Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Comment on "Observation of two-dimensional Anderson localisation of ultracold atoms"

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2111.14229 v2 pith:GFWQIE72 submitted 2021-11-28 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph

classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph
keywords andersonexperimentallocalisationadditionalanalysisargueartefactsarticle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Here I provide additional experimental information and criticise the analysis, modelling, interpretation and claims presented in the recent paper [Nature Communications 11, 4942 (2020)]. I argue that the authors have no clear experimental evidence of Anderson localisation (as they claim) and their numerical simulations are very far indeed from reproducing the experiment, as stated in their article. Furthermore, some effects that are ascribed to real physical mechanisms are revealed to be simply artefacts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools