Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Optically tuned soliton dynamics in Bose-Einstein condensates within dark traps

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The azimuthal index of crossed Laguerre-Gaussian beams tunes soliton generation and collision patterns in Bose-Einstein condensates.

desk verdict The ℓ=1 exact solution is known, and the ℓ=3,6 numerics rest on a reversed dimensional-reduction condition; still a plausible idea worth refereeing after major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07574 v1 pith:GJCRPZXT submitted 2024-12-10 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Erwan Célanie , Laurent Delisle , Amine Jaouadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords Bose-EinsteincondensatesolitondynamicsLaguerre-GaussianbeamsdarktrapazimuthalindexGross-Pitaevskiiequationscattering-lengthmodulationHirotabilinearmethod
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 the shape of an optical dark trap can act as a control knob for soliton physics in a Bose-Einstein condensate. By changing only the azimuthal index $\ell$ of two crossed Laguerre-Gaussian beams, the effective potential $V(\rho,z)=U_\rho\rho^{2\ell}+U_z z^{2\ell}$ goes from harmonic ($\ell=1$) to anharmonic, square-well-like ($\ell=3,6$) while the condensate volume is kept fixed. In 1D and 2D reductions of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, the authors show that bright and dark solitons can be generated by scattering-length switching or by barrier removal, and that the trap shape changes the number of solitons, the rate of collisions, and the collision phase shifts. A sympathetic reader would care because, if true, trap geometry alone becomes an optical handle on soliton number and interaction patterns, relevant to atom interferometry and quantum sensing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the crossed-LG dark trap, which in the paraxial limit acts as the power-law potential $V(\rho,z)=U_\rho\rho^{2\ell}+U_z z^{2\ell}$; changing $\ell$ morphs the trap from harmonic to near square-well/cubic. The argument runs through two dimensionally reduced Gross-Pitaevskii equations obtained by freezing the transverse (1D) or axial (2D) motion into a Gaussian ground state, an effective nonlinearity $\eta$, and two soliton-generation protocols: a sudden switch of the scattering length $a_s$ and the release of an initial barrier. For the harmonic 2D case, the Hirota bilinear transformation supplies exact multisoliton solutions; for $\ell\neq1$, the paper relies on split-step Fourier numerics with imaginary-time relaxation for the ground state.

What would settle it

Run the two soliton-generation protocols in a full 3D simulation with the actual potential $V=U_\rho\rho^{2\ell}+U_z z^{2\ell}$ for $\ell=3,6$ and compare soliton numbers, collision counts, and phase shifts with the 1D/2D reduced predictions; any large divergence for $\ell\neq1$ would show the trap-shape claims depend on the unverified dimensional reduction. An experiment varying $\ell$ while holding the BEC volume fixed could serve as the same test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the azimuthal index $\ell$ of crossed Laguerre-Gaussian beams tunes the confinement from harmonic to anharmonic while preserving BEC volume, and that this re-shaping has observable consequences for soliton dynamics. In the dimensionally reduced Gross-Pitaevskii equation, the authors find that bright solitons form when the scattering length is switched from positive to negative, and dark solitons form when a barrier is removed. In harmonic traps the solitons collide only at $z=0$, whereas for $\ell=3$ and $\ell=6$ collisions occur at $z\neq0$ and show phase shifts; increasing $\ell$ slows the travelling waves, lowers the collision count, and broadens trajectories because the BEC edges become less rounded. The paper also constructs an exact one-soliton solution for $\ell=1$ using the Hirota bilinear method and leaves the construction of multisoliton solutions for $\ell\neq1$ as an open problem.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's Section III reduction to 1D and 2D assumes the tightly confined directions sit in the Gaussian ground state of a harmonic oscillator, even for $\ell=3$ and $\ell=6$ where the actual power-law trap has zero curvature at the origin; this replacement is never tested for the anharmonic traps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Changing only $\ell$ reconfigures the trap from harmonic to anharmonic while keeping the condensate volume fixed, so trap geometry itself becomes a control parameter for soliton experiments.
  • In harmonic traps solitons interact only at the center $z=0$; for $\ell=3,6$ collisions occur off-center and show phase shifts, a qualitative signature that could be observed directly in time-of-flight images.
  • Increasing $\ell$ reduces the number of collisions, slows the travelling waves, and broadens trajectories, meaning the same generation protocol produces different collision statistics in different trap shapes.
  • The atomic species matters: with the same scattering-length switch, heavier atoms produce more solitons because the interaction strength $g\propto a_s/m$ is smaller.
  • Exact multisoliton solutions are available for the harmonic trap via the Hirota method, while the $\ell\neq1$ anharmonic multisoliton construction is left open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dimensional reduction is the real source of the anharmonic effects, the control would still be optical, but it would be a dimensionality or effective-mass effect rather than a direct trap-shape effect; a 3D simulation with the true LG potential could discriminate.
  • A testable extension is to compare these anharmonic traps with flat-bottom box traps used in cold-atom experiments: if collision patterns match, the relevant feature is flatness, and if not, the power-law exponent $\ell$ itself matters.
  • The 2D Gaussian-hole protocol produces long-lived, straight-trajectory soliton collisions near the center, which could serve as a low-noise platform for matter-wave interferometry.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the formation and dynamics of solitons in Bose-Einstein condensates held in traps formed by two crossed Laguerre-Gaussian beams. It considers power-law potentials V(r)=U_rho rho^{2l}+U_z z^{2l}, with azimuthal index l=1,3,6. The authors derive one-dimensional and two-dimensional reductions of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, present an exact one-soliton solution for the harmonic l=1 case using Hirota's bilinear method, and then numerically simulate soliton generation by scattering-length switching and by barrier or hole removal. The central claim is that varying only l changes the trap shape from harmonic to square-well-like, thereby controlling soliton number, collision rate, and trajectory phase shifts.

Significance. If established for the actual Laguerre-Gaussian dark trap, the proposed control of soliton dynamics through the azimuthal index would be a useful experimental knob. The paper does contain a clear derivation of the effective 1D and 2D equations in the harmonic case, and it correctly identifies the l=1 exact solution as a known result recast through a transformation. However, the significance of the l=3 and l=6 results is severely limited by the dimensional reduction: the effective equations used for those cases are not reductions of the stated 3D dark-trap model but rather a different model with harmonic transverse confinement plus a longitudinal power-law potential. The numerical study also lacks reproducibility details. The central idea is defensible in principle, but the current manuscript does not establish the claimed connection between the Laguerre-Gaussian trap geometry and the reported soliton dynamics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III A, Eqs. (5)-(7)] The 1D reduction assumes the transverse wavefunction is the ground state of a harmonic oscillator with sigma^2 = hbar/(m omega_perp), and the potential is taken as (1/2)m omega_perp^2 (x^2+y^2) + V_1D(z). For the crossed-LG trap in Eq. (3), the transverse potential is U_rho (x^2+y^2)^l. For l=3 and l=6 this potential has zero curvature at the origin, so no oscillator frequency omega_perp can be defined from U_rho and l, and the Gaussian ansatz is not the ground state. Consequently Eq. (7) is not a reduction of the 3D GPE with the LG dark trap; it is a different model. This affects all quantitative claims for l=3 and l=6, including soliton counts, collision rates, and phase shifts. The authors should either solve the full 3D GPE for a few representative cases to justify the reduction, or explicitly state that the effective model is a separate confinement geometry and restrict the conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Section III A and III B] The stated conditions for dimensional reduction are reversed. For the 1D reduction the text requires U_rho/U_z << 1, and for the 2D reduction U_z/U_rho << 1. Freezing the transverse motion requires the transverse confinement to be strong relative to the axial motion, i.e. U_rho >> U_z for the 1D case. As written, a small U_rho makes the transverse wavefunction broad, invalidating the assumption that the transverse degrees of freedom are frozen into a narrow ground state. The same reversal applies to the 2D condition. This is a load-bearing issue because the effective nonlinearity coefficients eta in Eqs. (7) and (10) and the validity of the reduced equations depend on the actual strong-confinement regime.
  3. [Section IV A 1] The text states that 'as Uz increases, indicating a reduction in frequency along the z axis', but for V_1D(z) = U_z z^2 an increase in U_z corresponds to a stronger confinement and a higher oscillator frequency. The same paragraph then attributes the increased collision rate to a tighter trap, which is consistent with stronger confinement but contradicts the preceding 'reduction in frequency' statement. This internal inconsistency makes the proposed physical mechanism unclear and should be corrected.
  4. [Section IV, numerical methods] No numerical details are provided that would allow the results to be reproduced or checked: the grid spacing, number of grid points, time step, split-step scheme parameters, imaginary-time relaxation convergence criteria, and boundary conditions are all absent. The quantitative claims, such as the number of solitons generated and the number of collisions, are therefore not supported by verifiable numerics. The data availability statement says all data are included, but no code or parameter tables are given. At minimum, the authors should provide the full parameter sets and a convergence check for a representative case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV A] The phrase 'when ts < 200 ms' appears twice; it should presumably read 'when t < 200 ms' or 'for t_s < 200 ms' with a clear definition of t_s. As written, t_s is not defined as a function of time.
  2. [Section IV A 1] The statement 'In panel (a), which corresponds to Uz = 0.25, 6 bright solitons are generated' is not accompanied by the full parameter list for the 7Li case, so the reader cannot identify the trap frequency or the scattering-length modulation parameters beyond the quoted values.
  3. [Section IV B] The conclusion that in 2D 'as ell increases, solitons exhibit increased frequency of collisions' appears to contradict the 1D claim that increasing ell reduces the number of collisions. The manuscript should reconcile these statements or clarify that the two geometries lead to opposite trends.
  4. [Section III B 1] The exact solution for l=1 is presented as a derivation, but it is essentially a re-expression of the known solution from Ref. [29]. The authors should more clearly state that this part is a review of known results rather than a new finding.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ℓ=3 and ℓ=6 soliton predictions are emergent numerical outputs of the stated reduced GPEs, and the one self-citation (trap potential from [15]) is legitimate independent support; the flagged dimensional-reduction issues are correctness risks, not circular steps.

full rationale

No enumerated circularity pattern is present in the derivation chain. The trap potential (3) is imported from the self-cited Ref. [15] (Jaouadi et al., PRA 2010, sharing a co-author); this is a peer-reviewed, parameter-free derivation of the near-axis crossed-LG dipole potential whose assumptions do not include the target soliton results, so by the independent-support rule it is real evidence and does not raise the circularity score. The 1D and 2D reductions (7), (10) are performed in the paper itself by explicit Gaussian ansatz and Gaussian integration, and the resulting coefficients (e.g., η = m²ω⊥²/8π²ℏ² and η = √(2mωz)/4πℏ) are arithmetically consistent with the stated ansatz; no parameter is fitted to any target soliton count, collision number, phase shift, or trajectory. The ℓ=3 and ℓ=6 claims are emergent outputs of split-step simulations of the stated reduced GPEs with V1D = Uzz^{2ℓ} or V2D = Uρρ^{2ℓ}; they are neither restatements of the input potential nor reconstructions of a benchmark. The exact ℓ=1 Hirota solution is standard, explicitly credited to Refs. [29,37], and the paper itself flags that multisoliton solutions for ℓ≠1 remain open, so the analytic part is not used as evidence for the anharmonic claims. The weaknesses a reader may worry about — the anisotropy conditions (Uρ/Uz << 1, Uz/Uρ << 1) are stated as the reverse of the strong-confinement requirement, and the frozen-direction Gaussian is not the exact ground state of Uρρ^{2ℓ} for ℓ>1 — are validity/robustness concerns about whether the reduced model represents the 3D LG dark trap, not a case where a prediction reduces to its input by construction. Hence the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on hand-chosen simulation parameters (trap depths, barrier, release times, scattering lengths) and on three modeling assumptions: the mean-field GPE, the power-law LG potential of [15], and the harmonic-oscillator ground state used to reduce dimensionality. No new particles, forces, or other entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Uz (1D trap depth coefficient) = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 for ell=1; unspecified 'adapted' values for ell=3,6
    Chosen by hand to compare confinement; no units or derivation from LG beam parameters are given.
  • U_rho (2D trap depth coefficient) = not stated
    Sets the radial potential U_rho rho^(2ell) in 2D simulations; its value is never reported.
  • scattering length as(t) = 1.5 nm for t<200 ms, -0.2 nm afterwards
    Switched from repulsive to attractive to trigger bright soliton formation; no Feshbach curve or experimental context is provided.
  • atom number N = 10^5 for 7Li in figure 4; not given for other runs
    Specified only for one simulation; the number of solitons is known to depend on N, so this is a free input.
  • switch time ts = 200 ms
    Choice of when the scattering length is quenched; not varied or justified.
  • barrier height Vb = 326.6 nK for 2D; not given for 1D
    Barrier parameters are hand-picked to split the condensate into the desired number of parts.
  • barrier width sigma_x = 3.6 um for 2D; not given for 1D
    Hand-picked; no scan over width is reported.
  • barrier release time tb = 80 ms in 1D, 20 ms in 2D
    Chosen release times differ between dimensions without a stated reason.
  • Gaussian hole parameters Vh, sigma_rho = not stated
    Used for the 2D hole-removal dynamics; numerical values are absent.
  • transverse/axial frequencies omega_perp, omega_z = not given, but enter via sigma^2 = hbar/(m omega)
    Define the harmonic oscillator ground states used in the dimension reduction; for ell>1 these frequencies are not actual properties of the LG power-law trap.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Zero-temperature mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii equation with two-body interactions only is valid for the soliton generation protocols.
    Invoked in Eq. (4); the paper itself notes that three-body losses can destabilize bright solitons at high density, so the GPE may be insufficient in the simulated regimes.
  • domain assumption For rho << w0, the crossed LG beams create exactly V(rho,z)=U_rho rho^(2ell)+U_z z^(2ell).
    Taken from [15] without re-derivation; ignores finite-waist corrections and the axial variation of the beam waist.
  • ad hoc to paper The transverse (1D) and axial (2D) degrees of freedom are frozen in the Gaussian ground state of a harmonic oscillator even for ell different from 1.
    Section III replaces the actual power-law potential by 1/2 m omega^2 zeta^2, which is not justified for ell>1 where the curvature at the origin vanishes. This is the paper's central modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption Thomas-Fermi initial states and imaginary-time relaxation give the appropriate ground states for each ell.
    Standard technique, but no validation of convergence or comparison with analytic ground states for power-law traps is provided.
  • standard math Split-step Fourier method is a reliable integrator for the GPE over the simulated times of hundreds of milliseconds.
    Standard numerical method, but no convergence tests, time-step, or grid-size values are reported.
  • standard math Hirota bilinear construction and the lens transformation for ell=1 produce valid exact solutions.
    Follows [29,37]; not machine-checked and used only for the harmonic case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optically tuned soliton dynamics in Bose-Einstein condensates within dark traps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJCRPZXT

@misc{pith2026241207574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optically tuned soliton dynamics in Bose-Einstein condensates within dark traps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJCRPZXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07574}
}
abstract

This study investigates the formation and dynamics of solitons in Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) within dark traps generated by two crossed Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) beams with varying azimuthal indices $\ell$. As the index $\ell$ increases, the potential transitions from a harmonic trap when $\ell = 1$ to a square-well potential for larger values of $\ell$. This transition allows us to study a range of soliton dynamics under different confinement conditions while maintaining the same BEC volume. Through the derivation of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE) and under these specific conditions in both one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) configurations, we explore the dynamics of solitons across multiple scenarios. The study examines two primary methods for solitons generation: the temporal modulation of the scattering length and the implementation of an initial potential barrier that is subsequently removed. The results indicate that the trap shape plays a critical role in the generation and interaction dynamics of solitons. In harmonic traps, solitons exhibit a behavior different from those observed in anharmonic traps, where the dynamics is significantly influenced by the azimuthal index of the trap. The ability to control soliton dynamics in BECs holds significant promise for applications in quantum technologies, precision sensing, and the exploration of fundamental quantum phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07574 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The BEC is formed at the intersection of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: 3D potential for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Soliton dynamics generated by changing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Soliton dynamics generated by adding and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Initial barrier introduced to split the BEC into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Soliton Dynamics in 2D-BEC following a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Soliton Dynamics in 2D-BEC following a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    J. Wu, R. Keolian, and I. Rudnick, Observation of a non- propagating hydrodynamic soliton, Physical Review Let- ters 52, 1421 (1984)

    work page 1984

  2. [1]

    Hirota bilinear formalism for ℓ = 1 In order to find exact soliton solutions of equation (10) with the harmonic potential V2D = Uρρ2 = 1 2 mω2 ⊥ρ2, one can use the so-called Hirota bilinear method [37]. This algebraic method allows one to cast a nonlinear partial differential equation into a bilinear equation from which multisoliton solution can be obtain...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Exact soliton solution for ℓ = 1 In order to construct multisoliton solutions, we use per- turbation theory around the trivial solution C = 0 and R = 1 in the bilinear equations (13) and (14). For the travelling wave solution (or one-soliton solution), we sup- pose C = ϵC1 and R = 1 + ϵ2R2, where ϵ is a free real parameter, C1 is a complex-valued function...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Initially, we take a positive value as as = 1 .5 nm when ts < 200 ms

    The first method involves dynamically varying the scattering length as, which controls the interac- tion between the atoms within the BEC. Initially, we take a positive value as as = 1 .5 nm when ts < 200 ms. After this time, we switch to a neg- ative value, such as as = −0.2 nm. This abrupt change induces attractive interactions between the atoms, leadin...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Initially, the BEC is trapped within the trap potential but with an additional barrier

    The second method for generating solitons involves the introduction of a potential barrier at the be- ginning of the experiment, which is subsequently removed. Initially, the BEC is trapped within the trap potential but with an additional barrier. By carefully controlling the height and width of this barrier, the condensate can be split into different par...

    work page

  6. [5]

    We examine the example of the harmonic potential with ℓ = 1 as mentioned previously

    Impact of Trap shape on Soliton Dynamics To investigate how the shape of the potential affects the dynamics of the solitons, we first explore a simple 1D case. We examine the example of the harmonic potential with ℓ = 1 as mentioned previously. For this study, we used 7Li atom as an example, keeping the mass fixed and varying only the depth of the potenti...

    work page

  7. [6]

    The mass of the atoms plays a cru- cial role in determining the interaction strength within the condensate, which in turn influences the formation and behavior of solitons

    Effect of the mass In this subsection, we explore the impact of the atomic mass on the creation and dynamics of solitons in Bose- Einstein condensates. The mass of the atoms plays a cru- cial role in determining the interaction strength within the condensate, which in turn influences the formation and behavior of solitons. We recall that the interaction s...

    work page

  8. [7]

    M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Observation of bose-einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor, Science 269, 198 (1995)

    1995

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    N. P. O. AB, The nobel prize in physics 2001, https:// www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2001/summary/ (2024), nobelPrize.org. Fri. 19 Jul 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Weber, J

    T. Weber, J. Herbig, M. Mark, H. C. Nagerl, and R. Grimm, Bose-einstein condensation of cesium, Science 299, 232 (2003)

    2003

  3. [10]

    K. B. Davis, M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Bose-einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995)

    1995

  4. [11]

    C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett, and R. C. Hulet, Evidence of bose-einstein condensation in an atomic gas with attractive interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995)

    1995

  5. [12]

    Roati, M

    G. Roati, M. Zaccanti, C. D’Errico, M. Modugno, A. Si- moni, M. Inguscio, and G. Modugno, Bose-einstein con- densate with tunable interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 010403 (2007)

    2007

  6. [13]

    D. G. Fried, T. C. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, S. C. Moss, D. Kleppner, and T. J. Greytak, Bose- einstein condensation of atomic hydrogen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3811 (1998)

    1998

  7. [14]

    Robert, O

    A. Robert, O. Sirjean, A. Browaeys, J. Poupard, S. Nowak, D. Boiron, C. I. Westbrook, and A. Aspect, A bose-einstein condensate of metastable atoms, Science 292, 461 (2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    F. P. D. Santos, J. L´ eonard, J. Wang, C. J. Barrelet, F. Perales, E. Rasel, C. S. Unnikrishnan, M. Leduc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Bose-einstein condensation of metastable helium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3459 (2001)

    2001

  9. [16]

    Fukuhara, S

    T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, and Y. Takahashi, A bose- einstein condensation of an ytterbium isotope, Phys. Rev. A 76, 051604 (2007)

    2007

  10. [17]

    Beaufils, R

    Q. Beaufils, R. Chicireanu, T. Zanon, B. Laburthe-Tora, E. Mar´ echal, L. Vernac, J. C. Keller, and O. Gorceix, All optical production of chromium bose-einstein conden- sates, Phys. Rev. A 77, 06160 (2008)

    2008

  11. [18]

    Griesmaier, J

    A. Griesmaier, J. Werner, S. Hensler, J. Stuhler, and T. Pfau, Bose-einstein condensation of chromium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 160401 (2005)

    2005

  12. [19]

    Gaaloul, A

    N. Gaaloul, A. Jaouadi, L. Pruvost, M. Telmini, and E. Charron, Optical devices for cold atoms and bose- einstein condensates, American Institute of Physics Con- ference Proceedings 935, 10 (2007)

    2007

  13. [20]

    Gaaloul, A

    N. Gaaloul, A. Jaouadi, L. Pruvost, M. Telmini, and E. Charron, Controlled deflection of cold atomic clouds and of a bose-einstein condensate, Eur. Phys. J. D 53, 343 (2009)

    2009

  14. [21]

    Jaouadi, N

    A. Jaouadi, N. Gaaloul, B. V. de Lesegno, M. Telmini, L. Pruvost, and E. Charron, Bose-einstein condensation in dark power-law laser traps, Phys. Rev. A 82, 023613 (2010)

    2010

  15. [22]

    M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Durfee, C. G. Townsend, and W. Ketterle, Output coupler for bose-einstein condensed atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997)

    1997

  16. [23]

    Bloch, T

    I. Bloch, T. W. Hansch, and T. Esslinger, Atom laser with a cw output coupler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3008 (1999)

    1999

  17. [24]

    Morales-Molina and E

    L. Morales-Molina and E. Ar´ evalo, Quantum sensing of matter waves using bec oscillations, Results in Physics 11 41, 105923 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    Khaykovich, F

    L. Khaykovich, F. Schreck, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cu- bizolles, L. Carr, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, Formation of a matter-wave bright soliton, Science296, 1290 (2002)

    2002

  19. [26]

    Denschlag, J

    J. Denschlag, J. Simsarian, D. Feder, C. Clark, L. Collins, J. Cubizolles, L. Deng, E. Hagley, K. Helmerson, and W. Reinhardt, Generating solitons by phase engineering of a bose-einstein condensate, Science 287, 97 (2000)

    2000

  20. [27]

    Eiermann, T

    B. Eiermann, T. Anker, M. Albiez, M. Taglieber, P. Treutlein, K. Marzlin, and M. Oberthaler, Bright bose- einstein gap solitons of atoms with repulsive interaction, Physical Review Letters 92, 230401 (2004)

    2004

  21. [28]

    Kosevich, B

    A. Kosevich, B. Ivanov, and A. Kovalev, Magnetic soli- tons, Physics Reports 194, 117 (1990)

    1990

  22. [30]

    Mollenauer, R

    L. Mollenauer, R. Stolen, and J. Gordon, Experimental observation of picosecond pulse narrowing and solitons in optical fibers, Physical Review Letters 45, 1095 (1980)

    1980

  23. [31]

    Tanaka, Soliton in two-band superconductor, Physical Review Letters 88, 017002 (2001)

    Y. Tanaka, Soliton in two-band superconductor, Physical Review Letters 88, 017002 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    G. W. Henderson, G. R. M. Robb, G.-L. Oppo, and A. M. Yao, Control of light-atom solitons and atomic transport by optical vortex beams propagating through a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 073902 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    M. Yang, G. Wang, Z. Wang, X. Li, L. Zhu, W. Wang, W. Zhang, S. Yan, and J. Yang, Micrometer-precision absolute distance measurement with a repetition-rate- locked soliton microcomb, Opt. Lett. 48, 4356 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Michinel, A

    H. Michinel, A. Paredes, M. M. Valado, and D. Feijoo, Coherent emission of atomic soliton pairs by feshbach- resonance tuning, Phys. Rev. A 86, 013620 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Q. Z. H. Wang and W. Liu, Exact analysis and elastic interaction of multi-soliton for a two-dimensional gross- pitaevskii equation in the bose-einstein condensation, Journal of Advanced Research 38, 179 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Henderson, G

    G. Henderson, G. R. M. Robb, G.-L. Oppo, and A. M. Yao, Data for: ”control of light-atom solitons and atomic transport by optical vortex beams propagating through a bose-einstein condensate” (2020), university of Strath- clyde KnowledgeBase

    2020

  29. [37]

    S. L. Cornish, S. T. Thompson, and C. E. Wieman, For- mation of bright matter-wave solitons during the collapse of attractive bose-einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 170401 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    J. H. V. Nguyen, P. Dyke, D. Luo, B. A. Malomed, and R. G. Hulet, Collisions of matter-wave solitons, Nature Physics 10, 918 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, A. G. Truscott, and R. G. Hulet, Formation and propagation of matter-wave soliton trains, Nature 417, 150 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    Carretero-Gonzalez, D

    R. Carretero-Gonzalez, D. Frantzeskakis, and P. Kevrekidis, Invited article: Nonlinear waves in bose einstein condensates: physical relevance and mathematical techniques, Nonlinearity 21 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Hussain, J

    J. Hussain, J. Akram, and F. SAIF, Gray and dark soliton behavior and population under a symmetric and asymmetric potential trap, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 195, 429 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Allen, M

    L. Allen, M. Beijersbergen, R. Spreeuw, and J. Woerd- man, Orbital angular momentum of light and the trans- formation of laguerre-gaussian laser modes, Physical Re- view A 45, 8185 (1992)

    1992

  35. [43]

    Hirota, The Direct Method in Soliton Theory (Cam- bridge University Press, 2004)

    R. Hirota, The Direct Method in Soliton Theory (Cam- bridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    Inouye, M

    S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Observation of feshbach resonances in a bose–einstein condensate, Na- ture 392, 151 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Fes- hbach resonances in ultracold gases, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Burger, K

    S. Burger, K. Bongs, S. Dettmer, W. Ertmer, K. Sen- gstock, A. Sanpera, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and M. Lewen- stein, Dark solitons in bose-einstein condensates, Physi- cal Review Letters 83, 5198 (1999)

    1999

  39. [47]

    B. P. Anderson, J. H. Denschlag, H. Haffner, C. Anton- akis, E. W. Hagley, D. Hellweg, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, Watching dark solitons decay into vortex rings in a bose-einstein condensate, Physical Review Letters 86, 2926 (2001)

    2001

  40. [48]

    Kosloff and H

    R. Kosloff and H. Tal-Ezer, A direct relaxation method for calculating eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the schr¨ odinger equation on a grid, Chem. Phys. Lett. 127, 223 (1986)

    1986

  41. [49]

    A. L. Marchant, T. P. Billam, T. P. Wiles, M. M. Yu, S. A. Gardiner, and S. L. Cornish, Controlled formation and reflection of a bright solitary matter-wave, Nature Communications 4, 1865 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    L. D. Carr and Y. Castin, Dynamics of a matter-wave bright soliton in an expulsive potential, Physical Review A 66, 063602 (2002)

    2002

  43. [51]

    J. F. S. Brachmann, W. S. Bakr, J. Gillen, A. Peng, and M. Greiner, Inducing vortices in a bose-einstein conden- sate using holographically produced light beams, Opt. Express 19, 12984 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.