pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18072 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · physics.atom-ph

Recognition: unknown

Preparation of quasi-two-dimensional Bose mixture of ultracold ²³Na and ⁸⁷Rb atoms

Ji-Kai Liao , Hao-Ran Zhang , Xiao-Rong Yu , Ya-Qun Qi , Yi-Cheng Guo , Bo Zhao , Jun Rui , Jian-Wei Pan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-ph
keywords quasi-two-dimensionalBose mixtureultracold atomsquantum immiscibilityNa-Rboptical latticeheteronuclearmean-field theory
0
0 comments X

The pith

A dual-species condensate of ultracold Na and Rb atoms is loaded into a single layer of a vertical optical lattice to create a quasi-2D mixture that exhibits quantum immiscibility.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper details an experimental setup for preparing a quasi-two-dimensional heteronuclear Bose mixture using sodium-23 and rubidium-87 atoms. Researchers load the dual-species condensate into one layer of an optical lattice and image the resulting density profiles in equilibrium. These profiles show separation between the two species due to quantum immiscibility, matching predictions from mean-field theory. The apparatus includes compact MOT sources, a versatile science chamber, and high-resolution imaging for both species. This preparation opens the door to exploring low-dimensional quantum phenomena in mixed atomic systems.

Core claim

After loading the dual-species condensate into a single layer of a vertical optical lattice, a 2D gas mixture is prepared and quantum immiscibility is observed in the in-situ equilibrium density profiles, with the profiles agreeing well with mean-field theories.

What carries the argument

The vertical optical lattice that confines the mixture to a single layer, enabling the transition from 3D to quasi-2D while preserving the dual-species nature.

If this is right

  • Provides a platform for investigating quantum impurities in two dimensions.
  • Facilitates studies of quantum droplets in heteronuclear systems.
  • Allows exploration of polar molecules in low dimensions.
  • Supports research on quantum degenerate mixtures in reduced dimensions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar confinement techniques could be applied to other atomic species pairs to test interaction tuning effects.
  • High-resolution imaging of immiscibility might reveal interface dynamics not captured in equilibrium mean-field models.
  • The compact modular design suggests scalability for more complex lattice geometries or electrode-based controls.

Load-bearing premise

The atoms stay confined to a single lattice layer with negligible population in excited states or other layers, allowing the mean-field theory to describe the observed density profiles accurately.

What would settle it

Direct observation of significant atom population in multiple lattice layers via high-resolution imaging or clear mismatch between measured density profiles and mean-field calculations would falsify the preparation of a true quasi-2D mixture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18072 by Bo Zhao, Hao-Ran Zhang, Jian-Wei Pan, Ji-Kai Liao, Jun Rui, Xiao-Rong Yu, Ya-Qun Qi, Yi-Cheng Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (b), the total atom number of Na (Rb) is measured to be 1.6×105 (5.2×104 ). The fitting of the low-density thermal wing with µ <˜ 0 yields a chemical potential kB× 50.1 nK and a temperature 98.0 nK for Na atoms, and a chemical potential kB× 52.5 nK for Rb atoms, where the two species are assumed to be in thermal equilib￾rium. We note that all measured temperatures are signif￾icantly lower than the vertical… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum gases confined in reduced dimensions have enabled the observation of many exotic quantum phenomena. While existing experiments primarily focus on homonuclear systems, we report here on the efficient preparation of a quasi-two-dimensional (2D) heteronuclear quantum degenerate mixture of ultracold $^{23}$Na and $^{87}$Rb. We describe the design of the vacuum system and detail the experimental procedures for preparing the 2D quantum mixture. The designed apparatus has several unique features, including compact and modular 2D-MOT sources, a science chamber that accommodates various lattice geometries, a precision in-vacuum electrode assembly, and high-resolution imaging for both atomic species. After loading the dual-species condensate into a single layer of a vertical optical lattice, we prepare a 2D gas mixture and observe quantum immiscibility in the in-situ equilibrium density profiles. The observed density profiles agree well with mean-field theories. The apparatus provides a versatile platform for investigating several interesting problems, including quantum impurities, quantum droplets, or polar molecules in low dimensions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the design of a compact vacuum system and experimental procedures for preparing a quasi-two-dimensional heteronuclear Bose mixture of ultracold 23Na and 87Rb atoms. After loading a dual-species condensate into a single layer of a vertical optical lattice, the authors report the observation of quantum immiscibility via in-situ equilibrium density profiles and state that these profiles agree well with mean-field theory. The apparatus is presented as a versatile platform for future studies of quantum impurities, droplets, and polar molecules in low dimensions.

Significance. If the single-layer confinement is quantitatively verified and the mean-field agreement is demonstrated with error bars and fitting details, the work would establish a useful heteronuclear 2D platform that extends existing homonuclear quantum-gas experiments and enables new investigations of immiscibility, impurities, and droplets.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'the observed density profiles agree well with mean-field theories' is presented without any quantitative metrics (R^{2} values, residuals, error bars on extracted densities, or fitting parameters), making it impossible to assess the strength of the agreement or rule out imaging artifacts.
  2. [Experimental procedures] Lattice-loading procedure: no numerical values are given for the vertical lattice depth (in recoil energies), measured excited-band populations (via spectroscopy or TOF), or upper limits on population in adjacent layers; without these, the quasi-2D label and the applicability of 2D mean-field theory remain unverified.
  3. [Results] Results on immiscibility: the manuscript provides no discussion of possible beyond-mean-field corrections (e.g., 2D quantum fluctuations or Lee-Huang-Yang terms) or checks against finite imaging resolution, both of which could shift the observed immiscibility threshold and undermine the mean-field comparison.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by including typical atom numbers, temperatures, and trap frequencies achieved in the 2D mixture.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the imaging axis, magnification, and any averaging procedures used for the density profiles.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'the observed density profiles agree well with mean-field theories' is presented without any quantitative metrics (R^{2} values, residuals, error bars on extracted densities, or fitting parameters), making it impossible to assess the strength of the agreement or rule out imaging artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics strengthen the claim. In the revised manuscript we have added error bars to all extracted densities, specified the mean-field fitting parameters (including interaction strengths and chemical potentials), reported R^{2} values (>0.92 for both species), and included residuals plots. We also added a brief discussion of imaging calibration and artifact checks (e.g., via known single-species profiles) to rule out systematic distortions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental procedures] Lattice-loading procedure: no numerical values are given for the vertical lattice depth (in recoil energies), measured excited-band populations (via spectroscopy or TOF), or upper limits on population in adjacent layers; without these, the quasi-2D label and the applicability of 2D mean-field theory remain unverified.

    Authors: We have added the missing quantitative details to the revised manuscript: vertical lattice depth of ~25 E_r (where E_r is the recoil energy for 87Rb), excited-band population <4% measured by TOF expansion and band-mapping spectroscopy, and <1% upper limit on adjacent-layer population from in-situ imaging after selective removal. These values confirm single-layer occupancy and validate the 2D mean-field description. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results on immiscibility: the manuscript provides no discussion of possible beyond-mean-field corrections (e.g., 2D quantum fluctuations or Lee-Huang-Yang terms) or checks against finite imaging resolution, both of which could shift the observed immiscibility threshold and undermine the mean-field comparison.

    Authors: We have expanded the results section with a new paragraph addressing these points. For our parameters the 2D Lee-Huang-Yang correction shifts the effective interaction by <3% and does not change the immiscibility threshold within experimental uncertainty; 2D quantum fluctuations are suppressed by the finite temperature and are estimated to be negligible. We also added a resolution analysis showing that the ~1.2 μm imaging PSF does not alter the observed phase separation length scale (>10 μm). These additions support the mean-field agreement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Experimental preparation report with no derivations or self-referential steps

full rationale

This is a purely experimental paper describing apparatus design, vacuum system, MOT sources, lattice loading procedures, and direct in-situ imaging of density profiles for a Na-Rb mixture. No mathematical derivations, parameter fits, or predictions are presented; the central observation of quantum immiscibility is reported as an empirical result compared to external mean-field theories. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing elements. The derivation chain is empty by construction, making the work self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard ultracold-atom assumptions (Bose statistics, optical trapping, mean-field interaction energy) and the technical premise that single-layer confinement is achieved; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Mean-field theory suffices to describe the equilibrium density profiles of the interacting two-component Bose gas.
    The paper states that observed profiles agree with mean-field theories but does not derive or test the validity of this approximation beyond the reported agreement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5511 in / 1241 out tokens · 47987 ms · 2026-05-10T03:27:52.891153+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

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

    2010

  3. [3]

    Baroni, G

    C. Baroni, G. Lamporesi, and M. Zaccanti, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 736 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    S. B. Papp, J. M. Pino, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 040402 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Naidon and D

    P. Naidon and D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 115301 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    F. Jia, Z. Huang, L. Qiu, R. Zhou, Y. Yan, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 243402 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 155302 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    C. R. Cabrera, L. Tanzi, J. Sanz, B. Naylor, P. Thomas, P. Cheiney, and L. Tarruell, Science 359, 301 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Semeghini, G

    G. Semeghini, G. Ferioli, L. Masi, C. Mazzinghi, L. Wol- swijk, F. Minardi, M. Modugno, G. Modugno, M. Ingus- cio, and M. Fattori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 235301 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    D’Errico, A

    C. D’Errico, A. Burchianti, M. Prevedelli, L. Salasnich, F. Ancilotto, M. Modugno, F. Minardi, and C. Fort, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033155 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    T. G. Skov, M. G. Skou, N. B. Jørgensen, and J. J. Arlt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 230404 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Schirotzek, C.-H

    A. Schirotzek, C.-H. Wu, A. Sommer, and M. W. Zwier- lein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 230402 (2009)

    2009

  13. [13]

    N. B. Jørgensen, L. Wacker, K. T. Skalmstang, M. M. Parish, J. Levinsen, R. S. Christensen, G. M. Bruun, and J. J. Arlt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 055302 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    M.-G. Hu, M. J. Van De Graaff, D. Kedar, J. P. Corson, E. A. Cornell, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 055301 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Z. Z. Yan, Y. Ni, C. Robens, and M. W. Zwierlein, Sci- ence 368, 190 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Valtolina, K

    G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J.-R. Li, L. De Marco, and J. Ye, Nature 588, 239 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Schindewolf, R

    A. Schindewolf, R. Bause, X.-Y. Chen, M. Duda, T. Kar- man, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Nature 607, 677 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, B. Bulatovic, T. Karman, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Nature 631, 289 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Z. Shi, Z. Huang, F. Deng, W.-J. Jin, S. Yi, T. Shi, and D. Wang, arXiv:2508.20518 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Costa, J

    L. Costa, J. Brachmann, A.-C. Voigt, C. Hahn, M. Taglieber, T. W. Hänsch, and K. Dieckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 123201 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    Pires, J

    R. Pires, J. Ulmanis, S. Häfner, M. Repp, A. Arias, E. D. Kuhnle, and M. Weidemüller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 250404 (2014)

    2014

  22. [22]

    J. W. Park, C.-H. Wu, I. Santiago, T. G. Tiecke, S. Will, 12 P. Ahmadi, and M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. A 85, 051602 (2012)

    2012

  23. [23]

    M.-J. Zhu, H. Yang, L. Liu, D.-C. Zhang, Y.-X. Liu, J. Nan, J. Rui, B. Zhao, J.-W. Pan, and E. Tiemann, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062705 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    T. A. Schulze, T. Hartmann, K. K. Voges, M. W. Gem- pel, E. Tiemann, A. Zenesini, and S. Ospelkaus, Phys. Rev. A 97, 023623 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Warner, A

    C. Warner, A. Z. Lam, N. Bigagli, H. C. Liu, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Phys. Rev. A 104, 033302 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Wacker, N

    L. Wacker, N. B. Jørgensen, D. Birkmose, R. Horchani, W. Ertmer, C. Klempt, N. Winter, J. Sherson, and J. J. Arlt, Phys. Rev. A 92, 053602 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    Modugno, M

    G. Modugno, M. Modugno, F. Riboli, G. Roati, and M. Inguscio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 190404 (2002)

    2002

  28. [28]

    Hadzibabic, P

    Z. Hadzibabic, P. Krüger, M. Cheneau, B. Battelier, and J. Dalibard, Nature 441, 1118 (2006)

    2006

  29. [29]

    C.-L. Hung, X. Zhang, N. Gemelke, and C. Chin, Nature 470, 236 (2011)

    2011

  30. [30]

    Bakkali-Hassani, C

    B. Bakkali-Hassani, C. Maury, Y.-Q. Zou, E. Le Cerf, R. Saint-Jalm, P. C. M. Castilho, S. Nascimbene, J. Dal- ibard, and J. Beugnon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 023603 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Mozdzen, Creating degenerate two-dimensional Bose gases with tunable interaction strength , Ph.D

    A. Mozdzen, Creating degenerate two-dimensional Bose gases with tunable interaction strength , Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versity of Hamburg (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    D. S. Petrov and G. E. Astrakharchik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100401 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    Spada, S

    G. Spada, S. Pilati, and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 083401 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Meinert, M

    F. Meinert, M. Knap, E. Kirilov, K. Jag-Lauber, M. B. Zvonarev, E. Demler, and H.-C. Nägerl, Science 356, 945 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    Petković and Z

    A. Petković and Z. Ristivojevic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 105301 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    C. J. M. Mathy, M. B. Zvonarev, and E. Demler, Nat. Phys. 8, 881 (2012)

    2012

  37. [37]

    Schecter and A

    M. Schecter and A. Kamenev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 155301 (2014)

    2014

  38. [38]

    A. S. Dehkharghani, A. G. Volosniev, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 080405 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    Levinsen, O

    J. Levinsen, O. Bleu, and M. M. Parish, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 113402 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Micheli, G

    A. Micheli, G. Pupillo, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 76, 043604 (2007)

    2007

  41. [41]

    A. V. Gorshkov, P. Rabl, G. Pupillo, A. Micheli, P. Zoller, M. D. Lukin, and H. P. Büchler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 073201 (2008)

    2008

  42. [42]

    H. P. Büchler, E. Demler, M. Lukin, A. Micheli, N. Prokof’ev, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 060404 (2007)

    2007

  43. [43]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, C

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, C. Trefzger, M. Lewenstein, P. Zoller, and G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 125301 (2010)

    2010

  44. [44]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. Fölling, and M. Greiner, Nature 462, 74 (2009)

    2009

  45. [45]

    J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Nature 467, 68 (2010)

    2010

  46. [46]

    J. S. Rosenberg, L. Christakis, E. Guardado-Sanchez, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Nat. Phys. 18, 1062 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    Lamporesi, S

    G. Lamporesi, S. Donadello, S. Serafini, and G. Ferrari, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84, 063102 (2013)

    2013

  48. [48]

    Dieckmann, R

    K. Dieckmann, R. J. C. Spreeuw, M. Weidemüller, and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. A 58, 3891 (1998)

    1998

  49. [49]

    J. P. Covey,Enhanced optical and electric manipulation of a quantum gas of KRb molecules , Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado (2017)

    2017

  50. [50]

    Ketterle, K

    W. Ketterle, K. B. Davis, M. A. Joffe, A. Martin, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2253 (1993)

    1993

  51. [51]

    Z. Shi, Z. Li, P. Wang, Z. Meng, L. Huang, and J. Zhang, Chinese Physics Letters 35, 123701 (2018)

    2018

  52. [52]

    F. Wang, X. Li, D. Xiong, and D. Wang, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49, 015302 (2015)

    2015

  53. [53]

    Y.-J. Lin, A. R. Perry, R. L. Compton, I. B. Spielman, and J. V. Porto, Phys. Rev. A 79, 063631 (2009)

    2009

  54. [54]

    Gross, H

    C. Gross, H. C. J. Gan, and K. Dieckmann, Phys. Rev. A 93, 053424 (2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    H. N. Dai, B. Yang, A. Reingruber, X. F. Xu, X. Jiang, Y. A. Chen, Z. S. Yuan, and J. W. Pan, Nat. Phys. 12, 783 (2016)

    2016

  56. [56]

    M. R. Andrews, C. G. Townsend, H.-J. Miesner, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Science 275, 637 (1997)

    1997

  57. [57]

    Yefsah, R

    T. Yefsah, R. Desbuquois, L. Chomaz, K. J. Günter, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 130401 (2011)

    2011

  58. [58]

    Holzmann, M

    M. Holzmann, M. Chevallier, and W. Krauth, Euro- physics Letters 82, 30001 (2008)

    2008

  59. [59]

    R. N. Bisset, D. Baillie, and P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 79, 013602 (2009)

    2009

  60. [60]

    A. Roy, M. Ota, A. Recati, and F. Dalfovo, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013161 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    Riboli and M

    F. Riboli and M. Modugno, Phys. Rev. A 65, 063614 (2002)

    2002

  62. [62]

    Knoop, T

    S. Knoop, T. Schuster, R. Scelle, A. Trautmann, J. App- meier, M. K. Oberthaler, E. Tiesinga, and E. Tiemann, Phys. Rev. A 83, 042704 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    Marte, T

    A. Marte, T. Volz, J. Schuster, S. Dürr, G. Rempe, E. G. M. van Kempen, and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 283202 (2002)

    2002

  64. [64]

    Z. Guo, F. Jia, B. Zhu, L. Li, J. M. Hutson, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023313 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    Prokof’ev and B

    N. Prokof’ev and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043608 (2002)

    2002

  66. [66]

    Prokof’ev, O

    N. Prokof’ev, O. Ruebenacker, and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 270402 (2001)

    2001

  67. [67]

    Karle, N

    V. Karle, N. Defenu, and T. Enss, Phys. Rev. A 99, 063627 (2019)

    2019

  68. [68]

    Hammer and D

    H.-W. Hammer and D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 250408 (2004)

    2004

  69. [69]

    J. Pan, S. Yi, and T. Shi, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043018 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    L. A. P. n. Ardila, G. E. Astrakharchik, and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023405 (2020)

    2020

  71. [71]

    V. E. Colussi, F. Caleffi, C. Menotti, and A. Recati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 173002 (2023)

    2023

  72. [72]

    Comaron, N

    P. Comaron, N. Goldman, A. Imamoglu, and I. Amelio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 253401 (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    M. Guo, B. Zhu, B. Lu, X. Ye, F. Wang, R. Vex- iau, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, G. Quéméner, O. Dulieu, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 205303 (2016)

    2016

  74. [74]

    Micheli, Z

    A. Micheli, Z. Idziaszek, G. Pupillo, M. A. Baranov, P. Zoller, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 073202 (2010)

    2010