×10^{-3} level when combined with multi-image events.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [78]

    R. D. Jara Jr., D. F. Salinel, and J. G. Cosme, Theory of parametric resonance for discrete time crystals in fully connected spin-cavity systems, Phys. Rev. A109, 042212 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Some implications of a cosmological phase transition, Physics Reports67, 183 (1980)

    1980

  3. [2]

    W. H. Zurek, Cosmological experiments in superfluid he- 10 lium?, Nature317, 505 (1985)

    1985

  4. [3]

    W. H. Zurek, Cosmological experiments in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports276, 177 (1996)

    1996

  5. [4]

    V. M. H. Ruutu, V. B. Eltsov, A. J. Gill, T. W. B. Kib- ble, M. Krusius, Y. G. Makhlin, B. Pla¸ cais, G. E. Volovik, and W. Xu, Vortex formation in neutron-irradiated su- perfluid 3He as an analogue of cosmological defect for- mation, Nature382, 334 (1996)

    1996

  6. [5]

    del Campo and W

    A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, Universality of Phase Transition Dynamics: Topological Defects from Symme- try Breaking, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29, 1430018 (2014)

    2014

  7. [6]

    Lamporesi, S

    G. Lamporesi, S. Donadello, S. Serafini, F. Dalfovo, and G. Ferrari, Spontaneous creation of kibble-zurek soli- tons in a bose-einstein condensate, Nature Physics9, 656 (2013)

    2013

  8. [7]

    Chomaz, L

    L. Chomaz, L. Corman, T. Bienaim´ e,et al., Emergence of coherence via transverse condensation in a uniform quasi-two-dimensional bose gas, Nature Communications 6, 6162 (2015)

    2015

Show all 95 references
  1. [8]

    S. M. Griffin, M. Lilienblum, K. T. Delaney, Y. Kuma- gai, M. Fiebig, and N. A. Spaldin, Scaling behavior and beyond equilibrium in the hexagonal manganites, Phys. Rev. X2, 041022 (2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

    Q. Ye, S. Wu, X. Jiang, and C. Lee, Universal dynamics of zero-momentum to plane-wave transition in spin-orbit coupled Bose-Einstein condensates, J. Stat. Mech.2018, 053110 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Kang Liu, J

    I. Kang Liu, J. Dziarmaga, S.-C. Gou, F. Dalfovo, and N. P. Proukakis, Kibble-Zurek Dynamics in a Trapped Ultracold Bose Gas, Phys. Rev. Research2, 033183 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Navon, A

    N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Critical Dynamics of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in a Homogeneous Bose gas, Science347, 167 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    D. Nagy, G. Szirmai, and P. Domokos, Self-organization of a Bose-Einstein condensate in an optical cavity, Eur. Phys. J. D48, 127 (2008)

    2008

  6. [13]

    Shimizu, Y

    K. Shimizu, Y. Kuno, T. Hirano, and I. Ichinose, Dynam- ics of a quantum phase transition in the Bose-Hubbard model: Kibble-Zurek mechanism and beyond, Phys. Rev. A97, 033626 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    Dziarmaga and J

    J. Dziarmaga and J. M. Mazur, Tensor network simula- tion of the quantum Kibble-Zurek quench from the Mott to the superfluid phase in the two-dimensional Bose- Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B107, 144510 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    Anquez, B

    M. Anquez, B. Robbins, H. Bharath, M. Boguslawski, T. Hoang, and M. Chapman, Quantum Kibble-Zurek Mechanism in a Spin-1 Bose-Einstein Condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 155301 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Schmitt, M

    M. Schmitt, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, M. Heyl, and W. H. Zurek, Quantum phase transition dynamics in the two-dimensional transverse-field Ising model, Sci. Adv. 8, eabl6850 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Li, Y.-K

    B.-W. Li, Y.-K. Wu, Q.-X. Mei, R. Yao, W.-Q. Lian, M.- L. Cai, Y. Wang, B.-X. Qi, L. Yao, L. He, Z.-C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, Probing Critical Behavior of Long-Range Transverse-Field Ising Model through Quantum Kibble- Zurek Mechanism, PRX Quantum4, 010302 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    K. Du, X. Fang, C. Won, C. De, F.-T. Huang, W. Xu, H. You, F. J. G´ omez-Ruiz, A. del Campo, and S.-W. Cheong, Kibble–Zurek mechanism of Ising domains, Nat. Phys. 10.1038/s41567-023-02112-5 (2023)

    2023 doi

  12. [19]

    Keesling, A

    A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, P. Zoller, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum Kibble–Zurek mechanism and critical dynamics on a programmable Rydberg sim- ulator, Nat...

    2019

  13. [20]

    Chepiga and F

    N. Chepiga and F. Mila, Kibble-Zurek exponent and chi- ral transition of the period-4 phase of Rydberg chains, Nat Commun12, 414 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Cui, Y.-F

    J.-M. Cui, Y.-F. Huang, Z. Wang, D.-Y. Cao, J. Wang, W.-M. Lv, L. Luo, A. del Campo, Y.-J. Han, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Experimental Trapped-ion Quantum Simulation of the Kibble-Zurek dynamics in momentum space, Sci Rep6, 33381 (2016)

    2016

  15. [22]

    S. Ulm, J. Roßnagel, G. Jacob, C. Deg¨ unther, S. T. Dawkins, U. G. Poschinger, R. Nigmatullin, A. Retzker, M. B. Plenio, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and K. Singer, Observa- tion of the Kibble–Zurek scaling law for defect formation in ion crystals, Nat Commun4, 2290 (2013)

    2013

  16. [23]

    K. Pyka, J. Keller, H. L. Partner, R. Nigmatullin, T. Burgermeister, D. M. Meier, K. Kuhlmann, A. Ret- zker, M. B. Plenio, W. H. Zurek, A. del Campo, and T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, Topological defect formation and sponta- neous symmetry breaking in ion Coulomb crystals, Nat Commun4...

    2013

  17. [24]

    H. Yuan, J. Zhang, S. Chen, and X. Nie, Kibble-Zurek be- havior in a topological phase transition with a quadratic band crossing, Phys. Rev. B110, 165130 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    C. J. O. Reichhardt, A. del Campo, and C. Reichhardt, Kibble-Zurek mechanism for nonequilibrium phase tran- sitions in driven systems with quenched disorder, Com- mun Phys5, 1 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    Maegochi, K

    S. Maegochi, K. Ienaga, and S. Okuma, Kibble-Zurek Mechanism for Dynamical Ordering in a Driven Vortex System, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 227001 (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    W.-C. Yang, M. Tsubota, A. del Campo, and H.-B. Zeng, Universal defect density scaling in an oscillating dynamic phase transition, Phys. Rev. B108, 174518 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    L. W. Clark, L. Feng, and C. Chin, Universal space-time scaling symmetry in the dynamics of bosons across a quantum phase transition, Science354, 606 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    Russomanno and E

    A. Russomanno and E. G. D. Torre, Kibble-Zurek scaling in periodically driven quantum systems, EPL115, 30006 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    B. M. Anderson, L. W. Clark, J. Crawford, A. Glatz, I. S. Aranson, P. Scherpelz, L. Feng, C. Chin, and K. Levin, Direct lattice shaking of Bose condensates: Finite momentum superfluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 220401 (2017)

    2017

  24. [31]

    Zamani, J

    S. Zamani, J. Naji, R. Jafari, and A. Langari, Scaling and universality at ramped quench dynamical quantum phase transitions, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter36, 355401 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    Verstraelen and M

    W. Verstraelen and M. Wouters, Classical critical dynam- ics in quadratically driven Kerr resonators, Phys. Rev. A 101, 043826 (2020)

    2020

  26. [33]

    Sadeghizade, R

    S. Sadeghizade, R. Jafari, and A. Langari, Anti-Kibble- Zurek behavior in the quantum XY spin- 1 2 chain driven by correlated noisy magnetic field and anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B111, 104310 (2025)

    2025

  27. [34]

    Laguna and W

    P. Laguna and W. H. Zurek, Density of kinks after a quench: When symmetry breaks, how big are the pieces?, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2519 (1997)

    1997

  28. [35]

    Laguna and W

    P. Laguna and W. H. Zurek, Critical dynamics of sym- metry breaking: Quenches, dissipation, and cosmology, Phys. Rev. D58, 085021 (1998). 11

    1998

  29. [36]

    Suzuki and W

    F. Suzuki and W. H. Zurek, Deconstructing symmetry breaking dynamics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.122, e2523903122 (2025)

    2025

  30. [37]

    Rossini and E

    D. Rossini and E. Vicari, Dynamic Kibble-Zurek scaling framework for open dissipative many-body systems cross- ing quantum transitions, Phys. Rev. Research2, 023211 (2020)

    2020

  31. [38]

    Zamora, G

    A. Zamora, G. Dagvadorj, P. Comaron, I. Carusotto, N. P. Proukakis, and M. H. Szymanska, Kibble-Zurek mechanism in driven-dissipative systems crossing a non- equilibrium phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 095301 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    Puebla, A

    R. Puebla, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Universal Anti-Kibble-Zurek Scaling in Fully Connected Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 230602 (2020)

    2020

  33. [40]

    B´ acsi and B

    A. B´ acsi and B. D´ ora, Kibble–Zurek scaling due to envi- ronment temperature quench in the transverse field Ising model, Sci. Rep.13, 4034 (2023)

    2023

  34. [41]

    Klinder, H

    J. Klinder, H. Keßler, M. Wolke, L. Mathey, and A. Hem- merich, Dynamical phase transition in the open Dicke model, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA112, 3290 (2015)

    2015

  35. [42]

    Zeng, C.-Y

    H.-B. Zeng, C.-Y. Xia, and A. del Campo, Univer- sal breakdown of Kibble-Zurek scaling in fast quenches across a phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 060402 (2023)

    2023

  36. [43]

    R. D. Jara Jr. and J. G. Cosme, Apparent delay of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism in quenched open systems, Phys. Rev. B110, 064317 (2024)

    2024

  37. [44]

    Kou, Z.-H

    H.-C. Kou, Z.-H. Zhang, and P. Li, Kibble-Zurek scal- ing immune to anti-Kibble-Zurek behavior in driven open systems at the limit of loss difference, Phys. Rev. B111, 155152 (2025)

    2025

  38. [45]

    D. V. Else, C. Monroe, C. Nayak, and N. Y. Yao, Discrete time crystals, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 467 (2020)

    2020

  39. [46]

    M. P. Zaletel, M. Lukin, C. Monroe, C. Nayak, F. Wilczek, and N. Y. Yao,Colloquium: Quantum and classical discrete time crystals, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 031001 (2023)

    2023

  40. [47]

    T. L. Heugel, M. Oscity, A. Eichler, O. Zilberberg, and R. Chitra, Classical many-body time crsytals, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 124301 (2019)

    2019

  41. [48]

    N. Y. Yao, C. Nayak, L. Balents, and M. P. Zaletel, Clas- sical discrete time crystals, Nat. Phys.16, 438 (2020)

    2020

  42. [49]

    Z. G. Nicolaou and A. E. Motter, Anharmonic classical time crystals: A coresonance pattern formation mecha- nism, Phys. Rev. Research3, 023106 (2021)

    2021

  43. [50]

    T. L. Heugel, A. Eichler, R. Chitra, and O. Zilberberg, The role of fluctuations in quantum and classical time crystals, SciPost Phys. Core6, 053 (2023)

    2023

  44. [51]

    Yi-Thomas and J

    S. Yi-Thomas and J. D. Sau, Theory for dissipative time crystals in coupled parametric oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 266601 (2024)

    2024

  45. [52]

    Russomanno, F

    A. Russomanno, F. Iemini, M. Dalmonte, and R. Fazio, Floquet time crystal in the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. B95, 214307 (2017)

    2017

  46. [53]

    Euler, A

    N. Euler, A. Braemer, L. Benn, and M. G¨ arttner, Metronome spin stabilizes time-crystalline dynamics, Phys. Rev. B109, 224301 (2024)

    2024

  47. [54]

    Lazarides, S

    A. Lazarides, S. Roy, F. Piazza, and R. Moessner, Time crystallinity in dissipative Floquet systems, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 022002 (2020)

    2020

  48. [55]

    Frey and S

    P. Frey and S. Rachel, Realization of a discrete time crys- tal on 57 qubits of a quantum computer, Science Ad- vances8, eabm7652 (2022)

    2022

  49. [56]

    D. V. Else, B. Bauer, and C. Nayak, Floquet time crys- tals, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 090402 (2016)

    2016

  50. [57]

    Pizzi, J

    A. Pizzi, J. Knolle, and A. Nunnenkamp, Higher-order and fractional discrete time crystals in clean long-range interacting systems, Nat. Commun.12, 2341 (2021)

    2021

  51. [58]

    Chinzei and T

    K. Chinzei and T. N. Ikeda, Criticality and rigidity of dissipative discrete time crystals in solids, Phys. Rev. Re- search4, 023025 (2022)

    2022

  52. [59]

    Zhang, Y

    W. Zhang, Y. Wu, X. Qiu, J. Nan, and X. Li, Subex- ponential critical slowing-down at a Floquet time-crystal phase transition, Phys. Rev. B108, 014307 (2023)

    2023

  53. [60]

    O’Sullivan, O

    J. O’Sullivan, O. Lunt, C. W. Zollitsch, M. L. W. The- walt, J. J. L. Morton, and A. Pal, Signatures of discrete time crystalline order in dissipative spin ensembles, New J. Phys.22, 085001 (2020)

    2020

  54. [61]

    Liu, S.-X

    S. Liu, S.-X. Zhang, C.-Y. Hsieh, S. Zhang, and H. Yao, Discrete time crystal enabled by Stark many-body local- ization, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 120403 (2023)

    2023

  55. [62]

    Pizzi, J

    A. Pizzi, J. Knolle, and A. Nunnenkamp, Period-n discrete time crystals and quasicrystals with ultracold bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 150601 (2019)

    2019

  56. [63]

    L. R. Bakker, M. S. Bahovadinov, D. V. Kurlov, V. Grit- sev, A. K. Fedorov, and D. O. Krimer, Driven-dissipative time crystalline phases in a two-mode bosonic system with Kerr nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 250401 (2022)

    2022

  57. [64]

    Kongkhambut, H

    P. Kongkhambut, H. Keßler, J. Skulte, L. Mathey, J. G. Cosme, and A. Hemmerich, Realization of a periodically driven open three-level Dicke model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 253601 (2021)

    2021

  58. [65]

    Skulte, P

    J. Skulte, P. Kongkhambut, H. Keßler, A. Hemmerich, L. Mathey, and J. G. Cosme, Parametrically driven dissi- pative three-level Dicke model, Phys. Rev. A104, 063705 (2021)

    2021

  59. [66]

    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

  60. [67]

    R. J. L. Tuquero, J. Skulte, L. Mathey, and J. G. Cosme, Dissipative time crystal in an atom-cavity system: Influ- ence of trap and competing interactions, Phys. Rev. A 105, 043311 (2022)

    2022

  61. [68]

    J. G. Cosme, J. Skulte, and L. Mathey, Time crystals in a shaken atom-cavity system, Phys. Rev. A100, 053615 (2019)

    2019

  62. [69]

    Taheri, A

    H. Taheri, A. B. Matsko, L. Maleki, and K. Sacha, All- optical dissipative discrete time crystals, Nat Commun 13, 848 (2022)

    2022

  63. [70]

    H. P. O. Collado, G. Usaj, C. A. Balseiro, D. H. Zanette, and J. Lorenzana, Dynamical phase transitions in peri- odically driven bardeen-cooper-schrieffer systems, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023014 (2023)

    2023

  64. [71]

    H. P. Ojeda Collado, G. Usaj, C. A. Balseiro, D. H. Zanette, and J. Lorenzana, Emergent parametric res- onances and time-crystal phases in driven Bardeen- Cooper-Schrieffer systems, Phys. Rev. Research3, L042023 (2021)

    2021

  65. [72]

    Homann, J

    G. Homann, J. G. Cosme, and L. Mathey, Higgs time crystal in a high-Tc superconductor, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043214 (2020)

    2020

  66. [73]

    Kuro´ s, R

    A. Kuro´ s, R. Mukherjee, W. Golletz, F. Sauvage, K. Giergiel, F. Mintert, and K. Sacha, Phase diagram and optimal control for n-tupling discrete time crystal, New J. Phys.22, 095001 (2020). 12

    2020

  67. [74]

    Giergiel, T

    K. Giergiel, T. Tran, A. Zaheer, A. Singh, A. Sidorov, K. Sacha, and P. Hannaford, Creating big time crystals with ultracold atoms, New J. Phys.22, 085004 (2020)

    2020

  68. [75]

    Simula, Droplet time crystals, Phys

    T. Simula, Droplet time crystals, Phys. Scr.98, 035004 (2023)

    2023

  69. [76]

    Nie and W

    X. Nie and W. Zheng, Mode softening in time-crystalline transitions of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A107, 033311 (2023)

    2023

  70. [77]

    L. Zou, D. Marcos, S. Diehl, S. Putz, J. Schmiedmayer, J. Majer, and P. Rabl, Implementation of the Dicke lat- tice model in hybrid quantum system arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 023603 (2014)

    2014

  71. [79]

    Kovacic, R

    I. Kovacic, R. Rand, and S. M. Sah, Mathieu’s equation and its generalizations: Overview of stability charts and their features, Appl. Mech. Rev.70, 020802 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dynamics, Ann

    A. Polkovnikov, Phase space representation of quantum dynamics, Ann. Phys.325, 1790 (2010)

    2010

  73. [81]

    Apffel and R

    B. Apffel and R. Fleury, Experimental observation of topological transition in linear and nonlinear paramet- ric oscillators, Phys. Rev. E109, 054204 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    R. D. Jara, P. Kongkhambut, H. Keßler, A. Hemmerich, and J. G. Cosme, Controlled bit flip of period-doubling and discrete time crystalline states in open systems, Phys. Rev. B112, 024303 (2025)

    2025

  75. [83]

    W. Chen, W. Lin, and Y. Zhu, Onset instability of a parametrically excited pendulum array, Phys. Rev. E75, 016606 (2007)

    2007

  76. [84]

    Mestre, S

    L. Mestre, S. Singh, G. Margiani, L. Catalini, A. Eich- ler, and V. Dumont, A network of parametrically driven silicon nitride mechanical membranes (2025), arXiv:2506.00850

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Iyama, T

    D. Iyama, T. Kamiya, S. Fujii, H. Mukai, Y. Zhou, T. Na- gase, A. Tomonaga, R. Wang, J.-J. Xue, S. Watabe, S. Kwon, and J.-S. Tsai, Observation and manipulation of quantum interference in a superconducting Kerr para- metric oscillator, Nat Commun15, 86 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    D. H. White, S. Kato, N. Nemet, S. Parkins, and T. Aoki, Cavity dark mode of distant coupled atom-cavity sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 253603 (2019)

    2019

  79. [87]

    Ams¨ uss, C

    R. Ams¨ uss, C. Koller, T. N¨ obauer, S. Putz, S. Rot- ter, K. Sandner, S. Schneider, M. Schramb¨ ock, G. Stein- hauser, H. Ritsch, J. Schmiedmayer, and J. Majer, Cav- ity QED with magnetically coupled collective spin states, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 060502 (2011)

    2011

  80. [88]

    Scigliuzzo, G

    M. Scigliuzzo, G. Calaj` o, F. Ciccarello, D. Perez Lozano, A. Bengtsson, P. Scarlino, A. Wallraff, D. Chang, P. Dels- ing, and S. Gasparinetti, Controlling atom-photon bound states in an array of Josephson-junction resonators, Phys. Rev. X12, 031036 (2022)

    2022

  81. [89]

    Astner, S

    T. Astner, S. Nevlacsil, N. Peterschofsky, A. Angerer, S. Rotter, S. Putz, J. Schmiedmayer, and J. Majer, Co- herent coupling of remote spin ensembles via a cavity bus, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 140502 (2017)

    2017

  82. [90]

    Y. Liu, J. You, and Q. Hou, Entanglement dynamics of Nitrogen-vacancy centers spin ensembles coupled to a su- perconducting resonator, Sci Rep6, 21775 (2016)

    2016

  83. [91]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Biella, N. Bartolo, and C. Ciuti, Spectral theory of Liouvillians for dissipative phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A98, 042118 (2018)

    2018

  84. [92]

    Nikoghosyan, R

    G. Nikoghosyan, R. Nigmatullin, and M. B. Plenio, Uni- versality in the dynamics of second-order phase transi- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 080601 (2016)

    2016

  85. [93]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Classification of topological defects and their relevance to cosmology and elsewhere, inTopological Defects and the Non-Equilibrium Dynamics of Symmetry Breaking Phase Transitions, edited by Y. M. Bunkov and H. Godfrin (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2000) pp. 7–31

    2000

  86. [94]

    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

  87. [95]

    M. K. Olsen and A. S. Bradley, Numerical representation of quantum states in the positive-P and Wigner represen- tations, Opt. Commun.282, 3924 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

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