Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Shortcuts to Adiabaticity in Anisotropic Bose-Einstein Condensates

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes shortcut-to-adiabaticity protocols that reshape anisotropic Bose-Einstein condensate traps and interaction strengths far faster than adiabatic processes, with high fidelity across interaction regimes, and shows these…

desk verdict Useful anisotropic STA formalism, but the missing numerical method makes the central fidelity claims unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18861 v1 pith:IOAIFNML submitted 2024-11-28 cond-mat.quant-gas

Chinmayee Mishra , Thomas Busch , Thomás Fogarty This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords shortcuttoadiabaticityBose-EinsteincondensateanisotropicharmonictrapErmakovequationsself-similarscalingquantumengineinverseengineering
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 aims to prove that you do not need to be slow to change the shape of an anisotropic harmonically trapped Bose-Einstein condensate: by engineering the time-dependence of the three trap frequencies (and, separately, of the interaction strength), you can reach a target stationary state in times much shorter than the adiabatic timescale. The protocols work from weakly interacting gases to the Thomas-Fermi limit, as long as the condensate's density stays self-similar. A sympathetic reader would care because this removes a practical bottleneck: adiabatic ramps are too slow for real experiments because of losses, while naive fast ramps excite the cloud. The same shortcuts applied to the four strokes of an isentropic BEC engine raise its power output several-fold while keeping efficiency at the adiabatic value, and the improvement survives repeated cycles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective scaling ansatz: the condensate density is assumed to remain self-similar, $n(\mathbf{r},t) = n_0(x/x_0, y/y_0, z/z_0)/(x_0 y_0 z_0)$, with a linear velocity field $v_\sigma = \dot{\sigma}_0 \sigma / \sigma_0$. Inserting this into the hydrodynamic equations yields three coupled Ermakov-like equations (Eqs. 3a–3c) for the scaling parameters, with interaction-dependent coefficients $A$ and $B$. Inverse engineering of a polynomial ansatz for the scaling parameters turns these equations into design equations for the control fields: the trap frequencies for geometry ramps, or the interaction strength for interaction ramps. The machinery works because the ansatz reduces a many-body nonlinear problem to three coupled ordinary differential equations whose boundary conditions can be freely set, which is exactly what makes STA design possible.

What would settle it

Take a strongly interacting BEC in an anisotropic harmonic trap, apply the paper's STA path for a fast trap compression, and image the density profile during the ramp: if the cloud shows non-self-similar features such as bending, vorticity, or a time-dependent aspect ratio that the scaling ansatz cannot produce, then the derived shortcuts are not exact and the predicted unit fidelity will not be reached.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a constructive method for shortcuts to adiabaticity in a three-dimensional anisotropic harmonic trap. Starting from the hydrodynamic equations and a self-similar scaling ansatz for the density, the authors derive three coupled Ermakov-like equations for the scaling widths $x_0, y_0, z_0$ whose coefficients interpolate between the non-interacting limit (decoupled equations) and the Thomas-Fermi limit (strongly coupled interaction-independent equations). By prescribing a polynomial trajectory for the scaling widths with stationary boundary conditions and inverting the equations, they obtain explicit time-dependent shortcuts for the trap frequencies, achieving unit fidelity for large structural transitions such as isotropic-to-cigar deformation. For interaction ramps, they show the self-similar approach works in isotropic traps but fails in anisotropic ones, where a Thomas-Fermi variational ansatz restores high fidelity. Finally, using STA paths for all four strokes of an isentropic engine cycle, they find the engine's power is enhanced without degrading efficiency, and the performance persists over several cycles.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's results rely on the condensate density keeping exactly the same shape throughout the shortcut, only stretched or compressed along each axis; if the real dynamics develop non-self-similar distortions, the designed shortcuts lose their guarantee of high fidelity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trap-geometry changes that previously required adiabatically slow ramps can be executed in times comparable to the inverse trap frequency, with near-unit fidelity from the weakly interacting to the Thomas-Fermi regime.
  • Independent control of all three trap frequencies is necessary; shortcuts based on the geometric mean of the frequencies fail even for mildly anisotropic traps, performing worse than linear ramps.
  • For interaction ramps inside anisotropic traps, the self-similar scaling ansatz is too rigid and the STA underperforms linear ramps; a Thomas-Fermi variational approach restores high fidelity in that regime.
  • In an isentropic BEC engine, STA-driven strokes produce roughly five times larger power output at high efficiency compared to the adiabatic limit, and the advantage persists after five consecutive cycles.
  • The protocols can be used for frictionless cooling and fast compression/expansion of BECs in arbitrary three-dimensional geometries, not just symmetric traps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same inverse-engineering machinery could be extended to finite-temperature BECs described by c-field methods, where the self-similar ansatz would need to be relaxed; the engine results suggest that optimized ramps will still suppress irreversible heating.
  • The observed failure of self-similar STAs for anisotropic interaction ramps hints at a general limitation: shortcuts based on a few collective coordinates will fail exactly when the dynamics develop transverse vorticity or non-self-similar flow; detecting such flow could be a diagnostic for when other collective-coordinate shortcuts break down.
  • Because the shortcut paths sometimes require transiently inverted traps or attractive interactions, experimental implementation will need to compare the energy cost of these unphysical intermediate potentials against the savings in cycle time; optimally constrained shortcuts (e.g., bounded frequencies) would be a natural next step.
  • The fivefold power boost at fixed efficiency suggests a generic speed limit for quantum engines: STA strokes convert idle (adiabatic) time into useful work without paying an efficiency penalty, up to the point where the energetic cost of the shortcut itself dominates.
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 manuscript proposes shortcuts to adiabaticity (STA) for a 3D Bose-Einstein condensate in an anisotropic harmonic trap, using an effective scaling/hydrodynamic ansatz that yields three coupled Ermakov-like equations for the scaling parameters. The authors inverse-engineer polynomial paths for the scaling parameters and derive corresponding time-dependent trap frequencies and interaction strengths, claiming high-fidelity transitions across interaction regimes from weakly interacting to Thomas-Fermi. They further apply the protocols to a unitary isentropic engine cycle, reporting up to a fivefold power enhancement without loss of efficiency over multiple cycles.

Significance. If the reported fidelities are validated by full Gross-Pitaevskii simulations, this work would provide a useful toolbox for fast, controlled reshaping of anisotropic BEC traps and for speeding up BEC-based quantum engines. The manuscript's derivations are standard inverse engineering, with exact limiting cases (noninteracting and Thomas-Fermi), and the authors are transparent that the self-similar ansatz fails for anisotropic interaction ramps, proposing a variational alternative. The main quantitative claims, however, currently rest on an unspecified numerical verification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Fig. 2] The fidelity F = |⟨Ψ(tf)|Ψtar⟩|^2 is the central validation, but the manuscript never states how Ψ(tf) is obtained; if it is generated by the same self-similar scaling ansatz used to design the STA, the fidelity is partly circular and cannot serve as an independent check. The only numerical statement is the acknowledgment that simulations were performed on the OIST cluster. The authors must specify whether a full 3D Gross-Pitaevskii equation is solved, state the numerical scheme and parameters, and report the equations that produce Ψ(tf).
  2. [Sec. III B, Fig. 4] The self-similar scaling ansatz with a fixed density shape n0(R) cannot represent a Gaussian-to-Thomas-Fermi shape transition in a fixed trap, because that is a change of functional form rather than a pure rescaling. The paper's own Fig. 4(a) shows that for anisotropic traps the self-similar interaction STA is worse than a linear ramp, yet the isotropic ramp from g=0.1 to g=100 is reported with high fidelity; this result is surprising and requires independent confirmation by full GPE simulation before the abstract's claim of interaction STA control across geometries can be accepted.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 5] The engine power P and efficiency η are computed from energies W_AB, W_BC, W_CD, W_AD, but the manuscript never defines these energies in terms of the GPE energy functional or the actual many-body wavefunction. If these quantities are evaluated within the same averaging ansatz used to design the shortcuts, the claimed fivefold power enhancement (conclusion) and sustained fidelity are not independent of the approximations. The authors should state explicitly how the energies entering Eqs. (18)-(19) are calculated and provide numerical verification for the engine cycle.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The subscripts and superscripts in the three coupled equations are garbled (e.g., "Ax xy2 0z2 0" instead of the intended A^{x}_{x} x_0^2 y_0^2 z_0^2), making the boundary conditions unreadable; please rewrite with a clear notation such as A^{σ}_{σ'}.
  2. [Eq. (16)] The phase factor is typeset as "ei(x2cx+y2cy+z2cz)"; this should be e^{i(x^2 c_x + y^2 c_y + z^2 c_z)} or equivalent.
  3. [Sec. IV] The scattering lengths a_l and a_h are introduced without an explicit relation to the interaction parameter g used elsewhere in the paper; please state the conversion (e.g., g = 4π a N / something) and the normalization conventions.
  4. [Conclusion and Fig. 5(a)] The statement that peak power is increased fivefold compared to the adiabatic driving limit at t_f = 10 is not directly visible in Fig. 5(a); please define the adiabatic power baseline and, if possible, indicate it in the figure.
  5. [Fig. 2(f)] The red dashed and dotted lines overlap for t_f ≥ 5, obscuring the comparison; consider using distinct markers or a zoomed inset to make the approach to unit fidelity visible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the STA paths are inverse-engineered from boundary conditions on the scaling parameters, the target states are independently defined ground states, and the reported non-unit fidelities show that the results are not forced by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the hydrodynamic form of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, the paper imposes a self-similar scaling ansatz n = n0(x/x0, y/y0, z/z0)/(x0 y0 z0) with v_sigma = dot(sigma0) sigma / sigma0 and obtains the coupled Ermakov-like equations (3a)-(3c). These equations are then used inversely: for trap ramps, boundary conditions on sigma0(0) and sigma0(tf) with vanishing first and second derivatives fix the polynomial ansatz Eq. (10), and Eqs. (3) are solved for the required time-dependent trap frequencies. The target state Psi_tar is the ground state of the BEC with the final trapping frequency, not a state manufactured by the scaling ansatz. Thus the fidelity F = |<Psi(tf)|Psi_tar>|^2 compares the engineered evolution against an independent target. The same holds for interaction ramps: Eqs. (15) and (17) are inverse-engineered from the same effective scaling equation or a variational equation, and the target is the ground state at the final interaction strength. Internal evidence rules out the main potential circularity, namely that Psi(tf) might be generated by the same scaling equations used to design the shortcut: if it were, every self-similar STA would trivially give unit fidelity. Instead the paper reports non-unit fidelities, strong dependence on tf and g, and in Sec. III B the self-similar STA for anisotropic interaction ramps underperforms a linear ramp, requiring the variational STA as a rescue. These failures are incompatible with fidelity being imposed by construction. The engine analysis in Sec. IV inherits the same dynamical fidelity data and computes power and efficiency from energy differences between driven and adiabatic states, so it is not circular either. The only significant gap is that the manuscript does not state how Psi(tf) is numerically evolved; the acknowledgments only say that simulations were run on the OIST cluster. That is an omitted technical detail and a reproducibility or correctness risk, not a circularity: the paper's own reported imperfect fidelities demonstrate that the overlap is not identically one by definition. Citations of the authors' previous work ([22, 32, 33, 35, 63, 64]) are used for standard variational methods, energy-cost definitions, Thomas-Fermi assumptions, and related engine studies, but the central inverse-engineering derivation relies on the equations derived in this paper itself; nothing load-bearing reduces to a self-citation.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the control fields and durations are either prescribed initial or final conditions or fixed by boundary conditions on the scaling parameters. The key external input is the self-similar scaling ansatz, which is approximate for finite interactions. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field equation describes the BEC in the weakly correlated regime.
    Invoked in Eq. (1) as the starting model; all subsequent dynamics and fidelity calculations inherit this approximation.
  • domain assumption The hydrodynamic equations, continuity and Euler with quantum pressure, are equivalent to the GPE for density and velocity fields.
    Used in Sec. II and Appendix A to derive the Ermakov-like equations.
  • domain assumption The density remains self-similar throughout the ramp: n = n0(x/x0,y/y0,z/z0)/(x0y0z0) with v_sigma = dot(sigma0) sigma/sigma0.
    Central approximation of the effective scaling approach; the paper itself reports its breakdown for anisotropic interaction ramps in Sec. III B.
  • ad hoc to paper Any smooth trajectory satisfying the endpoint stationarity conditions can serve as the scaling-parameter path; the polynomial Eq. (10) is sufficient.
    The inverse-engineered shortcuts depend on the chosen ansatz shape, though fidelity results indicate it works for the studied cases.
  • ad hoc to paper In the Thomas-Fermi regime the variational ansatz Eq. (16) with a_sigma = b(t)/omega_sigma captures the condensate profile.
    Used in Sec. III B to construct interaction STAs for anisotropic traps; restricted to the TF regime by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shortcuts to Adiabaticity in Anisotropic Bose-Einstein Condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOAIFNML

@misc{pith2026241118861,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shortcuts to Adiabaticity in Anisotropic Bose-Einstein Condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOAIFNML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18861}
}
read the original abstract

We propose shortcut to adiabaticity protocols for Bose-Einstein condensates trapped in generalized anisotropic harmonic traps in three dimensions. These protocols enable high-fidelity tuning of trap geometries on time scales much faster than those required for adiabatic processes and are robust across a wide range of interaction strengths, from weakly interacting regimes to the Thomas-Fermi limit. Using the same approach, we also design STA paths to rapidly drive interaction strengths in both isotropic and anisotropic traps. Comparisons with standard linear ramps of system parameters demonstrate significant improvements in performance. Finally, we apply these STA techniques to a unitary engine cycle with a BEC as the working medium. The STA methods significantly enhance the engine's power output without reducing efficiency and remain highly effective even after multiple consecutive cycles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18861 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Anisotropic trap ramp using shortcuts to adiabaticity (STA) from a 3D initial trap ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Fidelity comparison between two different STA ramps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Fidelity comparison between STA and linear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: highlights the stark contrast between a lin￾early driven engine and an STA-driven engine cycle. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dalfovo, S

    F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999)

    1999

  2. [2]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Stringari, Phys

    S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2360 (1996)

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    V. M. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, H. Michinel, J. I. Cirac, M. Lewen- stein, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5320 (1996)

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    M. R. Andrews, D. M. Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, D. S. Durfee, C. G. Townsend, S. Inouye, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 553 (1997). 9

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    Kagan, E

    Y. Kagan, E. L. Surkov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2604 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    M. A. Cazalilla and M. Rigol, New Journal of Physics 12, 055006 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    F. A. van Abeelen and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1550 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    Dieckmann, C

    K. Dieckmann, C. A. Stan, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 203201 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 083201 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    A. R. R. Carvalho, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 230501 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Torrontegui, S

    E. Torrontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. A 89, 043408 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    N. V. Vitanov and B. W. Shore, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 48, 174008 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Zhang, X

    Q. Zhang, X. Chen, and D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, Scientific Re- ports 7, 15814 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Impens and D

    F. Impens and D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, Phys. Rev. A96, 043609 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    M. V. Berry, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    del Campo, Phys

    A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 100502 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 063002 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    J. Li, K. Sun, and X. Chen, Scientific Reports 6, 38258 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    J. Li, T. Fogarty, S. Campbell, X. Chen, and T. Busch, New Journal of Physics 20, 015005 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Masuda and K

    S. Masuda and K. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. A 78, 062108 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Schaff, X.-L

    J.-F. Schaff, X.-L. Song, P. Vignolo, and G. Labeyrie, Phys. Rev. A 82, 033430 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Schaff, X.-L

    J.-F. Schaff, X.-L. Song, P. Capuzzi, P. Vignolo, and G. Labeyrie, Europhysics Letters 93, 23001 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Bowler, J

    R. Bowler, J. Gaebler, Y. Lin, T. R. Tan, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. P. Home, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080502 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Rohringer, D

    W. Rohringer, D. Fischer, F. Steiner, I. E. Mazets, J. Schmiedmayer, and M. Trupke, Scientific Reports 5, 9820 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    S. Deng, P. Diao, Q. Yu, A. del Campo, and H. Wu, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013628 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    del Campo and M

    A. del Campo and M. G. Boshier, Scientific Reports 2, 648 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    M. Beau, J. Jaramillo, and A. Del Campo, Entropy 18 (2016), 10.3390/e18050168

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, E3909 (2017), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1619826114

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    T.-N. Xu, J. Li, T. Busch, X. Chen, and T. Fogarty, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023125 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Fogarty and T

    T. Fogarty and T. Busch, Quantum Science and Tech- nology 6, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    ˇCepait˙ e, A

    I. ˇCepait˙ e, A. Polkovnikov, A. J. Daley, and C. W. Dun- can, PRX Quantum 4, 010312 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    M. S. Hasan, T. Fogarty, J. Li, A. Ruschhaupt, and T. Busch, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023114 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Morawetz and A

    S. Morawetz and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024304 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Deffner, C

    S. Deffner, C. Jarzynski, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. X 4, 021013 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    J. G. Muga, X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, and D. Gu´ ery- Odelin, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Op- tical Physics 42, 241001 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, Phys

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, Phys. Rev. A66, 033613 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    Menotti, P

    C. Menotti, P. Pedri, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 250402 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Hu, X.-J

    H. Hu, X.-J. Liu, and M. Modugno, Phys. Rev. A 67, 063614 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Modugno, G

    M. Modugno, G. Pagnini, and M. A. Valle-Basagoiti, Phys. Rev. A 97, 043604 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Viedma and M

    D. Viedma and M. Modugno, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033478 (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    del Campo, Phys

    A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. A 84, 031606 (2011)

    2011

  37. [46]

    N. M. Myers, F. J. Pe˜ na, O. Negrete, P. Vargas, G. D. Chiara, and S. Deffner, New Journal of Physics 24, 025001 (2022)

    2022

  38. [47]

    J. A. Estrada, F. Mayo, A. J. Roncaglia, and P. D. Mininni, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012202 (2024)

    2024

  39. [48]

    E. Q. Simmons, R. Sajjad, K. Keithley, H. Mas, J. L. Tanlimco, E. Nolasco-Martinez, Y. Bai, G. H. Fredrick- son, and D. M. Weld, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L042009 (2023)

    2023

  40. [49]

    C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose–Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    2008

  41. [50]

    Huang, M

    T.-Y. Huang, M. Modugno, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 104, 063313 (2021)

    2021

  42. [51]

    Huang, B

    T.-Y. Huang, B. A. Malomed, and X. Chen, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 30, 053131 (2020)

    2020

  43. [52]

    Abah and E

    O. Abah and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. E 98, 032121 (2018)

    2018

  44. [53]

    Zhang, H.-M

    M. Zhang, H.-M. Yu, and J. Liu, npj Quantum Informa- tion 9, 97 (2023)

    2023

  45. [54]

    Abah and M

    O. Abah and M. Paternostro, Phys. Rev. E 99, 022110 (2019)

    2019

  46. [55]

    O. Abah, R. Puebla, A. Kiely, G. D. Chiara, M. Pater- nostro, and S. Campbell, New Journal of Physics 21, 103048 (2019)

    2019

  47. [56]

    O. Abah, M. Paternostro, and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023120 (2020)

    2020

  48. [57]

    del Campo, J

    A. del Campo, J. Goold, and M. Paternostro, Scientific Reports 4, 6208 (2014)

    2014

  49. [58]

    C ¸ akmak and O

    B. C ¸ akmak and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Phys. Rev. E99, 032108 (2019)

    2019

  50. [59]

    Hartmann, V

    A. Hartmann, V. Mukherjee, W. Niedenzu, and W. Lechner, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023145 (2020)

    2020

  51. [60]

    Pedram, S

    A. Pedram, S. C. Kadıo˘ glu, A. Kabak¸ cıo˘ glu, and O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, New Journal of Physics25, 113014 (2023)

    2023

  52. [61]

    L. A. Williamson and M. J. Davis, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024310 (2024)

    2024

  53. [62]

    Y.-Y. Chen, G. Watanabe, Y.-C. Yu, X.-W. Guan, and A. del Campo, npj Quantum Information 5, 88 (2019)

    2019

  54. [63]

    Keller, T

    T. Keller, T. Fogarty, J. Li, and T. Busch, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033335 (2020)

    2020

  55. [64]

    Boubakour, T

    M. Boubakour, T. Fogarty, and T. Busch, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013088 (2023). 10

    2023

  56. [65]

    Quantum many- body thermal machines enabled by atom-atom correla- tions,

    R. S. Watson and K. V. Kheruntsyan, “Quantum many- body thermal machines enabled by atom-atom correla- tions,” (2023), arXiv:2308.05266

    2023 arXiv

  57. [66]

    J. Koch, K. Menon, E. Cuestas, S. Barbosa, E. Lutz, T. Fogarty, T. Busch, and A. Widera, Nature 621, 723 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.