Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Distinguishing dual lattice by strong-pulse matter-wave diffraction

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A strong-pulse Kapitza-Dirac kick makes honeycomb and hexagonal optical lattices produce clearly different matter-wave diffraction patterns, breaking Babinet's principle.

desk verdict Real, reproducible distinction of dual lattices via strong-pulse diffraction, but the phase-wrapping mechanism claim is inaccurate: the effect actually relies on kinetic corrections outside the strict Raman-Nath phase-grating limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16592 v1 pith:FY3QM72J submitted 2025-07-22 cond-mat.quant-gas

Fangde Liu , Wei Han , Yunda Li , Feifan Zhao , Liangchao Chen , Lianghui Huang , Pengjun Wang , Zengming Meng
show 1 more author
Jing Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords Kapitza-DiracdiffractionBose-EinsteincondensateopticallatticeBabinet'sprinciplehoneycombhexagonalRaman-Nathregimephasewrapping
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 reports an experimental distinction between two 'dual' optical lattices, honeycomb and hexagonal, whose potentials are sign flips of one another; Babinet's principle in optics says such complementary objects should diffract identically apart from overall intensity. In the weak-pulse Kapitza-Dirac diffraction of a Bose-Einstein condensate, the two lattices are indeed indistinguishable. In the strong-pulse Raman-Nath regime the patterns split: honeycomb gives a star-shaped time-of-flight image, hexagonal gives a regular hexagon. Full Schrödinger-equation simulations reproduce the measured patterns, and the authors attribute the split to phase wrapping that encodes local lattice symmetry into higher-order momentum peaks. If correct, strong-pulse diffraction becomes a momentum-space fingerprint for telling lattice geometries apart without resolving them in real space.

What carries the argument

The central object is a phase-wrapped matter-wave phase grating: in the Raman-Nath regime, where the pulse is short compared with the recoil time, a laser pulse imprints a phase $V(\mathbf{r})\tau/\hbar$ on the condensate wavefunction, and when $V_0\tau/\hbar>2\pi$ the phase winds by more than one cycle inside a unit cell. This subwavelength winding is what the paper uses to turn local real-space structure into higher-order momentum peaks. The comparison objects are the dual honeycomb and hexagonal lattice potentials, which differ only by an overall sign yet place atoms at different Wyckoff positions (inequivalent high-symmetry sites in the unit cell); those positions fix the local gradient directions seen by the atoms and hence the shape of the far-field diffraction pattern.

What would settle it

Run the same diffraction calculation at fixed $V_0\tau/\hbar=2.47\times2\pi$ while shortening $\tau$ (and raising $V_0$ to keep the product fixed) so $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{lim}}\to0$; if the star-versus-hexagon difference fades to identical patterns, the claimed phase-wrapping mechanism is falsified and kinetic-energy corrections are the cause. A companion check is to evolve the pure phase-grating model $e^{\pm iV(\mathbf{r})\tau/\hbar}$ with the kinetic term deleted; for exact sign-flipped dual potentials the two intensity patterns should coincide.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that Babinet's principle for dual lattices is not universal in matter-wave diffraction: it holds for weak Kapitza-Dirac pulses and fails for strong pulses. At a fixed pulse duration of $\tau=7\,\mu\mathrm{s}$, as the lattice depth grows to $V_0=95\,E_r$ (so $V_0\tau/\hbar=2.47\times2\pi$), time-of-flight images of a $^{87}\mathrm{Rb}$ Bose-Einstein condensate show a star-shaped pattern for the honeycomb lattice and a hexagonal pattern for the hexagonal lattice; at $V_0=23\,E_r$ with the same duration the patterns are indistinguishable. The paper attributes the difference to phase wrapping: atoms sitting at inequivalent Wyckoff positions of the two lattices experience different local potential gradients, and the steep six-directional gradients of the honeycomb lattice select high-order momentum states along six rays, while the continuous rotational symmetry around the hexagonal site yields a uniform hexagon. Full Schrödinger-equation evolution reproduces the measured patterns. Tuning the polarizability ratio $\alpha^{(0)}/\alpha^{(1)}$ by wavelength continuously moves between these structures and also distinguishes $C_3$-symmetric lattices.

Load-bearing premise

The argument treats the honeycomb and hexagonal potentials as exact sign flips and assumes the finite pulse still behaves as a pure phase grating; if kinetic-energy motion during the pulse is actually what creates the different patterns, the phase-wrapping explanation loses its footing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single strong pulse can identify whether an optical lattice is honeycomb or hexagonal from the shape of its diffraction pattern, with no need for real-space imaging of the lattice.
  • Wavelength scans of the asymmetry parameter $S$ locate the exactly honeycomb and hexagonal configurations where $\alpha^{(0)}/\alpha^{(1)}=\pm1$, turning lattice-geometry identification into a spectroscopic measurement.
  • The same mechanism distinguishes $C_3$-symmetric and other reduced-symmetry lattice structures, as demonstrated for triangular lattices in the supplementary material.
  • Since optical implementations of dual lattices cannot reach the strong-pulse regime, ultracold-atom matter-wave diffraction is positioned as the practical place where Babinet's principle for complementary lattices can be tested and broken.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cleanest reading of the mechanism is likely kinetic: in the ideal phase-grating limit $e^{iV\tau/\hbar}$ and $e^{-iV\tau/\hbar}$ give the same intensities for sign-flipped dual potentials, so the observed star-versus-hexagon difference must be carried by kinetic-energy corrections that are sizable at $\tau/\tau_{\mathrm{lim}}\approx0.5$; the paper leaves this boundary unquantified.
  • If so, the useful operating window is a trade-off: the pulse must be strong enough to populate high orders, yet long enough relative to the recoil time for kinetic corrections to break the sign-flip symmetry; scanning this window would yield a quantitative phase diagram for Babinet breaking.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same pulse-shaping idea to other complementary structures, such as square versus checkerboard or triangular versus kagome dual pairs, to see whether the pattern shapes remain generic fingerprints of Wyckoff-position symmetry.
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 manuscript reports Kapitza–Dirac diffraction of 87Rb Bose–Einstein condensates in dual honeycomb and hexagonal optical lattices. The authors observe that in the weak-pulse regime the momentum-space diffraction patterns of the two lattices are indistinguishable, consistent with Babinet's principle, whereas for a strong pulse (V0=95Er, τ=7μs) the honeycomb lattice produces a star-shaped pattern and the hexagonal lattice a regular hexagonal pattern. The experimental time-of-flight images are compared with full Schrödinger-equation simulations and show good agreement. The authors attribute the difference to phase wrapping of the matter wave in the strong-pulse Raman–Nath regime, with atoms at different Wyckoff positions experiencing different local potential gradients.

Significance. The experimental observation is potentially valuable: strong-pulse Kapitza–Dirac diffraction provides a momentum-space fingerprint that can distinguish dual lattice geometries that are hard to separate in real-space imaging, and the full simulations appear parameter-free and reproduce the data without fitted constants. The wavelength-tuning control of the scalar/vector polarizability ratio is a useful additional capability. However, the proposed mechanism as stated is inconsistent with the exact phase-grating limit, and the experimental parameters do not satisfy the paper's own Raman–Nath criterion. These issues affect the interpretation but not necessarily the core experimental observation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Phase-grating mechanism, Eq. (S1) and Fig. 3] The central mechanism claim is not consistent with the phase-grating equation. In the Raman–Nath limit the propagator is Ψ(r,τ)=Ψ(r,0)exp(iV(r)τ/ℏ). If the dual potentials satisfy V_hex(r)=-V_honey(r), or the inversion-related relation V_hex(r)=-V_honey(-r) implied by the manuscript's potential expressions, then the honeycomb amplitude A_h(k)=FT[exp(iV_honeyτ/ℏ)](k) and the hexagonal amplitude A_hex(k) obey |A_hex(k)|^2=|A_h(-k)|^2. Since the reported diffraction patterns possess sixfold rotational symmetry, they are inversion symmetric, so the two intensities coincide exactly in the phase-grating limit. Phase wrapping changes Vτ/ℏ modulo 2π but does not alter this identity; hence phase wrapping alone cannot break Babinet's principle. The observed star/hex distinction must arise from the kinetic term p^2/2M in Eq. (S1), which is neglected in the phase-grating approximation. The manuscript should either revise the mechanism or explicitly quantify the kinetic correction.
  2. [Raman–Nath criterion and experimental parameters, Fig. 3] The experimental parameters used for the strong-pulse claim do not satisfy the paper's own Raman–Nath criterion. With V0=95Er and τ=7μs, using the stated τlim=h/(4√(V0Er)) and the 87Rb recoil energy at the relevant wavelength gives τ/τlim≈1, not τ≪τlim. The phase-grating approximation is therefore quantitatively invalid at the third column of Figs. 3(b) and 3(d). The agreement with full Schrödinger simulations in Eqs. (S4)–(S6) is evidence that kinetic-energy dynamics, not the neglected-kinetic Raman–Nath propagator, produces the pattern splitting.
  3. [Regime definitions, Table 1 and Fig. 3] The regime nomenclature is internally inconsistent. The text defines the strong-pulse Raman–Nath regime by V0τlim/ℏ≫2π and separately by V0τ/ℏ>2π; the measured conditions V0=95Er and τ=7μs give V0τlim/ℏ≈2.4×2π, which is not ≫2π, even though V0τ/ℏ≈2.5×2π. The manuscript should either redefine the strong-pulse boundary using the actual small parameter τ/τlim and quantify kinetic corrections, or relabel the experimental regime as finite-pulse Kapitza–Dirac diffraction beyond the Raman–Nath approximation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, paragraph before Fig. 3] In the sentence 'In optical systems, the strong-pule Raman–Nath regime remains inaccessible', 'strong-pule' should be 'strong-pulse'.
  2. [Supplementary Table 1] The entries in Table 1 appear garbled, with missing formulas for the Bragg and Raman–Nath populations (PB_N and PRN_N); the table should be typeset with complete expressions so that the regime boundaries can be followed.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption labels panels (a) and (d) as phase structures at V0τ/ℏ=0.6×2π, but the text discusses the weak-pulse condition in terms of V0τlim/ℏ; please clarify which dimensionless quantity controls the displayed phase.
  4. [Fig. 4 and definition of S] The asymmetry parameter S in Eq. (4) is constructed only from first-order populations, which are symmetric by symmetry for a C6 lattice; the text should state more explicitly what additional information S provides beyond confirming the C3-vs-C6 symmetry distinction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central diffraction predictions are parameter-free outputs of the full Schrödinger equation, and the only self-citation is non-load-bearing background.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental observation (star-shaped versus hexagonal diffraction patterns for honeycomb versus hexagonal lattices) together with a theoretical reproduction using the full Schrödinger evolution described in Eq. (S1), with no fitted parameters or fitted inputs. The lattice potential V(r) is defined from independently stated polarizability and beam-geometry inputs; the predicted momentum distributions are outputs of solving the Schrödinger equation, not restatements of the observed patterns. The weak-pulse Babinet agreement and strong-pulse distinction are both computed from the same Hamiltonian with no free constants, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction step. The only self-reference is the citation to the authors' prior work, Sci. Rep. 10, 5870 (2020), for the phase-wrapping method. That citation is contextual background; the paper itself states the Raman–Nath phase-grating formula Ψ(r,τ)=Ψ(r,0)exp(iV(r)τ/ℏ) from standard Kapitza–Dirac theory and derives the subwavelength wrapping from V0τ/ℏ>2π, so the mechanism is not imported solely through the self-citation. The possible physical objection that the strict Raman–Nath phase-grating limit cannot distinguish sign-flipped inversion-symmetric potentials is a correctness or regime-labeling concern, not a circularity: the theoretical panels shown in Fig. 3 are full quantum simulations, not the phase-grating approximation, so the prediction is not equivalent to the asserted phase-wrapping mechanism by construction. No uniqueness theorem is invoked from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The derivation chain is self-contained against the measured TOF images, and the circularity burden is low.

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

The theory is parameter-free in the sense that lattice potentials come from standard polarizability formulas and the simulations solve the Schrödinger equation with the stated V0 and τ. No fitted constants enter the diffraction predictions. The main assumptions are the dual-potential sign-flip identity and the claimed validity of the Raman-Nath description in the strong-pulse regime, the latter being only approximately satisfied.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The honeycomb and hexagonal lattice potentials are exact sign inverses of each other with matched amplitude (dual lattices differing only by a sign).
    Invoked in the text around Eq. (1) and Fig. 1(a): V_hex = -V_hon. This is needed to declare the pair dual and to attribute diffraction differences to the strong-pulse effect.
  • standard math The initial BEC is in a plane-wave state (q=0) and the lattice is suddenly switched on, described by the Bloch-state expansion in Eq. (S4).
    Used to numerically compute diffraction images via the Schrödinger equation (Eq. S6).
  • ad hoc to paper The strong-pulse regime at V0=95 Er and τ=7 μs lies within the Raman-Nath regime, allowing the neglect of kinetic energy in the qualitative explanation.
    The paper states τ≪τ_lim is required, but τ/τ_lim≈0.5; this is a key weakness for the phase-wrapping interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distinguishing dual lattice by strong-pulse matter-wave diffraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FY3QM72J

@misc{pith2026250716592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distinguishing dual lattice by strong-pulse matter-wave diffraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FY3QM72J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16592}
}
read the original abstract

Dual lattices such as honeycomb and hexagonal lattices typically obey Babinet's principle in optics, which states that the expected interference patterns of two complementary diffracting objects are identical and indistinguishable, except for their overall intensity. Here, we study Kapitza--Dirac diffraction of Bose--Einstein condensates in optical lattices and find that matter waves in dual lattices obey Babinet's principle only under the condition of weak-pulse Raman--Nath regimes. In contrast, the Kapitza--Dirac matter-wave diffraction in the strong-pulse Raman--Nath regime (corresponding to the phase wrapping method we developed to generate sub-wavelength phase structures in Sci. Rep. 10, 5870 (2020)) can break Babinet's principle and clearly resolve the distinct interference patterns of the dual honeycomb and hexagonal lattices. This method offers exceptional precision in characterizing lattice configurations and advance the study of symmetry-related phenomena, overcoming the limitations of real-space imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16592 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Representation of dual graph for honeycomb and hexagonal lattices. The hexagonal lattice (green) consists of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Kapitza–Dirac diffraction of a BEC in the dual lattices with (a)-(c) the honeycomb lattice and (d)-(f) the hexagonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Kapitza–Dirac diffraction of a BEC in the dual lat [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. Continuous control of the lattice structure by tun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, Quantum sim- ulations with ultracold quantum gases, Nat. Phys.8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, and V. Ahufinger,Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices: Simulating quantum many- body systems(Oxford University Press, 2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Windpassinger and K

    P. Windpassinger and K. Sengstock, Engineering novel optical lattices, Rep. Prog. Phys.76, 086401 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Sch¨ afer, T

    F. Sch¨ afer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Tools for quantum simulation with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 411 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    C. D. Brown, S. Chang, M. N. Schwarz, T. H. Leung, V. Kozii, A. Avdoshkin, J. E. Moore, and D. Stamper- Kurn, Direct geometric probe of singularities in band structure, Science377, 1319 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Struck, C

    J. Struck, C. ¨Olschl¨ ager, R. Le Targat, P. Soltan- Panahi, A. Eckardt, M. Lewenstein, P. Windpassinger, and K. Sengstock, Quantum simulation of frustrated clas- sical magnetism in triangular optical lattices, Science 333, 996 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    Sebby-Strabley, M

    J. Sebby-Strabley, M. Anderlini, P. S. Jessen, and J. V. Porto, Lattice of double wells for manipulating pairs of cold atoms, Phys. Rev. A73, 033605 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Tarruell, D

    L. Tarruell, D. Greif, T. Uehlinger, G. Jotzu, and T. Esslinger, Creating, moving and merging Dirac points with a Fermi gas in a tunable honeycomb lattice, Nature 483, 302 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    G. B. Jo, J. Guzman, C. K. Thomas, P. Hosur, A. Vish- wanath, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Ultracold atoms in a tunable optical kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 045305 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    S. Taie, H. Ozawa, T. Ichinose, T. Nishio, S. Naka- jima, and Y. Takahashi, Coherent driving and freezing of bosonic matter wave in an optical Lieb lattice, Sci. Adv.1, e1500854 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    B. Yang, H. Sun, C. Huang, H. Wang, Y. Deng, H. Dai, Z. Yuan, and J. Pan, Cooling and entangling ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Science369, 550 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    M. N. Kosch, L. Asteria, H. P. Zahn, K. Sengstock, and C. Weitenberg, Multifrequency optical lattice for dynamic lattice-geometry control, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043083 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Mandel, M

    O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Coherent transport of neutral atoms in spin-dependent optical lattice potentials, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 010407 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    Soltan-Panahi, J

    P. Soltan-Panahi, J. Struck, P. Hauke, A. Bick, W. Plenkers, G. Meineke, C. Becker, P. Windpassinger, M. Lewenstein, and K. Sengstock, Multi-component quantum gases in spin-dependent hexagonal lattices, Nat. Phys.7, 434 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Soltan-Panahi, D

    P. Soltan-Panahi, D. S. L¨ uhmann, J. Struck, P. Wind- passinger, and K. Sengstock, Quantum phase transition to unconventional multi-orbital superfluidity in optical lattices, Nat. Phys.8, 71 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Z. Meng, L. Wang, W. Han, F. Liu, K. Wen, C. Gao, P. Wang, C. Chin, and J. Zhang, Atomic Bose-Einstein condensate in twisted-bilayer optical lattices, Nature 615, 231 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Fl¨ aschner, D

    N. Fl¨ aschner, D. Vogel, M. Tarnowski, B. S. Rem, D. S. L¨ uhmann, M. Heyl, J. C. Budich, L. Mathey, K. Seng- stock, and C. Weitenberg, Observation of dynamical vor- tices after quenches in a system with topology, Nat. Phys. 14, 265 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Braun, R

    C. Braun, R. Saint-Jalm, A. Hesse, J. Arceri, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Real-space detection and manipu- lation of topological edge modes with ultracold atoms, Nat. Phys.20, 1306 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    S. Miao, Z. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Z. Zhao, H. Wang, and J. Hu, Bosonic fractional quantum hall conductance in shaken honeycomb optical lattices without flat bands, Phys. Rev. B106, 054310 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    J. W. Essam and M. E. Fisher, Some basic definitions in graph theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.42, 272 (1970)

    1970

  14. [22]

    Bradlyn, L

    B. Bradlyn, L. Elcoro, J. Cano, M. G. Vergniory, Z. Wang, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, Topological quantum chemistry, Nature547, 298 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Alicea, O

    J. Alicea, O. I. Motrunich, M. Hermele, and M. P. A. Fisher, Criticality in quantum triangular antiferromag- nets via fermionized vortices, Phys. Rev. B72, 064407 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    O. Ori, F. Cataldo, and M. V. Putz, Topological anisotropy of stone-wales waves in graphenic fragments, Int. J. Mol. Sci.12, 7934 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Hecht,Optics(Pearson Education Limited, 2001)

    E. Hecht,Optics(Pearson Education Limited, 2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf,Principles of Optics(Cambridge University Press, 1999)

    1999

  19. [27]

    Steck,Quantum and Atom Optics(2007)

    D. Steck,Quantum and Atom Optics(2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    P. L. Gould, G. A. Ruff, and D. E. Pritchard, Diffrac- tion of atoms by light: The near-resonant Kapitza-Dirac effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 827 (1986)

    1986

  21. [29]

    Y. B. Ovchinnikov, J. H. M¨ uller, M. R. Doery, E. J. D. Vredenbregt, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, Diffraction of a released Bose-Einstein conden- sate by a pulsed standing light wave, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 284 (1999)

    1999

  22. [30]

    K. Wen, Z. Meng, P. Wang, L. Wang, L. Chen, L. Huang, L. Zhou, X. Cui, and J. Zhang, Observation of sub- wavelength phase structure of matter wave with two- dimensional optical lattice by Kapitza-Dirac diffraction, Sci. Rep.10, 5870 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    D. C. Ghiglia and M. D. Pritt,Two-Dimensional Phase Unwrapping: Theory, Algorithms, and Software(Wiley- Interscience, 1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    Huang, R

    X. Huang, R. Harder, G. Xiong, X. Shi, and I. Robin- son, Propagation uniqueness in three-dimensional coher- ent diffractive imaging, Phys. Rev. B83, 224109 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    M. C. Newton, R. Harder, X. Huang, G. Xiong, and I. K. Robinson, Phase retrieval of diffraction from highly strained crystals, Phys. Rev. B82, 165436 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Ramos, B

    T. Ramos, B. E. Grønager, M. S. Andersen, and J. W. Andreasen, Direct three-dimensional tomographic recon- struction and phase retrieval of far-field coherent diffrac- tion patterns, Phys. Rev. A99, 023801 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    C. K. Thomas, T. H. Barter, T. H. Leung, S. Daiss, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Signatures of spatial inversion asymmetry of an optical lattice observed in matter-wave diffraction, Phys. Rev. A93, 063613 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    K. Wen, Z. Meng, L. Wang, L. Chen, L. Huang, P. Wang, and J. Zhang, Experimental study of tune-out wavelengths for spin-dependent optical lattice in 87Rb 7 Bose–Einstein condensation, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B38, 3269 (2021). Supplementary Material I. Theoretical description of diffr...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.