Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

In a weakly interacting one-dimensional Bose gas, resonantly excited phonons damp with a rate that scales as k^{3/2}, matching Andreev's hydrodynamic prediction.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 21:43 UTC pith:HITYX5IF

load-bearing objection Direct single-phonon damping measurement in a 1D Bose gas gives a credible k^{3/2} scaling, but the prefactor and the single-pole decay assumption need scrutiny before the 'quantitative agreement' claim hardens. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.13681 v2 pith:HITYX5IF submitted 2025-11-17 cond-mat.quant-gas

Damping of phonons in one-dimensional quantum fluids

Federica Cataldini , Nataliia Bazhan , Jo\~ao Sabino , Philipp Sch\"uttelkopf , Mohammadamin Tajik , Frederik S. M{\o}ller , Si-Cong Ji , Sebastian Erne
show 2 more authors
Igor Mazets J\"org Schmiedmayer
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords phonon dampingone-dimensional Bose gasAndreev hydrodynamic theoryk^{3/2} scalingphonon–phonon scatteringwave breakingnon-polynomial Schrödinger equationquantum simulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper addresses a long-standing question about the fate of phonons in one-dimensional quantum fluids: are they truly undamped, as the ideal Luttinger picture suggests, and if not, how do they decay? By resonantly exciting individual phononic modes in a box-confined, weakly interacting Bose gas of 87Rb atoms and tracking the time evolution of each mode's coherent amplitude, the authors find that the damping rate follows the non-analytic law Γ_k ∝ k^{3/2}, with a fitted exponent β=1.48(3) and coefficient α=0.76(2) in quantitative agreement with Andreev's hydrodynamic description. This establishes phonon–phonon scattering as the dominant relaxation channel in the linear response regime. For stronger perturbations, the experiments reveal a crossover to a highly nonlinear regime characterized by wave breaking, which is reproduced by finite-temperature simulations of the non-polynomial Schrödinger equation. A sympathetic reader would take this as the first direct, mode-resolved confirmation of the k^{3/2} scaling and a benchmark for relaxation in quantum many-body systems.

Core claim

The central claim is that the lifetime of a single long-wavelength phonon in a weakly interacting 1D Bose gas is governed by the universal, non-analytic damping rate Γ_k = α (k_B T/(m n_1D))^{1/2} k^{3/2}, where α≈1. The experiment tests this by driving the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th modes of a box trap at resonance, isolating a single phonon mode, and extracting the decay of its amplitude from the density perturbation carpet. After normalizing across slightly different densities and temperatures, the measured rates follow a power law with exponent β=1.48(0.03) and prefactor α=0.76(0.02). The paper also demonstrates that at perturbations exceeding about 15% of the density, the damping deviates f

What carries the argument

The key experimental machinery is the resonant excitation of a single phononic mode in a hard-wall box potential: modulating the dipole trap intensity at the mode's expected frequency populates only that mode, and time-resolved absorption images yield the density perturbation carpet. Fourier decomposition of the perturbation at each time gives the mode amplitude δ̃n_j(t), which is fit to a damped cosine f(t)=A0 exp(−t/τ)cos(ωt+φ). The normalized damping rate Γ̃ vs k̃ is then compared with the theoretical law of Eq. (1). For wave-packet studies, three different protocols (potential ramp, box-edge displacement, dimple quench) generate a broad range of perturbation amplitudes; these are compare

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the measured τ equals Andreev's damping rate rests on the assumption that each mode amplitude decays as a single exponential, i.e., the spectral line is a Lorentzian single pole; if the lineshape is instead non-Lorentzian (as nonlinear Luttinger liquid theory suggests for some regimes), the fitted τ does not directly measure the phonon damping rate.

What would settle it

Measure the same mode's lifetime at a temperature doubled while keeping the density fixed; Andreev's law predicts the damping rate increases by √2, so a significant deviation would falsify the claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Phonon–phonon scattering, rather than transverse confinement or other integrability-breaking mechanisms, is the dominant relaxation channel for low-k phonons in weakly interacting 1D Bose gases.
  • The exponential decay with the universal k^{3/2} rate provides a quantitative benchmark against which any low-energy effective theory of 1D quantum fluids must be tested.
  • The observed crossover to wave breaking at densities ≳15% defines the boundary of the linear-response regime and connects the experiment to quantum shock-wave physics.
  • The same classical mean-field description (NPSE) captures both the linear damping and the nonlinear wave-breaking dynamics, implying a unified description of relaxation in this regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the k^{3/2} law persists at smaller k than measured, lifetimes diverge as k^{-3/2}; the regime where the single-pole approximation fails and non-Lorentzian lineshapes set in could be reached by going to lower momentum or lower temperature, and might be visible in the spectral function rather than the amplitude decay.
  • The measured α≈0.76 close to unity suggests the hydrodynamic prediction is quantitatively accurate without renormalization at these parameters; a testable extension is to independently vary T and n_1D to confirm the T^{1/2} n^{-1/2} scaling, which the current dataset does not isolate.
  • A complementary measurement of the full lineshape via momentum-resolved Bragg spectroscopy could distinguish the single-pole Lorentzian from the edge-singularity continuum of the nonlinear Luttinger liquid, testing whether the exponential amplitude decay truly represents a damping rate or an average dephasing.
  • The wave-breaking timescale estimate implies even weak density perturbations eventually shock on timescales longer than the current observation window; longer boxes or later observation times could reveal the onset of non-linearities at amplitudes where the damping already follows k^{3/2}.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports measurements of phonon damping in a weakly interacting quasi-1D Bose gas of 87Rb atoms confined in a box trap. By resonantly driving individual phonon modes (j=2,4,6,8) and tracking the decay of the mode amplitude, the authors extract damping rates and find that the scaled damping Γ̃ follows a power law Γ̃ ∝ k̃^β with β=1.48±0.03 and prefactor α=0.76±0.02. They interpret this as the first direct confirmation of Andreev's hydrodynamic prediction Γ_k ∝ k^{3/2}. They also excite wave packets of varying amplitude and observe a crossover to nonlinear wave-breaking dynamics, which they reproduce with finite-temperature NPSE simulations.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant result: it provides direct experimental evidence for the non-analytic k^{3/2} damping law predicted by Andreev, in a regime where phonon–phonon scattering dominates the relaxation. The experimental design is careful, with multiple excitation protocols, mode decomposition, bootstrap uncertainties, and supporting NPSE simulations. The analysis pipeline is transparent and reproducible. However, the central quantitative claim rests on assumptions—exponential lineshape and a prefactor consistent with theory—that are not fully validated in the manuscript. The paper is a strong candidate for publication once these load-bearing points are properly addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (2)] The damping rate Γ is extracted by fitting f(t)=A0 exp(−t/τ) cos(ωt+φ). This identification τ=Γ^{−1} is valid only if the mode amplitude decays as a pure exponential (single-pole Lorentzian spectral function). The manuscript does not report fit residuals, compare to stretched-exponential or multi-exponential alternatives, or check whether τ is stable under variation of the fitting window. With only four k values, a systematic bias in τ could produce an apparent power law close to 3/2 even if no k^{3/2} law exists. The NPSE simulations in Fig. 2(a) and 3(a) are analyzed with the same fitting procedure, so they do not independently validate the lineshape. Please provide evidence for exponential decay (residuals, window stability) or demonstrate via simulations that a non-exponential decay would not mimic the observed scaling.
  2. [Fig. 2(a), Fig. 3(a), SM 'Polynomial regression'] The fitted prefactor α=0.76±0.02 is 24% below the theoretical α≈1 quoted in Eq. (1). The paper calls this 'excellent quantitative agreement' without discussing the offset. Moreover, Fig. 3(a) uses α=0.76 (from the same shaking data) as the 'expected Andreev damping' curve, making the comparison circular: the theory curve is normalized to the data it is supposed to validate. The polynomial regression in the SM, which tests against Γ_th with α=1, finds a0≈0.7 (a 30% offset) but this is not reconciled with α≈1. A systematics budget (temperature calibration, density uncertainty, finite-box effects, approximations in Eq. (1)) is needed to justify the quantitative claim, or the claim should be softened.
  3. [Fig. 2(a), SM 'Power-law modeling'] The exponent β=1.48±0.03 is determined from only four distinct k values (j=2,4,6,8, spanning a factor of 4). With four points, a two-parameter power-law fit cannot uniquely establish a k^{3/2} law; e.g., a logarithmic or other smoothly varying function could fit with similar quality. The authors should either include additional k values (odd modes via asymmetric excitation, or the weak-perturbation wave packet data in Fig. 3 that appear consistent with the same scaling) or explicitly acknowledge this limitation and report how the fitted exponent changes when each point is removed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods, 'Power-law modeling'] The normalized damping is defined in the main text as Γ̃ = (m/ℏ)(λ_T^2/4)Γ, but the Methods section writes λ_T^4/4, which is inconsistent and likely a typo. Please correct.
  2. [Throughout] Several typos: 'Boltzann' (Introduction), 'feauturing' (wave packet protocols), 'decompostion' (Fig. 3 captions), 'occoured' (wave-breaking discussion). A proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The text says 'eight independent measurements', but the figure highlights four data sets with distinct k_j. Clarify whether there are two measurements per mode and show all eight points in the figure or table.
  4. [Fig. 3(a)] The black line uses α=0.76 from the shaking fit, not α≈1. The caption states this, but the visual impression of agreement with 'Andreev damping' would be more transparent if the α=1 curve were also plotted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the damping exponent is measured, not imposed, and the fitted coefficient is cross-checked on independent wave-packet data.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim is that the measured damping rate follows Γ_k ∝ k^{3/2}. The paper obtains this by first extracting mode-amplitude decay times from exponential fits (Eq. 2), then fitting the resulting Γ(k) values to a free power law y = α x^β (Supplemental Methods). The exponent β = 1.48(3) is an output of the fit, not an input; comparing it with the predicted 1.5 is a genuine parameter-free test. The prefactor α = 0.76 is also fitted, so the statement that the prefactor is in "excellent quantitative agreement" is weaker than a parameter-free prediction, but this is not circular: Eq. (1) does not enter the fit as a constraint, and the data are not manufactured to reproduce it. When the same fitted α is later used as the black "expected Andreev damping" line in Fig. 3(a), it is applied to wave-packet damping rates obtained from three different excitation protocols (ramp, edge displacement, dimple quench), which are independent of the single-mode shaking data used to determine α. That is a cross-validation, not a fit to the same data. The single-exponential decay assumption (Eq. 2) is a modeling assumption with possible systematic impact on the extracted τ and hence on the inferred scaling exponent, but it does not reduce the prediction to the input: a non-exponential lineshape would make τ fit-dependent, yet this is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity. Self-citations are present (refs. 22, 23, 25, 28, 31, 33) but they support methods, regime characterization, or historical consistency with earlier dephasing measurements; they are not load-bearing in deriving Eq. (1), which is credited to Andreev [16] and the hydrodynamic treatment. No step in the derivation chain equates a fitted parameter with the predicted quantity by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain forces the conclusion. The measured exponent genuinely tests Andreev's k^{3/2} law.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of Andreev's hydrodynamic result, on an assumed single-exponential decay form, and on standard quasi-1D mean-field (NPSE) modeling. No new entities are introduced. Two free parameters (α, β) are fitted to the data, and α is later reused in the wave-packet comparison; the per-mode oscillator fits are nuisance parameters needed to extract τ.

free parameters (3)
  • Andreev prefactor α = 0.76(0.02)
    Fitted prefactor in Γ̃ = α k̃^β; theory Eq. (1) expects α≈1. Later reused as a fixed value for the wave-packet comparison in Fig. 3.
  • damping exponent β = 1.48(0.03)
    Fitted slope in log-log space; compared with the theoretical value 1.5.
  • per-mode damped-oscillator parameters (A0, ω, ϕ, τ) = reported per mode; τ decreases from mode 2 to mode 8
    Each single-mode amplitude trace is fitted to Eq. (2); the extracted τ defines the damping rate whose k-dependence is the central claim.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Andreev's hydrodynamic result Eq. (1) is the correct description of long-wavelength phonon damping in this regime.
    This is the prediction under test; the paper relies on Ref. [16] and does not re-derive it. The single-pole approximation underlying it is assumed valid.
  • domain assumption The mode amplitude decays exponentially as in Eq. (2).
    The extraction of τ assumes a Lorentzian single-pole decay; the validity of this assumption is load-bearing for the central claim.
  • domain assumption The gas is in the weakly interacting quasi-1D hydrodynamic regime with k small enough that linear response applies for single-mode data.
    The analysis relies on δn/n ≪ 1 for the shaking data and on the low-k, finite-temperature regime where Andreev's hydrodynamic treatment is valid.
  • domain assumption The finite-temperature non-polynomial Schrödinger equation (NPSE) accurately captures the nonlinear dynamics of the quasi-1D condensate.
    NPSE simulations are used as ground truth for both linear and nonlinear regimes; the paper cites Ref. [20] for the effective equation.
  • domain assumption Time-of-flight density profiles faithfully represent in-trap density perturbations, and the boundary-exclusion region does not bias the mode decomposition.
    All density perturbations are extracted from absorption images after a 2 ms ToF expansion; the mode Fourier analysis is restricted to the central box region, assuming no spatial dependence of the decay.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13586 in / 12800 out tokens · 127348 ms · 2026-08-03T21:43:32.018103+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Collective excitations in one-dimensional (1D) quantum fluids are expected to propagate almost without dissipation. Here we directly excite phonon modes in a weakly interacting 1D Bose gas and study their time evolution. In the linear response regime, damping is surprisingly fast and quantitatively follows the non-analytic scaling predicted by Andreev's hydrodynamic description. For stronger excitations, we observe a crossover to a highly nonlinear regime characterized by wave breaking, captured by the finite-temperature nonlinear Schr\"odinger evolution. Our results resolve a long-standing question on the fate of phonons in 1D Bose gases, and open new pathways to study non-linear relaxation in quantum many-body systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.13681 by Federica Cataldini, Frederik S. M{\o}ller, Igor Mazets, Jo\~ao Sabino, J\"org Schmiedmayer, Mohammadamin Tajik, Nataliia Bazhan, Philipp Sch\"uttelkopf, Sebastian Erne, Si-Cong Ji.

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: Here we plot the normalized damping Γ˜ as a func￾tion of ˜k, for each of the three experiments: low-amplitude perturbations (magenta), and stronger perturbations induced by edge displacement (orange) and dimple quench (green). The corresponding initial temperature is Tr = 40 (4) nK, Ts = 60 (6) nK and Td = 69 (5) nK, where r, s, and d label the ramp, edge-shift, and dimple experiments, respectively. Due to… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.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 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Here, we show the fitted coefficients a0, a1, a2 with relative errorbars. Data points with distinct colors correspond to different kinds of protocol: magenta for ramp up/down of the potential, orange for box edge displacement, and green for dimple quenched to a flat box. The data presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗

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

38 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Relationship between systems of impenetrable bosons and fermions in one dimension,

    M. Girardeau, “Relationship between systems of impenetrable bosons and fermions in one dimension,” J. Math. Phys.1, 516– 523 (1960)

    1960

  2. [2]

    Exact analysis of an interacting Bose gas. I. The general solution and the ground state,

    E. H. Lieb and W. Liniger, “Exact analysis of an interacting Bose gas. I. The general solution and the ground state,” Phys. Rev.130, 1605 (1963)

    1963

  3. [3]

    Exact analysis of an interacting Bose gas. II. The excitation spectrum,

    E. H. Lieb, “Exact analysis of an interacting Bose gas. II. The excitation spectrum,” Phys. Rev.130, 1616–1624 (1963)

    1963

  4. [4]

    Effective harmonic-fluid approach to low- energy properties of one-dimensional quantum fluids,

    F. D. M. Haldane, “Effective harmonic-fluid approach to low- energy properties of one-dimensional quantum fluids,” Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 1840–1843 (1981)

    1981

  5. [5]

    Giamarchi,Quantum physics in one dimension(Clarendon press, Oxford, 2003)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum physics in one dimension(Clarendon press, Oxford, 2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Bosonizing one-dimensional cold atomic gases,

    M. A. Cazalilla, “Bosonizing one-dimensional cold atomic gases,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics37, S1 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    One dimensional bosons: From condensed matter systems to ultracold gases,

    M. A. Cazalilla, R. Citro, T. Giamarchi, E. Orignac, and M. Rigol, “One dimensional bosons: From condensed matter systems to ultracold gases,” Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1405–1466 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    One- dimensional quantum liquids: Beyond the luttinger liquid paradigm,

    A. Imambekov, T.L. Schmidt, and L.I. Glazman, “One- dimensional quantum liquids: Beyond the luttinger liquid paradigm,” Reviews of Modern Physics84, 1253–1306 (2012)

    2012

  9. [9]

    Generalized hy- drodynamics: A perspective,

    Benjamin Doyon, Sarang Gopalakrishnan, Frederik Møller, J¨org Schmiedmayer, and Romain Vasseur, “Generalized hy- drodynamics: A perspective,” Phys. Rev. X15, 010501 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    A quantum New- ton’s cradle,

    T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, “A quantum New- ton’s cradle,” Nature440, 900–903 (2006)

    2006

  11. [11]

    Relax- ation and Prethermalization in an Isolated Quantum System,

    M. Gring, T. Langen, M. Kuhnert, T. Kitagawa, M. Schreitl, I. Mazets, D. Smith, E. Demler, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Relax- ation and Prethermalization in an Isolated Quantum System,” Science337, 1318–1322 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    Recurrences in an isolated quantum many- body system,

    B. Rauer, S. Erne, T. Schweigler, F. Cataldini, M. Tajik, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Recurrences in an isolated quantum many- body system,” Science360, 307–310 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Thermalization near in- tegrability in a dipolar quantum Newton’s cradle,

    Y . Tang, W. Kao, K.-Y . Li, S. Seo, K. Mallayya, M. Rigol, S. Gopalakrishnan, and B. L. Lev, “Thermalization near in- tegrability in a dipolar quantum Newton’s cradle,” Phys. Rev. X 8, 021030 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    Lifetime of excitations in a clean Luttinger liquid,

    K. V . Samokhin, “Lifetime of excitations in a clean Luttinger liquid,” Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter10, L533 (1998)

    1998

  15. [15]

    Universal theory of nonlin- ear Luttinger liquids,

    A. Imambekov and L.I. Glazman, “Universal theory of nonlin- ear Luttinger liquids,” Science323, 228–231 (2009)

    2009

  16. [16]

    The hydrodynamics of two-and one- dimensional liquids,

    A. F. Andreev, “The hydrodynamics of two-and one- dimensional liquids,” Soviet Phys. JETP51, 1038 (1980)

    1980

  17. [17]

    Extension of Bogoliubov theory to quasicondensates,

    Christophe Mora and Yvan Castin, “Extension of Bogoliubov theory to quasicondensates,” Phys. Rev. A67, 053615 (2003)

    2003

  18. [18]

    Breakdown of integrability in a quasi-1D ultracold bosonic gas,

    I. E. Mazets, T. Schumm, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Breakdown of integrability in a quasi-1D ultracold bosonic gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 210403 (2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    Relaxation of a high-energy quasiparticle in a one-dimensional Bose gas,

    Shina Tan, M. Pustilnik, and L.I. Glazman, “Relaxation of a high-energy quasiparticle in a one-dimensional Bose gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 090404 (2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    Effective wave equa- tions for the dynamics of cigar-shaped and disk-shaped Bose condensates,

    L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, “Effective wave equa- tions for the dynamics of cigar-shaped and disk-shaped Bose condensates,” Phys. Rev. A65, 043614 (2002)

    2002

  21. [21]

    Interaction between solitons in a stable medium,

    V . E. Zakharov and A. B. Shabat, “Interaction between solitons in a stable medium,” Sov. Phys. JETP37, 823–828 (1973)

    1973

  22. [22]

    Thermalization in a one- dimensional integrable system,

    P. Grisins and I. E. Mazets, “Thermalization in a one- dimensional integrable system,” Phys. Rev. A84, 053635 (2011)

    2011

  23. [23]

    Non-equilibrium coherence dynamics in one-dimensional bose gases,

    S. Hofferberth, I. Lesanovsky, B. Fischer, T. Schumm, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Non-equilibrium coherence dynamics in one-dimensional bose gases,” Nature449, 324–327 (2007)

    2007

  24. [24]

    Decoherence dynamics in low-dimensional cold atom interferometers,

    A. A. Burkov, M. D. Lukin, and Eugene Demler, “Decoherence dynamics in low-dimensional cold atom interferometers,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 200404 (2007)

    2007

  25. [25]

    Dephasing in coherently split quasicondensates,

    H.-P. Stimming, N. J. Mauser, J. Schmiedmayer, and I. E. Mazets, “Dephasing in coherently split quasicondensates,” Phys. Rev. A83, 023618 (2011)

    2011

  26. [26]

    Reichel and V

    J. Reichel and V . Vuleti´c,Atom Chips(Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2011)

    2011

  27. [27]

    Weakly interacting bose gas in the one- dimensional limit,

    P. Kr ¨uger, S. Hofferberth, I. E. Mazets, I. Lesanovsky, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Weakly interacting bose gas in the one- dimensional limit,” Physical Review Letters105, 265302 (2010)

    2010

  28. [28]

    Emergent pauli blocking in a weakly interacting bose gas,

    F. Cataldini, F. Møller, M. Tajik, J. Sabino, Si-Cong Ji, I. Mazets, T. Schweigler, B. Rauer, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Emergent pauli blocking in a weakly interacting bose gas,” Phys. Rev. X12, 041032 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Microscopic theory of superfluid helium,

    P. C. Hohenberg and P. C. Martin, “Microscopic theory of superfluid helium,” Ann. Phys. (N.Y .)34, 291–359 (1965)

    1965

  30. [30]

    On the dynamics of continuous phase transitions,

    P. Sz ´epfalusy and I. Kondor, “On the dynamics of continuous phase transitions,” Ann. Phys. (N.Y .)82, 1–53 (1974)

    1974

  31. [31]

    Designing arbitrary one-dimensional potentials on an atom chip,

    M. Tajik, B. Rauer, T. Schweigler, F. Cataldini, J. Sabino, F.S. Møller, Si-Cong Ji, I.E. Mazets, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Designing arbitrary one-dimensional potentials on an atom chip,” Opt. Express27, 33474–33487 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    What is a quantum shock wave?

    S. A. Simmons, F. A. Bayocboc, J. C. Pillay, D. Colas, I. P. McCulloch, and K. V . Kheruntsyan, “What is a quantum shock wave?” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 180401 (2020)

    2020

  33. [33]

    Characterising transport in a quantum gas by measuring drude weights,

    Philipp Sch ¨uttelkopf, Mohammadamin Tajik, Nataliia Bazhan, Federica Cataldini, Si-Cong Ji, J ¨org Schmiedmayer, and Fred- erik Møller, “Characterising transport in a quantum gas by measuring drude weights,” (2024), arXiv:2406.17569 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Experimental characterization of a quantum many- body system via higher-order correlations,

    T. Schweigler, V . Kasper, S. Erne, I.E. Mazets, B. Rauer, F. Cataldini, T. Langen, T. Gasenzer, J. Berges, and J. Schmied- mayer, “Experimental characterization of a quantum many- body system via higher-order correlations,” Nature545, 323– 326 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    Extracting the field theory description of a quantum many-body system from experimental data,

    T.V . Zache, T. Schweigler, S. Erne, J. Schmiedmayer, and J. Berges, “Extracting the field theory description of a quantum many-body system from experimental data,” Physical Review X10, 011020 (2020), arXiv:1909.12815 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Bernhard Rauer,Non-equilibrium dynamics beyond dephasing: Recurrences and loss induced cooling in one-dimensional Bose gases(Springer, Heidelberg, 2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Two-point density correlations of quasicon- densates in free expansion,

    S. Manz, R. B ¨ucker, T. Betz, Ch. Koller, S. Hofferberth, I. E. Mazets, A. Imambekov, E. Demler, A. Perrin, J. Schmiedmayer, and T. Schumm, “Two-point density correlations of quasicon- densates in free expansion,” Phys. Rev. A81, 031610 (2010)

    2010

  38. [38]

    Correlations and dynamics of tunnel- coupled one-dimensional bose gases,

    Thomas Schweigler, “Correlations and dynamics of tunnel- coupled one-dimensional bose gases,” (2019). 7 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Preparation of the initial state Our quasicondensate of 87Rb atoms is realized following standard protocols of magneto-optical trapping, laser cooling, and evaporative cooling to bring the system to the degener- acy temperature. Th...

    2019