Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Generating persistent-current superpositions in Bose-Einstein condensates using dynamic optical potentials

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A simple barrier-plus-phase-flip sequence can place a Bose-Einstein condensate into a superposition of counter-rotating persistent currents, with numerical fidelity above 90%.

desk verdict Solid numerical proposal for persistent-current superpositions via barrier shaping plus phase imprint, with a genuine two-state selection-rule result; the main caveat is idealized switching and a fidelity maximum sitting at the edge of the scan. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.21144 v2 pith:ROB4AI5U submitted 2026-01-29 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Renzo Testa , Donatella Cassettari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords Bose-EinsteincondensatepersistentcurrentsuperpositionphaseimprinttoroidaltrapopticalpotentialGross-Pitaevskiiequationatomtronics
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 proposes that the motional state of a Bose-Einstein condensate can be engineered by separately controlling density (with trapping barriers) and phase (with a sudden phase imprint). Applied to a toroidal trap, this yields a superposition of clockwise and counter-clockwise persistent currents, a state not yet created experimentally. Gross-Pitaevskii simulations show the engineered state matches the ideal cosine state with fidelity greater than 90% for m=3 and m=9, both without interactions and with up to 10^4 atoms, and stays stable with autocorrelation above 0.9 for several seconds. A two-state analytical model captures the dominant nonlinear coupling and predicts a selection rule in which the main higher mode has angular momentum 3m.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of amplitude shaping by thin Gaussian barriers (which pre-impose the node structure of the target state) and a sudden π phase imprint that flips alternate sectors, converting the density modulation into a phase winding. The key analytic object is a two-state linearized model of the nonlinear Gross-Pitaevskii equation, which yields a selection rule: the dominant coupled higher mode has angular momentum 3m, with an oscillation period set by the chemical-potential difference (scaling as the square of angular momentum) and an amplitude given by U/(4πΔμ).

What would settle it

Measure the fidelity as the barrier-removal time increases: if the fidelity drops below 90% when the removal time is a small fraction of the trap period (~0.22 s), the sudden-switch assumption fails. Alternatively, measure the population of the |9±⟩ mode for an interacting m=3 condensate with N=10^3; the two-state model predicts an oscillation amplitude of about 0.088 and a period of about 0.59 s, and a clear deviation would disprove the selection rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a condensate wave function can be treated as amplitude and phase, each controllable independently: barriers shape the density to approximate the target's nodes, and a π phase flip on alternate sectors converts that density into the target phase structure. For a ring trap, starting from the ground state with 2m repulsive barriers, suddenly removing the barriers while imprinting the phase produces a state very close to cos(mφ), i.e., an equal superposition of |m⟩ and |−m⟩ persistent currents. The fidelity is optimized by the barrier height; interactions and higher m lower the achievable fidelity but keep it above 90% in the studied range. The engineered state is stabl

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes the barriers can be removed and the phase imprinted suddenly and with perfect spatial alignment, so that the post-operation state is exactly the initial ground state multiplied by the phase mask.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, this method offers a high-efficiency route to persistent-current superpositions, avoiding the roughly 50% transfer-efficiency limit of two-photon Laguerre-Gauss methods.
  • The same amplitude-and-phase control applies to linear traps, so arbitrary excited states or superpositions of motional states could be engineered.
  • The stability of the node positions suggests the engineered states are usable for Sagnac rotation sensing, where the precession of the nodes measures rotation.
  • The two-state model predicts a specific oscillation period (~0.59 s) and population for the dominant higher mode, providing a clear experimental signature.
  • The protocol's generality means it could be extended to imbalanced superpositions, enabling richer interferometric and sensing schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The protocol's sudden-switch assumption is the main practical risk: finite barrier-removal time or imperfect alignment will introduce non-adiabatic excitations and phase errors, so the actual fidelity in an experiment may fall below the numerical 90%.
  • The selection rule m2 = 3m1 arises from the quadratic nonlinearity of the GPE, suggesting that any weakly interacting ring condensate will exhibit this mode-coupling structure; the two-state model could be adapted to predict interaction-strength-dependent dephasing in other ring geometries.
  • If the method is extended to imbalanced superpositions, it could produce arbitrary persistent-current superpositions, opening a path to magnetic-field-gradient sensing or qubit encodings in the motional state.
  • The numerical claim of R(t) > 0.90 for several seconds assumes a pure mean-field condensate; finite-temperature effects, atom loss, or trap anharmonicity are not modeled, so robustness to these effects is a natural next test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a protocol for engineering persistent-current superpositions in a toroidal BEC: prepare the ground state of a ring with 2m Gaussian barriers, then suddenly remove the barriers while imprinting a π phase on alternate sectors. The resulting |ENG⟩ state is compared via fidelity F=|⟨OAM|ENG⟩|² to the ideal counter-rotating superposition |OAM⟩=(|m⟩+|−m⟩)/√2. 2D GPE simulations for ⁸⁷Rb parameters give F>90% for m=3 and 9 with N=0, 10³, 10⁴ after optimization over the barrier height. The autocorrelation R(t) remains above 0.90 for several seconds. An analytical two-state model reproduces the dominant higher-mode dynamics and derives the selection rule m₂=3m₁.

Significance. If the protocol is experimentally robust, it offers a simple and high-efficiency alternative to Raman/Laguerre-Gauss methods for creating persistent-current superpositions, with potential applications in atomtronics and rotation sensing. The numerical parameters are clearly specified (r₀=50 μm, a_ho=r₀/10, FWHM=3.3 μm, grid 401 points, time step 5×10⁻⁶ s), and grid-convergence is checked. The analytical model in Appendix D is a genuine strength: it is derived from the GPE nonlinearity without fitted parameters and yields quantitative predictions (selection rule, oscillation period, amplitude) that agree with the numerics. The central numerical result is plausible and the paper is within the scope of the journal.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II and Abstract] The central numerical claim F>90% is obtained under the idealization that the barriers are removed instantaneously and the π-phase mask is applied simultaneously with perfect spatial alignment (§II, Fig. 2). The abstract's statement that the method 'can be realized experimentally' therefore goes beyond what is demonstrated. Finite switching times, a finite phase-mask edge width, and lateral misalignment will introduce non-adiabatic excitations and phase errors. Please add a sensitivity study (e.g., ramp times τ_off/τ_pulse, edge width w, displacement δ) or explicitly restrict the realizability claim. Given the trap period of 0.22 s and the ~0.6 s mode-coupling period, a short analysis may suffice, but it is presently absent.
  2. [§IV, Fig. 3] For m=3, N=10⁴, the manuscript states that the optimal barrier height 'is not reached in the investigated range'; the reported maximum therefore lies at the upper edge h_barrier/ω_trap=50. Since this case is one of the headline examples (F>90%), the optimization and the choice of barrier height used in §V are not fully established. Please either extend the scan while checking the coherence/fragmentation bound, or provide a quantitative criterion for the maximal admissible barrier height and show that the chosen value is the physically meaningful optimum.
  3. [Appendix D and Figs. 7, 9] The two-state linearized model is derived under |c₂|² ≪ |c₁|², and its quantitative comparison with numerics is shown only for N=10³ (Figs. 7 and 9). In §V and Appendix C the model is also invoked to explain the N=10⁴ results, especially the weak oscillations for m=9, N=10⁴. The manuscript should state the range of g₂D (or N) over which the quantitative predictions for A and the period are expected to hold, and ideally show a decomposition or direct comparison for N=10⁴ as well.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II, Fig. 1] The linear-trap demonstration is qualitative; a fidelity value would make the claimed generality to arbitrary motional states more concrete.
  2. [§III] Reference [36] cites only software documentation. Please provide a version/DOI or a more archival methods reference for the Trotter-Suzuki package.
  3. [§IV] The notation h_barrier/ω_trap mixes an energy with a frequency; define h_barrier explicitly as an energy, or write h_barrier/(ℏω_trap).
  4. [Appendix D] Equation (9) and the following text contain '(2π/0.362)T' with a missing parenthesis; the dimensionless-to-physical conversion factor is clear but should be typeset cleanly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fidelity and two-state-model results are independent numerical/analytical computations with parameters from the simulation setup, not fitted to the claimed predictions.

full rationale

The central claim is a direct numerical performance report: the protocol defines |ENG⟩ as the ground state of the ring-plus-barriers potential multiplied by a π phase mask, and the fidelity F is computed as the overlap with the target |OAM⟩. This is not a derived prediction that reduces to its inputs; the high fidelity is nontrivial because barrier height must be optimized against finite-width distortions and interaction effects (Fig. 3 shows F varying non-monotonically with hbarrier). The analytical two-state model in Appendix D is also self-contained: it starts from the GPE nonlinearity, expands in cos(mϕ) modes, derives the m2 = 3m1 selection rule from the trigonometric structure of the nonlinear term, and evaluates the period and amplitude (Δμ ≈ 0.362, A ≈ 0.088) from the stated physical parameters (g2D, ρ, r0), comparing favorably to the numerical A ≈ 0.068. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: references [15], [17], and [26] are external benchmarks, and the coherence references [38,39] are independent. The idealized sudden operations mentioned in Sec. II are an experimental-feasibility limitation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on the GPE as a mean-field description and on the assumption that phase coherence is preserved across the barriers. The analytical two-state model adds a weak-interaction linearization and a Gaussian radial profile. The only optimized control parameter is the barrier height; the barrier width is fixed by optical diffraction. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • hbarrier (barrier height) = optimal values not tabulated; scanned up to hbarrier/ωtrap = 50
    Fidelity F is optimized as a function of hbarrier; the reported high F values correspond to the best height in the scanned range. This is a legitimate control parameter, not a predicted quantity.
  • barrier width (FWHM) = 3.3 μm
    Chosen close to the diffraction limit of the optical system; larger widths reduce fidelity. It is a fixed design choice, not fitted to data, but it directly affects the reported fidelities.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field equation accurately describes the condensate dynamics for the parameters used.
    Eq. 3 is the basis of all numerics; this assumes a single coherent order parameter and no beyond-mean-field effects, which is standard for 87Rb at N=10^3-10^4 but not exact.
  • domain assumption Phase coherence is maintained across the barriers for hbarrier/ωtrap < 50.
    Sec. IV relies on this to ensure the phase imprint creates the correct relative phases; fragmentation is avoided by staying below the threshold referenced from [38,39].
  • domain assumption The two-mode linearization in Appendix D is valid, with |c2|^2 ≪ |c1|^2 and weak interactions so non-interacting radial wavefunctions f(r) are accurate.
    Appendix D linearizes the GPE in the small-population mode and uses a Gaussian f(r); this holds only for weak interactions, which is stated.
  • standard math Parity conservation in x and y restricts populated angular modes to odd k.
    Appendix B uses the parity invariance of the Hamiltonian to exclude even-k modes; a standard symmetry argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generating persistent-current superpositions in Bose-Einstein condensates using dynamic optical potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROB4AI5U

@misc{pith2026260121144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generating persistent-current superpositions in Bose-Einstein condensates using dynamic optical potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROB4AI5U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.21144}
}
read the original abstract

Precise and flexible manipulation of the motional state of ultracold atoms is a fundamental enabling technology for diverse applications such as quantum sensing and quantum computation. In this paper we propose a general, simple and highly efficient method to engineer the motional state of a Bose-Einstein condensate with time-dependent optical fields, which can be realized experimentally with existing light sculpting techniques. We demonstrate numerically how to engineer superpositions of persistent currents in a toroidal trap, achieving very high fidelity. We also study in detail the stability of the state over time, and we present an analytical two-state model that approximates well the evolution of the state in presence of self-interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.21144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Wave function engineering in a linear trap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Wave function engineering in a ring trap. The red cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. also displays a decay of the fidelity at larger hbarrier for m = 9, leading to a better defined optimal value of hbarrier compared to the m = 3 case. This is due to the smaller lobe size for higher m, meaning that the same displacement away from the barrier has a larger impact on the fidelity. In the presence of self-interactions, the number of atoms also plays a role, with larger N offering lower fideli￾ties. This … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Square modulus of the autocorrelation function for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Square modulus of the autocorrelation function for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the m = 3 non-interacting |ENG⟩ state im￾mediately after phase imprint, when the wave function is real. The wave function of the corresponding |OAM⟩ is shown for comparison. We see that for a low height hbarrier/ωtrap = 3, the discrepancy between the two wave fun…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Decomposition of the interacting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Square modulus of the autocorrelation function for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Decomposition of the interacting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A similar type of coupling exists between m2 = 27 and m1 = 9. In this case ∆µ ∝ (272 − 9 2 ), and the same formula used to estimate the oscillation period of the |9±⟩ population gives a period of approximately 0.066 s for the |27±⟩ population. Again, this agrees with …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    We start with atoms in the ground state of the Vbox,b(x) potential, which is Vbox(x) with added barriers at the locations where the target state has nodes

  2. [2]

    At the same time, we apply a phase imprint of π to the 2nd and 4th lobes of the wave function

    Next, we suddenly remove the barriers. At the same time, we apply a phase imprint of π to the 2nd and 4th lobes of the wave function. This phase imprint flips these parts of the wave function, so that the resulting state closely reproduces the tar- get state. In practice, the barriers have finite height and width, which is diffraction limited. This leads ...

  3. [3]

    K. C. Wright, R. B. Blakestad, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Driving phase slips in a superfluid atom circuit with a rotating weak link, Phys- ical Review Letters 110, 025302 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Amico, M

    L. Amico, M. Boshier, G. Birkl, A. Minguzzi, C. Miniatura, L. C. Kwek, D. Aghamalyan, V. Ahufin- ger, D. Anderson, N. Andrei, A. S. Arnold, M. Baker, T. A. Bell, T. Bland, J. P. Brantut, D. Cassettari, W. J. Chetcuti, F. Chevy, R. Citro, S. De Palo, R. Dumke, M. Edwards, R. Folman, J. Fortagh, S. A. Gardiner, B. M. Garraway, G. Gauthier, A. Günther, T. Ha...

    2021

  5. [5]

    J. Polo, W. J. Chetcuti, T. Haug, A. Minguzzi, K. Wright, and L. Amico, Persistent currents in ultra- cold gases, Physics Reports 1137, 1 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Moulder, S

    S. Moulder, S. Beattie, R. P. Smith, N. Tammuz, and Z. Hadzibabic, Quantized supercurrent decay in an an- nular bose-einstein condensate, Physical Review A 86, 013629 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Y. Cai, D. G. Allman, P. Sabharwal, and K. C. Wright, Persistent currents in rings of ultracold fermionic atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 150401 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Ramanathan, K

    A. Ramanathan, K. C. Wright, S. R. Muniz, M. Zelan, W. T. Hill, C. J. Lobb, K. Helmerson, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell, Superflow in a toroidal bose-einstein condensate: An atom circuit with a tunable weak link, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130401 (2011)

    2011

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Kumar, R

    A. Kumar, R. Dubessy, T. Badr, C. De Rossi, M. de Goër de Herve, L. Longchambon, and H. Perrin, Producing superfluid circulation states using phase im- printing, Phys. Rev. A 97, 043615 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    C. Ryu, M. F. Andersen, P. Cladé, V. Natarajan, K. Helmerson, and W. D. Phillips, Observation of persis- tent flow of a bose-einstein condensate in a toroidal trap, Physical Review Letters 99, 260401 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    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, Physical Review X 12, 041037 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    D. G. Allman, P. Sabharwal, and K. C. Wright, Quench-induced spontaneous currents in rings of ultra- cold fermionic atoms, Physical Review A 109, 053320 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Simjanovski, G

    S. Simjanovski, G. Gauthier, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, M. T. Reeves, and T. W. Neely, Shear-induced decaying turbulence in bose-einstein condensates, Physical Review A 111, 023314 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Hernández-Rajkov, N

    D. Hernández-Rajkov, N. Grani, F. Scazza, G. Del Pace, W. J. Kwon, M. Inguscio, K. Xhani, C. Fort, M. Mod- ugno, F. Marino, and G. Roati, Connecting shear flow and vortex array instabilities in annular atomic superflu- ids, Nature Physics 20, 939 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    K. T. Kapale and J. P. Dowling, Vortex phase qubit: Generating arbitrary, counterrotating, coherent super- positions in bose-einstein condensates via optical angular momentum beams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 173601 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Aidelsburger, J

    M. Aidelsburger, J. L. Ville, R. Saint-Jalm, S. Nascim- bène, J. Dalibard, and J. Beugnon, Relaxation dynamics in the merging of n independent condensates, Physical Review Letters 119, 190403 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Chaika, A

    A. Chaika, A. O. Oliinyk, I. V. Yatsuta, N. P. Proukakis, M. Edwards, A. I. Yakimenko, and T. Bland, Acceleration-induced transport of quantum vortices in joined atomtronic circuits, (2025), arXiv:2410.23818v2 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Pelegrí, J

    G. Pelegrí, J. Mompart, and V. Ahufinger, Quantum sensing using imbalanced counter-rotating bose–einstein condensate modes, New Journal of Physics 20, 103001 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Thanvanthri, K

    S. Thanvanthri, K. T. Kapale, and J. P. Dowling, Ar- bitrary coherent superpositions of quantized vortices in bose-einstein condensates via orbital angular momentum 11 of light, Physical Review A 77, 053825 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    K. T. K. Sulakshana Thanvanthri and J. P. Dowl- ing, Ultra-stable matter–wave gyroscopy with counter- rotating vortex superpositions in bose–einstein conden- sates, Journal of Modern Optics 59, 1180 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    C. L. Garrido Alzar, Compact chip-scale guided cold atom gyrometers for inertial navigation: Enabling tech- nologies and design study, A VS Quantum Science 1, 014702 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    S. Wu, E. Su, and M. Prentiss, Demonstration of an area- enclosing guided-atom interferometer for rotation sens- ing, Physical Review Letters 99, 173201 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    G. E. Marti, R. Olf, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Collective excitation interferometry with a toroidal bose-einstein condensate, Physical Review A 91, 013602 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    K. A. Krzyzanowska, J. Ferreras, C. Ryu, E. C. Samson, and M. G. Boshier, Matter-wave analog of a fiber-optic gyroscope, Physical Review A 108, 043305 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    E. R. Moan, R. A. Horne, T. Arpornthip, Z. Luo, A. J. Fallon, S. J. Berl, and C. A. Sackett, Quantum rota- tion sensing with dual sagnac interferometers in an atom- optical waveguide, Physical Review Letters 124, 120403 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    C. W. Woffinden, A. J. Groszek, G. Gauthier, B. J. Mom- mers, M. W. J. Bromley, S. A. Haine, H. Rubinsztein- Dunlop, M. J. Davis, T. W. Neely, and M. Baker, Via- bility of rotation sensing using phonon interferometry in Bose-Einstein condensates, SciPost Phys. 15, 128 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Gauthier, T

    G. Gauthier, T. Bell, A. Stilgoe, M. Baker, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, and T. Neely, Dynamic high-resolution optical trapping of ultracold atoms (2021) pp. 1–101

    2021

  20. [28]

    K. C. Wright, L. S. Leslie, A. Hansen, and N. P. Bigelow, Sculpting the vortex state of a spinor bec, Physical Re- view Letters 102, 030405 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    L. Kong, T. Gao, S. Peng, N. Dong, L. Zhao, L. Cao, G. Peng, W. Zhang, M. Zhan, and K. Jiang, Macroscopic superposition of vortex states in a matter wave, (2024), arXiv:2411.01189 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dobrek, M

    Ł. Dobrek, M. Gajda, M. Lewenstein, K. Sengstock, G. Birkl, and W. Ertmer, Optical generation of vortices in trapped bose-einstein condensates, Physical Review A 60, R3381 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Denschlag, J

    J. Denschlag, J. E. Simsarian, D. L. Feder, C. W. Clark, L. A. Collins, J. Cubizolles, L. Deng, E. W. Hagley, K. Helmerson, W. P. Reinhardt, S. L. Rolston, B. I. Schneider, and W. D. Phillips, Generating solitons by phase engineering of a bose-einstein condensate, Science 287,...

    2000

  25. [33]

    Bücker, T

    R. Bücker, T. Berrada, S. van Frank, J.-F. Schaff, T. Schumm, J. Schmiedmayer, G. Jäger, J. Grond, and U. Hohenester, Vibrational state inversion of a bose– einstein condensate: optimal control and state tomog- raphy, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physi...

    2013

  26. [34]

    Martínez-Garaot, E

    S. Martínez-Garaot, E. Torrontegui, X. Chen, M. Mod- ugno, D. Guéry-Odelin, S.-Y. Tseng, and J. G. Muga, Vibrational mode multiplexing of ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 213001 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Martínez-Garaot, M

    S. Martínez-Garaot, M. Palmero, J. G. Muga, and D. Guéry-Odelin, Fast driving between arbitrary states of a quantum particle by trap deformation, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063418 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    W. P. and C. L., Trotter-suzuki-mpi python documenta- tion release 1.6.2 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    van Frank, A

    S. van Frank, A. Negretti, T. Berrada, R. Bücker, S. Montangero, J. F. Schaff, T. Schumm, T. Calarco, and J. Schmiedmayer, Interferometry with non-classical mo- tional states of a bose–einstein condensate, Nature Com- munications 5, 4009 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Pitaevskii and S

    L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensa- tion and Superfluidity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    R. W. Spekkens and J. E. Sipe, Spatial fragmentation of a bose-einstein condensate in a double-well potential, Physical Review A 59, 3868 (1999)

    1999

  32. [40]

    W. J. Kwon, G. Del Pace, R. Panza, M. Inguscio, W. Zw- erger, M. Zaccanti, F. Scazza, and G. Roati, Strongly correlated superfluid order parameters from dc joseph- son supercurrents, Science 369, 84 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Japha and B

    Y. Japha and B. Y. B., Coherence of an interacting bose gas: from a single to a double well, (2010), arXiv:1010.4918 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [104]

    In the m = 3 case, the predominant higher mode populated during the evolution is the |9±⟩, whereas in the m = 9 case it is the |27±⟩

    The reason is as follows, based on the analytical two-state model in Appendix D. In the m = 3 case, the predominant higher mode populated during the evolution is the |9±⟩, whereas in the m = 9 case it is the |27±⟩. In general, the difference in chemical potential between two m...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.