Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Vortices in dipolar condensates of interlayer excitons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a purely repulsive dipolar exciton condensate, a density pileup appears at vortex edges precisely where the system is predicted to become an incompressible supersolid.

desk verdict Solid GP study of vortices in a purely repulsive dipolar exciton bilayer, but the supersolid link is speculative and the D=13 vs D=10 threshold mismatch is unresolved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15561 v1 pith:I7TZHWSV submitted 2025-07-21 cond-mat.other cond-mat.quant-gas

Sara Conti , Andrey Chaves , Luis A. Pena Ardila , David Neilson , Milorad V. Milosevic This is my paper
classification cond-mat.othercond-mat.quant-gas
keywords interlayerexcitonsdipolarcondensatesGross-Pitaevskiiequationquantizedvorticessupersolidtransitionvortexlatticeexcitonsuperfluiditydensitypileup
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 tries to establish that vortices in a two-dimensional condensate of interlayer excitons, whose dipolar interactions are long-ranged and purely repulsive, carry a clear observable signature of the transition to a supersolid phase. Solving the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the nonlocal exciton-exciton interaction, the authors show that the vortex core shrinks and saturates as the dipole strength grows, and that a density pileup appears at the vortex edge once the dimensionless dipolar coupling $D$ exceeds roughly 10 to 13. The onset of this pileup closely tracks the previously predicted superfluid-to-incompressible-supersolid transition, so the paper proposes the pileup peak as a probe of solidification. Because vortices are a standard proof of superfluidity, this would give experimenters a direct way to identify both the superfluid and the supersolid in exciton bilayers.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the stationary Gross-Pitaevskii equation with the nonlocal exciton-exciton interaction $V_{XX}(r) = \frac{2e^2}{4\pi\epsilon}\left(\frac{1}{r} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2+d^2}}\right)$ and no external confinement or contact attraction. The nonlocal potential is evaluated by Fourier transform, and the dimensionless ratio $D = \frac{4d^2}{a_B r_0}$ of dipolar to kinetic energy sets the parameter space. The pileup threshold is identified by comparing the appearance of the peak in the vortex density profile against the predicted supersolid boundary, with the vortex core saturation marking the point where the interaction range reaches the inter-particle distance.

What would settle it

A phase-resolved imaging experiment on an exciton bilayer that looks at a single vortex profile and finds no density pileup at interlayer separations and densities where $D\ge 13$ and the supersolid transition is predicted, or finds the pileup at clearly different parameters, would rule out the claimed link.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the vortex physics of an exciton bilayer is controlled by the competition between the centrifugal force, which expands the vortex, and the purely repulsive dipolar exciton-exciton interaction, which pushes density back. When the interlayer separation $d$ and density are large enough that the interaction range becomes comparable to the inter-particle distance, the vortex core radius saturates and a peak of superfluid density collects at the core edge. This pileup appears at a dipolar coupling parameter $D = \frac{4d^2}{a_B r_0}$ near 10 to 13, which is the same region where an incompressible exciton supersolid was predicted, implying the pileup is a precursor of solidification. In addition, the vortex-vortex interaction is everywhere repulsive and saturates when cores overlap, and rotating the condensate produces vortex lattices that pass through overlap, clustering, and eventual collapse as rotation increases.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the single-wave-function (Gross-Pitaevskii) description remains quantitatively accurate in the strongly repulsive regime near the predicted supersolid transition, so the computed pileup threshold is a genuine signature of solidification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The vortex core radius of an interlayer exciton condensate can be tuned continuously by gate-controlled density and interlayer separation, shrinking and then saturating as the dipolar repulsion grows.
  • The density pileup at the vortex edge appears only when the dimensionless dipolar coupling $D$ is near the predicted supersolid boundary, so imaging vortex profiles can serve as an experimental probe of the superfluid-to-supersolid transition.
  • Vortex-vortex interactions in this purely repulsive system are repulsive at all separations, and at short range they saturate because overlapping cores make a giant doubly-charged vortex energetically preferable to two separate vortices.
  • Under rotation, the exciton condensate hosts stable vortex lattices that evolve with increasing angular velocity through separated vortices, overlapping cores, a central cluster of phase-distinct vortices, and finally collapse from the inside out.
  • Since quantized vortices are a decisive signature of coherent condensation, the predicted vortex behavior gives a concrete experimental route to establish both exciton superfluidity and the supersolid phase in bilayer semiconductors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the pileup onset is a true precursor, local imaging of vortex profiles could map the supersolid boundary continuously in density and layer-separation space, including regions where the boundary has not been computed.
  • Editorial inference: the absence of roton-induced density oscillations near the pileup suggests the exciton system's solidification is driven purely by repulsion; a direct test would be a calculation of the excitation spectrum showing no roton minimum for aligned dipoles.
  • Editorial inference: the predicted inside-out collapse at high rotation is a distinguishing prediction for purely repulsive condensates; observing it in an exciton bilayer would separate this system from atomic dipolar gases where attractive interactions modify the instability.
  • Editorial inference: because both $d$ and $r_0$ are tunable in experiments, the same Gross-Pitaevskii calculation could be extended to finite temperature or screening to predict how the pileup threshold near $D\approx 10$ to 13 shifts, giving a sharper falsifier.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies vortices in a two-dimensional condensate of interlayer excitons with purely repulsive, aligned dipole-dipole interactions. Using the stationary Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a nonlocal dipolar potential, the authors compute single-vortex profiles, vortex-core radii, vortex-vortex interaction energies, and rotating-frame vortex lattices as functions of the interlayer distance d and density (parameterized by the inter-particle distance r0). The main qualitative findings are that the vortex core shrinks and saturates with increasing dipolar strength, and that a density pileup appears at the vortex edge above a threshold. The paper connects this pileup onset to the superfluid-to-supersolid transition predicted in Ref. [8], claiming the pileup is a signature of solidification. The central claim is that the first appearance of the pileup lies close to the predicted transition, with D=10 strongly suggesting a solidification signature.

Significance. If established, the density pileup would provide an experimentally accessible precursor of the supersolid transition in excitonic bilayers, addressing a key challenge in identifying quantum condensed phases of neutral quasiparticles. The paper is transparent about its numerical method: imaginary-time evolution on a 256^2 grid, Fourier-space evaluation of the nonlocal potential, and a strict energy convergence criterion. The phase diagram and the vortex-lattice calculations are useful predictions for a system where vortices can be imprinted optically. However, the central interpretive claim linking the pileup to the supersolid transition is not quantitatively supported, and the paper does not provide code, data, or error estimates for the phase boundary.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III A, Fig. 5] The text states that the onset of the pileup peak 'closely follows' the D=13 parametric threshold, but the first blue dot in Fig. 5 appears at D=10, a 30% discrepancy in the control parameter. The authors do not explain this offset, and the subsequent statement that 'D=10 strongly suggests' a solidification signature is not supported by the data shown. This mismatch is load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion: either provide a quantitative mechanism that accounts for the onset at D=10, or soften the claim to a qualitative correlation.
  2. [§III A, Eq. (5) and p. 3] The vortex solution is computed in a uniform background, and the authors explicitly argue that there is no roton and no density oscillations in this system. Within the GP model, the uniform superfluid is therefore stable, and the computed vortex profile at large d corresponds to a metastable or constrained state when the true ground state (according to Ref. [8]) is a supersolid. The comparison of the pileup onset to the correlated supersolid transition of Ref. [8] is thus not a valid benchmark unless the authors demonstrate that the homogeneous-background vortex remains the relevant state across the transition—for example, by checking the local stability of the uniform solution or by computing a vortex embedded in a density-modulated background.
  3. [§II and Fig. 5] The numerical results lack uncertainty quantification. The pileup criterion is not defined quantitatively (what height above the background constitutes a 'pileup peak'?), and the phase boundary in Fig. 5 is determined by only a few dozen points. As a result, the claimed threshold D=13 and the apparent onset D=10 are not robust. Please provide a precise definition of the pileup, a grid-size convergence check, and an estimate of the boundary uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The displayed expression for VXX(r) would be clearer with parentheses around the two terms; the current typesetting without them makes the expression look ambiguous.
  2. [§II] The definition of r0 as the average inter-particle distance is introduced only in Fig. 1; it should be defined explicitly in Section II where the density n is first used.
  3. [§III A, p. 3] The sentence 'The green arrows are proportional to the dipole moments of the neighboring excitons' in the Fig. 3 caption is not fully clear; the arrows appear fixed in size, so specify how they scale with d.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The green dashed line in the figure is not separately identified in the text; please refer to it explicitly when discussing the supersolid transition.
  5. [§III B, Fig. 6] The dots marking rvv = 2Rc should clarify that Rc is the single-vortex core radius at the corresponding d; otherwise the reader may infer a different definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the vortex pileup is a direct output of the dipolar Gross-Pitaevskii numerics (Eqs. 1-5), and the supersolid link compares it to prior same-group work (Ref. 8) used as an external benchmark, with an honestly reported D=10 versus D=13 offset.

full rationale

This paper shows no material circularity. The vortex density profiles, the pileup peak, the vortex-vortex interaction energies, and the vortex lattices are all computed by solving the dipolar Gross-Pitaevskii equation (Eqs. 2, 5, 7, 10) with the interaction VXX of Eq. 1, using imaginary-time evolution on a 256^2 grid. No parameter is fitted to any target outcome, and the pileup onset in Sec. III A and Fig. 5 is a direct numerical output. The central interpretive claim -- that the pileup onset "lies very close to" the superfluid-to-incompressible-supersolid transition and "strongly suggest[s]" solidification -- is a comparison against the prediction of Ref. 8 (Conti et al., PRL 130, 057001 (2023)), which shares three authors with the present paper. That self-citation is real, separate evidence rather than a circular input: Ref. 8 is an independently published, externally falsifiable prediction in the (density, dipole-moment) plane that does not use the present vortex results as input, so under the stated rules it does not raise the circularity score to a load-bearing level. The paper also reports an honest quantitative tension between its own onset (D = 10) and the external D = 13 threshold line (Ref. 27), which is inconsistent with any hidden fitting of the comparison. The genuinely weak points -- possible breakdown of the Gross-Pitaevskii description near the correlated transition, the uniform-background vortex possibly being a metastable state where the supersolid is the true ground state, and the unexplained D = 10 versus D = 13 offset -- are correctness, validity, and calibration concerns about whether the pileup is a reliable precursor, not circularity. No predicted quantity reduces by construction to an input quantity, and no load-bearing self-citation chain forces the result. Score 2 reflects only that the headline significance of the pileup relies on a same-group prediction as the comparison benchmark; the derivation itself is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data in the main calculations; the only adjustable boundary is the D=13 threshold drawn in Fig. 5. The axioms are the physical modeling choices of the GP mean-field, the bare Coulomb potential, equal masses, and the validity of the prior supersolid prediction.

free parameters (1)
  • D = 13 pileup onset threshold = 13
    Used as the boundary (red line, Fig. 5) for the onset of the density pileup. The paper does not derive this value; the numerical onset is closer to D=10, so the specific threshold appears to be chosen to demarcate the observed boundary rather than predicted from the model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The exciton gas is a dilute BEC describable by a single macroscopic wavefunction and the time-independent Gross-Pitaevskii equation (Sec. II).
    At very low densities this is standard, but the paper applies it also near the supersolid transition where beyond-mean-field crystalline order may matter.
  • domain assumption The exciton-exciton interaction is exactly the four-Coulomb term VXX(r) of Eq. (1), with no screening, no layer width, and no exchange (Sec. II).
    The pileup and vortices depend on this potential; in real devices, screening and finite layer widths modify it.
  • domain assumption Equal effective masses m_e* = m_h* (Sec. II).
    A simplification; real bilayers often have unequal masses, which could alter the length scales.
  • standard math The vortex lattice in a rotating frame is captured by the stationary GP equation with a fixed angular velocity Omega (Sec. III C).
    This is the standard rotating-frame GP approach for cold atoms.
  • domain assumption The supersolid transition line at D=10 from Ref. 8 is correct (Sec. III A, Fig. 5).
    The interpretation of the pileup as a solidification signature relies on this prior prediction from overlapping authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vortices in dipolar condensates of interlayer excitons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7TZHWSV

@misc{pith2026250715561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vortices in dipolar condensates of interlayer excitons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7TZHWSV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15561}
}
read the original abstract

Recently observed signatures of Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity of dipolar excitons have drawn enormous attention to excitonic semiconductor bilayers. In superfluids, stabilization and observation of vortex matter is usually a decisive proof of coherent condensation order. However to date, the vortex behavior in a 2D excitonic system with aligned dipole-like interactions that are long-range and everywhere repulsive has not been addressed. We here provide a theoretical description of the vortex characteristics, interaction, and lattices in a dipolar exciton superfluid, solving the corresponding Gross-Pitaevskii equation, while varying the exciton dipole moments and the exciton density - both tunable in the experiment, by interlayer separation and gating, respectively. We draw particular attention to the appearance of a maximum in the density redistribution around the edge of each vortex, in the phase-space region where the dipole interactions are particularly strong, and where a transition to an incompressible exciton supersolid is expected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Cross section of vortex density profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Vortex core radius Rc as a function of interlayer spacing d, for r0 = 15 and 30. Inset shows Rc/r0. (b) Rc as a function of density, for d = 1 and 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cross section of vortex density profile |ψ(r)| 2 (blue) normalized to the homogeneous density, and the exciton-exciton interactions VXX(r) in Ry∗ (red). The green arrows are proportional to the dipole moments of the neighboring excitons. The density n corresponds to r0 = 30. Panels (a)-(c) are for interlayer distances d = 1, 10, and 30, respectively. Rc saturate at a small value much less than r0 [see inset [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Zero temperature phase diagram as function of the layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Interaction energy Eint of two vortices in the exciton su￾perfluid as a function of vortex separation rvv, for different inter￾layer distances d and a fixed density r0 = 30. The dots mark where rvv = 2Rc in the different cases considered. black dots mark the systems wh…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contour-plots of the exciton superfluid density distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Number of distinguishable vortices Nv in the vortex lattice as a function of the rotation frequency Ω for two interlayer separa￾tions d. Dots mark the states where all ℓ = 1 vortices are clearly observable in the density. Triangles mark the states where clusters of str…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Line profile along the x-axis of the exciton superfluid density distribution |Ψ(r)| 2 for r0 = 30, normalized to the homoge￾neous density, for (a) d = 1 and (b) d = 20. d = 20 means that its rotation energy, 1 2Ω 2 r 2 [31], is larger than for the system with d = 1. T…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Conti, A

    S. Conti, A. Perali, A. R. Hamilton, M. V . Milo ˇsevi´c, F. M. Peeters, and D. Neilson, Chester supersolid of spatially indirect excitons in double-layer semiconductor heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 057001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    G. W. Burg, N. Prasad, K. Kim, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. H. MacDonald, L. F. Register, and E. Tutuc, Strongly en- hanced tunneling at total charge neutrality in double-bilayer graphene-WSe2 heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 177702 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    L. Ma, P. X. Nguyen, Z. Wang, Y . Zeng, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. H. MacDonald, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Strongly correlated excitonic insulator in atomic double layers, Nature (London) 598, 585 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    P. X. Nguyen, L. Ma, R. Chaturvedi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Perfect Coulomb drag in a dipolar ex- citonic insulator, ArXiv:cond-mat/2309.14940 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Cutshall, F

    J. Cutshall, F. Mahdikhany, A. Roche, D. N. Shanks, M. R. Koehler, D. G. Mandrus, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Q. Zhu, B. J. LeRoy, and J. R. Schaibley, Imaging interlayer exciton su- perfluidity in a 2D semiconductor heterostructure, Science Ad- vances 11, eadr1772 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [5]

    Neilson, Excitonic superfluidity in electron-hole bilayer sys- tems, in Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics (Second Edition) (Academic Press, Oxford, 2024) pp

    D. Neilson, Excitonic superfluidity in electron-hole bilayer sys- tems, in Encyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics (Second Edition) (Academic Press, Oxford, 2024) pp. 38–50

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    M. M. Fogler, L. V . Butov, and K. S. Novoselov, High- temperature superfluidity with indirect excitons in van der Waals heterostructures, Nat. Commun. 5, 4555 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    Conti, A

    S. Conti, A. Perali, F. M. Peeters, and D. Neilson, Effect of mis- matched electron-hole effective masses on superfluidity in dou- ble layer solid-state systems, Condens. Matter6, 10.3390/cond- mat6020014 (2021)

    doi:10.3390/cond- 2021

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Il Nuovo Cimento 6, 279 (1949)

    L. Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Il Nuovo Cimento 6, 279 (1949)

    1949

  2. [10]

    G. W. Rayfield and F. Reif, Evidence for the creation and mo- tion of quantized vortex rings in superfluid helium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 305 (1963)

    1963

  3. [11]

    E. P. Gross, Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems, Il Nuovo Cimento 20, 454 (1961)

    1961

  4. [12]

    L. P. Pitaevskii, V ortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas, Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 451 (1961), (Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 40, 646 (1961))

    1961

  5. [13]

    J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. V ogels, and W. Ketterle, Ob- servation of vortex lattices in Bose-Einstein condensates, Sci- ence 292, 476 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    T. W. Neely, E. C. Samson, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, and B. P. Anderson, Observation of vortex dipoles in an oblate Bose- Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 160401 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    B. C. Mulkerin, R. M. W. van Bijnen, D. H. J. O’Dell, A. M. Martin, and N. G. Parker, Anisotropic and long-range vortex interactions in two-dimensional dipolar Bose gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 170402 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Gallem ´ı, S

    A. Gallem ´ı, S. M. Roccuzzo, S. Stringari, and A. Recati, Quan- tized vortices in dipolar supersolid Bose-Einstein-condensed gases, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023322 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Klaus, T

    L. Klaus, T. Bland, E. Poli, C. Politi, G. Lamporesi, E. Casotti, R. N. Bisset, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Observation of vor- tices and vortex stripes in a dipolar condensate, Nature Physics 18, 1453 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Casotti, E

    E. Casotti, E. Poli, L. Klaus, A. Litvinov, C. Ulm, C. Politi, M. J. Mark, T. Bland, and F. Ferlaino, Observation of vortices in a dipolar supersolid, Nature 635, 327–331 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Del Pace, K

    G. Del Pace, K. Xhani, A. Muzi Falconi, M. Fedrizzi, N. Grani, D. Hernandez Rajkov, M. Inguscio, F. Scazza, W. J. Kwon, and G. Roati, Imprinting persistent currents in tunable fermionic rings, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041037 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Yokoyama, Creation of superconducting vortices by angular momentum of light, J

    T. Yokoyama, Creation of superconducting vortices by angular momentum of light, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 89, 103703 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Perali, D

    A. Perali, D. Neilson, and A. R. Hamilton, High-temperature superfluidity in double-bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 146803 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    G ´oral, K

    K. G ´oral, K. Rza ¸˙zewski, and T. Pfau, Bose-Einstein conden- sation with magnetic dipole-dipole forces, Phys. Rev. A 61, 051601 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Haas and B

    F. Haas and B. Eliasson, Time-dependent variational approach for Bose–Einstein condensates with nonlocal interaction, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 51, 175302 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    U. R. Fischer, Stability of quasi-two-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensates with dominant dipole-dipole interactions, Phys. Rev. A 73, 031602 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    A. M. Martin, N. G. Marchant, D. H. J. O’Dell, and N. G. Parker, V ortices and vortex lattices in quantum ferrofluids, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 103004 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Ancilotto, M

    F. Ancilotto, M. Barranco, M. Pi, and L. Reatto, V ortex proper- ties in the extended supersolid phase of dipolar Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A 103, 033314 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    B ¨oning, A

    J. B ¨oning, A. Filinov, and M. Bonitz, Crystallization of an ex- citon superfluid, Phys. Rev. B 84, 075130 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    D. S. Dantas, A. R. P. Lima, A. Chaves, C. A. S. Almeida, G. A. Farias, and M. V . Miloˇsevi´c, Bound vortex states and exotic lat- tices in multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates: The role of vortex-vortex interaction, Phys. Rev. A91, 023630 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensation in Di- lute Gases, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Correggi, F

    M. Correggi, F. Pinsker, N. Rougerie, and J. Yngvason, Critical rotational speeds for superfluids in homogeneous traps, J. Math. Phys. 53, 095203 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Correggi, F

    M. Correggi, F. Pinsker, N. Rougerie, and J. Yngvason, V ortex phases of rotating superfluids, in J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., V ol. 414 (IOP Publishing, 2013) p. 012034

    2013

  24. [32]

    M. W. Zwierlein, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, V ortices and superfluidity in a strongly interacting Fermi gas, Nature 435, 1047 (2005)

    2005

Pith tools

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