SciPost Submission Page
Asymmetric Bethe Ansatz
by Steven G. Jackson, Hélène Perrin, Gregory E. Astrakharchik, Maxim Olshanii
This is not the latest submitted version.
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Maxim Olshanii |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.15155v2 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2024-07-17 03:48 |
| Submitted by: | Olshanii, Maxim |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
The recently proposed exact quantum solution for two delta-function-interacting particles with a mass-ratio 3:1 in a hard-wall box [Y. Liu, F. Qi, Y. Zhang and S. Chen, iScience 22, 181 (2019)] violates the conventional necessary condition for a Bethe Ansatz integrability, the condition being that the system must be reducible to a superposition of semi-transparent mirrors that is invariant under all the reflections it generates. In this article, we found a way to relax this condition: some of the semi-transparent mirrors of a known self-invariant mirror superposition can be replaced by the perfectly reflecting ones, thus breaking the self-invariance. The proposed name for the method is Asymmetric Bethe Ansatz (Asymmetric BA). As a worked example, we study in detail the bound states of the nominally non-integrable system comprised of a bosonic dimer in a delta-well. Finally, we show that the exact solution of the Liu-Qi-Zhang-Chen problem is a particular instance of the the Asymmetric BA.
Author indications on fulfilling journal expectations
- Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas.
- Open a new pathway in an existing or a new research direction, with clear potential for multi-pronged follow-up work
- Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery
- Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
* A whole new section (Sec. 2.4) (5 pages + 1 figure) is added.
* We also completely reworked the abstract
* We added a "pedestrian" section (Sec. 1.1) to Introduction.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report
I went through the revised manuscript submitted by the authors . The revised introduction and the example of the bosonic dimer in Sec. 2,4 help the reader understand the context and the applicability of Asymmetric Bethe Ansatz. However, even after revision by the Authors, I believe that the manuscript is more suited for a specialized audience since it has a high level of technicalities.
For this reason, I would recommend the publication of this manuscript in SciPost Physics Core.
Recommendation
Accept in alternative Journal (see Report)
Report
The authors made major revisions to the paper. The paper has improved considerably. Now it is much more readable, more clear, the introduction is much better and the worked out example helps a lot.
I have only minor questions remaining.
And despite the significant improvements, my recommendation is to publish in SciPost Physics Core. Reasons for this being that I see fewer researchers interested in this line of developments, and that the progress given in the paper is not significant enough to get into SciPost Physics. According to my judgement, if there is some progress in a topic which is very significant for current research, then it should be easier to get into SciPost Physics or other high journal paper. The scientific progress in this paper is fairly good (not groundbreaking, but also, not minimal), but the topic seems to be of less interest for the community today.
So the final recommendation is:
This submission does not meet the criteria of SciPost Physics, but does meet those of SciPost Physics Core, where it could be published. (even without further review, trusting that the authors consider the minor questions below)
Requested changes
1- There are still one or two typos, for example kaleidoscope was misspelled once.
2- Please explain in the text, what is the reason for choosing the "worked example". Do I understand it correctly, that this is NOT the the Liu-Qi-Zhang-Chen problem?
Recommendation
Accept in alternative Journal (see Report)
Author: Maxim Olshanii on 2024-08-19 [id 4699]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2024-08-14)
We indeed grateful to the referee for forcing our manuscript to become more readable.
We agree that SciPost Core is a better venue.
The misprints have been corrected.
We added a note explaining the choice for the worked example.
Author: Maxim Olshanii on 2024-08-23 [id 4713]
(in reply to Report 2 on 2024-08-22)We do agree, SciPost Physics Core is a more suitable venue. And thank you for your valuable time and energy.