Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 42 references

Measuring the Chern-Simons invariant in quantum gases

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quenched 2D optical Raman lattice of ultracold atoms provides the first direct measurement of the Chern–Simons invariant, finding values near +1, −1, and 0 that match theory.

desk verdict A credible first measurement of the Chern-Simons invariant via A·J integration, with one unquantified normalization step that reviewers should ask them to nail down. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05774 v1 pith:UZENDHLR submitted 2025-09-06 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph

Chang-Rui Yi , Jinlong Yu , Huan Yuan , Xin Chen , Jia-Yu Guo , Jinyi Zhang , Shuai Chen , Jian-Wei Pan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords Chern-SimonsinvariantultracoldatomsopticalRamanlatticequenchdynamicsBlochstatetomographyBerrycurvatureconnectiontopological
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 sets out to show that the Chern–Simons invariant—a topological invariant defined on a three-dimensional space—can be measured directly in a quantum gas. The experiment uses a 2D optical Raman lattice of ultracold rubidium atoms, suddenly quenched from a trivial polarized state into a topologically nontrivial Hamiltonian. Bloch-state tomography reconstructs the full spin texture in momentum plus time, forming a (2+1)-dimensional torus, from which the Berry curvature and Berry connection are extracted. Integrating their product yields Chern–Simons values near +1 for one detuning, near −1 for the opposite detuning, and near 0 in the trivial regime, with transitions among these values as the detuning is varied. If correct, this is the first direct measurement of the Chern–Simons invariant and a validation that quench dynamics of a two-band system can encode a 3D topological invariant.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Chern–Simons invariant of a U(1) Berry connection, defined as the integral over the (2+1)-dimensional torus T³ of A(k)·J(k), where A_μ = i⟨Ψ|∂_μ|Ψ⟩/(2π) and J = ∇×A. In the experiment the torus is not a real-space geometry but the Brillouin zone T² together with the rescaled quench time t_q ∈ [0,2π). The map P(q,t_q) from T³ to the Bloch sphere generates J through J_μ = ε_{μνλ} P·(∂_ν P × ∂_λ P)/(8π); A is then reconstructed from J under the Coulomb gauge ∂_μ A_μ = 0. An equivalent interpretation used in the paper identifies I_CS with the linking number of any pair of preimage loops of constant vectors on the Bloch sphere.

What would settle it

Compute I_CS from the same quench data using (i) the raw damped P_exp instead of the normalized P and (ii) only the first oscillation cycle, where damping is weakest. If the results deviate significantly from the reported +1/−1/0 values, the radial-damping assumption is invalid. A complementary numerical check is to evolve the ideal P under a non-radial decoherence channel and see whether the reconstructed I_CS departs from integers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Abelian Chern–Simons invariant I_CS = ∫ A·J d³k can be measured in a laboratory system. The authors reconstruct the spin vector P(q,t) of a quenched 2D optical Raman lattice from Bloch-state tomography, rescale the measured P to unit length to correct damping, build the (2+1)-D torus with rescaled time t_q = 2|h(q)|t, and compute the Berry curvature J and Berry connection A. They obtain I_CS = 0.92 ± 0.18 at δ = 0.2 E_r and I_CS = −0.85 ± 0.34 at δ = −0.2 E_r, with I_CS ≈ 0 for |δ| > 8t_0. They further show that the sign of the invariant can be read off from the product A·J and from the linking number of oriented closed loops on the Bloch sphere, and they observ

Load-bearing premise

The measurement assumes that normalizing the damped spin vector by its length recovers the ideal unitary quench evolution; if decoherence alters the direction of P as well as its magnitude, the extracted Berry curvature and connection—and hence the Chern–Simons integral—are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The experiment validates the theoretical prediction that the topological invariant of quench dynamics in a two-band system equals the ground-state Chern number, connecting (2+1)-D dynamical topology to 2D band topology.
  • The demonstrated protocol—quench, Bloch-state tomography, extraction of A and J, and integration—can be applied to other lattice geometries and to non-Abelian generalizations in four-band models.
  • Measuring the Berry connection as well as the curvature gives access to gauge-dependent data that were previously inferred only indirectly.
  • The transition of I_CS from 0 to ±1 across the detuning sweep provides a direct, global signature of a topological phase transition in a (2+1)-D quantum state.
  • The linking-number interpretation gives an intuitive, experimentally accessible way to determine both the value and sign of the Chern–Simons invariant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A systematic check the authors do not report is how sensitive I_CS is to their normalization P = P_exp/|P_exp|; if decoherence also rotates the spin vector, the reconstructed J and A could be biased even though the integral still lands near integers. Comparing I_CS from raw and normalized data at several hold times would settle this.
  • The experiment reconstructs the Berry connection only after choosing the Coulomb gauge; the final invariant is gauge independent, but the reported distributions of A are not, so comparisons across different platforms require the same gauge choice.
  • The same measurement scheme could be extended to non-Abelian Chern–Simons invariants by preparing several initial spin states, as the paper outlines, giving a tabletop route to the magnetoelectric response of 3D topological insulators.
  • If the method matures, it could become a standard diagnostic for topological order in cold-atom simulators, since it needs only a quench and spin-resolved imaging rather than interferometric measurements.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports a direct measurement of the Abelian Chern-Simons (CS) invariant in a quenched two-dimensional optical Raman lattice with ultracold 87Rb atoms. The experimental sequence prepares a polarized initial state, suddenly quenches the detuning to δ≈±0.2E_r (or to the trivial regime), and uses Bloch-state tomography to measure the time-dependent spin texture P(q,t) over the 2D Brillouin zone and one time direction, forming a map P:T^3→S^2. The authors then compute the Berry curvature J from P via the standard formula, reconstruct the Berry connection A in the Coulomb gauge by a Biot-Savart-type integral, and evaluate I_CS = ∫ A·J. They report I_CS = 0.92±0.18 for δ=0.2E_r and I_CS = −0.85±0.34 for δ=−0.2E_r, with values near 0 for the trivial regime, and interpret the transitions as marking a change of topology of the (2+1)-dimensional dynamical state. The linking-number interpretation of I_CS is also presented as a cross-check.

Significance. If the extraction chain is valid, this would be the first direct measurement of the Abelian Chern-Simons invariant in a quantum simulator, going beyond previous Chern-number measurements by accessing the three-dimensional (2+1)D topological invariant via the integral of A·J. The paper benefits from a clear measurement protocol, a direct computation of the invariant from experimental data rather than from a fitted model, and a consistency check through the linking-number construction. The central values near ±1 and 0 are in agreement with the quench-dynamics invariant predicted by Refs. [10,27] and with the prior ground-state Chern-number measurement of Ref. [22]. The manuscript is therefore potentially significant, but the quantitative claim rests on two methodological points that are not fully resolved: the normalization of damped spin data and the periodic reconstruction of the Berry connection on T³.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Now, we extract quantitatively...'; Supplemental 'Fitting the experimental data', Eq. (S4)] The central values I_CS=0.92±0.18 and −0.85±0.34 are obtained after replacing P_exp by P_exp/|P_exp|. The fitting model (S4), however, contains an exponential decay Be^{-t/τ2} and an offset C in addition to the oscillatory term. If these non-oscillatory components are not parallel to the ideal Bloch vector at each q, normalization changes the direction of the map P:T^3→S^2, not merely its norm. Since I_CS is a homotopy invariant of that map, such a directional error can alter the winding and shift the integral away from ±1. The authors do not report the fitted amplitudes, lifetimes, or offset directions, nor do they test whether subtracting the fitted non-oscillatory terms before renormalizing changes I_CS, nor do they bound the resulting systematic bias. The quoted quantitative agreement with ±1 is therefore not separated from the radial-damping assumption.
  2. [Main text, paragraph beginning 'Based on P(k)...'] The formula A_μ(k)=∫_{T^3} J_μ(k′)×(k−k′)/|k−k′|^3 dk′/(4π) is the Euclidean Biot-Savart kernel. The integral is declared over T^3, but this kernel is not periodic and is not the Green's function for the Coulomb-gauge equation on a torus unless it is periodized (e.g., by lattice summation or by solving the periodic Poisson equation in Fourier space). As written, the connection A fed into Eq. (1) is not uniquely specified; because the CS integral is sensitive to boundary terms if A is not smooth and periodic on T^3, the numerical procedure matters. The authors should state exactly how A was reconstructed on the discrete (q_x,q_y,t_q) grid, including the treatment of periodic boundary conditions.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 3(c) and error propagation] The quoted uncertainties appear to be statistical only, propagated from the spin measurements. The systematic uncertainty of the normalization scheme and of the numerical differentiation/integration over the 3×10^5-point grid is not estimated. A concrete sensitivity check—for example, computing I_CS from the raw non-normalized data, from the fitted curves, and from an alternative normalization that subtracts the fitted offset—is needed to establish that the deviation of 0.92 from 1 is compatible with experimental noise rather than with a systematic bias in the reconstruction.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Main text, Fig. 2 caption] Typo: 'tompgraphy' should be 'tomography'.
  2. [Main text, linking-number paragraph] 'right-band rule' should be 'right-hand rule'.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 3(c)] The horizontal error bars are not defined in the caption. Specify whether they represent detuning calibration uncertainty or another source.
  4. [Main text, Fig. 3(b)] The color scale for A·J is missing; add a colorbar with units.
  5. [Main text, Eq. (1)] The normalization convention leading to integer values ±1 is not stated. For clarity, relate Eq. (1) to the standard Hopf invariant, including any 8π² factor.
  6. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S4)] The fitting function is introduced only in the Supplemental Material; the main text should briefly define A, B, τ1, τ2, φ, and C, since the normalization procedure in the main text relies on this fit.
  7. [Main text, numerical methods] The differentiation scheme used to obtain ∂_ν P and the discrete integration on the (q_x,q_y,t_q) grid are not described. State the finite-difference stencil and the periodic-boundary treatment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the measured CS invariant is a direct integral of experimental P(q,t), and the theoretical identification rests on parameter-free theorems, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an independent measurement. P_exp(q,t) is measured tomographically; the paper normalizes it to unit length and then computes J from P via Jμ=εP·(∂P×∂P)/8π and reconstructs A in the Coulomb gauge from J. The reported ICS=0.92±0.18 and −0.85±0.34 are deterministic functions of the measured data; no parameter is fitted to force these values to ±1. The rescaling t_q=2πft uses frequencies fitted to the spin oscillations, but this only sets the time coordinate; it does not preset the winding of the map. The theoretical quantization ICS=±1/0 comes from Ref. [10] (coauthored by two of the present authors), but it is a parameter-free theorem about quench dynamics whose assumptions do not include the measured data, and the reconstruction formula from Ref. [27] is an independently checkable mathematical identity; per the review rules these are independent support rather than circularity. The damping normalization is an experimental assumption: if the decay is not purely radial, the normalized map could be biased. That is a systematic-error concern, not an equivalence-by-construction, and the paper does not hide it (it states 'we normalize P_exp(q,t) by P(q,t)=P_exp(q,t)/|P_exp(q,t)|'). The linking-number check is a second expression of the same Hopf invariant, not a fit. I find no step in which a prediction reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains no invented entities. The free parameters are experimental calibrations and the fitted oscillation frequency; none of them are adjusted to force the quantized values. The load-bearing modeling assumptions are the two-band Hamiltonian and the unitary quench with unit-norm Bloch vector.

free parameters (3)
  • t_0 (spin-conserved hopping) = 0.094(2) E_r
    Calibrated in prior experiments of the same setup (Refs. [19,22,25]); sets the phase boundaries 8t_0 but not fitted to the CS invariant.
  • t_so (spin-flipped hopping) = 0.051(1) E_r
    Calibrated from Raman coupling strength; enters the Hamiltonian but not the target value.
  • oscillation frequency f(q) = ≈900 Hz
    Fitted per momentum point from damped sinusoid; used to rescale t to t_q=2π f t. Implicitly assumes f = |h|/π from the model, checked against Eq. (2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 2D Raman lattice is described by the two-band QAH Hamiltonian H(q)=h(q)·σ within the tight-binding approximation.
    Used throughout; supported by prior work [19,23,25] but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The quench is sudden and the subsequent evolution is unitary with |Ψ(q,t)⟩=e^{-iHt}|↑⟩.
    The paper states damping exists and corrects by normalization, so unitarity is an idealization.
  • domain assumption The initial state is the fully polarized |↑⟩ state for all q.
    Preparation at δ=-200 E_r suppresses Raman coupling; small residual population is not quantified here.
  • standard math Berry curvature and Berry connection are computed by J_μ=ε P·(∂P×∂P)/(8π) and the Biot-Savart reconstruction A_μ=∫ J×∇G dk with Coulomb gauge.
    Standard differential-geometric identities; the torus version is taken from Refs. [10,27].
  • standard math The invariant of the quench dynamics equals the Chern number of the post-quench Hamiltonian (theorem of Ref. [10]).
    Used to interpret the measured values and to compare with the Chern-number measurement of Ref. [22].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring the Chern-Simons invariant in quantum gases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZENDHLR

@misc{pith2026250905774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring the Chern-Simons invariant in quantum gases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZENDHLR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05774}
}
abstract

Chern-Simons (CS) invariant is a fundamental topological invariant describing the topological invariance of 3D space based on the Chern-Simons field theory. To date, direct measurement of the CS invariant in a physical system remains elusive. %to be elusive. Here, the CS invariant is experimentally measured by quenching a 2D optical Raman lattice with 1/2 spin in ultracold atoms. With a recently developed Bloch state tomography, we measure the expectation values of three Pauli matrices in 2D quasi-momentum space plus 1D time [(2+1)D], and then respectively extract the Berry curvature and the corresponding Berry connection. By integrating the product of these two quantities, we obtain the CS invariants near $\pm 1$ and 0, which are consistent with theoretical predictions. We also observe transitions among these values, which indicates the change of the topology of the quantum state in (2+1)D quantum dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05774 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The scheme for measuring the CS invariant in a quenched Raman lattice. Left: cartoon of the Raman lattices. The Raman lattices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The expectation values of three Pauli matrices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Arbitrary pairs of the oriented closed loops with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Extracting the CS invariant. (a) The momentum distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    C. Wang, P. Zhang, X. Chen, J. Yu, and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 185701 (2017), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.118.185701

    work page 2017

  2. [22]

    C.-R. Yi, J. Yu, H. Yuan, R.-H. Jiao, Y .-M. Yang, X. Jiang, J.-Y . Zhang, S. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L032016 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.5.L032016

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Chern and J

    S.-S. Chern and J. Simons, Ann. Math.99, 48 (1974), URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/1971013

    work page arXiv 1974

  4. [2]

    Witten, Commun

    E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys.117, 353 (1988), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01223371

    doi:10.1007/bf01223371 1988

  5. [3]

    Witten, Commun

    E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys.121, 351 (1989), URL https://projecteuclid.org:443/euclid.cmp/ 1104178138

    work page 1989

  6. [4]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.83.1057

    work page 2011

  7. [5]

    S. C. Zhang, T. H. Hansson, and S. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 82 (1989), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.62.82

    work page 1989

  8. [6]

    X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 78, 195424 (2008), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.78.195424

    work page 2008

Show all 42 references
  1. [7]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Y . Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035005 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035005

    2016 doi

  2. [8]

    The Berry connection defined in this form is an Abelian one and applies to the case that the energy bands are non-degenerate; it leads to an Abelian CS invariant as in Eq. (1). This Berry connection has a natural non-Abelian generalisation for the case that the energy bands ar...

  3. [9]

    Hsiang and D.-H

    W.-Y . Hsiang and D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. A64, 052101 (2001), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 64.052101

    2001 doi

  4. [11]

    Wilczek and A

    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 2250 (1983), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.51. 2250

    1983 doi

  5. [12]

    Wu and A

    Y .-S. Wu and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B147, 325 (1984), ISSN 0370-2693, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/0370269384901266

    1984

  6. [13]

    Guadagnini, The Link Invariants of the Chern-Simons Field Theory (De Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1993), ISBN 9783110879643, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879643

    E. Guadagnini, The Link Invariants of the Chern-Simons Field Theory (De Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1993), ISBN 9783110879643, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879643

    1993 doi

  7. [14]

    A. H. Jørgen E.Andersen, Hans U.Boden and B. Himpel, Chern-Simons Gauge Theory: 20 Years After (AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Berlin, New York, 2011), ISBN 9780821853535, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1090/amsip/ 050

    2011 doi

  8. [15]

    Mari ˜no, Rev

    M. Mari ˜no, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 675 (2005), URLhttps:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.675

    2005 doi

  9. [16]

    The Berry connection can be obtained by the Berry curvature under a particular gauge

  10. [17]

    Fl ¨aschner, D

    N. Fl ¨aschner, D. V ogel, M. Tarnowski, B. S. Rem, D. S. L¨uhmann, M. Heyl, J. C. Budich, L. Mathey, K. Sengstock, and C. Weitenberg, Nat. Phys.14, 265 (2018), URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1038/s41567-017-0013-8

    2018 doi

  11. [18]

    Tarnowski, F

    M. Tarnowski, F. N. ¨Unal, N. Fl ¨aschner, B. S. Rem, A. Eckardt, K. Sengstock, and C. Weitenberg, Nat. Com- mun.10, 1728 (2019), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-019-09668-y

    2019

  12. [19]

    Sun, C.-R

    W. Sun, C.-R. Yi, B.-Z. Wang, W.-W. Zhang, B. C. Sanders, X.-T. Xu, Z.-Y . Wang, J. Schmiedmayer, Y . Deng, X.-J. Liu, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 250403 (2018), URLhttps:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.250403

    2018 doi

  13. [20]

    C.-R. Yi, L. Zhang, L. Zhang, R.-H. Jiao, X.-C. Cheng, Z.- Y . Wang, X.-T. Xu, W. Sun, X.-J. Liu, S. Chen, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 190603 (2019), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.190603

    2019 doi

  14. [21]

    Fl ¨aschner, B

    N. Fl ¨aschner, B. S. Rem, M. Tarnowski, D. V ogel, D.- S. L ¨uhmann, K. Sengstock, and C. Weitenberg, Science 352, 1091 (2016), URLhttp://science.sciencemag.org/ content/352/6289/1091

    2016

  15. [23]

    Z. Wu, L. Zhang, W. Sun, X.-T. Xu, B.-Z. Wang, S.-C. Ji, Y . Deng, S. Chen, X.-J. Liu, and J.-W. Pan, Science 354, 83 (2016), ISSN 0036-8075, URLhttp://science. sciencemag.org/content/354/6308/83

    2016

  16. [24]

    Sun, B.-Z

    W. Sun, B.-Z. Wang, X.-T. Xu, C.-R. Yi, L. Zhang, Z. Wu, 6 Y . Deng, X.-J. Liu, S. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 150401 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.121.150401

    2018

  17. [25]

    See the Supplymentary Materials for more details of the experi- mental setup, Bloch-state tomography in a quenched Raman lat- tice, the experimental protocol, the fitting of experimental data, the determination of the sign of the linking number, improve- ment of experimental t...

  18. [26]

    X.-J. Liu, K. T. Law, and T. K. Ng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 086401 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.112.086401

    2014

  19. [27]

    Yu, Phys

    J. Yu, Phys. Rev. A99, 043619 (2019), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.043619

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Zhang, L

    L. Zhang, L. Zhang, S. Niu, and X.-J. Liu, Sci. Bull.63, 1385 (2018), ISSN 2095-9273, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S209592731830478X

    2018

  21. [29]

    Xu, Z.-Y

    X.-T. Xu, Z.-Y . Wang, R.-H. Jiao, C.-R. Yi, W. Sun, and S. Chen, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90, 054708 (2019), ISSN 0034- 6748, URLhttp://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1. 5087957

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    N. K. Shigemasa Matsuo, Toshiyuki Fujii and N. Hatak- enaka, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.150, 022056 (2009), URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 1742-6596/150/2/022056

    2009

  23. [31]

    Hopf, Math

    H. Hopf, Math. Ann.104, 637 (1931), ISSN 1432-1807, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01457962

    1931 doi

  24. [32]

    J. E. Moore, Y . Ran, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 186805 (2008), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.101.186805

    2008

  25. [33]

    Wang, X.-C

    Z.-Y . Wang, X.-C. Cheng, B.-Z. Wang, J.-Y . Zhang, Y .-H. Lu, C.-R. Yi, S. Niu, Y . Deng, X.-J. Liu, S. Chen, et al., Science 372, 271 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1799 (1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Science314, 1757 (2006), URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/ 10.1126/science.1133734

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    Zhang, C.-X

    H. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and S.-C. Zhang, Nat. Phys.5, 438 (2009), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/nphys1270

    2009

  29. [37]

    Sugawa, F

    S. Sugawa, F. Salces-Carcoba, A. R. Perry, Y . Yue, and I. B. Spielman, Science360, 1429 (2018), ISSN 0036- 8075, URLhttps://science.sciencemag.org/content/ 360/6396/1429

    2018

  30. [38]

    B. Song, L. Zhang, C. He, T. F. J. Poon, E. Ha- jiyev, S. Zhang, X.-J. Liu, and G.-B. Jo, Sci. Adv.4, eaao4748 (2018), URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/ abs/10.1126/sciadv.aao4748

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    dense flint glass

    J. Yu, Z.-F. Xu, R. L¨u, and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 143003 (2016). 7 Supplemental Material for: Supplemental Materials for: Measuring the Chern-Simons invariant in quantum gases In this supplemental materials, we describe the experimental setup, Bloch-state tomography in...

    2016

  32. [40]

    The atoms are adiabatically loaded into the Raman lattices in 100ms with the temperature of 100nK, which causes atoms to populate each momentum point in the first Brillouin zone

    The preparation of the initial state. The atoms are adiabatically loaded into the Raman lattices in 100ms with the temperature of 100nK, which causes atoms to populate each momentum point in the first Brillouin zone. In the meanwhile, the depth of the optical lattice potential...

  33. [41]

    The quench is executed by switching the detuning from−200E r toδ∈ [−1,1]E r within 200ns

    The quenching and the evolution of the state. The quench is executed by switching the detuning from−200E r toδ∈ [−1,1]E r within 200ns. The sudden quench, being much less than the characteristic time of the state evolution (about several hundred microseconds), is controlled by...

  34. [42]

    0 exp(iq zh(q)·σ) exp(−iqzh(q)·σ) 0 # ,(S5) with chiral operatorσ z⊗I. The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are, E=1, 1√ 2

    The detection of the state using Bloch state tomography. After the quench for a certain timet, aπ/2 Raman pulse with durationt R is applied to the atoms within 200ns via the following manipulation [22]: (i) Turning offthe retroreflective beams ofE x,y via opening AOM 3,4; (ii)...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.