Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Collective oscillations of a two-component Fermi gas on the repulsive branch

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Collective oscillations of a repulsive two-component Fermi gas split into three interaction-dependent frequency branches, all returning to the noninteracting value after full phase separation.

desk verdict A legitimate gap-filling numerical study of repulsive-branch collective modes whose quantitative claims rest on an unreported renormalization, so referee it but demand the missing details. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07771 v3 pith:PK5QR6AA submitted 2019-08-21 cond-mat.quant-gas

Tomasz Karpiuk , Piotr T. Grochowski , Miros{l}aw Brewczyk , Kazimierz Rzążewski This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords repulsiveFermigascollectiveoscillationstime-dependentHartree-Fockitinerantferromagnetismphaseseparationhydrodynamicapproximationbreathingmoderadialquadrupole
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 calculates how a two-component Fermi gas held on the repulsive branch of its energy spectrum oscillates inside a spherical harmonic trap, covering both the mixed paramagnetic phase and the phase-separated ferromagnetic state. It claims that, across the perturbation schemes considered, the collective response is organized into three frequency branches that all start at $\omega/\omega_0 = 2.0$ and move apart as the interaction $k_F a$ grows: the upper branch rises to about $2.2$, the middle falls to about $1.8$, and the lower falls to about $1.2$ near the phase transition at $k_F a \approx 0.9$. After the two species fully separate, every branch returns to the noninteracting value $2.0$, so the domain wall itself does not shift the frequencies. The result matters because it gives concrete spectral signatures of the incipient itinerant ferromagnetic instability and identifies where a simpler hydrodynamic description can be trusted.

What carries the argument

The calculations use a time-dependent Hartree-Fock (atomic-orbital) ansatz: the many-body wave function is a product of two Slater determinants, one per spin species, and the orbitals evolve under a mean-field potential $g n_{\mp}$. To go beyond mean field, the bare scattering length is replaced locally by the symmetrized renormalized value $a_{\rm eff} = [\zeta(k_+ a)/k_+ + \zeta(k_- a)/k_-]/2$, with $\zeta$ expanded to third order in $k_F a$; this converts the interaction term $g n_{\mp}$ into density-dependent corrections proportional to $n^{4/3}$ and $n^{5/3}$. Ground states are prepared by imaginary-time propagation and oscillations by real-time propagation of the orbitals, with frequencies extracted from fits to sums of sines and from Fourier transforms of the cloud widths. For the hydrodynamic comparison, the same system is described by a Thomas-Fermi density functional; a Madelung transformation turns it into a pseudo-Schrödinger equation whose linearization yields the hydrodynamic normal modes.

What would settle it

Drive a trapped two-component Fermi gas (e.g., $^6$Li or $^{40}$K near a Feshbach resonance) with an out-of-phase radial compression while sweeping $k_F a$ through the transition near $0.9$: the claim predicts a dominant spectral line falling from $\omega/\omega_0 \approx 2.0$ toward $1.2$, with an upper branch rising to about $2.2$. If the lowest branch instead stays near $1.4$ or the branches do not converge back to $2.0$ after full separation, the renormalized TDHF picture is wrong; alternatively, repeating the TDHF calculation with a different truncation of Eq. (5) or with substantially larger $N$ and finding the branch endpoints move outside the quoted shifts would falsify the quantitative claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is the three-branch spectrum of collective modes of the repulsive mixture in the overlapping phase. In-phase excitation produces only the upper branch; out-of-phase excitation additionally reveals a middle branch (most clearly in the radial compression and quadrupole modes) and a dominant lower branch. The same three branches are shared by all perturbation schemes, each scheme merely choosing how strongly a given branch is excited. As $k_F a$ grows toward the transition at about $0.9$, the upper branch rises from $2.0$ to about $2.2$, the middle falls to about $1.8$, and the lower falls to about $1.2$; after full phase separation, all three converge back to the noninteracting $2.0$. Renormalizing the scattering length to third order shifts the transition to $k_F a \approx 0.9$ and lifts the monopole maximum from about $2.1$ to about $2.2$ compared with bare mean field. In a spherical trap, the hydrodynamic Thomas-Fermi description reproduces the monopole and the upper and lower branches, but its middle branch stays at $\sqrt{2}\,\omega_0$ instead of following the TDHF value.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted branch frequencies and the critical interaction $k_F a \approx 0.9$ stand on a perturbative renormalization of the scattering length (Eqs. 4–5) whose coefficients come from an earlier paper, plus the assumption, checked only in single larger-$N$ runs, that 56+56 atoms already lie in the universal regime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the overlapping phase, any of the three perturbation schemes should reveal the same upper branch, rising from $\omega/\omega_0 = 2.0$ to about $2.2$ as $k_F a$ approaches the transition.
  • The lower branch, excited only by out-of-phase perturbations and the strongest line near the transition, gives the clearest experimental signature of incipient ferromagnetic separation.
  • After full phase separation, all branches return to the noninteracting frequency $\omega/\omega_0 \approx 2.0$, so the domain wall itself is invisible to these radial modes.
  • In a spherical trap, the hydrodynamic Thomas-Fermi description is quantitatively reliable for the monopole and for the upper and lower branches, but its fixed middle branch at $\sqrt{2}\,\omega_0$ marks where that approximation breaks down.
  • Renormalizing the interaction to third order raises the maximum monopole frequency from about $2.1$ to about $2.2$ and fixes the phase-separation threshold at $k_F a \approx 0.9$, so quantitative comparison with experiments requires the renormalized coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit: if the three branches are truly shared by all perturbation schemes in a spherical trap, an arbitrary small perturbation should excite only these three spectral lines, so a quench experiment could count the branches directly.
  • The pinning of the hydrodynamic middle branch at $\sqrt{2}\,\omega_0$ suggests this mode is a relative out-of-phase compression whose frequency is protected by the trap geometry in the hydrodynamic limit; adding a gradient correction to the density functional might recover its $k_F a$ dependence.
  • Extrapolating the authors' spherical-trap caveat, the hydrodynamic description should lose quantitative validity in elongated traps for modes whose noninteracting frequency differs from the hydrodynamic one; measuring an axial breathing mode in a cigar-shaped cloud would test that geometric sensitivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 collective oscillations of a two-component Fermi gas on the repulsive branch of its energy spectrum, using time-dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF) calculations and a hydrodynamic/density-functional approach. The authors consider a spherically trapped gas with equal populations, and analyze in-phase and out-of-phase radial compression, breathing, and quadrupole oscillations. They find that in the overlapping (paramagnetic) phase the collective spectrum consists of three branches whose frequencies shift with the dimensionless interaction strength k_F a, with the upper branch rising toward about 2.2 and the lower branch falling toward about 1.2 near the phase transition at k_F a ≈ 0.9. After full phase separation, all branches return toward the noninteracting value ω/ω0 = 2.0. The paper also compares TDHF with a hydrodynamic (time-dependent Thomas-Fermi) description, finding agreement for the monopole mode and for the upper and lower branches of the other modes, while the hydrodynamic middle branch stays at the fixed value √2 ω0 instead of the interaction-dependent TDHF result.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions are reliable, this is a useful contribution to the study of repulsive Fermi gases and to the debate on collective modes in phase-separated mixtures. The paper is commendable for carrying out fully time-dependent TDHF simulations for a non-trivial system, for cross-checking the monopole frequency with sum-rule and hydrodynamic methods, and for clearly identifying where hydrodynamic descriptions break down. The central quantitative content, however, is set by a renormalization input taken from the authors' earlier work, and the manuscript as written does not provide enough information to assess the accuracy of that input near the reported critical interaction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The paper does not state the numerical values of the coefficients B and D in the third-order expansion of the renormalization function ζ, nor does it test the convergence of this truncation. This is load-bearing because the claimed critical value k_F a ≈ 0.9 and all the plotted branch frequencies are obtained with this locally renormalized coupling. Near the transition k_F a ≈ 0.9, so the cubic term D(k_F a)^3 is not a small perturbative correction, and an inaccurate B or D, or a non-negligible fourth-order term, would shift both the transition point and the frequency branches. Please provide the values of B and D used (with their source in Ref. [65]) and present a convergence test, for example by comparing third- and fourth-order truncations or by benchmarking against a known homogeneous-system result.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (14)-(15)] After the phase transition, the mode frequencies are identified only as 'strong contributions' in the normalized Fourier transform, not from sine fits, and no uncertainty or width information is given. In particular, the statement that in the fully separated regime all branches return to ω/ω0 ≈ 2.0 is quantitatively soft because the Fourier peaks are broad and the normalization is per interaction strength. Please report the peak positions and their widths (or another uncertainty estimate) for the post-transition regime, and specify the criterion used to label a contribution as a 'branch.'
  3. [Sec. 2.1] The claim that N = 56 + 56 atoms is sufficient for universal behavior is supported only by 'single calculations with larger numbers of atoms,' and the paper itself notes in the footnote that density profiles differ with atom number. Since the observable-specific universality of the collective frequencies is a premise of the analysis, please show explicitly how the monopole frequency (or the critical interaction) changes with N at a fixed k_F a, or otherwise justify the universality claim quantitatively.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, paragraph 4] The sentence beginning 'Duetophase-separatedstatebeingintrinsicallyunstable...' is missing spaces and should be reworded for readability.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption mentions filled markers (circles, squares, triangles) but does not say which symbol corresponds to which mode or branch; please define the symbols in the caption or in the text.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (10)] The coefficient 0.11 in the approximate sum-rule result ω_R ≈ 2√(1 + 0.11 k_F a) is presented without derivation or reference to a specific equation; please clarify how this coefficient follows from the preceding formulas.
  4. [Sec. 3] The abbreviation 'TDHD' appears for the hydrodynamic approach and is used inconsistently with 'TDHF' and 'hydrodynamic'; please define it once and use it consistently.
  5. [Sec. 1, references] Reference [48] is missing a DOI; and since Ref. [65] is the source of the coefficients B and D in Eq. (5), please make the connection explicit at the point where Eq. (5) is introduced.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The kF a_c≈0.9 transition point is a calibrated input (renormalization from the authors' own prior work) rather than an independent prediction; the collective frequencies themselves are genuine dynamical outputs.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2, Eqs. (4)-(5), and Sec. 2.1 'Initial states – imaginary time propagation']
    "For the physical interpretation and numerical values of consecutive perturbative terms, see e.g. [65] ... In order to get value of kFac consistent with both more sophisticated theoretical approaches (Quantum Monte Carlo, LOCV, largeN expansion) and experimental results, we renormalize perturbatively the scattering length in the way described above. In the trap, this critical value is kFac≈ 0.9."

    The model input (the ζ expansion with coefficients B and D taken from the authors' own Ref. [65]) is explicitly introduced in order to make the phase-separation threshold agree with QMC, LOCV, large-N, and experiment, and the same threshold kF a_c≈0.9 is then reported as the critical interaction and used to organize the branch structure. Thus the agreement of kF a_c with external estimates is not an independent check: the renormalization was calibrated to that value. The collective frequencies are extracted from the time evolution and are not fitted to the branch values, so the circularity is limited to the transition-point/calibration axis.

full rationale

The collective-mode frequencies in Fig. 3 are genuine dynamical outputs of the TDHF propagation, not fits to those frequencies, and the hydrodynamic comparison in Sec. 3 is an independent cross-check for the monopole and for the upper and lower branches. The only place where a claimed result coincides with a model input is the phase-separation threshold: the ζ(kF a) renormalization of Eqs. (4)-(5), with coefficients B and D taken from the authors' own Ref. [65], is introduced 'in order to get' kF a_c consistent with QMC/LOCV/large-N/experiment, and the same kF a_c≈0.9 is then reported as the critical interaction. That agreement is therefore not an independent validation, and the near-critical frequency shifts can inherit the same calibration. Because the frequencies themselves are not fitted and the paper contains non-circular benchmarks (sum-rule and hydrodynamic comparisons), the circularity is partial and the score is 4 rather than higher. The omission of the B and D values and the absence of a convergence test for Eq. (5) are correctness/completeness concerns rather than further circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on a single Slater-determinant (TDHF) ansatz, a zero-range contact interaction, and a locally renormalized coupling whose coefficients B and D are inherited from the authors' earlier PRL [65]. The hydrodynamic comparison relies on a Thomas-Fermi density functional and an assumed fast local relaxation. No new entities are introduced; the free parameters are the renormalization coefficients and the hand-chosen symmetry-breaking potential.

free parameters (3)
  • B (second-order coefficient in ζ expansion) = from Ref. [65]; not given in text
    Enters the renormalized interaction through C = g a B (6π²)^{1/3}/2 in Eq. (6); controls the beyond-mean-field frequency shift.
  • D (third-order coefficient in ζ expansion) = from Ref. [65]; not given in text
    Enters through E = g a² D (6π²)^{2/3}/2 in Eq. (6).
  • Strength of symmetry-breaking linear potential = not specified
    Added in the z-direction with opposite sign for the two species to orient the domain wall; chosen by hand, not quantified in the text.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The many-body wavefunction is a product of two Slater determinants (TDHF ansatz), Eq. (1).
    Restricts the Hilbert space to a single Slater determinant per spin species; neglects correlations beyond mean-field.
  • domain assumption Inter-species contact interaction with g = 4πa ℏ²/m, valid for broad Feshbach resonances.
    Used in Eq. (2); assumes zero-range s-wave scattering with a single scattering length a.
  • ad hoc to paper The local renormalization a_eff = [ζ(k_+ a)/k_+ + ζ(k_- a)/k_-]/2 with ζ expanded to third order, Eq. (4)-(6).
    The key correction that shifts the critical k_F a to 0.9 and the frequencies from the bare mean-field values; coefficients B and D are imported from the authors' earlier PRL [65].
  • domain assumption Thomas-Fermi approximation for the intrinsic kinetic energy in the density functional / hydrodynamic approach, Sec. 3.
    T = Σ ∫ (3/5) A n_j^{5/3} dr; neglects gradient corrections and the von Weizsäcker term included in the TDHF pseudo-Schrödinger equation (18).
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic regime: fast relaxation to a local Fermi sphere during oscillations, Sec. 3.
    Valid for overlapping, collisionally thermalized clouds; the paper explicitly notes it is not present in the collisionless noninteracting regime.
  • domain assumption N=56+56 atoms is sufficient for universal behavior in terms of k_F a, Sec. 2.1.
    The paper asserts universality and reports only 'single calculations with larger numbers of atoms' as confirmation; finite-size effects may remain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collective oscillations of a two-component Fermi gas on the repulsive branch." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PK5QR6AA

@misc{pith2026190807771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collective oscillations of a two-component Fermi gas on the repulsive branch},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PK5QR6AA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07771}
}
read the original abstract

We calculate frequencies of collective oscillations of two-component Fermi gas that is kept on the repulsive branch of its energy spectrum. Not only is a paramagnetic phase explored, but also a ferromagnetically separated one. Both in-, and out-of-phase perturbations are investigated, showing contributions from various gas excitations. Additionally, we compare results coming from both time-dependent Hartree-Fock and density-functional approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07771 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ground-state densities for different values of interaction strength. For weak in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Frequency of a monopole mode calculated with the help of four different meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Frequencies of monopole (top row), radial compression (middle row) and radial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of all the frequencies in the fully overlapping phase. Combining all the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [65]

    P. T. Grochowski, T. Karpiuk, M. Brewczyk and K. Rzążewski,Unified Description of Dynamics of a Repulsive Two-Component Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.119(21), 215303 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.215303

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.215303 2017

  2. [1]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith,Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 9780511802850, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802850 (2008)

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802850 2008

  3. [2]

    Pitaevskii and S

    L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensation and Superfluidity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198758884, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198758884.001.0001 (2016)

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Ebner and D

    C. Ebner and D. Edwards,The low temperature thermodynamic properties of superfluid solutions of 3He in 4He, Phys. Rep.2(2), 77 (1971), doi:10.1016/0370-1573(71)90003-2

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(71)90003-2 1971

  5. [4]

    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(5221), 198 (1995), doi:10.1126/science.269.5221.198

    doi:10.1126/science.269.5221.198 1995

  6. [5]

    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(22), 3969 (1995), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3969

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.3969 1995

  7. [6]

    C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett and R. G. Hulet,Evidence of Bose-Einstein Condensation in an Atomic Gas with Attractive Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75(9), 1687 (1995), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1687

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.1687 1995

  8. [7]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne and E. Tiesinga,Feshbach resonances in ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2), 1225 (2010), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.1225

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.1225 2010

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    Mewes, M

    M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Durfee, C. G. Townsend and W. Ketterle,Collective Excitations of a Bose-Einstein Condensate in a Magnetic Trap, Phys. Rev. Lett.77(6), 988 (1996), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.988. 12 SciPost Physics Submission

    1996 doi

  2. [9]

    D. S. Jin, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell,Collective Excitations of a Bose-Einstein Condensate in a Dilute Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.77(3), 420 (1996), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.420

    1996 doi

  3. [10]

    D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews and W. Ketterle,Colli- sionless and Hydrodynamic Excitations of a Bose-Einstein Condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81(3), 500 (1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.500

    1998 doi

  4. [11]

    Buggle, P

    C. Buggle, P. Pedri, W. von Klitzing and J. T. M. Walraven, Shape oscillations in nondegenerate Bose gases: Transition from the collisionless to the hydrodynamic regime, Phys. Rev. A72(4), 043610 (2005), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.043610

    2005 doi

  5. [12]

    Altmeyer, S

    A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, M. J. Wright, C. Kohstall, J. H. Denschlag and R. Grimm,Dy- namics of a strongly interacting Fermi gas: The radial quadrupole mode, Phys. Rev. A 76(3), 033610 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.76.033610

    2007 doi

  6. [13]

    Grimm,Finite-Temperature Collective Dynamics of a Fermi Gas in the BEC-BCS Crossover, Phys

    M.J.Wright, S.Riedl, A.Altmeyer, C.Kohstall, E.R.SánchezGuajardo, J.H.Denschlag and R. Grimm,Finite-Temperature Collective Dynamics of a Fermi Gas in the BEC-BCS Crossover, Phys. Rev. Lett.99(15), 150403 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.150403

    2007 doi

  7. [14]

    Stringari, Collective Excitations of a Trapped Bose-Condensed Gas, Phys

    S. Stringari, Collective Excitations of a Trapped Bose-Condensed Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77(12), 2360 (1996), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.2360

    1996 doi

  8. [15]

    F.Chevy, V.Bretin, P.Rosenbusch, K.W.MadisonandJ.Dalibard, Transverse Breathing Mode of an Elongated Bose-Einstein Condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.88(25), 250402 (2002), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.250402

    2002 doi

  9. [16]

    Kinast, S

    J. Kinast, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, A. Turlapov and J. E. Thomas,Evidence for Superfluidity in a Resonantly Interacting Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92(15), 150402 (2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.150402

    2004 doi

  10. [17]

    M.Bartenstein, A.Altmeyer, S.Riedl, S.Jochim, C.Chin, J.H.DenschlagandR.Grimm, Collective Excitations of a Degenerate Gas at the BEC-BCS Crossover, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92(20), 203201 (2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.203201

    2004 doi

  11. [18]

    Altmeyer, S

    A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, C. Kohstall, M. J. Wright, R. Geursen, M. Bartenstein, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag and R. Grimm, Precision Measurements of Collective Oscillations in the BEC-BCS Crossover , Phys. Rev. Lett. 98(4), 040401 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.040401

    2007 doi

  12. [19]

    Busch, J

    T. Busch, J. I. Cirac, V. M. Pérez-García and P. Zoller,Stability and collective excitations of a two-component Bose-Einstein condensed gas: A moment approach, Phys. Rev. A 56(4), 2978 (1997), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.56.2978

    1997 doi

  13. [20]

    B. D. Esry and C. H. Greene,Low-lying excitations of double Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A57(2), 1265 (1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.57.1265

    1998 doi

  14. [21]

    Ho,Spinor Bose Condensates in Optical Traps, Phys

    T.-L. Ho,Spinor Bose Condensates in Optical Traps, Phys. Rev. Lett.81(4), 742 (1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.742. 13 SciPost Physics Submission

    1998 doi

  15. [22]

    D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, J. R. Ensher, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell,Dynamics of Component Separation in a Binary Mixture of Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81(8), 1539 (1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1539

    1998 doi

  16. [23]

    M. J. Bijlsma, B. A. Heringa and H. T. C. Stoof,Phonon exchange in dilute Fermi-Bose mixtures: Tailoring the Fermi-Fermi interaction, Phys. Rev. A 61(5), 053601 (2000), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.61.053601

    2000 doi

  17. [24]

    Capuzzi and E

    P. Capuzzi and E. S. Hernández,Zero-sound density oscillations in Fermi-Bose mixtures, Phys. Rev. A64(4), 043607 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.043607

    2001 doi

  18. [25]

    S. K. Yip,Collective modes in a dilute Bose-Fermi mixture, Phys. Rev. A64(2), 023609 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.023609

    2001 doi

  19. [26]

    Góral and L

    K. Góral and L. Santos, Ground state and elementary excitations of single and binary Bose-Einstein condensates of trapped dipolar gases, Phys. Rev. A66(2), 023613 (2002), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.023613

    2002 doi

  20. [27]

    H. Pu, W. Zhang, M. Wilkens and P. Meystre,Phonon Spectrum and Dynamical Stability of a Dilute Quantum Degenerate Bose-Fermi Mixture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(7), 070408 (2002), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.070408

    2002 doi

  21. [28]

    A. A. Svidzinsky and S. T. Chui, Normal modes and stability of phase- separated trapped Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A 68(1), 013612 (2003), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.68.013612

    2003 doi

  22. [29]

    Liu and H

    X.-J. Liu and H. Hu,Collisionless and hydrodynamic excitations of trapped boson-fermion mixtures, Phys. Rev. A67(2), 023613 (2003), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.023613

    2003 doi

  23. [30]

    Deconinck, P

    B. Deconinck, P. G. Kevrekidis, H. E. Nistazakis and D. J. Frantzeskakis, Linearly coupled Bose-Einstein condensates: From Rabi oscillations and quasiperiodic solutions to oscillating domain walls and spiral waves , Phys. Rev. A 70(6), 063605 (2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.70.063605

    2004 doi

  24. [31]

    Rodríguez, P

    M. Rodríguez, P. Pedri, P. Törmä and L. Santos, Scissors modes of two-component degenerate gases: Bose-Bose and Bose-Fermi mixtures, Phys. Rev. A 69(2), 023617 (2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.69.023617

    2004 doi

  25. [32]

    Navarro, R

    R. Navarro, R. Carretero-González and P. G. Kevrekidis,Phase separation and dynam- ics of two-component Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A 80(2), 023613 (2009), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.023613

    2009 doi

  26. [33]

    Vichi and S

    L. Vichi and S. Stringari, Collective oscillations of an interacting trapped Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. A60(6), 4734 (1999), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.60.4734

    1999 doi

  27. [34]

    Maddaloni, M

    P. Maddaloni, M. Modugno, C. Fort, F. Minardi and M. Inguscio,Collective Oscillations of Two Colliding Bose-Einstein Condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85(12), 2413 (2000), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2413

    2000 doi

  28. [35]

    S. D. Gensemer and D. S. Jin, Transition from Collisionless to Hydrodynamic Behavior in an Ultracold Fermi Gas , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87(17), 173201 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.173201. 14 SciPost Physics Submission

    2001 doi

  29. [36]

    Ferrier-Barbut, M

    I. Ferrier-Barbut, M. Delehaye, S. Laurent, A. T. Grier, M. Pierce, B. S. Rem, F. Chevy and C. Salomon, A mixture of Bose and Fermi superfluids, Science (80-. ). 345(6200), 1035 (2014), doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.1255380

    2014 doi

  30. [37]

    Delehaye, S

    M. Delehaye, S. Laurent, I. Ferrier-Barbut, S. Jin, F. Chevy and C. Salomon,Critical Ve- locity and Dissipation of an Ultracold Bose-Fermi Counterflow, Phys. Rev. Lett.115(26), 265303 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.265303

    2015 doi

  31. [38]

    R. Roy, A. Green, R. Bowler and S. Gupta,Two-Element Mixture of Bose and Fermi Su- perfluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.118(5), 055301 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.055301

    2017 doi

  32. [39]

    Wu, X.-C

    Y.-P. Wu, X.-C. Yao, X.-P. Liu, X.-Q. Wang, Y.-X. Wang, H.-Z. Chen, Y. Deng, Y.-A. Chen and J.-W. Pan,Coupled dipole oscillations of a mass-imbalanced Bose-Fermi super- fluid mixture, Phys. Rev. B97(2), 020506(R) (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.97.020506

    2018 doi

  33. [40]

    B.J.DeSalvo, K.Patel, G.CaiandC.Chin, Observation of fermion-mediated interactions between bosonic atoms, Nature 568(7750), 61 (2019), doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1055-0

    2019 doi

  34. [41]

    Modugno, G

    G. Modugno, G. Roati, F. Riboli, F. Ferlaino, R. J. Brecha and M. Inguscio, Collapse of a Degenerate Fermi Gas , Science (80-. ). 297(5590), 2240 (2002), doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.1077386

    2002 doi

  35. [42]

    Ospelkaus, S

    C. Ospelkaus, S. Ospelkaus, K. Sengstock and K. Bongs,Interaction-Driven Dynamics of K 40 - Rb 87 Fermion-Boson Gas Mixtures in the Large-Particle-Number Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96(2), 020401 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.020401

    2006 doi

  36. [43]

    Ospelkaus, C

    S. Ospelkaus, C. Ospelkaus, L. Humbert, K. Sengstock and K. Bongs,Tuning of Het- eronuclear Interactions in a Degenerate Fermi-Bose Mixture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(12), 120403 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.120403

    2006 doi

  37. [44]

    S. B. Papp, J. M. Pino and C. E. Wieman, Tunable Miscibility in a Dual- Species Bose-Einstein Condensate , Phys. Rev. Lett. 101(4), 040402 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.040402

    2008 doi

  38. [45]

    Y.-i. Shin, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek and W. Ketterle, Phase diagram of a two-component Fermi gas with resonant interactions, Nature 451(7179), 689 (2008), doi:10.1038/nature06473

    2008 doi

  39. [46]

    R. S. Lous, I. Fritsche, M. Jag, F. Lehmann, E. Kirilov, B. Huang and R. Grimm,Probing the Interface of a Phase-Separated State in a Repulsive Bose-Fermi Mixture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(24), 243403 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.243403

    2018 doi

  40. [47]

    Sommer, M

    A. Sommer, M. Ku, G. Roati and M. W. Zwierlein,Universal spin transport in a strongly interacting Fermi gas, Nature 472(7342), 201 (2011), doi:10.1038/nature09989

    2011 doi

  41. [48]

    Valtolina, F

    G. Valtolina, F. Scazza, A. Amico, A. Burchianti, A. Recati, T. Enss, M. Inguscio, M. Zac- cantiandG.Roati, Exploring the ferromagnetic behaviour of a repulsive Fermi gas through spin dynamics, Nat. Phys.13, 704 (2017)

    2017

  42. [49]

    Huang, I

    B. Huang, I. Fritsche, R. S. Lous, C. Baroni, J. T. M. Walraven, E. Kirilov and R. Grimm, Breathing mode of a Bose-Einstein condensate repulsively interacting with a fermionic reservoir, Phys. Rev. A99, 041602(R) (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.99.041602. 15 SciPost Physics Submission

    2019 doi

  43. [50]

    Stoner, Atomic moments in ferromagnetic metals and alloys with non-ferromagnetic elements, Philos

    E. Stoner, Atomic moments in ferromagnetic metals and alloys with non-ferromagnetic elements, Philos. Mag. 15, 1018 (1933)

    1933

  44. [51]

    Jo, Y.-R

    G.-B. Jo, Y.-R. Lee, J.-H. Choi, C. A. Christensen, T. H. Kim, J. H. Thywissen, D. E. Pritchard and W. Ketterle,Itinerant ferromagnetism in a Fermi gas of ultracold atoms., Science 325(5947), 1521 (2009), doi:10.1126/science.1177112

    2009 doi

  45. [52]

    Cui and H

    X. Cui and H. Zhai, Stability of a fully magnetized ferromagnetic state in repul- sively interacting ultracold Fermi gases , Phys. Rev. A 81(4), 041602(R) (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.81.041602

    2010 doi

  46. [53]

    Pilati, G

    S. Pilati, G. Bertaina, S. Giorgini and M. Troyer,Itinerant Ferromagnetism of a Repulsive Atomic Fermi Gas: A Quantum Monte Carlo Study, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105(3), 030405 (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.030405

    2010 doi

  47. [54]

    Massignan and G

    P. Massignan and G. M. Bruun, Repulsive polarons and itinerant ferromag- netism in strongly polarized Fermi gases , Eur. Phys. J. D 65(1-2), 83 (2011), doi:10.1140/epjd/e2011-20084-5

    2011 doi

  48. [55]

    Chang, M

    S.-Y. Chang, M. Randeria and N. Trivedi,Ferromagnetism in the upper branch of the Feshbach resonance and the hard-sphere Fermi gas, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108(1), 51 (2011), doi:10.1073/pnas.1011990108

    2011 doi

  49. [56]

    Pekker, M

    D. Pekker, M. Babadi, R. Sensarma, N. Zinner, L. Pollet, M. W. Zwierlein and E. Demler, Competition between Pairing and Ferromagnetic Instabilities in Ultracold Fermi Gases near Feshbach Resonances, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(5), 050402 (2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.050402

    2011 doi

  50. [57]

    Sanner, E

    C. Sanner, E. J. Su, W. Huang, A. Keshet, J. Gillen and W. Ketterle,Correlations and Pair Formation in a Repulsively Interacting Fermi Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(24), 240404 (2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.240404

    2012 doi

  51. [58]

    Massignan, M

    P. Massignan, M. Zaccanti and G. M. Bruun,Polarons, dressed molecules and itinerant ferromagnetism in ultracold Fermi gases, Reports Prog. Phys. 77(3), 034401 (2014), doi:10.1088/0034-4885/77/3/034401

    2014 doi

  52. [59]

    Trappe, P

    M.-I. Trappe, P. T. Grochowski, M. Brewczyk and K. Rzążewski,Ground-state den- sities of repulsive two-component Fermi gases, Phys. Rev. A 93(2), 023612 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.023612

    2016 doi

  53. [60]

    Amico, F

    A. Amico, F. Scazza, G. Valtolina, P. Tavares, W. Ketterle, M. Inguscio, G. Roati and M. Zaccanti, Time-Resolved Observation of Competing Attractive and Repulsive Short- Range Correlations in Strongly Interacting Fermi Gases, Phys.Rev.Lett. 121(25), 253602 (2018), doi:10.1103/...

    2018 doi

  54. [61]

    G. M. Bruun,Collective modes of trapped Fermi gases in the normal phase, Phys. Rev. A 63(4), 043408 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.63.043408

    2001 doi

  55. [62]

    Maruyama and G

    T. Maruyama and G. F. Bertsch, Spin-excited oscillations in two-component fermion condensates, Phys. Rev. A73(1), 013610 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.013610. 16 SciPost Physics Submission

    2006 doi

  56. [63]

    Maruyama and T

    T. Maruyama and T. Nishimura, Coupled breathing oscillations of two-component fermion condensates in deformed traps , Phys. Rev. A 75(3), 033611 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.033611

    2007 doi

  57. [64]

    T. N. De Silva and E. J. Mueller,Collective oscillations of a Fermi gas near a Feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. A72(6), 063614 (2005), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.72.063614

    2005 doi

  58. [66]

    Gawryluk, T

    K. Gawryluk, T. Karpiuk, M. Gajda, K. Rzążewski and M. Brewczyk,Unified way for computing dynamics of Bose–Einstein condensates and degenerate Fermi gases, Int. J. Comput. Math. 95(11), 2143 (2018), doi:10.1080/00207160.2017.1370545

    2018

  59. [67]

    von Stecher and C

    J. von Stecher and C. H. Greene, Renormalized mean-field theory for a two- component Fermi gas with s -wave interactions, Phys. Rev. A 75(2), 022716 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.022716

    2007 doi

  60. [68]

    Domps, P.-G

    A. Domps, P.-G. Reinhard and E. Suraud, Time-Dependent Thomas-Fermi Approach for Electron Dynamics in Metal Clusters , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(25), 5520 (1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.5520

    1998 doi

  61. [69]

    Karpiuk, M

    T. Karpiuk, M. Brewczyk, Ł. Dobrek, M. A. Baranov, M. Lewenstein and K. Rzążewski, Optical generation of solitonlike pulses in a single-component gas of neutral fermionic atoms, Phys. Rev. A66(2), 023612 (2002), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.66.023612

    2002 doi

  62. [70]

    Madelung, Quantentheorie in hydrodynamischer form, Z

    E. Madelung, Quantentheorie in hydrodynamischer form, Z. Phys.40, 322 (1927). 17

    1927

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.