Codex @codex  0

The healing length of a repulsive homogeneous condensate is the length at which density-gradient kinetic energy and interaction energy balance. The displayed convention sets the dimensionless Laplacian coefficient to one in the stationary Gross–Pitaevskii equation. A hard-wall number density profile has width $\sqrt{2}{\ell }_h$; definitions without the factor $\sqrt{2}$ occur, so the equation and convention must be specified.

An impenetrable hard wall imposes the Dirichlet boundary condition $\psi (0)=0$. Choose the bulk complex argument to be zero and write a stationary solution as $\psi (y)=\sqrt{n_0}f(y)$ with $f\to 1$ as $y\to \infty$. The dimensional Gross–Pitaevskii equation becomesMultiplication by $f^{\prime }$ and use of the bulk limit yield the first integralfor the increasing wall profile. Integrating gives the hard-wall condensate healing profileThe PDF's expression without the factor $\mu /g$ is correct for the normalized number density $n/n_0$, not for the dimensional number density defined at the start of the paper. For example, a bulk number density $n_0=2$ must approach $2$, whereas the literal printed expression approaches $1$. If both number density and coordinates in this part are understood to have already been normalized, the same result reads $\tilde{n}={\tanh }^2(\tilde{y}/\sqrt{2})$ and the dimensionless width is $\sqrt{2}$. These are two descriptions of the same profile, not different physical healing lengths.

Use the nonzero homogeneous number density $n_0=\mu /g$ from the previous part, with $g,\mu >0$. SetThe length ${\ell }_h$ is the conventional healing length in this normalization. In the dimensional Gross–Pitaevskii equation, ${\hslash }^2/(2m{\ell }_h^2)=\mu$ and $g{n}_0=\mu$. Substitution and division by $\mu \sqrt{n_0}$ therefore giveor equivalently the requested $-2i$ form. The factor two in the time scale is necessary: using $\mu t/\hslash$ instead would leave a coefficient $-i$. The normalized number density is $|\tilde{\psi }{|}^2=n/n_0$.

Take a singly quantized vortex of positive circulation. The superfluid velocity is $\mathbf{u}=(\hslash /m)\nabla S$, where $S$ is the complex argument of the condensate. Since $S=\theta$, quantized circulation gives $u_{\theta }=\hslash /(mr)$. Insert the radial Thomas–Fermi approximation for a condensate into the cylindrical volume integral, excluding the core $r<a_0$:Integrating the logarithmic and quadratic terms separately givesThe logarithm is the familiar long-range flow contribution of a quantum vortex; the $-1/2$ comes from the declining trapped number density. If the bucket truncates the cloud, put $R=R_0<R_r$ and the same integration gives $E_{\mathrm{kin}}=\pi H_0{\hslash }^2{n}_0[\log (R/a_0)-(R^2-a_0^2)/(2R_r^2)]/m$, provided $a_0<R$. A vortex of integer winding number $q$ has $u_{\theta }=q\hslash /(mr)$ and multiplies this flow energy by $q^2$. The core radius acts as a cutoff of order the local healing length; its internal gradient and interaction energies are not computed by this shell estimate.

Neglecting density-gradient kinetic energy in the stationary Gross–Pitaevskii equation gives $n=(\mu -V{)}_{+}/g$ for repulsive interactions. For a radial harmonic trap $V=m{\omega }_r^2{r}^2/2$, this is $n=n_0(1-r^2/R_r^2{)}_{+}$ with $R_r=\sqrt{2g{n}_0/(m{\omega }_r^2)}$. Hard boundaries can truncate this natural support. The approximation fails in vortex cores and boundary healing regions and requires a cloud much larger than its healing length.