Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 45 references

Parallel analog quantum simulation in homogeneous quantum gases

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single ultracold Fermi gas can be split into multiple independent quantum simulators in one experimental run.

desk verdict First real multiplexed bulk-gas quantum simulator; the independence claim is asserted more than measured, but the indirect evidence is strong and the paper earns a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14977 v1 pith:EYHK4M6R submitted 2026-07-16 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph

Diego Hernández Rajkov , Alberto Terenzi , Marcia Frómeta Fernández , Nicola Grani , Massimo Inguscio , Giulia Del Pace , Giacomo Roati This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph PACS 67.85.Lm03.75.Lm
keywords analogquantumsimulationhomogeneousFermigasesultracoldatomsunitsJosephsonjunctionunitarygasdigitalmicromirrordevicesboxpotentials
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 claims that a single three-dimensional homogeneous ultracold Fermi gas can be dynamically partitioned into an array of independent mesoscopic quantum-simulation units (QSUs), each with locally tunable temperature, density, phase, and potential landscape. The authors show that this multiplexed architecture works in two representative settings: preparing three sub-systems at different temperatures across the superfluid transition of the unitary Fermi gas, and operating nine independent atomic Josephson junctions with individually tuned barriers and phase control. The central benefit is that many many-body parameter points can be explored simultaneously in a single experimental cycle, instead of one per cycle, which suppresses slow drifts and enables direct same-shot comparisons. If the independence of the QSUs holds, this constitutes a scalable route to parallel analog quantum simulation in bulk quantum gases.

What carries the argument

The enabling mechanism is a pair of digital micromirror devices (DMDs) that project repulsive optical potentials forming a box trap. By dynamically reshaping the projected pattern over hundreds of milliseconds, the initial box is partitioned into smaller boxes using a generalized Voronoi construction that equalizes atom numbers across units. Local control is achieved by modulating the vertical DMD pattern to perform independent evaporative cooling ramps on each QSU, while local phase control in the Josephson junctions is imposed by briefly applying a spatially uniform light shift to one reservoir. Synchronous readout combines in-situ imaging with a compact RF coil that delivers simultaneous

What would settle it

Measure the cross-correlation of density fluctuations or the relative phase between two adjacent QSUs over many experimental runs: if the two units show correlated shot-to-shot fluctuations beyond the global atom-number drift, or if an oscillation imprinted in one unit is detectable in its neighbour, the claimed independence fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates a scalable approach to parallel analog quantum simulation using three-dimensional homogeneous ultracold Fermi gases. By dynamically reshaping box-like optical potentials, a single atomic cloud is transformed into multiple independent, homogeneous QSUs, each with locally tunable density, temperature, and potential landscape. This is established in two experiments: first, three QSUs are prepared at different temperatures across the superfluid transition, and their thermal states are measured simultaneously by radio-frequency spectroscopy; second, nine QSUs implement atomic Josephson junctions with barrier heights varying across the weak-link-to-tunneling crossover, and t

Load-bearing premise

The QSUs are truly independent: the 8 µm (≈22 k_F^-1) separation between subsystems prevents any atom transfer, density wave, or phase coherence between units, and the splitting ramp is quasi-adiabatic so that no residual excitations compromise homogeneity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multiple many-body parameter points — temperatures, barrier heights, densities — can be scanned in a single experimental cycle, with throughput growing linearly with the number of QSUs.
  • The multiplexed Josephson-junction array allows direct, same-shot comparison of the weak-link to tunneling crossover, including the approach to EJ ~ EC where quantum phase fluctuations dominate.
  • Synchronous acquisition across replicas suppresses slow experimental drifts, effectively realizing a small canonical ensemble even as global atom number drifts.
  • The architecture extends naturally to other species, geometries, and dimensionalities, and provides a route to heat and particle transport studies between reservoirs at different phase-diagram points.
  • Combining QSUs at different temperatures or chemical potentials enables quantum thermodynamics and atomic heat-engine experiments within one device.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the independence assumption holds at scale, this parallel architecture should cut the wall-clock time for mapping a many-body phase diagram roughly in proportion to the number of units — a qualitative advance over simply accelerating single experimental cycles.
  • The quoted 8 µm separation (~22 k_F^-1) suggests a practical scaling limit: as QSU count grows, the total cloud size grows and the residual magnetic curvature in the box will eventually compromise homogeneity, so arrays of order ten units may be near the practical ceiling with current box sizes.
  • The same DMD shaping could be repurposed to create controllable couplings between neighbouring units, turning the array into a synthetic lattice of Josephson junctions — a direction the paper does not pursue but that its hardware makes directly testable.
  • The method's portability to bosonic or dipolar gases is plausible, but the independence condition (no phase coherence across QSUs) is more stringent for a Bose-Einstein condensate, so the protocol may need longer separation ramps or higher barriers there.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental platform for multiplexed analog quantum simulation using homogeneous ultracold Fermi gases in optical box potentials shaped by two digital micromirror devices (DMDs). It demonstrates three capabilities: (i) dynamically splitting a single cloud into multiple homogeneous quantum-simulation units (QSUs) with controlled atom numbers and low replica-to-replica fluctuations; (ii) preparing QSUs at different T/T_F across the unitary Fermi gas superfluid transition, using local evaporative cooling and in situ RF thermometry; and (iii) operating nine atomic Josephson junctions in parallel with individually tunable barrier heights, extracting oscillation frequencies, damping rates, and E_J/E_C ratios, and characterizing the current–phase relation. The authors claim this is the first multiplexed bulk-gas quantum simulator, enabling simultaneous exploration of several many-body parameter points in one experimental cycle.

Significance. If the independence and control claims hold, this is a significant advance for ultracold-atom quantum simulation: it allows several parameter points to be probed in a single cycle, mitigates slow experimental drifts, and permits direct comparisons across replicas. The experimental data are generally of good quality: the homogeneity histograms (Fig. 2b), atom-number reproducibility (Fig. 2c), RF spectra spanning T_c (Fig. 3), and current–phase relations with tunable frequency (Fig. 4) are convincing. The main weakness is that the 'independence' of the QSUs is asserted from geometry and not directly bounded; this is testable and should be addressed. The work is likely to be influential if the crosstalk concern is resolved.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II and Sec. IV] The central claim of 'full independence' between QSUs is not quantitatively supported. The 8 µm separation (~22 k_F^{-1}) and the quasi-adiabatic ramp are plausible but do not bound crosstalk from particle exchange, thermal contact, or residual phase coherence. In the Josephson-junction array (Sec. IV), the isolation barriers between QSUs are not characterized; if their height is comparable to the tunable intra-junction barrier (V0/μ = 1–4), inter-QSU tunneling could contaminate the dynamics in Fig. 4. Please add a direct crosstalk measurement (e.g., atom loss from a QSU with imbalanced chemical potential, or correlations between adjacent QSUs) or a quantitative tunneling-rate bound, and explicitly quote the isolation-barrier heights.
  2. [Sec. III] The extracted T/T_F values in Fig. 3d are reported without error bars or a systematic uncertainty budget. The paper claims three distinct regimes (above, near, and below T_c = 0.16 T_F); without uncertainties, the reader cannot assess whether the separation is statistically meaningful. Please provide confidence intervals, including the systematic effect of low Fermi energy mentioned in the text, or show error bars in the figure.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption / Sec. II] The caption says 'projected along the vertical (DMD v) and horizontal (DMDh)', while Sec. II states 'DMD h provides vertical confinement... DMDv defines the in-plane geometry'. Please harmonize the notation.
  2. [Sec. II] 'ensuring full independence throughout QSUs' should read 'between QSUs'.
  3. [Sec. IV] In the definition E_C ≈ 4g/V, specify that V is the total volume of both reservoirs; otherwise the factor 4 appears to conflict with E_C = 2(∂µ/∂N)_V. A one-sentence clarification would resolve this.
  4. [Abstract / Sec. IV] The abstract claims 'local phase control to initialize the dynamics', but in the demonstrated experiment all QSUs are prepared with the same φ0. The capability for independent phase patterns is stated, not demonstrated. Please adjust the wording to distinguish capability from demonstration.
  5. [Sec. IV] 'nine-site array' is ambiguous; use 'array of nine QSUs'.
  6. [Conclusions] Typo: 'to increased the experimental throughput' should be 'to increase'.
  7. [Fig. 2c] The claim that atom-number fluctuations between replicas are 'below the shot-to-shot fluctuation level' would benefit from a quantitative value (e.g., standard deviation across replicas versus across runs).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: multiplexing is experimentally demonstrated; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental demonstration, not a derivation. Temperature extraction uses external RF calibration spectra from Ref. [26] together with a density-derived T_F; the extracted T/T_F values are compared with an external critical-temperature value T_c = 0.16(1)T_F, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The Josephson analysis fits oscillation frequency and damping from measured imbalance dynamics, but then compares these to external theory/benchmarks: E_C ≈ 4g/V from Ref. [35], ω_s = πc_s/L_x from Refs. [36,37], and the diffusive damping scale D0k_L^2 from Refs. [25,38-40]. The critical current is extracted from the standard current-phase relation j0 = jc sin φ0, not from a self-referential fit. Self-citations [24,25,30,33,34] support apparatus, Feshbach-regime context, and experimental methods; Ref. [25] appears alongside external Refs. [38-40] for the damping scale, so it is not the unique load-bearing source. The one genuinely untested assumption is QSU independence: Sec. II asserts that the 8 μm (~22 k_F^{-1}) separation 'ensur[es] full independence throughout QSUs' and calls the splitting ramp quasi-adiabatic, but no direct crosstalk measurement is reported, and footnote [40] admits the dissipation mechanism 'is currently being addressed'. This is a correctness risk, not a circular step, because the claim is not made true by definition. Overall circularity is therefore minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an experimental capability demonstration. It rests on standard cold-atom physics (box potentials, RF spectroscopy, Josephson dynamics) plus a few domain assumptions: local thermal equilibrium in each QSU, transferability of an external RF thermometry calibration, independence of the QSUs, and validity of the two-mode Josephson model. The fiducial parameters extracted from fits (oscillation frequencies, damping, critical currents) are empirical characterizations rather than inputs forced to yield the claimed results.

free parameters (3)
  • Damped-oscillation fit parameters per QSU (A, γ, ω, φ) = Varies per junction; e.g., ω/ω_s from ~1 to ~0.2
    Extracted by fitting imbalance dynamics to Ae^{-γt/2} sin(...); these characterize the data but are not inputs to the multiplexing claim.
  • Critical current density scale j_c (reported via E_J/E_C) = E_J/E_C decreases from ~2 to ~1 as V0/μ goes 1→4
    Obtained by fitting j0 = j_c sin φ0 to the measured initial current vs imprinted phase; standard characterization, not a model input.
  • Barrier heights V0/μ = V0/μ = 1 to 4 across nine QSUs
    Chosen by hand to span weak-link to tunneling crossover; a control parameter, not a fitted constant.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Local thermal equilibrium within each QSU (RF spectral response is a valid thermometric observable)
    Sec III; the authors state agreement 'supports the assumption that each unit is locally in thermal equilibrium'.
  • domain assumption The calibration dataset of Ref [26] for homogeneous unitary Fermi gas applies to each QSU
    Sec III; measured spectra are compared to calibrated reference spectra from Ref [26].
  • domain assumption QSU independence: 8 μm (≈22 k_F^{-1}) separation and quasi-adiabatic splitting eliminate crosstalk between subsystems
    Sec II; central to the multiplexing claim.
  • domain assumption Two-mode Josephson Hamiltonian describes each junction in the BEC regime
    Sec IV; the paper applies E_J/E_C relations from Zaccanti & Zwerger [35].
  • domain assumption Phase imprinting with a 100 μs potential pulse imprints a relative phase φ0 without perturbing the density
    Sec IV; required for triggering Josephson dynamics.
  • domain assumption Atom redistribution during splitting is quasi-adiabatic
    Sec II; 'ramp duration greatly exceeds the characteristic many-body time scale ħ/E_F'.
  • standard math Standard BEC/scattering relations (healing length, sound frequency ω_s = π c_s/L_x)
    Used to normalize Josephson data in Fig 4d.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parallel analog quantum simulation in homogeneous quantum gases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYHK4M6R

@misc{pith2026260714977,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parallel analog quantum simulation in homogeneous quantum gases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYHK4M6R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14977}
}
read the original abstract

Analog quantum simulation offers a powerful way to study strongly correlated quantum systems that are beyond the reach of classical computation. In this context, ultracold atomic gases have been demonstrated to be an exceptionally versatile and well-controlled platform for implementing various quantum Hamiltonians. In this work, we extend this level of control to a multiplexed configuration in which distinct quantum-simulation units are independently controlled and engineered starting from a single atomic cloud. We demonstrate multiplexed operation in two representative settings. First, by shaping box-trap potentials and separately controlling the evaporative cooling trajectories, we prepare subsystems at various temperatures across the superfluid transition of the unitary Fermi gas. Second, we demonstrate parallel quantum simulation of the Josephson Hamiltonian across distinct Josephson-junction quantum simulation units with individually tunable parameters, including local phase control to initialize the dynamics. Our scheme provides a versatile route toward systematic studies of dynamics and transport Hamiltonians in strongly correlated ultracold matter. Moreover, it is readily extendable to a wide range of atomic species, geometries, and dimensionalities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14977 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka,Quantum theory of many-particle systems(Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Doyon, S

    B. Doyon, S. Gopalakrishnan, F. Møller, J. Schmied- mayer, and R. Vasseur, Physical Review X15, 010501 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Brandstetter, P

    S. Brandstetter, P. Lunt, C. Heintze, G. Giacalone, L. H. Heyen, M. Ga lka, K. Subramanian, M. Holten, P. M. Preiss, S. Floerchinger, and S. Jochim, Nature Physics 21, 52 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Navon, R

    N. Navon, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Nature Physics17, 1334 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    A. L. Gaunt, T. F. Schmidutz, I. Gotlibovych, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Physical Review Letters110, 200406 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Mukherjee, Z

    B. Mukherjee, Z. Yan, P. B. Patel, Z. Hadzibabic, T. Yef- sah, J. Struck, and M. W. Zwierlein, Physical Review Letters118, 123401 (2017). 8

    2017

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    X. Li, S. Wang, X. Luo, Y.-Y. Zhou, K. Xie, H.-C. Shen, Y.-Z. Nie, Q. Chen, H. Hu, Y.-A. Chen, X.-C. Yao, and J.-W. Pan, Nature626, 288 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Verstraten, K

    J. Verstraten, K. Dai, M. Dixmerias, B. Peaudecerf, T. de Jongh, and T. Yefsah, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 083403 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Hammel, M

    T. Hammel, M. Kaiser, D. Dux, P. M. Preiss, M. Wei- dem¨ uller, and S. Jochim, A modular quantum gas plat- form (2025), arXiv:2501.08211 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    N. Jain, J. Zhang, M. Culemann, and P. M. Preiss, Programmable Assembly of Ground State Fermionic Tweezer Arrays (2025), arXiv:2512.09849 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Vendeiro, J

    Z. Vendeiro, J. Ramette, A. Rudelis, M. Chong, J. Sin- clair, L. Stewart, A. Urvoy, and V. Vuleti´ c, Physical Re- view Research4, 043216 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Otoishi, S

    H. Otoishi, S. Nagata, T. Yukawa, K. Yamashita, and T. Kinoshita, Physical Review A102, 023316 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Hetzel, M

    M. Hetzel, M. Quensen, J. S. Haase, and C. Klempt, Physical Review A111, L061301 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    C.-C. Chen, R. Gonz´ alez Escudero, J. Min´ aˇ r, B. Pasquiou, S. Bennetts, and F. Schreck, Nature 606, 683 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Huang, S

    Y. Huang, S. Nagata, J. Jachinowski, J. Hu, and C. Chin, Physical Review Research6, 043272 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gul- lans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, M. Cain, ...

    2026

  11. [19]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semegh- ini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

    2024

  12. [20]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Schine, A

    N. Schine, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, M. J. Martin, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature Physics18, 1067 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, W. R. Milner, D. Kedar, M. A. Norcia, E. Oelker, N. Schine, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature588, 408 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    W. J. Eckner, N. Darkwah Oppong, A. Cao, A. W. Young, W. R. Milner, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature621, 734 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hern´ andez-Rajkov, N

    D. Hern´ andez-Rajkov, N. Grani, F. Scazza, G. Del Pace, W. J. Kwon, M. Inguscio, K. Xhani, C. Fort, M. Mod- ugno, F. Marino, and G. Roati, Nat. Phys.20, 939 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Fr´ ometa Fern´ andez, D

    M. Fr´ ometa Fern´ andez, D. Hern´ andez-Rajkov, G. Del Pace, N. Grani, M. Inguscio, F. Scazza, S. Stringari, and G. Roati, Angular momentum of rotating fermionic superfluids by sagnac phonon inter- ferometry (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Mukherjee, P

    B. Mukherjee, P. B. Patel, Z. Yan, R. J. Fletcher, J. Struck, and M. W. Zwierlein, Physical Review Letters 122, 203402 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Z. Yan, P. B. Patel, B. Mukherjee, C. J. Vale, R. J. Fletcher, and M. W. Zwierlein, Science383, 629 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Y. Ji, J. Chen, G. L. Schumacher, G. G. T. Assump¸ c˜ ao, S. Huang, F. J. Vivanco, and N. Navon, Physical Review Letters132, 153402 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    X. Li, X. Luo, S. Wang, K. Xie, X.-P. Liu, H. Hu, Y.- A. Chen, X.-C. Yao, and J.-W. Pan, Science375, 528 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Scazza, G

    F. Scazza, G. Del Pace, L. Pieri, R. Concas, W. J. Kwon, and G. Roati, Review of Scientific Instruments 96, 104713 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    J. Chen, S. Huang, Y. Ji, G. L. Schumacher, A. Tsidilkovski, A. Schuckert, G. G. T. Assump¸ c˜ ao, and N. Navon, Nat. Phys. (2026)

    2026

  24. [32]

    Clarke, A

    J. Clarke, A. N. Cleland, M. H. Devoret, D. Esteve, and J. M. Martinis, Science239, 992 (1988)

    1988

  25. [33]

    W. J. Kwon, G. Del Pace, R. Panza, M. Inguscio, W. Zw- erger, M. Zaccanti, F. Scazza, and G. Roati, Science369, 84 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Del Pace, W

    G. Del Pace, W. J. Kwon, M. Zaccanti, G. Roati, and F. Scazza, Physical Review Letters126, 055301 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Zaccanti and W

    M. Zaccanti and W. Zwerger, Physical Review A100, 063601 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Luick, L

    N. Luick, L. Sobirey, M. Bohlen, V. P. Singh, L. Mathey, T. Lompe, and H. Moritz, Science369, 89 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    V. P. Singh, E. Bernhart, M. R¨ ohrle, H. Ott, L. Mathey, and L. Amico, Weak-link to tunneling regime in a 3D atomic Josephson junction (2025), arXiv:2509.03591 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    P. B. Patel, Z. Yan, B. Mukherjee, R. J. Fletcher, J. Struck, and M. W. Zwierlein, Science370, 1222 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    T. A. Hilker, L. H. Dogra, C. Eigen, J. A. P. Glidden, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Physical Review Letters 128, 223601 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    A detailed investigation of the underlying dissipation mechanisms in the Josephson dynamics is currently being addressed

  33. [41]

    Washburn, R

    S. Washburn, R. A. Webb, R. F. Voss, and S. M. Faris, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 2712 (1985)

    1985

  34. [42]

    H¨ ausler, P

    S. H¨ ausler, P. Fabritius, J. Mohan, M. Lebrat, L. Cor- man, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. X.11(2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Huang, P

    M.-Z. Huang, P. Fabritius, J. Mohan, M. Talebi, S. Wili, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 253403 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Campbell, I

    S. Campbell, I. D’Amico, M. A. Ciampini, J. Anders, N. Ares, S. Artini, A. Auff` eves, L. B. Oftelie, L. P. Bettmann, M. V. S. Bonan¸ ca, T. Busch, M. Campisi, M. F. Cavalcante, L. A. Correa, E. Cuestas, C. B. Dag, S. Dago, S. Deffner, A. del Campo, A. Deutschmann- Olek, S. Do...

    2025

  37. [45]

    J. Koch, K. Menon, E. Cuestas, S. Barbosa, E. Lutz, T. Fogarty, T. Busch, and A. Widera, Nature621, 723 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.