1: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,epsfig,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,a4paper,epsfig,amsmath,amssymb]{article}
3: %\documentclass[prl,aps,epsfig,amsmath,amssymb]{article}
4: \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage{latexsym}
5: \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{subfigure} \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \usepackage{psfrag}
7: %\usepackage{setspace}
8: %\usepackage{fontenc}
9:
10: \newcommand{\re}{\mbox{Re}\,} \newcommand{\im}{\mbox{Im}\,}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Scattering of two-dimensional solitons in dipolar Bose-Einstein
15: condensates}
16: \author{R. Nath$^1$, P. Pedri$^2$ and L. Santos$^1$}
17: \affiliation{
18: \mbox{$^1$Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik , Leibniz Universit\"at
19: Hannover, Appelstr. 2, D-30167, Hannover, Germany}\\
20: \mbox{$^2$Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique et Mod\`eles Statistiques,
21: Universit\'e Paris Sud, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France}\\
22: }
23:
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: %
27: % ********** Abstract ***********
28: %
29:
30: We analyze the scattering of bright solitons in dipolar Bose-Einstein condensates placed
31: in unconnected layers. Whereas for short-range interactions unconnected layers are independent,
32: a remarkable consequence of the dipole interaction is the appearance
33: of novel nonlocal interlayer effects. In particular,
34: we show that the interlayer interaction leads to an effective molecular potential between disconnected solitons, inducing
35: a complex scattering physics between them, which includes inelastic fusion into soliton-molecules,
36: and strong symmetric and asymmetric inelastic resonances. In addition,
37: a fundamentally new 2D scattering scenario in matter-wave solitons is possible, in which inelastic spiraling occurs,
38: resembling phenomena in photorrefractive materials. Finally, we consider the scattering of unconnected 1D solitons
39: and discuss the feasibility in current on going experiments.
40:
41: \end{abstract}
42: \pacs{03.75.Fi,05.30.Jp} \maketitle
43:
44:
45:
46: Up to very recently, typical experiments on ultra cold gases involved
47: particles interacting dominantly via a short-range isotropic
48: potential, which, due to the very low energies involved, is
49: fully determined by the corresponding $s$-wave scattering length. However, recent
50: experiments on cold molecules \cite{Molecules}, Rydberg atoms \cite{Rydberg}, and
51: atoms with large magnetic moment \cite{Chromium}, open a fascinating new
52: research area, namely that of dipolar gases, for which the dipole-dipole
53: interaction (DDI) plays a significant or even dominant role. The DDI
54: is long-range and anisotropic (partially attractive),
55: and leads to fundamentally new physics in condensates
56: \cite{Stability,Excitations,Roton}, degenerated Fermi gases \cite{Fermions}, and strongly-correlated atomic systems
57: \cite{DipLat-FQHE}. It leads to the Einstein-de Haas effect in spinor condensates \cite{EdH},
58: and may be employed for quantum computation \cite{QInf}, and ultra cold chemistry \cite{Chemistry}.
59: Recently, time-of-flight experiments in Chromium have allowed for the first observation ever
60: of dipolar effects in quantum gases \cite{Expansion}.
61:
62: Interestingly, the physics of short-range interacting
63: Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) at low temperatures is given by a nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation (NLSE) with
64: cubic local nonlinearity, similar to the one appearing in other systems, in particular in
65: Kerr media in nonlinear optics. In 1D, nonlinearity allows for solitonic solutions \cite{Zakharov}, which
66: have been observed in BEC \cite{Solitons}.
67: However, bright solitons are unstable in 2D and 3D. In periodic potentials
68: multidimensional discrete solitons are possible \cite{DS}, but
69: they do not move in a multidimensional way,
70: although the use of optical lattices has been
71: proposed to move 2D and 3D discrete solitons along a
72: free direction \cite{Sale}. Other interesting possibility to stabilize high dimensional solitons
73: is to use Feshbach resonances to manage spatially and/or temporally the scattering length \cite{FeshbachManagment}.
74:
75: Due to the DDI, a dipolar BEC is described by a NLSE with nonlocal
76: cubic nonlinearity \cite{Stability,Excitations,Roton}, opening an interesting cross-disciplinary link between BEC
77: and other nonlocal nonlinear media, as e.g.
78: plasmas \cite{Plasma}, where the nonlocal response is induced by heating and ionization, and
79: nematic liquid crystals, where it is the result of long-range
80: molecular interactions \cite{Nematics}. Nonlocality plays a crucial role in the
81: physics of solitons and modulation instability \cite{Bang1,Bang2,Kivshar}.
82: In particular, any symmetric nonlocal nonlinear response with
83: positive definite Fourier spectrum has been mathematically shown to arrest collapse in
84: arbitrary dimensions \cite{Bang2}. Indeed, multidimensional solitons have been experimentally
85: observed in nematic liquid crystals \cite{Nematics}. Recently we showed that under
86: realistic conditions, 2D solitons may be generated in dipolar BEC \cite{Pedri05}. However, the
87: anisotropic character of the DDI violates the conditions of Ref. \cite{Bang2}, and as a consequence
88: a stability window occurs, rather than a stability threshold for a sufficiently large dipole strength.
89: In Ref. \cite{Pedri05} we briefly studied the scattering of 2D dipolar solitons,
90: which is inelastic \cite{footnote}, contrary to the 1D solitons in local NLSE, due to the lack
91: of integrability \cite{Krolikowski}. However, the analysis of the inelastic scattering was largely complicated
92: by the spatial overlapping of the solitons.
93:
94: %% FIGURE 1
95: \begin{figure}[ht]
96: \begin{center}
97: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{fig1.eps}
98: \end{center}
99: \vspace*{-0.2cm}
100: \caption{Schematic representation of the system considered in this Letter.}
101: \label{fi1}
102: \vspace*{-0.1cm}
103: \end{figure}
104:
105: In the following, we consider dipolar BECs placed in disconnected layers (Fig. \ref{fi1}).
106: For the case of short-range interactions, the two layers are independent if the
107: hopping is suppressed. A remarkable consequence of the DDI is that unconnected layers
108: become coupled due to non-local density-density interactions, leading
109: to interesting interlayer effects, as e.g. the possibility of a BEC of filaments,
110: recently discussed in Ref.~\cite{Demler}. In this Letter, we analyze the rich physics
111: introduced by interlayer effects in the nonlinear properties of dipolar BECs.
112: In particular, we show that this interlayer interaction
113: leads to an effective molecular potential between fully disconnected solitons,
114: allowing for a complex scattering physics between them. This novel physics includes
115: inelastic fusion into excited soliton-molecules for sufficiently slow solitons,
116: as well as strong symmetric and asymmetric inelastic resonances for intermediate velocities.
117: In addition, we discuss a fundamentally new 2D-scattering scenario in matter-waves,
118: showing that inelastic soliton spiraling similar to that
119: observed in photorrefractive materials \cite{Snyder,Spiraling} is possible in dipolar BEC.
120: Finally we consider the scattering of 1D dipolar solitons in unconnected wires, and comment about
121: observability in on-going experiments.
122:
123: %%%%%%%%
124:
125: In the following, we consider a dipolar BEC transversally
126: confined in the $z$-direction by a two-well potential, with wells located at
127: $z=\pm z_0$, and separated by a sufficiently large potential barrier that prevents tunneling between them.
128: At each well the $z$-confinement
129: is approximated by an harmonic potential of frequency $\omega_z$, whereas there is no confinement on the
130: $xy$-plane. We consider in each well a BEC of $N$ particles (a more general case will be analyzed later on)
131: with electric dipole $d$
132: (the results are equally valid for magnetic dipoles) oriented in the
133: $z$-direction by a sufficiently large external field, and that hence
134: interact via a dipole-dipole potential:
135: $V_d(\vec r)=g_d (1-3\cos^2\theta)/r^3$,
136: where $g_d=\alpha Nd^2/4\pi\epsilon_0$, with
137: $\epsilon_0$ the vacuum permittivity, $\theta$ the angle formed by the vector
138: joining the interacting particles and the dipole direction, and
139: $-1/2\leq\alpha\leq 1$ a tunable parameter by means of rotating
140: orienting fields \cite{Tuning}.
141: At sufficiently low temperatures our system is described by
142: the following two coupled NLSE with nonlocal nonlinearity \cite{Stability}:
143: \begin{eqnarray}
144: &&i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi_{j}(\vec r)=
145: \left [
146: -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2+U_j(z)
147: +g|\Psi_j(\vec r)|^2 \right\delimiter 0 \nonumber \\
148: &&+ \left\delimiter 0 \int d\vec r' V_d(\vec r-\vec r')
149: (|\Psi_1(\vec r')|^2+|\Psi_{-1}(\vec r')|^2)
150: \right ]\Psi_j(\vec r),
151: \label{GPE}
152: \end{eqnarray}
153: where $j=\pm1$ is the layer-index, $\Psi_{j}$ are the wavefunctions at each well, $U_j(z)=m\omega_z^2 (z+ jz_0)^2/2$,
154: $\int |\Psi_{j}(\vec r,t)|^2 d{\vec r}=1$, and
155: $g=4\pi\hbar^2aN/m$ characterizes
156: the contact interaction, with $a$ the $s$-wave scattering length.
157: In the following we consider $a>0$, i.e. repulsive short-range interactions.
158:
159: We assume a 2D dynamics in each well.
160: This approximation demands that the corresponding chemical
161: potential $\mu\ll\hbar\omega_z$. In that case, $\Psi_j(\vec r)\simeq \psi_j(\vec\rho)\varphi_j(z)$
162: with $\varphi_j(z)$ the ground-state wave-function of the harmonic oscillator in the layer $j$.
163: Employing this factorization, the convolution theorem, the
164: Fourier transform of the dipole-dipole potential, $\tilde V_d(k)=(4\pi/3)(3 k_z^2/k^2-1)$,
165: and integrating over the $z$-direction, we arrive at a system of two coupled
166: 2D NLSE:
167: \begin{eqnarray}
168: &&i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial
169: t}\psi_{j}=\left[-\frac{\hbar ^2}{2m}\nabla_{\rho}^2
170: +\frac{g|\psi_{j}|^2 }{\sqrt{2\pi}l_{z}}
171: +\frac{4\sqrt{\pi}g_{d}}{3\sqrt{2}l_{z}}\int
172: \frac{d\vec{k}_{\rho}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{i\vec{k}_{\rho}\vec{\rho}} \right. \nonumber \\
173: &&\left. \left (
174: \tilde{n}_{j}(\vec{k}_{\rho}) F \left(k_{\rho}l_{z},0\right)
175: +
176: \tilde{n}_{-j}(\vec{k}_{\rho})
177: F\left(k_{\rho}l_{z},2z_0/l_{z}\right)
178: \right ) \right]\psi_{j}
179: \label{2DEQS}
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: where $l_z^2=\hbar/m\omega_z$ is the harmonic-oscillator length, $\tilde{n}_{j}$ is the Fourier transform of
182: $|\psi_{j}(\vec{\rho})|^{2}$
183: and $F(\sqrt{2}k,\sqrt{2}\lambda)=2e^{-\lambda^{2}}-
184: (3\sqrt{\pi}ke^{k^{2}}/2)[e^{-2k\lambda}$
185: erfc$(k-\lambda)+e^{2k\lambda}$erfc$(k+\lambda)]$, with erfc$(x)$
186: the complementary error function.
187: Using Eqs.~(\ref{2DEQS}), we study numerically the equilibrium properties and the
188: dynamics of the unconnected 2D solitons.
189:
190:
191: % ********************************************************
192:
193: In Ref.~\cite{Pedri05} we showed that
194: if $g_d\neq 0$, a stable soliton may appear if
195: $ \beta\tilde g < 3(1 +\tilde g/2\pi)/2 < -2\beta \tilde g$, where
196: $\tilde g=g/\sqrt{2\pi}\hbar\omega_zl_z^3$, and $\beta=g_d/g$.
197: Hence $\beta$ must be sufficiently large and negative , which
198: demands tunability ($\alpha<0$). For $Na/l_z\gg 1$, stable solutions appear for
199: $|\beta|>3/8\pi\simeq 0.12$. As discussed in Ref.~\cite{Pedri05},
200: the DDI may destabilize the solitons if they become
201: 3D. In the following, we shall restrict ourselves to the 2D regime
202: \cite{Pedri05}.
203:
204:
205: % ********************************************************
206:
207: We introduce a variational formalism which allows us
208: to study the equilibrium properties and dynamics
209: of the two solitons. We consider a Gaussian Ansatz \cite{PerezGarcia}:
210: %%
211: \begin{equation}
212: \psi_j(\vec \rho,t)=A\prod_{\eta=x,y}e^{-\frac{(\eta-j\eta_0)^2}{4 w_\eta^2} + i(j\eta\alpha_\eta + (\eta-j\eta_0)^2\beta_\eta)},
213: \label{Gaussian}
214: \end{equation}
215: %%
216: where $A$ is the normalization factor, $\{ x_0 ,y_0\}$ is the soliton center, $w_{x,y}$ the soliton widths,
217: and from the continuity equation we obtain $\alpha_\eta=m\dot\eta_0/\hbar$,
218: $\beta_\eta=m\dot w_\eta/2\hbar\omega_\eta$. The variables $x_0,y_0,w_x,w_y$ are time-dependent.
219: The center of mass motion is an independent degree of freedom and it can be decoupled. Without loss of generality, it has not been included in the variational Ansatz.
220: Introducing (\ref{Gaussian}) into the corresponding Lagrangian \cite{Pedri05}, we obtain the following set of equations of motion
221: \begin{equation}
222: m\ddot q_{i}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial q_i} U,
223: \end{equation}
224: where $q_{\{i\}}=x_0,y_0,w_x,w_y$ are the dynamical variables, and
225: \begin{equation}
226: U=\frac{\hbar^2}{8m} \left ( \frac{1}{w_x^2}+ \frac{1}{w_y^2} \right )
227: +\frac{g}{\sqrt{2\pi}8\pi w_x w_y l_z}+V,
228: \label{U}
229: \end{equation}
230: is the potential energy, that includes the dipolar interaction term
231: \begin{eqnarray}
232: V&=&\frac{g_d}{12\pi^2}\int d\vec k \left(3\frac{k_z^2}{k^2} -1\right)e^{-k_z^2 l_z^2/4-k_x^2w_x^2/2-k_y^2w_y^2/2}\nonumber \\
233: &&(1+\cos(2k_xx_0)\cos(2k_yy_0)\cos(2k_zz_0)),
234: \end{eqnarray}
235: that couples the unconnected solitons. Hence, the problem reduces to an effective particle in the potential $U$.
236: Since we have set $g_d<0$, the soliton-soliton potential is maximally
237: repulsive for solitons on top of each other, becoming attractive at a given distance.
238: A soliton molecule is thus possible at the minimum of $U$, which we have found
239: by means of a Powell-minimization procedure, obtaining results that compare well with our
240: imaginary-time simulations of Eqs.~(\ref{2DEQS}). For point-like solitons the soliton-soliton potential would be
241: $V_{point}\propto -(x_0^2-2z_0^2)/(x_0^2+z_0^2)^{5/2}$, with a minimum at $x_0=2z_0$, a value much smaller than
242: that obtained from our variational or numerical calculations, showing the relevance of the
243: spatial extension of the solitons.
244:
245: % ********************************************************
246:
247: %% FIGURE 2
248: \begin{figure}[ht]
249: \begin{center}
250: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{fig2.eps}
251: \end{center}
252: \vspace*{-0.2cm}
253: \caption{Numerical (crosses) and variational (solid) results for
254: $\Delta k/k_0$ ($\Delta k=k_0-k(t\rightarrow\infty)$) as a function
255: of the initial momentum $k_0 l_z$, for $z_0=3l_z$, $\tilde g=200$,
256: $\beta=-0.2$. Inset: Numerical results
257: with $z_0=4l_z$ (solid) and $z_0=5l_z$ (dotted).}
258: \label{fig:1}
259: \vspace*{-0.1cm}
260: \end{figure}
261:
262:
263: %% FIGURE 3
264: \begin{figure}[ht]
265: \begin{center}
266: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{fig3.eps}
267: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
268: \end{center}
269: \caption{Variational results for the evolution of the averaged width
270: $\bar w_\rho=\sqrt{w_x^2+w_y^2}$
271: (normalized to its initial value) for soliton $1$ with $N_1=0.6N$ (dotted)
272: and $2$ with $N_2=1.4N$ (solid), with $\tilde g=200$, $\beta=-0.2$, $z_0=3l_z$,
273: and $k_0l_z=0.03$.}
274: \label{fig:difma}
275: \vspace*{-0.1cm}
276: \end{figure}
277:
278: %% FIGURE 4
279: \begin{figure}[ht]
280: \begin{center}
281: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{fig4.eps}
282: \end{center}
283: \vspace*{-0.2cm}
284: \caption{Numerical result for the soliton trajectory
285: during spiraling fusion in a 2D soliton scattering, for
286: the case $\tilde g=200$, $\beta=-0.2$, $z_0=3l_z$, $\vec k_0 l_z=0.01 \hat x$, $x_0=30l_z$, $y_0=10l_z$.}
287: \label{fig:2}
288: \vspace*{-0.1cm}
289: \end{figure}
290:
291: %% FIGURE 5
292: \begin{figure}[ht]
293: \begin{center}
294: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{fig5.eps}
295: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
296: \end{center}
297: \caption{Width of a 1D soliton for
298: $x_0=3l_\rho$, $g/2\pi\hbar\omega_\rho l_\rho^3=25$, $\beta=0.28$, and $k_0l_\rho=0.05$ (solid),
299: $0.20$ (dashed), $0.35$ (dotted-dashed).
300: $\omega_\rho$ ($\l_\rho$) is the transversal oscillator frequency (length).
301: The time has been re-scaled for comparison.}
302: \label{fig:3}
303: \vspace*{-0.1cm}
304: \end{figure}
305:
306: In the following, we consider the scattering of solitons. We first discuss the case where the relative velocity is parallel to the vector connecting the centers of mass of the two solitons ($y_0=0$).
307: We have studied the scattering for different initial
308: soliton velocities both by direct
309: numerical simulations of Eqs.~(\ref{2DEQS}) and by determining the
310: evolution of $\{ x_0,w_x,w_y\}$ in our variational calculation.
311: Fig.~\ref{fig:1} shows the relative variation of the soliton momentum
312: as a function of the initial momentum. As
313: expected, for sufficiently large initial velocities the scattering may be
314: considered as elastic. For sufficiently low velocities the initial kinetic
315: energy of the solitons is fully transformed during the inelastic scattering
316: into internal soliton energy, and the initially independent solitons
317: become bounded into an excited molecular state (fusion).
318:
319: Interestingly, the inelastic losses
320: do not increase monotonically for decreasing velocities, but on
321: the contrary show a pronounced resonant peak at intermediate velocities
322: (Fig.~\ref{fig:1} and its inset). This effect is motivated by a resonant coupling to
323: internal soliton modes, which leads to a dramatic enhancement of
324: the soliton widths after the collision, and eventually to the destruction of
325: the solitons. We stress that this is only possible because internal modes of the 2D soliton are
326: at rather low energies, well within the inelastic regime.
327: If the interlayer distance is increased, the inelastic losses are as expected reduced, but
328: an even more complicated structure of resonances is then resolved (Fig.~\ref{fig:1}, inset).
329:
330: The previous analysis can be extended to asymmetric configurations, where the solitons have
331: different number of particles. In this case, asymmetric inelastic scattering occurs,
332: as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:difma}, where a resonance appears just for the solitons having the
333: smaller binding energy.
334:
335:
336: % ********************************************************
337:
338: Interestingly, the possibility of generating stable 2D solitons in dipolar gases allows for a
339: completely new scenario for soliton scattering in cold gases, namely a truly
340: 2D scattering, in which the scattered solitons present a relative
341: angular momentum around the scattering center (Fig.~\ref{fig:2}). Similar scattering regimes as those discussed above
342: are also possible in the 2D scattering. However, the relative angular momentum during the collision
343: leads, for the 2D scattering case, to a spiraling motion for sufficiently low incoming velocities, as
344: a consequence of the inelastic fusion of the solitons, which stabilize in a rosetta-like
345: orbit around each other (Fig.~\ref{fig:2}). The 2D spiraling links the physics of dipolar BECs to that of photorrefractive
346: materials, where soliton spiraling has been proposed \cite{Snyder} and experimentally observed \cite{Spiraling}.
347:
348:
349: % ********************************************************
350:
351:
352: Finally, we consider 1D BECs placed
353: at neighboring 1D-sites ($x=\pm x_0$) of a 2D lattice, with the dipole oriented along the site axis.
354: Following similar scaling arguments as above,
355: it is possible to show that for $g>0$, a bright soliton is possible if $\beta>3/4\pi$.
356: Although, of course, some 2D features are missed in 1D, it is indeed
357: possible to observe inelastic processes also in 1D solitons.
358: This is particularly relevant for current experiments in $^{52}$Cr, since
359: no tuning is necessary for 1D solitons, easing very significantly the experimental requirements.
360: For $^{52}$Cr a Feshbach resonance is necessary to satisfy the previous condition, but
361: Feshbach resonances are well characterized and accessible \cite{Feshbach}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:3}
362: we depict an example of the dynamics of the soliton width in and out of resonance, which clearly shows
363: a resonant (although non-destructive) behavior for intermediate velocities.
364:
365:
366: % ********************************************************
367:
368: Summarizing, interlayer effects are a fundamentally new feature
369: introduced by the DDI in dipolar gases placed in unconnected layers
370: of an optical lattice. These effects may have remarkable consequences,
371: as e.g. the formation of a BEC of filaments~\cite{Demler}. In this Letter,
372: we discussed the rich physics introduced by interlayer effects in the nonlinear
373: properties of dipolar BECs, and in particular in the
374: scattering of unconnected solitons.
375: The DDI induces an inelastic soliton-soliton scattering, that for low relative velocities,
376: leads to the inelastic fusion into a soliton molecule. Interestingly, the inelastic
377: losses do not increase monotonically for decreasing relative velocities, but on the contrary
378: show strong resonances at intermediate
379: velocities, at which, after interacting, the soliton widths are strongly modified,
380: eventually leading to soliton destruction. This effect appears, because,
381: due to the relatively low excitation frequencies of the solitons,
382: a resonant coupling between incoming kinetic
383: energy and internal soliton modes is possible for low relative velocities
384: well within the inelastic regime.
385: We have shown that a similar effect should be observable in
386: 1D geometries, where the experimental requirements may be easily fulfilled in on-going Chromium
387: experiments. Finally, we have considered the 2D scattering of dipolar solitons, a unique possibility offered
388: by the dipolar interactions in cold gases. We have shown that due to the combination
389: of inelastic trapping and initial angular momentum a spiraling motion is possible,
390: offering fascinating links to similar physics in photorrefractive materials.
391:
392:
393:
394:
395: \acknowledgements
396: Conversations with Y. Kivshar, and T. Pfau are
397: acknowledged. This work was supported by the DFG (SFB-TR21, SFB407, SPP1116),
398: the Minist\`ere del la Recherche (ACI Nanoscience 201), the ANR (NT05-2\_42103 and 05-Nano-008-02), and the IFRAF Institute.
399:
400:
401: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
402:
403: \bibitem{Molecules} H.-L. Bethelem and G. Meijer, Int. Rev. Phys. Chem.
404: {\bf 22}, 73 (2003); C. Haimberger {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A.
405: {\bf 70}, 021402(R) (2004); J. M. Sage {\it et al.},
406: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 203001 (2005);
407: C. Ospelkaus {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 120402 (2006).
408:
409: \bibitem{Rydberg} D. Tong {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93},
410: 063001 (2004).
411:
412: \bibitem{Chromium} A. Griesmaier {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 160401 (2005).
413:
414: \bibitem{Stability} S. Yi and L. You, Phys. Rev. A 61, 041604 (2000);
415: K. G\'oral, K. Rz\c a\.zewski, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 61}, 051601 (2000);
416: L. Santos {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1791 (2000).
417:
418: \bibitem{Excitations} S. Yi and L. You, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66}, 013607 (2002);
419: K. G\'oral and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66}, 023613 (2002).
420:
421: \bibitem{Roton} L. Santos, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and M. Lewenstein,
422: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 250403 (2003); S. Giovanazzi, and D. H. J. O'Dell,
423: Eur. Phys. J. D {\bf 31}, 439 (2004).
424:
425: \bibitem{Fermions} M. A. Baranov {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66},
426: 013606 (2002);
427: M. A. Baranov {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 250403 (2004).
428:
429: \bibitem{DipLat-FQHE} K. G\'oral, L. Santos, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 170406 (2002);
430: M. A. Baranov, K. Osterloh, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 070404 (2005);
431: E. H. Rezayi, N. Read, and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 160404 (2005);
432: H. P. B\"uchler {\it et al.}, cond-mat/0607294.
433:
434: \bibitem{EdH} Y. Kawaguchi, H. Saito and M. Ueda,
435: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 080405 (2006);
436: L. Santos and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 190404 (2006).
437:
438: \bibitem{QInf} D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 067901 (2002).
439:
440: \bibitem{Chemistry} E. Bodo, F. A. Gianturco, and A. Dalgarno, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 116}, 9222 (2002).
441:
442: \bibitem{Expansion} J. Stuhler {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 150406
443: (2005).
444:
445: \bibitem{Zakharov} V. E. Zakharov and A. B. Shabat, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 61}, 118 (1971)
446: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 34}, 62 (1972)]; V. E. Zakharov and A. B. Shabat,
447: Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 64}, 1627 (1973) [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 37}, 823 (1973)].
448:
449: \bibitem{Solitons} J. Denschlag {\it et al.}, Science {\bf 287}, 97 (2000);
450: S. Burger {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 5198 (1999);
451: L. Khaykovich {\it et al.}, Science {\bf 296}, 1290 (2002);
452: K. E. Strecker {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 417}, 150 (2002); B. Eiermann {\it et al.},
453: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 230401 (2004).
454:
455: \bibitem{DS} J.~W.~Fleischer {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 422}, 147 (2003).
456: \bibitem{Sale} B. B. Baizakov, B. A. Malomed, M. Salerno,
457: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 70}, 053613 (2004).
458:
459: \bibitem{FeshbachManagment} H. Saito and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 040403 (2003);
460: F. Kh. Abdullaev {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 67}, 013605 (2003).
461:
462: \bibitem{Plasma} A. G. Litvak {\it et al.}, Sov. J. Plasma Phys. {\bf 1}, 60 (1975).
463:
464: \bibitem{Nematics}M. Peccianti {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 432}, 733 (2004).
465:
466: \bibitem{Bang1} W. Krolikowski {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 64}, 016612 (2001).
467:
468: \bibitem{Bang2} O. Bang {\it et al.},
469: Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 66}, 046619 (2002).
470:
471: \bibitem{Kivshar} A. I. Yakimenko, Y. A. Zaliznyak and Y. Kivshar, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 065603 (2005).
472:
473: \bibitem{Pedri05} P. Pedri and L. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 200404 (2005).
474:
475: \bibitem{footnote} Strictly speaking, we should employ the term solitary wave. For simplicity
476: we use the term soliton.
477:
478: \bibitem{Krolikowski} W. Krolikowski and O. Bang, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 016610 (2000).
479:
480: \bibitem{Demler} D.-W. Wang, M. D. Lukin and E. Demler, cond-mat/0608250.
481:
482: \bibitem{Snyder} D. J. Mitchell, A. W. Snyder, and L. Poladian, Opt. Comm. {\bf 85}, 59 (1991).
483:
484: \bibitem{Spiraling} M.-F. Shin, M. Segev, and G. Salamo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 2551 (1997).
485:
486:
487: \bibitem{Tuning} S. Giovanazzi, A. G\"orlitz, and T. Pfau, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 130401 (2002).
488:
489: \bibitem{PerezGarcia} V. M. P\'erez-Garc\'\i a, {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 5320 (1996).
490:
491: \bibitem{Feshbach} J. Werner {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 183201 (2005).
492:
493: \end{thebibliography}
494:
495:
496: \end{document}
497: