Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Saturation of thermal and spin conductances in a dissipative superfluid junction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that local dissipation in a superfluid junction raises thermal and spin conductances by one to two orders of magnitude, saturating at the universal quantized values of a non-interacting one-dimensional Fermi gas.

desk verdict The thermal conductance enhancement is real and well checked; the spin conductance saturation is quantitatively indistinguishable from a pure-loss artifact, and the paper's dismissal is a plausibility argument, not a control. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08525 v2 pith:W4XHFPBK submitted 2024-12-11 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph

Meng-Zi Huang , Philipp Fabritius , Jeffrey Mohan , Mohsen Talebi , Simon Wili , Tilman Esslinger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-ph
keywords superfluidjunctionquantumpointcontactdissipativetransportthermalconductancespinunitaryFermigasquantizedopensystems
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 reports an experiment on a one-dimensional junction connecting two strongly interacting fermionic superfluids, with a focused beam removing atoms from the junction while particle, entropy, and spin currents are measured. It claims that local dissipation, of either spin-imbalanced or pairwise type, raises thermal and spin conductances by one to two orders of magnitude, and that at strong dissipation both conductances approach the quantum-limited values of a non-interacting ballistic one-dimensional junction, $G_{T,0}=2n_m\pi^2 k_B^2 T/(3h)$ and $G_{\sigma,0}=2n_m/h$. If true, dissipation does not merely degrade coherent transport: it breaks the pairs that the superfluid gap protects and opens diffusive heat and spin channels that the pairing gap normally blocks. The paper's significance is that a strongly interacting, strongly dissipative system can reproduce the universal quantized transport of non-interacting fermions.

What carries the argument

The central object is a quasi-one-dimensional ballistic superfluid junction connecting two reservoirs of unitary Fermi gas, with a tightly focused dissipation beam placed inside the channel. Two dissipation mechanisms are engineered with the same beam: spin-imbalanced loss that predominantly removes one spin species, and pairwise loss that removes a correlated pair. The transport coefficients are extracted from two-terminal measurements: thermal conductance from a nonlinear thermoelectric model fitted to coupled atom-number and entropy imbalances, and spin conductance from the exponential decay of a prepared magnetization imbalance. The conductances are normalized by the non-interacting quantum-limited values, so the saturation target is a direct comparison with the transverse-mode quantization of an ideal one-dimensional channel.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetization imbalance decay with the dissipation beam positioned just outside the channel instead of inside it; if the decay rate $\gamma_N$ still matches $1/\tau_\sigma$, then loss-induced apparent spin current, not junction transport, would explain the reported spin conductance. A second check would compare the spin conductance inferred from the exponential magnetization decay with a direct measurement of spin-resolved currents through the junction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that local particle dissipation in a superfluid junction restores thermal and spin transport that the pairing gap suppresses, and that both conductances saturate near the quantum-limited values of an ideal non-interacting one-dimensional junction. The measured thermal conductance rises by almost two orders of magnitude and the spin conductance by more than one order, until both approach $G_{T,0}=2n_m\pi^2 k_B^2 T/(3h)$ and $G_{\sigma,0}=2n_m/h$, the universal limits set by the quantization of transverse modes in the channel. Qualitatively the same saturation appears for two distinct loss mechanisms, spin-imbalanced optical pumping and pairwise photoassociation, with pairwise loss slightly less destructive at equal loss current. The authors interpret this as dissipation unpairing the superfluid locally and thereby recovering conductance channels that the pairing gap had closed.

Load-bearing premise

The fitted spin conductance is only meaningful if the decay of the magnetization imbalance is real spin transport through the junction and not an artifact of atoms being lost from the reservoirs, and the authors' case for this rests on a physical plausibility argument rather than a dedicated control measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At strong dissipation, both thermal and spin conductances saturate near the non-interacting ballistic values, meaning the superfluid junction conducts heat and spin like an ideal one-dimensional Fermi gas even though particle transport retains superfluid character.
  • Because the same saturation appears for two different loss mechanisms, the effect does not depend on how pairs are broken; to first order the overall loss rate controls the recovery of conductance.
  • The normalized thermal conductance collapses when plotted against transverse confinement with different occupied mode numbers, showing the saturation is tied to $n_m$, the number of transverse modes, rather than a particular trap setting.
  • Dissipation increases the fitted nonlinearity scale of the particle current, so the junction crosses over from a nonlinear superconducting-like contact toward a more linear transport channel.
  • The sharp rise of thermal and spin conductances together with the enhanced Seebeck response points toward dissipative control of thermoelectric and spin transport in a superfluid junction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The supplement notes that the measured loss rate $\gamma_N$ is very close to the fitted spin relaxation rate $1/\tau_\sigma$, and rules out loss-induced apparent spin current by a physical plausibility argument. A decisive control experiment would place the dissipation beam just outside the junction and check whether the magnetization decay rate still tracks the loss rate.
  • The near coincidence of both saturated conductances with the ideal-channel limits suggests measuring the ratio of reduced spin and thermal conductances as a function of dissipation strength: a universal value would strengthen the claim that the saturated channel behaves as an ideal non-interacting conductor, while a drift would expose interaction corrections.
  • The enhanced Seebeck response at weak dissipation suggests a testable application: applying a dissipation gradient across the reservoirs could convert an entropy imbalance into a particle current, effectively operating the junction as a dissipatively controlled thermoelectric device.
  • A microscopic theory of the full conductance-versus-loss curves, which the authors call for, would predict whether the saturation is governed solely by pair breaking or also by mode-specific scattering; checking that the two dissipation mechanisms collapse onto one curve when plotted against loss current would test that prediction.
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 manuscript reports measurements of thermal and spin transport through a quasi-1D junction connecting two unitary Fermi superfluids, with local atom losses engineered inside the channel. The authors observe that dissipation increases the thermal and spin conductances by one to two orders of magnitude and that at strong dissipation both appear to approach the non-interacting quantized values G_T,0 = 2n_m pi^2 k_B^2 T/(3h) and G_sigma,0 = 2n_m/h. Thermal conductance is extracted from a nonlinear thermoelectric model fit and cross-checked by an independent upper bound from the diffusive timescale; spin conductance is extracted from exponential fits to the magnetization imbalance decay. Two dissipation mechanisms, spin-imbalanced and pairwise losses, are compared. The paper concludes that local dissipation can restore universal quantized heat and spin transport in a strongly interacting superfluid junction.

Significance. If established, this is a striking experimental result: dissipation-induced recovery of quantized transport in a strongly correlated system, with implications for open-system transport and thermoelectric control. The thermal conductance claim is supported by multiple cross-checks, including a model-independent timescale bound, a lower bound that excludes pure-loss artifacts, and collapse of the data with mode number across three transverse confinements. The comparison of two dissipation mechanisms is also a useful experimental control. However, the spin conductance claim currently rests on a single exponential decay whose fitted rate is close to the atom-loss rate, and the paper's own Supplement S4.B supplies only a plausibility argument rather than a quantitative exclusion of the loss-induced null model. The central spin claim is therefore not yet established to the standard of the abstract, although the deficiency is addressable with additional measurements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplement S4.B; Eqs. (S3), (S4)] The spin conductance is extracted from an exponential fit to Delta M(t), with G_sigma = chi/(4 tau_sigma). Supplement S4.B states that gamma_N is 'very close to 1/tau_sigma' and considers a zero-transport null model in which pure losses give Delta M(t) proportional to e^{-gamma_N t}. This null model quantitatively reproduces both the measured decay and its saturation with dissipation power: since G_sigma is proportional to 1/tau_sigma, and 1/tau_sigma is close to gamma_N, the rise and flattening of G_sigma in Fig. 4(c) are inherited from the saturation of gamma_N in Fig. 4(a). For spin-imbalanced loss the same degeneracy holds: with Gamma_up = 0.83 Gamma_down, pure loss gives a fitted decay rate near (Gamma_up + Gamma_down)/2 = gamma_N. The dismissal of the null model is a plausibility argument (the beam is smaller than the channel, so pairs come from the same reservoir) with no quantitative estimate of the intra- versus inter-reservoir pair fraction. The paper needs either a control measurement that breaks the degeneracy between transport and loss, for example a dissipation beam displaced from the channel or a spin-polarized loss calibration, or a quantitative upper bound on the cross-reservoir pair fraction that places the apparent loss-induced G_sigma below the reported values.
  2. [Fig. 4(c) inset] The inset of Fig. 4(c) presents the cross-mechanism collapse of G_sigma versus I_Gamma as evidence that the two dissipation mechanisms produce the same spin transport. This collapse is not a diagnostic for real spin transport: in the pure-loss null model, G_sigma = chi gamma_N/4 is linear in I_Gamma (with gamma_N = I_Gamma/(N_0/2)), so any quantity proportional to gamma_N will collapse when plotted against I_Gamma. The same concern applies to the thermal conductance collapse in Fig. S3(f), although for G_T the S4.A lower-bound calculation independently excludes pure losses. Please plot the spin data together with the null-model prediction and report residuals, not only the collapse.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 4(c) discussion] The sentence 'These conductances are much higher than the apparent transport purely arising from atom loss [42]' is supported for the thermal conductance by the black curves in S4.A, but it is not supported for the spin conductance; S4.B in fact shows that the loss-only apparent spin conductance is comparable to the reported values. The abstract and conclusion should be adjusted to state that the spin saturation is tentative pending a control measurement, or a quantitative exclusion of the null model should be added to the manuscript.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text, Experimental setup] In the main text, the quantities I_N and I_S are called 'apparent currents' only in Supplement S2.C; please define this term and its relation to the measured reservoir imbalances at first use in the main text, since the closed-system model is being applied to a lossy system.
  2. [S2.C and Fig. 4(c)] The normalization G_T,0 = 2 n_m pi^2 k_B^2 T/(3h) uses a temperature T; please specify whether T is the initial reservoir temperature, the final temperature, or an average over the transport time, and propagate the corresponding uncertainty into the normalized conductance.
  3. [Supplement S1.A] Supplement S1.A reports that n_m decreases from about 3.1 to about 2.7 during transport; please state how this drift affects the normalized conductances in Fig. 4(c) and Fig. S3(d), or justify that it is negligible for the saturation claim.
  4. [Supplement S4.A, Eq. (S11)] The upper bound in Eq. (S11) uses the non-dissipative value of alpha_c, while Fig. S3(a) shows that alpha_c changes with dissipation; please state this choice explicitly in the main text or in the caption of Fig. S4.
  5. [Supplement S3] There is a typo in Supplement S3: 'more destructive to the the superfluid order' should read 'to the superfluid order'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: conductances are measured against external quantum limits, and the spin-loss coincidence in S4.B is an empirical confound, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental measurements compared with external quantum-limit benchmarks, not derivations from assumptions that secretly contain the conclusions. The thermal conductance is extracted from a phenomenological model [22], but the model is fit to the dynamics rather than constructed to force the reported saturation; the saturating behavior is independently reproduced by a simple exponential timescale, and Supplement S4.A provides an upper bound (Eq. S11) that does not rely on the fitted model parameters and is also close to the non-interacting value. The mode number n_m used for normalization is computed from the reservoir thermodynamics and channel energy landscape via Fermi-Dirac statistics, not fitted to the conductance data, so the collapse of GT when normalized by n_m is not a self-fulfilling normalization. For the spin channel, Supplement S4.B explicitly notes that the measured loss rate gamma_N is very close to 1/tau_sigma, the fitted magnetization decay rate, and that a zero-transport loss-only model would produce Delta M(t) ~ e^{-gamma_N t}; this is a genuine validity caveat because the spin conductance could be contaminated by loss-induced apparent spin current. However, this is not circularity: the loss rate is measured independently, the near-equality is an empirical observation rather than an identity imposed by construction, and the paper's dismissal via a beam-localization plausibility argument is an assumption about the physics, not a definitional reduction of the claimed conductance to its input. The self-citations to [13,19,22,24,25] are prior experimental results and techniques used as tools or comparisons; they are not invoked as external uniqueness theorems or as unverified premises that force the present conclusions. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claims rest on two modeling assumptions: the closed-system thermoelectric model remains valid for the dissipative junction, and the observed magnetization decay is due to real spin transport rather than loss-induced artifacts. Additional assumptions concern reservoir thermodynamics, superfluid character, and mode counting. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • Thermal conductance GT = varies with PGamma; approaches ~GT,0 at high PGamma
    Fitted per dataset in the phenomenological model (Supplement S2.C); this is the central thermal result.
  • Seebeck coefficient alpha_c = order kB, see Fig. S3(a)
    Fitted per dataset; enters the entropy current decomposition and the advective response.
  • Nonlinearity coefficient sigma = increases with dissipation, Fig. S3(b)
    Fitted per dataset in the nonlinear current-bias relation.
  • Reservoir Lorentz-number scaling l_s = l_r/kB^2 = 0.028(1)
    Fitted shared across all datasets to account for deviations of reservoir response from the 3D equation of state.
  • Reservoir dilatation scaling a_s = a_r/kB = 1.19(4)
    Fitted shared across all datasets to scale the dilatation coefficient from the equation of state.
  • Spin relaxation timescale tau_sigma = decreases with PGamma, order 0.1-1 s
    Fitted to the exponential decay of Delta M(t); the spin conductance is derived as G_sigma = chi/(4*tau_sigma).
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The closed-system nonlinear thermoelectric model (Eqs. S5-S6) remains valid for the dissipative junction with apparent currents I_N and I_S.
    Invoked in the main text and Supplement S2.C; losses are not explicitly modeled, so GT and alpha_c absorb their effect.
  • domain assumption The magnetization imbalance decay reflects genuine spin transport, not loss-induced apparent spin current.
    Supplement S4.B notes gamma_N approximately equals 1/tau_sigma and argues the local-loss scenario is more plausible, but no control measurement is provided.
  • domain assumption The reservoirs remain superfluid throughout the transport dynamics.
    Supplement S1.C shows most data below s_c approximately 1.9, but final states at strongest dissipation reach S/N = 2.6(3), above s_c.
  • standard math The number of occupied transverse modes n_m is accurately given by Fermi-Dirac statistics and the channel energy landscape.
    Used to normalize GT and G_sigma; n_m decreases from about 3.1 to 2.7 during transport.
  • standard math The spin conductance is related to the relaxation time by G_sigma = chi/(4*tau_sigma), with chi computed from the equation of state.
    Standard linear-response formula from Ref. [19], used to convert the fitted decay time into a conductance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Saturation of thermal and spin conductances in a dissipative superfluid junction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4XHFPBK

@misc{pith2026241208525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Saturation of thermal and spin conductances in a dissipative superfluid junction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4XHFPBK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08525}
}
read the original abstract

Fermionic superfluid junctions typically exhibit suppressed thermal and spin transport due to the presence of a pairing gap but allow coherent particle transport. While dissipation generally weakens coherent transport, it can also induce excitations that open other transport channels. In this work, we experimentally study a one-dimensional superfluid junction of strongly interacting fermions with local particle loss and observe dissipation-induced thermal and spin transport that appear to saturate at strong dissipation. Notably, in this regime, the measured thermal and spin conductances are comparable to the universal quantized conductance of one-dimensional ideal Fermi gas. Qualitatively similar behavior is observed for two dissipation mechanisms, either spin-imbalanced or pairwise losses. Our findings provide new insights into transport in interacting open quantum systems and suggest possibilities of dissipative control of spin and thermoelectric transport.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08525 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (b) shows the initial particle current IN (0) from the entropy transport experiment ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Fabritius, J

    P. Fabritius, J. Mohan, M. Talebi, S. Wili, W. Zw- erger, M.-Z. Huang, and T. Esslinger, Irreversible en- tropy transport enhanced by fermionic superfluidity, Na- ture Physics 20, 1091 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [42]

    See Supplemental Materials for details on experimental procedures and data analysis

    work page

  3. [1]

    M. W. Zwierlein, Thermodynamics of strongly interact- ing Fermi gases, in Quantum Matter at Ultralow Temper- atures, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi” (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2016) pp. 143– 220

    work page 2016

  4. [2]

    M. J. H. Ku, A. T. Sommer, L. W. Cheuk, and M. W. Zwierlein, Revealing the Superfluid Lambda Transition in the Universal Thermodynamics of a Unitary Fermi Gas, Science 335, 563 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [3]

    X. Li, S. Wang, X. Luo, Y.-Y. Zhou, K. Xie, H.-C. Shen, Y.-Z. Nie, Q. Chen, H. Hu, Y.-A. Chen, X.-C. Yao, and J.-W. Pan, Observation and quantification of the pseu- dogap in unitary Fermi gases, Nature 626, 288 (2024)

    2024

  6. [4]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Friesdorf, and C. Gogolin, Quantum many- body systems out of equilibrium, Nature Physics 11, 124 (2015)

    2015

  7. [5]

    Zwerger, ed., The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas, Lecture notes in physics No

    W. Zwerger, ed., The BCS-BEC Crossover and the Unitary Fermi Gas, Lecture notes in physics No. 836 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [6]

    Labouvie, B

    R. Labouvie, B. Santra, S. Heun, and H. Ott, Bistabil- 6 ity in a Driven-Dissipative Superfluid, Physical Review Letters 116, 235302 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 48 references
  1. [7]

    Tomita, S

    T. Tomita, S. Nakajima, I. Danshita, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Observation of the Mott insulator to su- perfluid crossover of a driven-dissipative Bose-Hubbard system, Science Advances 3, e1701513 (2017)

    2017

  2. [8]

    Dogra, M

    N. Dogra, M. Landini, K. Kroeger, L. Hruby, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Dissipation-induced structural instabil- ity and chiral dynamics in a quantum gas, Science 366, 1496 (2019)

    2019

  3. [9]

    Bouganne, M

    R. Bouganne, M. Bosch Aguilera, A. Ghermaoui, J. Beugnon, and F. Gerbier, Anomalous decay of coher- ence in a dissipative many-body system, Nature Physics 16, 21 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    Dreon, A

    D. Dreon, A. Baumg¨ artner, X. Li, S. Hertlein, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Self-oscillating pump in a topological dissipative atom–cavity system, Nature 608, 494 (2022)

    2022

  5. [11]

    Barontini, R

    G. Barontini, R. Labouvie, F. Stubenrauch, A. Vogler, V. Guarrera, and H. Ott, Controlling the Dynamics of an Open Many-Body Quantum System with Localized Dissipation, Physical Review Letters 110, 035302 (2013)

    2013

  6. [12]

    Corman, P

    L. Corman, P. Fabritius, S. H¨ ausler, J. Mohan, L. H. Dogra, D. Husmann, M. Lebrat, and T. Esslinger, Quan- tized conductance through a dissipative atomic point contact, Physical Review A 100, 053605 (2019)

    2019

  7. [13]

    Huang, J

    M.-Z. Huang, J. Mohan, A.-M. Visuri, P. Fabritius, M. Talebi, S. Wili, S. Uchino, T. Giamarchi, and T. Esslinger, Superfluid Signatures in a Dissipative Quantum Point Contact, Physical Review Letters 130, 200404 (2023)

    2023

  8. [14]

    Gievers, T

    M. Gievers, T. M¨ uller, H. Fr¨ oml, S. Diehl, and A. Chioc- chetta, Quantum wires with local particle loss: Trans- port manifestations of fluctuation-induced effects, Phys- ical Review B 110, 205419 (2024)

    2024

  9. [15]

    Z. Yan, P. B. Patel, B. Mukherjee, C. J. Vale, R. J. Fletcher, and M. W. Zwierlein, Thermography of the su- perfluid transition in a strongly interacting Fermi gas, Science 383, 629 (2024)

    2024

  10. [16]

    X. Li, X. Luo, S. Wang, K. Xie, X.-P. Liu, H. Hu, Y.-A. Chen, X.-C. Yao, and J.-W. Pan, Second sound attenua- tion near quantum criticality, Science 375, 528 (2022)

    2022

  11. [17]

    Luciuk, S

    C. Luciuk, S. Smale, F. B¨ ottcher, H. Sharum, B. A. Olsen, S. Trotzky, T. Enss, and J. H. Thywissen, Obser- vation of Quantum-Limited Spin Transport in Strongly Interacting Two-Dimensional Fermi Gases, Physical Re- view Letters 118, 130405 (2017)

    2017

  12. [18]

    Sommer, M

    A. Sommer, M. Ku, G. Roati, and M. W. Zwierlein, Uni- versal spin transport in a strongly interacting Fermi gas, Nature 472, 201 (2011)

    2011

  13. [19]

    Krinner, M

    S. Krinner, M. Lebrat, D. Husmann, C. Grenier, J.-P. Brantut, and T. Esslinger, Mapping out spin and particle conductances in a quantum point contact, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 8144 (2016)

    2016

  14. [20]

    Valtolina, F

    G. Valtolina, F. Scazza, A. Amico, A. Burchianti, A. Re- cati, T. Enss, M. Inguscio, M. Zaccanti, and G. Roati, Exploring the ferromagnetic behaviour of a repulsive Fermi gas through spin dynamics, Nature Physics 13, 704 (2017)

    2017

  15. [21]

    L. H. Dogra, G. Martirosyan, T. A. Hilker, J. A. P. Glidden, J. Etrych, A. Cao, C. Eigen, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Universal equation of state for wave tur- bulence in a quantum gas, Nature 620, 521 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    A. J. Leggett, Quantum liquids: Bose condensation and Cooper pairing in condensed-matter systems, Oxford graduate texts (Oxford University Press, Oxford ; New York, 2006)

    2006

  17. [24]

    Husmann, S

    D. Husmann, S. Uchino, S. Krinner, M. Lebrat, T. Gi- amarchi, T. Esslinger, and J.-P. Brantut, Connecting strongly correlated superfluids by a quantum point con- tact, Science 350, 1498 (2015)

    2015

  18. [25]

    Husmann, M

    D. Husmann, M. Lebrat, S. H¨ ausler, J.-P. Brantut, L. Corman, and T. Esslinger, Breakdown of the Wiede- mann–Franz law in a unitary Fermi gas, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 8563 (2018)

    2018

  19. [26]

    S. S. Pershoguba and L. I. Glazman, Thermopower and thermal conductance of a superconducting quantum point contact, Physical Review B 99, 134514 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    Sekino, H

    Y. Sekino, H. Tajima, and S. Uchino, Mesoscopic spin transport between strongly interacting Fermi gases, Physical Review Research 2, 023152 (2020)

    2020

  21. [28]

    Visuri, J

    A.-M. Visuri, J. Mohan, S. Uchino, M.-Z. Huang, T. Esslinger, and T. Giamarchi, DC transport in a dissi- pative superconducting quantum point contact, Physical Review Research 5, 033095 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    J. C. Cuevas, A. Mart ´ ın-Rodero, and A. L. Yeyati, Hamil- tonian approach to the transport properties of supercon- ducting quantum point contacts, Physical Review B 54, 7366 (1996)

    1996

  23. [30]

    Scheer, P

    E. Scheer, P. Joyez, D. Esteve, C. Urbina, and M. H. Devoret, Conduction Channel Transmissions of Atomic- Size Aluminum Contacts, Physical Review Letters 78, 3535 (1997)

    1997

  24. [31]

    Grenier, C

    C. Grenier, C. Kollath, and A. Georges, Thermoelec- tric transport and Peltier cooling of cold atomic gases, Comptes Rendus Physique 17, 1161 (2016)

    2016

  25. [32]

    J. B. Pendry, Quantum limits to the flow of information and entropy, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 16, 2161 (1983)

    1983

  26. [33]

    M. P. Blencowe and V. Vitelli, Universal quantum limits on single-channel information, entropy, and heat flow, Physical Review A 62, 052104 (2000)

    2000

  27. [34]

    Jezouin, F

    S. Jezouin, F. D. Parmentier, A. Anthore, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, Y. Jin, and F. Pierre, Quantum Limit of Heat Flow Across a Single Electronic Channel, Science 342, 601 (2013)

    2013

  28. [35]

    L. Cui, W. Jeong, S. Hur, M. Matt, J. C. Kl¨ ockner, F. Pauly, P. Nielaba, J. C. Cuevas, E. Meyhofer, and P. Reddy, Quantized thermal transport in single-atom junctions, Science 355, 1192 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    Krinner, D

    S. Krinner, D. Stadler, D. Husmann, J.-P. Brantut, and T. Esslinger, Observation of quantized conductance in neutral matter, Nature 517, 64 (2014)

    2014

  30. [37]

    Krinner, T

    S. Krinner, T. Esslinger, and J.-P. Brantut, Two-terminal transport measurements with cold atoms, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 343003 (2017)

    2017

  31. [38]

    G. B. Partridge, K. E. Strecker, R. I. Kamar, M. W. Jack, and R. G. Hulet, Molecular Probe of Pairing in the BEC-BCS Crossover, Physical Review Letters95, 020404 (2005)

    2005

  32. [39]

    Werner, L

    F. Werner, L. Tarruell, and Y. Castin, Number of closed- channel molecules in the BEC-BCS crossover, The Euro- pean Physical Journal B 68, 401 (2009)

    2009

  33. [40]

    Wang, X.-J

    J. Wang, X.-J. Liu, and H. Hu, Photoexcitation measure- 7 ment of Tan’s contact for a strongly interacting Fermi gas, Physical Review A 104, 063309 (2021)

    2021

  34. [41]

    J¨ ager and J

    M. J¨ ager and J. H. Denschlag, Precise Photoexcitation Measurement of Tan’s Contact in the Entire BCS-BEC Crossover, Physical Review Letters 132, 263401 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Pavelka, V

    M. Pavelka, V. Klika, and M. Grmela, Multiscale thermo- dynamics: introduction to GENERIC (De Gruyter, Berlin ; Boston, 2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Uchino, Comparative study for two-terminal transport through a lossy one-dimensional quantum wire, Physical Review A 106, 053320 (2022)

    S. Uchino, Comparative study for two-terminal transport through a lossy one-dimensional quantum wire, Physical Review A 106, 053320 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Roberts, A

    D. Roberts, A. Lingenfelter, and A. Clerk, Hidden Time- Reversal Symmetry, Quantum Detailed Balance and Ex- act Solutions of Driven-Dissipative Quantum Systems, PRX Quantum 2, 020336 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, J. Marino, and S. Diehl, Universality in driven open quantum mat- ter (2023), arXiv:2312.03073 [cond-mat, physics:hep-th, physics:quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    lightsheet

    B. Doyon, S. Gopalakrishnan, F. Møller, J. Schmied- mayer, and R. Vasseur, Generalized Hydrodynamics: A Perspective, Physical Review X 15, 010501 (2025). 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIALS S1. EXPERIMENT AL DET AILS A. Preparation The transport geometry is created by intersecting two ...

    2025

  40. [48]

    Lorenz number

    atom number, temperature and magnetization. We did not find an appreciable difference when replacing the initial thermodynamic quantities by the average values over the full transport time. The spin conductance in the non-interacting, non-dissipative system for a ballistic 1D ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.