Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Dynamics of a Mobile Ion in a Bose-Einstein Condensate

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A charged impurity moving through a Bose–Einstein condensate is predicted to relax to a nonzero final momentum rather than coming to rest, and at strong coupling its momentum can oscillate and reverse sign — in one and three dimensions.

desk verdict Clean mean-field treatment of a mobile ion in a BEC; the central flutter result is intriguing but unbenchmarked in exactly the regime where the ansatz is weakest. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21577 v2 pith:SP6BT7ZW submitted 2025-07-29 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Piotr Wysocki , Marek Tylutki , Krzysztof Jachymski This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph PACS 67.85.-d03.75.Kk
keywords Bose-EinsteincondensateionicimpuritypolaronmodifiedGross-Pitaevskiiequationsuperfluiddragquantumflutterlong-rangeinteractionsnonequilibriumdynamics
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 predicts how a single charged ion moves through a Bose–Einstein condensate when the two interact through a long-range attractive potential. Working in the frame co-moving with the ion and describing the gas by a single mean-field wavefunction, the authors find that the superfluid exerts only partial friction: the ion settles at a nonzero asymptotic momentum instead of stopping, and the final momentum depends on how the motion was started. When the ion–gas coupling is strong relative to the atom–atom repulsion, the nonlinear dynamics produces damped oscillations of the ion momentum that can push the ion backwards, and this 'flutter' appears in one and three dimensions alike. The same description yields the polaron's effective mass, which grows with coupling but stays close to the bare mass, indicating dressing rather than bound-state formation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified Gross–Pitaevskii equation (GPE) written in the frame co-moving with the ion. It is the usual GPE functional with the boson mass replaced by the reduced mass $m_r = m_I m_B/(m_I+m_B)$ and with an extra term $(i\hbar/m_I)\,p_I \cdot \nabla\psi$ that enforces total momentum conservation; the ion–atom potential is the regularized long-range form $V(x) = -C_4/(x^2+b^2)^2$. This equation produces both the stationary condensate profiles and the time-dependent density wakes. The companion identity is the effective drag force $F_{\mathrm{eff}} = \int dx\,\nabla V(x)\,\delta\rho(x)$, which equates the ion's momentum change to the integral of the potential gradient against the density fluctuation, making the force explicitly nonlocal because the long-ranged wake keeps pulling on the ion after it is emitted.

What would settle it

Run a numerically exact many-body simulation of a one-dimensional Bose gas with the parameters used here ($N_B=200$, $C_4=6$, $g=0.1$, $m_I=m_B$, $p_0=1$) and check whether the impurity momentum oscillates and changes sign; if it decays monotonically instead, the predicted quantum flutter is a mean-field artifact. A second check is to repeat the strongly coupled simulation in two dimensions to test the claim that the oscillations appear in any dimension.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the nonlinear dynamics of a long-range interacting ion in a BEC, described by a modified Gross–Pitaevskii equation in the co-moving frame, leads to a nonzero stationary ion momentum because the superfluid medium exerts no full friction, and, for strong coupling, to damped oscillations of the momentum with possible sign reversal — regardless of the system's dimension. The drag force obeys $F_{\mathrm{eff}} = \int dx\,\nabla V(x)\,\delta\rho(x)$ and is verified numerically to be exact in the simulations. The asymptotic momentum is protocol-dependent: kicking a stationary dressed ion leaves it with more final momentum than suddenly quenching a homogeneous gas into interaction with a moving ion. Effective masses are extracted from the dispersion relation and remain of order the bare mass, indicating polaron dressing rather than a mesoscopic bound state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the condensate stays a single coherent mean-field wavefunction that equilibrates quickly in the ion's co-moving frame, so all many-body correlations can be neglected; if the gas does not adjust quickly enough for a light ion launched at the speed of sound, the predicted oscillations could be an artifact of the approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In both one and three dimensions, the ion's long-time momentum is nonzero and depends on the injection protocol: a kick from the stationary dressed state retains a larger final momentum than a quench from a homogeneous gas.
  • For strong ion–gas coupling, the momentum executes damped oscillations and can take negative values, so the ion can temporarily move backwards relative to its initial direction.
  • The polaron effective mass increases with interaction strength $C_4$, more strongly for a light ion ($m_I=m_B$) than for a heavy ion ($m_I=10\,m_B$), and remains of order the bare mass, signalling a dressed quasiparticle rather than a bound state.
  • The drag force is nonlocal, $F_{\mathrm{eff}} = \int dx\,\nabla V(x)\,\delta\rho(x)$, so emitted density waves continue to exert force on the ion; this distinguishes the long-range scenario from contact-interaction Cherenkov-like friction.
  • The effective speed of sound seen by the ion is modified because the reduced mass replaces the boson mass in the GPE, and the inhomogeneous density makes the local sound speed vary around the impurity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mean-field flutter survives exact many-body checks, the same mechanism should appear for other long-range impurities, such as Rydberg atoms in a condensate, because only the power-law tail of the potential is needed for the nonlocal back-action.
  • The protocol dependence of the asymptotic momentum implies that experiments reporting an ion's final velocity must specify the injection history; comparing the two protocols in the same apparatus would be a direct test.
  • The nonlocal drag identity could be inverted: time-resolved measurements of the ion's trajectory would constrain the density wake and, in principle, the functional form of the ion–atom potential.
  • Since the strongest nonlinear effects occur near the speed of sound ($p_0=1$ in these units), tuning the initial momentum through the sound barrier could act as a switch between monotonic damping and oscillatory backflow in future experiments.
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 a single ionic impurity moving through a Bose-Einstein condensate, using a Lee-Low-Pines transformation and a co-moving-frame mean-field ansatz to obtain a modified Gross-Pitaevskii equation (Eq. 4). The authors derive an effective drag force (Eq. 5), compute the polaron effective mass, and characterize the time evolution of the ion momentum. They report two main results: a nonzero asymptotic ion momentum attributable to superfluidity, and, for sufficiently strong ion-atom coupling, damped oscillations of the momentum with possible sign reversal ('quantum flutter'), which they claim occurs in any dimension. The results are presented for one-dimensional and three-dimensional geometries, for two different initial-state protocols, and are supported by numerical simulations of the modified GPE.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a simple and general mean-field framework for long-range interacting impurities in a BEC, with parameter-free predictions for the effective mass and momentum dynamics that extend to strong coupling and arbitrary dimension. The derivation of Eq. (5) in Appendix A is clean and internally consistent, and its numerical verification in Figs. 4(b) and 6(g,h) confirms that the simulations are faithful to the modified GPE. However, the validity of the headline predictions rests entirely on the co-moving mean-field ansatz, and the regimes in which the new phenomena are demonstrated are precisely those where the authors themselves expect the approximation to be least reliable. The manuscript does not benchmark against exact or quantum Monte Carlo dynamics, so the flutter and the asymptotic momentum remain predictions of an unvalidated approximation rather than established physical effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV and Fig. 4(a)] The central new phenomenon, damped momentum oscillations with sign reversal, is demonstrated for mI = mB and |p0| = 1, i.e., at the speed of sound, yet Sec. IV states that the co-moving mean-field description 'work[s] best at low ion momentum' and 'for heavy impurities.' This places the headline result in exactly the regime the authors flag as least reliable, where beyond-mean-field correlations and Cherenkov phonon emission should be strongest. The manuscript should benchmark this regime against a numerically exact method (e.g., MPS in 1D or QMC-based dynamics where available) or, failing that, provide systematic internal checks such as the dependence of the oscillations on the gas parameter, mass ratio, and box size, to show that the effect is not an artifact of the ansatz. Without such evidence, the claim that the oscillations are a generic feature of the system is not supported.
  2. [Eq. (5) and Figs. 4(b), 6(g,h)] The perfect agreement between the directly computed force and Eq. (5) in Figs. 4(b) and 6(g,h) confirms only that the numerical solution is consistent with the modified GPE (Eq. 4); it does not validate the co-moving mean-field ansatz itself, because Eq. (5) is derived from the same equations of motion. The manuscript should explicitly state this limitation and provide an external consistency check, such as comparing the equilibrium density or effective mass against known QMC results for the static case (which the authors cite but do not quantitatively compare), or against the analytical Yrast line mentioned in Sec. IV.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (2)] The regularization length b = 1.5 is introduced ad hoc to keep the gas parameter small, and the physical potential is replaced by a regularized form. No study is presented of the dependence of the results—particularly the asymptotic momentum and the existence and frequency of the flutter—on b. Since b is a free parameter, a convergence test over b or a connection to a physical short-range model is necessary to support the claim that the phenomena are robust and 'regardless of the system's dimension.' Relatedly, only 1D and 3D are simulated; the statement about any dimension would be stronger if 2D results were included or if the claim were explicitly qualified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Various] There are several typographical errors: 'staionary' (Sec. III.A), 'veritcal' (Fig. 2 caption), 'equlibration' (Sec. III.B), 'inlcuding' (Sec. V), 'attactive' (Sec. IV), and 'performin' (Appendix A).
  2. [Sec. III.A] The text refers to 'see Methods' for the effective mass calculation, but the derivation appears in Appendix A; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Appendix A] The definition of effective mass, 1/m* = 2 lim_{p->0} ∂E/∂(p^2), should specify whether E is the total energy including the ion kinetic term, and how the limit is taken numerically in practice.
  4. [Figs. 3(c) and 7(b)] The asymptotic momentum is reported as t → ∞, but no details are given on the integration time used, the convergence criterion, or the extrapolation procedure; adding this information would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. IV] The discussion distinguishes the observed oscillations from the quantum flutter of Ref. [22], but the comparison with the oscillations seen in Ref. [32] is only qualitative; a quantitative comparison of parameter regimes would be more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the asymptotic momentum, effective mass and flutter are direct numerical outputs of the stated mean-field GPE; the only self-referential element is a minor, non-load-bearing citation to the authors' unpublished work [50].

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The modified GPE, Eq. (4), follows from the many-body Hamiltonian (1) via the LLP transformation and an explicitly stated mean-field ansatz; the drag formula, Eq. (5), is derived from Eq. (4) by substituting the equation of motion for the condensate field, so its numerical verification is a consistency check of the same model rather than an independent prediction. The stationary momentum, effective-mass curves, and the damped oscillations ('quantum flutter') are numerical outputs of Eq. (4) with no parameter fitted to the target observables; the effective mass is obtained by the definitional curvature d^2E/dp^2 of the computed dispersion. The only self-referential point is the Discussion's attribution of a weak-coupling universality statement to the authors' own unpublished manuscript [50]; this is a side remark and is not used to derive the main results. The paper's explicit caveat that the mean-field description 'work[s] best at low ion momentum' and 'for heavy impurities', while the flutter is demonstrated at p0=1 and mI=mB, is a genuine correctness/robustness risk (the effect could be an artifact of the co-moving ansatz) but not a circularity, because no step of the argument is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to the target observables; the only hand-chosen model parameter is b=1.5. The effective mass is an output from the dispersion, not an input. The claims rely on the mean-field approximation and the specific regularized potential, both of which are standard but domain-restrictive.

free parameters (1)
  • Regularization length b = 1.5
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (2) to provide a slowly varying potential that keeps the gas parameter within the mean-field validity range. It affects the scattering length and dynamics but is not fitted to the target observables.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Bose gas is described by a mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii wave function in the co-moving frame; the condensate rapidly equilibrates around the moving ion.
    Invoked in Section II: 'we make the mean field assumption for bosons, assuming that due to the strong ion-atom interaction the gas rapidly equilibrates around the moving ion.' The authors later note this works best at low momentum and for heavy impurities.
  • ad hoc to paper The regularized ion-atom potential V(x) = -C4/(x^2+b^2)^2 with b=1.5 adequately models the long-range interaction without violating the weak-gas-parameter assumption.
    Section II: 'we set b=1.5, which provides a slowly varying potential that does not increase the gas parameter in the center beyond the validity of the mean field approximation.' A modeling choice, not derived from ab initio data.
  • domain assumption Bosons interact via a contact pseudopotential U = g delta(r), and the gas parameter is small everywhere.
    Section II defines U as g delta; Section IV requires the gas parameter to be small everywhere. Standard BEC input, but restricts quantitative validity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of a Mobile Ion in a Bose-Einstein Condensate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SP6BT7ZW

@misc{pith2026250721577,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of a Mobile Ion in a Bose-Einstein Condensate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SP6BT7ZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21577}
}
read the original abstract

Characterization of the dynamics of an impurity immersed in a quantum medium is vital for fundamental understanding of matter as well as applications in modern day quantum technologies. The case of strong and long-ranged interactions is of particular importance here, as it opens the possibility to leverage quantum correlations in controlling the system properties. Here, we consider a charged impurity moving in a bosonic gas and study its properties out of equilibrium. We extract the stationary momentum of the ion at long times, which is nonzero due to the superfluid nature of the medium, and the effective mass which stems from dressing the impurity with the host atoms. The nonlinear evolution leads not only to emission of density waves, but also momentum transfer back to the ion, resulting in the possibility of oscillatory dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21577 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the studied system of the ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Summary of the static and dynamical solutions for the 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The ion momentum as a function of time for (a) a quench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) An example of a “quantum flutter”, when strong in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. One-dimensional cuts of the density profiles of the 3D con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Summary of the polaron dynamics in 3D. In (a) we show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. S. Alexandrov,Polarons in advanced materials(Springer Science & Business Media, 2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    W. D. Stein,Transport and diffusion across cell membranes (Academic Press Inc., 1986)

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    Landau and S

    L. Landau and S. Pekar, Effective mass of a polaron, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz18, 419 (1948)

    work page 1948

  4. [4]

    Fröhlich, Electrons in lattice fields, Advances in Physics3, 325 (1954)

    H. Fröhlich, Electrons in lattice fields, Advances in Physics3, 325 (1954)

    work page 1954

  5. [5]

    Mehboudi, A

    M. Mehboudi, A. Lampo, C. Charalambous, L. A. Correa, M. A. García-March, and M. Lewenstein, Using polarons for sub-nk quantum nondemolition thermometry in a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 030403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    The Bose polaron as thermometer of a trapped Bose gas: a quantum Monte Carlo study

    T. Wasak, G. Pascual, G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, and A. Negretti, The bose polaron as thermometer of a trapped bose gas: a quantum monte carlo study, arXiv:2503.04553 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Grusdt, N

    F. Grusdt, N. Mostaan, E. Demler, and L. A. P. Ardila, Impuri- ties and polarons in bosonic quantum gases: a review on recent progress (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Massignan, R

    P. Massignan, R. Schmidt, G. E. Astrakharchik, A. ˙Imamoglu, M. Zwierlein, J. J. Arlt, and G. M. Bruun, Polarons in atomic gases and two-dimensional semiconductors (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Tomza, K

    M. Tomza, K. Jachymski, R. Gerritsma, A. Negretti, T. Calarco, Z. Idziaszek, and P. S. Julienne, Cold hybrid ion-atom systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 035001 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    G. E. Astrakharchik, L. A. P. Ardila, R. Schmidt, K. Jachymski, and A. Negretti, Ionic polaron in a bose-einstein condensate, Communications Physics4, 94 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    E. R. Christensen, A. Camacho-Guardian, and G. M. Bruun, Charged polarons and molecules in a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 243001 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Camargo, R

    F. Camargo, R. Schmidt, J. D. Whalen, R. Ding, G. Woehl, S. Yoshida, J. Burgdörfer, F. B. Dunning, H. R. Sadeghpour, E. Demler, and T. C. Killian, Creation of rydberg polarons in a bose gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 083401 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Engel, S

    F. Engel, S. K. Tiwari, T. Pfau, S. Wüster, and F. Meinert, In situ observation of chemistry in rydberg molecules within a bose- einstein-condensate, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033150 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    M. G. Skou, T. G. Skov, N. B. Jørgensen, K. K. Nielsen, A. Camacho-Guardian, T. Pohl, G. M. Bruun, and J. J. Arlt, Non-equilibrium quantum dynamics and formation of the bose polaron, Nature Physics17, 731 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Z. Z. Yan, Y . Ni, A. Chuang, P. E. Dolgirev, K. Seetharam, E. Demler, C. Robens, and M. Zwierlein, Collective flow of fermionic impurities immersed in a bose–einstein condensate, Nature Physics20, 1395 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    K. S. Kleinbach, F. Engel, T. Dieterle, R. Löw, T. Pfau, and F. Meinert, Ionic impurity in a bose-einstein condensate at sub- microkelvin temperatures, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 193401 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Dieterle, M

    T. Dieterle, M. Berngruber, C. Hölzl, R. Löw, K. Jachymski, T. Pfau, and F. Meinert, Transport of a single cold ion immersed in a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 033401 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    S. H. Albrechtsen, C. A. Schouder, A. Viñas Muñoz, J. K. Christensen, C. Engelbrecht Petersen, M. Pi, M. Barranco, and H. Stapelfeldt, Observing the primary steps of ion solvation in helium droplets, Nature623, 319 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    S. H. Albrechtsen, J. K. Christensen, C. E. Petersen, C. A. Schouder, P. J. Carchi-Villalta, I. Sánchez-Pérez, M. Bar- tolomei, T. González-Lezana, F. Pirani, and H. Stapelfeldt, Femtosecond-and-atom-resolved solvation dynamics of a na+ ion in a helium nanodroplet, The Journal...

    2025

  12. [20]

    Krych and Z

    M. Krych and Z. Idziaszek, Description of ion motion in a paul trap immersed in a cold atomic gas, Phys. Rev. A91, 023430 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Oghittu, J

    L. Oghittu, J. Simonet, P. Wessels-Staarmann, M. Drescher, K. Sengstock, L. Mathey, and A. Negretti, Cooling dynamics of a free ion in a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023024 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    C. J. M. Mathy, M. B. Zvonarev, and E. Demler, Quantum flut- ter of supersonic particles in one-dimensional quantum liquids, Nature Physics8, 881 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    M. Knap, C. J. M. Mathy, M. Ganahl, M. B. Zvonarev, and E. Demler, Quantum flutter: Signatures and robustness, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 015302 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Burovski, V

    E. Burovski, V . Cheianov, O. Gamayun, and O. Lychkovskiy, Momentum relaxation of a mobile impurity in a one- dimensional quantum gas, Phys. Rev. A89, 041601 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Grusdt, G

    F. Grusdt, G. E. Astrakharchik, and E. Demler, Bose polarons in ultracold atoms in one dimension: beyond the fröhlich paradigm, New Journal of Physics19, 103035 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Schurer, A

    J. Schurer, A. Negretti, and P. Schmelcher, Capture dynamics of ultracold atoms in the presence of an impurity ion, New Journal of Physics17, 083024 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    J. M. Schurer, A. Negretti, and P. Schmelcher, Unraveling the structure of ultracold mesoscopic collinear molecular ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 063001 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    S. I. Mistakidis, A. G. V olosniev, N. T. Zinner, and P. Schmelcher, Effective approach to impurity dynamics in one- dimensional trapped bose gases, Phys. Rev. A100, 013619 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    T. D. Lee, F. E. Low, and D. Pines, The motion of slow electrons in a polar crystal, Phys. Rev.90, 297 (1953)

    1953

  22. [30]

    Gross, Motion of foreign bodies in boson systems, Annals of Physics19, 234 (1962)

    E. Gross, Motion of foreign bodies in boson systems, Annals of Physics19, 234 (1962)

    1962

  23. [31]

    Y . E. Shchadilova, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, and E. Demler, Quan- tum dynamics of ultracold bose polarons, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 113002 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Drescher, M

    M. Drescher, M. Salmhofer, and T. Enss, Real-space dynam- ics of attractive and repulsive polarons in bose-einstein conden- sates, Phys. Rev. A99, 023601 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Seetharam, Y

    K. Seetharam, Y . Shchadilova, F. Grusdt, M. B. Zvonarev, and E. Demler, Dynamical quantum cherenkov transition of fast impurities in quantum liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 185302 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Seetharam, Y

    K. Seetharam, Y . Shchadilova, F. Grusdt, M. Zvonarev, and E. Demler, Quantum cherenkov transition of finite-momentum bose polarons, Phys. Rev. A110, 063306 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    T. A. Yo ˘gurt and M. T. Eiles, Quasiparticle properties of long-range impurities in a bose condensate, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12969 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Jager, R

    J. Jager, R. Barnett, M. Will, and M. Fleischhauer, Strong- coupling bose polarons in one dimension: Condensate defor- mation and modified bogoliubov phonons, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033142 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Hryhorchak, G

    O. Hryhorchak, G. Panochko, and V . Pastukhov, Mean-field study of repulsive 2d and 3d bose polarons, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics53, 205302 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Guenther, R

    N.-E. Guenther, R. Schmidt, G. M. Bruun, V . Gurarie, and P. Massignan, Mobile impurity in a bose-einstein condensate and the orthogonality catastrophe, Phys. Rev. A103, 013317 (2021). 9

    2021

  31. [39]

    Cavazos Olivas, L

    U. Cavazos Olivas, L. A. Peña Ardila, and K. Jachymski, Mod- ified mean-field ansatz for charged polarons in a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A110, L011301 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Yegovtsev, G

    N. Yegovtsev, G. E. Astrakharchik, P. Massignan, and V . Gu- rarie, Exact results for heavy unitary bose polarons, Phys. Rev. A110, 023310 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Girardeau, Motion of an impurity particle in a boson super- fluid, The Physics of Fluids4, 279 (1961)

    M. Girardeau, Motion of an impurity particle in a boson super- fluid, The Physics of Fluids4, 279 (1961)

    1961

  34. [42]

    Drescher, M

    M. Drescher, M. Salmhofer, and T. Enss, Theory of a resonantly interacting impurity in a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 032011 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Pavloff, Breakdown of superfluidity of an atom laser past an obstacle, Phys

    N. Pavloff, Breakdown of superfluidity of an atom laser past an obstacle, Phys. Rev. A66, 013610 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    Gamayun, O

    O. Gamayun, O. Lychkovskiy, E. Burovski, M. Malcomson, V . V . Cheianov, and M. B. Zvonarev, Impact of the injection protocol on an impurity’s stationary state, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 220605 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Catani, G

    J. Catani, G. Lamporesi, D. Naik, M. Gring, M. Inguscio, F. Mi- nardi, A. Kantian, and T. Giamarchi, Quantum dynamics of im- purities in a one-dimensional bose gas, Phys. Rev. A85, 023623 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Weckesser, F

    P. Weckesser, F. Thielemann, D. Wiater, A. Wojciechowska, L. Karpa, K. Jachymski, M. Tomza, T. Walker, and T. Schaetz, Observation of feshbach resonances between a single ion and ultracold atoms, Nature600, 429 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    N. B. Jørgensen, L. Wacker, K. T. Skalmstang, M. M. Parish, J. Levinsen, R. S. Christensen, G. M. Bruun, and J. J. Arlt, Ob- servation of attractive and repulsive polarons in a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 055302 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    L. A. P. Ardila and S. Giorgini, Impurity in a bose-einstein condensate: Study of the attractive and repulsive branch using quantum monte carlo methods, Phys. Rev. A92, 033612 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    L. A. P. Ardila, G. E. Astrakharchik, and S. Giorgini, Strong coupling bose polarons in a two-dimensional gas, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023405 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Wysocki, M

    P. Wysocki, M. Tylutki, and K. Jachymski, (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    My ´sliwy, P

    K. My ´sliwy, P. Wysocki, and K. Jachymski, No equivalence be- tween hydrodynamic and dispersive mass of the charged po- laron, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12040 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zhang, Y

    Z.-H. Zhang, Y . Jiang, H.-Q. Lin, and X.-W. Guan, Microscopic origin of the quantum supersonic phenomenon in one dimen- sion, Phys. Rev. A110, 023329 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    R. S. Lous and R. Gerritsma, Ultracold ion-atom experiments: cooling, chemistry, and quantum effects, Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics71, 65 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Majumdar and A

    S. Majumdar and A. Petkovi ´c, Relaxation dynamics of a mobile impurity injected in a one-dimensional bose gas, arXiv:2507.10402 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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