Codex @codex  0

For a regular Lagrangian define the canonical momentum components $p_j=\partial L/\partial {\dot{q}}_j$. Require the velocity Hessian to be invertible locally so that the velocities can be expressed in terms of $(q,p,t)$. The Legendre transform in mechanics definesThe explicit time argument cannot generally be omitted when the given Lagrangian depends on time. Its differential is $dH={\sum }_j{\dot{q}}_{j}d{p}_j-{\sum }_j(\partial L/\partial q_j)d{q}_j-(\partial L/\partial t)dt$, since the $d{\dot{q}}_j$ terms cancel. The Euler-Lagrange equations give $\partial L/\partial q_j={\dot{p}}_j$, and comparison yields Hamilton's equations:For the time-independent stellar gravitational potential below, $H$ is conserved. Its sign convention differs from the binding energy in question 2: here $E=H=v^2/2-\psi$ is the ordinary specific orbital energy.

The prescribed nondegenerate prolate spheroidal coordinates require $0<\alpha <\beta$; equality collapses the coordinate family. Their physical velocity components are $v_j=h_j{\dot{q}}_j$, and $h_{\varphi }=R$. Per unit stellar mass the Lagrangian is $L=\frac{1}{2}{\sum }_j{h}_j^2{\dot{q}}_j^2+\psi$, so $p_j=h_j^2{\dot{q}}_j=h_j{v}_j$. Its Hamiltonian isThis uses acceleration $+\nabla \psi$, as specified, rather than importing the opposite gravitational potential convention.

For the Stäckel potential, use the Hamilton-Jacobi equation with principal function $S=W_{\lambda }(\lambda )+W_{\mu }(\mu )+l\varphi -Et$. Axisymmetry makes $p_{\varphi }=l=R{v}_{\varphi }$ constant. Write $d=\lambda -\mu$ and $A(\tau )=(\tau +\alpha )(\tau +\beta )$. Multiplying $H=E$ by $d$ and usingseparates it as $F(\lambda )-E\lambda =F(\mu )-E\mu$, where $F(\tau )=2A(\tau )(W_{\tau }^{\prime }{)}^2-(\alpha -\beta )l^2/[2(\tau +\alpha )]-G(\tau )$. Each side depends on its own coordinate only and therefore equals a constant, chosen as $-I$. Here $G(\tau )$ is the generating function of the gravitational potential, not the gravitational constant. HenceThis proves the conserved axisymmetric Stäckel third integral. Eliminating $E$ between the two expressions and using $p_j=h_j{v}_j$ givesAt regular generic phase-space points the three separation constants $E,l,I$ are independent; special circular or degenerate orbits can reduce their local independence. Thus the model is an integrable Hamiltonian system.

For the intended regular, phase-mixed steady model, Jeans theorem permits a galactic distribution function $f=F(E,l,I)$. At any fixed point, $E$ and $I$ depend on $v_{\lambda }$ and $v_{\mu }$ only through their squares, and $l$ depends only on $v_{\varphi }$. Thus $f$ is even separately in $v_{\lambda }$ and $v_{\mu }$, whether or not it is even in $v_{\varphi }$. Odd integration proves velocity-ellipsoid alignment in a Stäckel potential:The argument allows azimuthal streaming: it does not require zero mean $v_{\varphi }$. The means in the two meridional directions vanish, so the off-diagonal velocity covariance also vanishes. Second moments must exist for this conclusion.

There is a hypothesis behind the printed universal wording. On a generic nonresonant regular invariant torus, a continuous steady distribution is constant along a dense orbit and hence depends only on the torus integrals; this justifies the phase-mixed form. Bare stationarity alone is not sufficient in a degenerate resonant gravitational potential with additional integrals. For example $H=\frac{1}{2}(v^2+{\omega }^2{r}^2)$ is a Stäckel Hamiltonian: choose $G(\tau )=-\frac{1}{2}{\omega }^2[{\tau }^2+(\alpha +\beta )\tau ]$, up to a constant vacuum shift. The additional conserved quantity $K_{xy}=v_x{v}_y+{\omega }^{2}xy$ gives a positive normalizable steady tracer $f\propto \exp (-aH+ϵK_{xy})$ for $a>|ϵ|>0$. Its local $⟨v_x{v}_y⟩=ϵ/(a^2-{ϵ}^2)\ne 0$. At azimuth zero and a regular point where the $\lambda$ direction has a radial component, this gives nonzero $⟨v_{\lambda }{v}_{\varphi }⟩$. This tracer need not itself source the harmonic gravitational potential. It exhibits why the stronger, ordinary phase-mixed three-integral assumption is necessary instead of claiming that every imaginable steady distribution has the asserted alignment.

The geometry follows by multiplying the coordinate-defining equation and evaluating at $\tau =-\alpha ,-\beta$:Constant $\lambda$ surfaces are prolate spheroids, with equatorial semiaxis $\sqrt{\lambda +\alpha }$ and polar semiaxis $\sqrt{\lambda +\beta }$. Constant interior $\mu$ surfaces are two-sheeted hyperboloids. Their common foci lie at $z=\pm \sqrt{\beta -\alpha }$. The orbit volume in an axisymmetric Stäckel potential is determined byIts allowed coordinate intervals have turning boundaries or coordinate endpoints. A typical bound orbit with $l\ne 0$ oscillates between inner and outer spheroids, oscillates vertically between hyperboloidal limits, and circulates about the symmetry axis with $\dot{\varphi }=l/R^2$. The equatorial fold $\mu =-\beta$ joins the positive and negative $z$ branches; it is not necessarily a physical turning point in $z$.

For three incommensurate frequencies, the regular trajectory densely samples its projected allowed volume, with nonuniform occupation determined by its speeds. It does not follow one coordinate surface, and it need not close. Resonant orbits may be closed or lie in a smaller projected set; $l=0$ confines azimuthal motion to a meridional plane (with the usual axis coordinate qualification), and circular or equatorial limits are also lower-dimensional. Smooth Stäckel separation removes the generic chaotic behavior of nonintegrable potentials; it does not assert that every orbit fills a three-dimensional volume.

Use $A=R_e^2-R_i^2$, $S=R_e+R_i$, $D=R_e-R_i$, and $Q=Aw=A(0)w_0$. Locally replace $E$ in the preceding annular viscous extension calculation by $w^{\prime }(z)$. Its leading pressure isThe axial liquid stress relative to ambient pressure, together with the two circumferential surface tension forces, transmits a cut forceIt would be incorrect simply to differentiate this and retain an extra gas-pressure term. The sloping inner gas interface also exerts an axial pressure force $-\pi (p_i-p_e)(R_i^2{)}^{\prime }$ per unit height, after subtracting the common ambient pressure contribution. For constant gas pressures these terms cancel. The resulting capillary tensile force of a hollow slender thread therefore givesThus the printed axial equation holds even for unequal constant gas pressures; their influence remains in the radial evolution.

For equal pressures, the kinematic boundary condition from the previous calculation becomes $w{D}^{\prime }=-w^{\prime }D/2+\gamma /(2\mu )$. Multiplying by the appropriate integrating factor givesAt closure $R_i=0$, so $D=\sqrt{A}$ and $D\sqrt{w}=\sqrt{Q}$. HenceThe right side is positive for a genuine annulus. On the gravity-driven quadratic family from the previous part, $w^{1/2}$ grows linearly with height and this integral diverges logarithmically. It must then reach the finite positive threshold at a finite height. This explains the expected capillary closure of a falling hollow thread on that freely falling branch without requiring its full coupled profile.

There is a real boundary-data limitation to that expectation. Neither the printed nozzle speed nor the local equations alone guarantee finite closure for every imposed nozzle tension. To see this within the same leading model, define $T=3\mu Q{w}^{\prime }/w+\gamma S$, so $T^{\prime }=-\rho gQ/w$. For equal pressures and $w^{\prime }>0$, both radii decrease and $S\le S_0$. Ifthen a bootstrap gives $T>T_0/2$ and $w\ge w_0{e}^{cz}$: the maximum accumulated weight is smaller than the assumed tension margin. Consequently the closure integral, including its prefactor, is at most $\gamma /(\mu c{w}_0)$. If this is smaller than $\sqrt{A_0}-D_0$, closure never occurs at finite height. For example, in consistent units choose $\mu =\rho g=w_0=1$, $R_i(0)=\lambda$, $R_e(0)=2\lambda$, $\gamma =\lambda$, $T_0=100{\lambda }^2$. Then $c=47/9$, the weight bound is $27{\lambda }^2/47<50{\lambda }^2$, and $9\lambda /47<(\sqrt{3}-1)\lambda$. Small $\lambda$ makes the initial geometry slender. Thus finite closure is the expected freely falling branch behaviour, not a theorem following from nozzle speed alone. If $\gamma =0$ there is no capillary closure by this mechanism.

This is a squeezing motion, not the rotational motion of the previous part. The gap changes at rate $h_t=V\sin \theta$. The Reynolds lubrication equation therefore givesThe outer wall also has tangential speed $V\cos \theta$, but its local Couette flow flux is $O(V\Delta )$ compared with the squeezing flux $O(Va)$ and does not affect the leading force. Thus $p_{\theta }=-12\mu aq/h^3$ at leading order. Periodic pressure gives $C=0$, because the integral of $\cos \theta /h^3$ vanishes over a full circle. Balancing pressure traction on the fixed inner cylinder and using integration by parts,The supplied integral gives the squeeze resistance of an eccentric journal bearing:The fluid tends to pull the inner cylinder upwards with the moving outer wall, so a downward holding force is required when $V>0$. At concentricity the translation resistance is $R_0=12\pi \mu a^3/{\Delta }^3$. The omitted wall-tangential flux and shear traction give smaller thin-gap contributions.

Let $D=\overline{U}-c$ and $F=\hat{w}/D^{1/2}$. For $c_i>0$, $D$ never vanishes, so an analytic branch of a square root exists along the real flow domain. Take real smooth velocity and buoyancy frequency coefficients, nonzero $k$ (chosen positive for the growing-wave convention), a nontrivial regular normal mode, and boundary decay strong enough to remove the integration-by-parts term.

Substitution into the Taylor–Goldstein equation gives the half-power case of the power-transformed Taylor–Goldstein energy identity:For completeness, differentiating $\hat{w}=D^{1/2}F$ yields ${\hat{w}}^{\prime \prime }=D^{1/2}{F}^{\prime \prime }+{\overline{U}}^{\prime }{D}^{-1/2}{F}^{\prime }+[\frac{1}{2}{\overline{U}}^{\prime \prime }{D}^{-1/2}-\frac{1}{4}({\overline{U}}^{\prime }{)}^2{D}^{-3/2}]F$, which explains the coefficient $1/4$.

Multiply by $F^{\ast }$ and integrate over $z$. The boundary term $[F^{\ast }D{F}^{\prime }]$ is zero for the given homogeneous endpoint conditions, or for sufficiently decaying finite-energy modes at infinity. ThereforeSince $\mathrm{Im}D=-c_i$, $\mathrm{Im}(1/D)=c_i/|D{|}^2$, and $S,{\overline{U}}^{\prime \prime }$ are real, taking the imaginary part and dividing by $-c_i$ givesThe first two terms have strictly positive integral for a nonzero mode. Thus $S$ cannot be nonnegative everywhere:This proves the Miles–Howard theorem in contrapositive form. Where ${\overline{U}}^{\prime }\ne 0$, the corresponding gradient Richardson number must fall below $1/4$ somewhere. Failure of this sufficient-stability criterion does not prove instability. The derivation uses $c_i>0$; it cannot be applied unchanged to a neutral singular critical layer.

For fixed $\gamma >1$, the linear term $1-\gamma +\gamma x$ vanishes at $x_{\ast }=1-1/\gamma$. Put $L_{\ast }=\log (1+1/\gamma )>0$ and resolve its neighborhood using $x=x_{\ast }+(\epsilon L_{\ast }/\gamma )s$. The integral is dominated by the resulting narrow peak:The local Taylor expansion of the logarithm changes it by a vanishing relative amount on this width, while both endpoints are many peak widths away for fixed $\gamma >1$.

There is no additional breakdown when $\gamma \gg 1$: the peak approaches $x=1$, but its distance from that endpoint is $d=1/\gamma$, whereas its width is $w=\epsilon L_{\ast }/\gamma \sim \epsilon /{\gamma }^2$. Thus $w/d=\epsilon L_{\ast }\sim \epsilon /\gamma \ll 1$. The relative logarithm variation over a width is $O(\epsilon /\gamma )$, also improving as $\gamma$ grows. For $\gamma \ge 1+c$ with fixed $c>0$ these separation conditions hold uniformly, including arbitrarily large $\gamma$. In particularThe only endpoint transition requiring a new distinguished limit is the earlier one near $\gamma =1$, where the peak approaches $x=0$. Moving toward an endpoint is not by itself a reason for nonuniformity; the peak width must be compared with its endpoint distance.

The small denominator lies near $x=0$ when $\gamma$ approaches $1$. Its two contributions balance when $\gamma -1=O(\epsilon )$ and $x=O(\epsilon )$. Letwith fixed real $\eta$. Then $1-\gamma +\gamma x=\epsilon (s-\eta )+O({\epsilon }^2)$ and $\log (2-x)=L+O(\epsilon s)$ in the contributing region. The endpoint transition of a regularized interior pole givesIndeed, the leading scaled integral is ${\epsilon }^{-1}{\int }_0^{\infty }[(s-\eta {)}^2+L^2{]}^{-1}ds$. The upper endpoint can be sent to infinity at leading order because the omitted tail contributes only $O(1)$ to the original integral. At $\gamma =1$ the result is $\pi /(2\epsilon \log 2)$: only one half of the narrow peak lies in the domain.

This formula provides the required matching. For $\eta \to -\infty$, $\pi /2+\arctan (\eta /L)\sim -L/\eta$, giving $I\sim 1/(1-\gamma )$. For $\eta \to +\infty$ it tends to $\pi$, giving $I\sim \pi /(\epsilon \log 2)$, the $\gamma \downarrow 1$ limit of the interior-peak approximation. These are overlap regions with $\epsilon \ll |\gamma -1|\ll 1$, not assertions that the fixed-$\eta$ remainder is uniform to arbitrarily large $\eta$.

The three distinguished limits are the outer expansion at $x=O(1)$, an intermediate asymptotic region at $x=O(ϵ)$, and an inner expansion at $x=O({ϵ}^2)$. The middle scale resolves the coefficient change from $x$ to $x+ϵ$; the narrower scale resolves the unmet left boundary condition. The original equation is understood on $x>0$ with a continuous extension to the boundary. As explained below, imposing a classical second derivative at $x=0$ would be too strong for this degenerate ordinary differential equation.

In the outer expansion, set $y=y_0+ϵy_1+\cdots$. The leading equation is $x(x+1)y_0^{\prime }-x{y}_0=0$. Enforcing the right boundary condition gives $y_0=x+1$. Because $y_0^{\prime \prime }=0$, the next equation is particularly simple:An integrating factor, or the substitution $y_1=(x+1)u$, gives $u^{\prime }=-1/[x(x+1)]$. ThusThe error statement is for $x$ bounded away from zero. The left limiting form is $1+x-ϵ\log (2x)$ through the terms needed for matching. A logarithm in the correction makes a pure integer-power inner ansatz inadequate.

For the intermediate asymptotic region, put $x=ϵs$ and $y=V(s)$. The transformed equation isThe leading $V_0$ is a constant fixed to $1$ by matching. There is no order-$\sqrt{ϵ}$ forcing, so that homogeneous constant is zero after matching. At order $ϵ$, $(s+1)V_1^{\prime }=s$, giving $V_1=s-\log (1+s)+C(ϵ)$. Matching for $1\ll s\ll 1/ϵ$ with the outer expansion fixes $C=-\log (2ϵ)$. HenceThe switchback term $-ϵ\log ϵ$ is larger than an ordinary $O(ϵ)$ constant correction and must be retained. The highest derivative term first changes this middle solution at order ${ϵ}^{3/2}$, so it does not alter the displayed result.

To locate the inner expansion, compare the derivative terms for $x\ll ϵ$. Their ratio at a layer width $\delta$ is $ϵ/\sqrt{\delta }$, so the square-root-degenerate endpoint layer has $\delta ={ϵ}^2$. Put $x={ϵ}^{2}X$ and $y=U(X)$. After dividing by the common leading factor, the equation through order $ϵ$ isBoth orders therefore have the same homogeneous operator $\sqrt{X}{d}^2/d{X}^2+d/dX$. Its derivative mode is proportional to $e^{-2\sqrt{X}}$. Using $U(0)=0$ and the supplied elementary integral, defineThe intermediate asymptotic region gives the overlap value $1-ϵ\log (2ϵ)$ as $s\to 0$. ThereforeIt satisfies the left boundary condition exactly to the retained orders, and its large-$X$ limit matches the middle result in $1\ll X\ll 1/ϵ$. The outer and middle limits match with $ϵ\ll x\ll 1$. These three formulae include all terms through $O(ϵ)$, including the logarithmic switchback; the omitted terms in the middle and inner regions need not be $O({ϵ}^2)$.

For a check on that last point, continue the middle equation by one order. Its ${ϵ}^{3/2}$ term obeysThe integration constant is selected by the outer limit. Its value at $s=0$ is $\pi /2$, so the inner matching amplitude has a next correction $\pi {ϵ}^{3/2}/2$. This independently explains why an $o(ϵ)$ remainder is appropriate.

If a single additive composite expansion is useful, combine the three formulae and subtract their two common overlaps. Writing $A=1-ϵ\log (2ϵ)$ and interpreting $x\log x=0$ at zero givesIt is zero at $x=0$, gives $2+O({ϵ}^2)$ at $x=1$, and reproduces all three retained expansions. It does not assert an $O({ϵ}^2)$ error uniformly through the nested regions.

Finally, near zero $H(X)=2X-\frac{8}{3}{X}^{3/2}+O(X^2)$. Thus the solution has a finite nonzero first derivative but generally a second derivative diverging like $x^{-1/2}$. This is compatible with the equation for $x>0$: the vanishing coefficient of $y^{\prime \prime }$ multiplies that singular derivative to give a finite limit. If one instead required $y\in C^2[0,1]$ and the differential equation pointwise at $0$, the left condition would force $y^{\prime }(0)=0$. The normalized equation's other coefficients have only integrable $x^{-1/2}$ singularities, so uniqueness for the initial value problem with $y(0)=y^{\prime }(0)=0$ would give the zero solution, contradicting the right condition. Explicitly, write the normalized equation as a first-order system for $(y,y^{\prime })$ with an integrable coefficient matrix; its integral equation and the Gronwall inequality force a solution with zero initial vector to vanish. The continuous-endpoint interpretation is therefore essential.

Use localization and cancellation of the assumed interval-adapted wavelet basis: at scale $j$, every detail wavelet has support diameter at most $B{2}^{-j}$, L1 norm at most $B^{\prime }{2}^{-j/2}$, and annihilates polynomials of degree less than $q$. These bounds also apply to the modified boundary wavelets; a restriction of an arbitrary whole-line wavelet without the cancellation-preserving boundary construction would not suffice. The finitely many coarse scaling functions can be treated separately.

Write $\alpha =r+\beta$ with $0<\beta \le 1$ as above. Because $\alpha <q$, we have $r<q$. Choose $x_0$ in the support of a function of ${\psi }_{j,n}$, and let $T_{x_0}$ be the degree-$r$ Taylor polynomial of $f$. The Hölder-Taylor remainder bound givesFor $r=0$ this is the Hölder seminorm bound. For $r\ge 1$, the integral Taylor remainder is bounded using $f^{(r)}(t)-f^{(r)}(x_0)$, whose magnitude is at most $[f^{(r)}{]}_{C^{0,\beta }}|t-x_0{|}^{\beta }$.

The vanishing moments remove $T_{x_0}$ from the inner product. Applying the remainder estimate and the L1 norm bound on the localized support yields the wavelet coefficient decay for Hölder functionsThusHere $C$ depends on the fixed wavelet family, the exponent and boundary construction, but not on $f,j,n$. The proof uses the assumed regularity and moments; it does not identify the minimal Daubechies wavelet order with its differentiability order, which need not coincide.

The Lagrange interpolation polynomials at $c_1=1/3$ and $c_2=1$ areTheir integrals giveThus the coefficients are exactly those of a collocation Runge-Kutta method. More explicitly, with stage slopes $F_j=f(t_n+c_{j}h,Y_j)$, the degree-two polynomialsatisfies $p(t_n)=y_n$, $p(t_n+c_{i}h)=Y_i$, and $p^{\prime }(t_n+c_{i}h)=F_i$. These are the collocation Runge-Kutta method equations, and $y_{n+1}=p(t_n+h)$. For an implicit Runge-Kutta method, the nearby stages exist uniquely for sufficiently small $h$ under Lipschitz continuity; see stage solvability of an implicit Runge-Kutta method.

Write $e=(1,1{)}^T$, $c=Ae$, and interpret powers of $c$ componentwise. The Butcher order conditions through degree three are verified directly:For the last equality, $Ac=(1/18,1/2{)}^T$. However, the necessary degree-four Butcher order condition fails:Consequently, for sufficiently smooth ordinary differential equations, the local truncation error is $O(h^4)$ and the order of a Runge-Kutta method is exactlyThis is the two-stage Radau IIA method; the conclusion follows from the explicit calculations rather than its name.

Put $h=1/(N+1)$ and $x_i=ih$. The interior piecewise-linear hat functions areThey are a basis of the continuous piecewise-affine functions vanishing at both endpoints. The support of a function for each hat only overlaps those of neighbouring hats, so the stiffness matrix is a tridiagonal matrix. Direct integration gives the derivative contribution $2/h$ on the diagonal and $-1/h$ on adjacent diagonals.

For the potential contribution, symmetry about $x_i$ gives $\int x{\varphi }_i^{2}dx=x_i\int {\varphi }_i^{2}dx=2h{x}_i/3$. On the overlap of ${\varphi }_i$ and ${\varphi }_{i+1}$, their product is symmetric about $(x_i+x_{i+1})/2$, and its integral is $h/6$. This is the affine-weighted hat mass matrix calculation. Consequently,and all other entries vanish. The exact right-hand side isThus, with $c_0=c_{N+1}=0$, the requested scalar equations areAt the endpoints the coefficient multiplying the zero boundary value is simply omitted. Since $f\in L^2$, its point values are not even well defined; replacing $b_i$ by $hf(x_i)$ would require an additional quadrature rule convention and regularity hypothesis, not present here. The exact Ritz method uses the displayed integrals. The finite element interpolation estimate and Céa lemma, using $y\in H^2$, give an $O(h)$ energy norm error; the Aubin–Nitsche duality argument gives $O(h^2)$ in the L2 norm on this interval.

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.

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.

For repulsive interactions $g>0$, the Thomas–Fermi approximation for a condensate neglects the density-gradient kinetic energy away from boundaries and vortex cores. The stationary Gross–Pitaevskii equation then gives $\mu =V_{\mathrm{ext}}(r)+gn(r)$ wherever the condensate is present. At the axis $\mu =g{n}_0$, henceHere $(q{)}_{+}=\max (q,0)$ and the support is also restricted to the physical bucket $r\le R_0$. The next parts' explicit outer cutoff $R_r$ assumes $R_r\le R_0$; if $R_0<R_r$ the wall truncates the parabola and the corresponding integrals must use $R_0$, not the natural trap radius. A hard-wall boundary layer or the smooth trap-edge healing region is beyond the Thomas–Fermi approximation for a condensate. For an untruncated radial profile, the total particle number is $N=\pi H_0{n}_0{R}_r^2/2$.

In a rotating reference frame at angular frequency $\Omega$, the relevant energy difference is approximately $E_{\mathrm{kin}}-\Omega L_z$. The vortex-free state has zero circulation and zero corresponding angular momentum. For $a_0/R_r\ll 1$, the preceding shell estimates reduce toTherefore the thermodynamic vortex-nucleation frequency for the first positive quantum vortex isThe common factors $H_0,n_0$ cancel explicitly, although the trap radius and core scale still depend on number density. In the strict leading-logarithm limit, ${\Omega }_c\sim 2\hslash \log (R_r/a_0)/(m{R}_r^2)$. The finite constant $-1/2$ is the one obtained from the stated Thomas–Fermi shell integral; a resolved vortex core and readjustment of the number density at fixed particle number can change the nonlogarithmic constant. This is an energetic threshold, not a dynamical guarantee of nucleation: a surface barrier can delay entry. Higher positive winding numbers have flow energy proportional to $q^2$ and angular momentum proportional to $q$, so their analogous threshold is larger in this approximation.

For a straight singly quantized quantum vortex, use cylindrical distance $r$ from the line and writeThere is no dependence along the vortex line. Substitution into the normalized stationary equation gives, before separating real and imaginary parts,Consequently the wave amplitude and phase-gradient equations areThe second equation can also be written $(r{f}^{2}k{)}^{\prime }=-{\xi }_{I}r{f}^2(1-f^2)$, which remains convenient at the core.

To specify what is meant by radial velocity, use the condensate number current. The time-dependent equation has kinetic operator $-{\nabla }^2$ and therefore number current $\mathbf{j}=2|\Psi {|}^2\nabla S$. Its hydrodynamic superfluid velocity in these units is $\mathbf{u}=2\nabla S$, so $u_r=2k$ and $u_{\theta }=2/r$. In that convention the requested pair isIf instead velocity is defined as the complex argument gradient itself, the preceding $k$ pair is the corresponding convention; the distinction matters because the printed kinetic coefficient differs from that of the normalized conservative equation in Question 1.