Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2017 / iii / Paper 343 (Quantum Fluids)

The $-\mu \psi$ term means that the generator is the grand potential, rather than just the physical energy. With boundary variations vanishing, the Hamiltonian functional isIts functional derivative isso the Gross–Pitaevskii equation is $i\hslash {\psi }_t=\delta H/\delta {\psi }^{\ast }$. Treating $\psi$ and ${\psi }^{\ast }$ as independent variables in this variation gives the factor $g$, not $2g$.

For repulsive interactions $g>0$ and $\mu >0$, complete the square in the local energy:The gradient contribution is nonnegative, so the homogeneous ground state has arbitrary constant complex argument andThe infinite-volume constant may be subtracted to define a relative grand potential; it does not affect the functional derivative. At fixed particle number one instead minimizes the physical energy $H+\mu N$, with $\mu$ as its Lagrange multiplier. For $g>0$, $\mu \le 0$ the grand-potential minimum over $n\ge 0$ is the vacuum $n=0$. For $g<0$ the displayed unconstrained functional is unbounded below; the positive-density stable uniform state assumed in the following parts requires repulsion.

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 $|\tilde{\psi }{|}^2=n/n_0$.

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.

Suppress tildes in the normalized equation and let $X=x-vt$. A Gross–Pitaevskii solitary wave stationary in these translating coordinates obeysThe boundary fixes the bulk complex argument and describes a localized disturbance with zero net vortex winding number; a vortex pair is possible. No extra plane-wave factor is needed when only the coordinates are changed. A full Galilean transformation of the field would additionally change the bulk flow and its complex argument convention.

Subtract the uniform background from the grand potential. A convenient dimensionless energy and the renormalized momentum of a condensate areThe subtraction in $\mathbf{p}$ removes the troublesome background complex argument gradient. In particular, for the usual subsonic localized far field $\psi -1=O(r^{-1})$, $\nabla \psi =O(r^{-2})$, and $1-|\psi {|}^2=O(r^{-2})$, the energy density is $O(r^{-4})$ and the momentum integrand is $O(r^{-3})$, both integrable in two dimensions. Merely writing $\psi \to 1$ without sufficient decay is not by itself a convergence proof. The common solitary-wave branch is subsonic: linearizing this normalization gives ${\omega }^2=k^2/2+k^4/4$ and speed of sound $1/\sqrt{2}$.

Integration by parts, with decaying variations and their boundary terms vanishing, givesThus the translating equation is precisely $\delta (E-v{p}_x)=0$. Along a differentiable family ${\psi }_{\lambda }$ with fixed bulk normalization, evaluate this stationarity on ${\partial }_{\lambda }\psi$ to obtainwhere $d{p}_x/d\lambda \ne 0$. This energy–momentum slope of a solitary wave does not require differentiating the Lagrange multiplier $v$ inside the field variation. At a turning point the parametrized identity remains true, while $E$ need not be a single-valued function of $p_x$ locally. The chosen factors make $i{\psi }_t=\delta E/\delta {\psi }^{\ast }$, consistent with the normalized equation; changing the normalization of $E$ alone would change the claimed slope.

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 $N=\pi H_0{n}_0{R}_r^2/2$.

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.

The axial angular momentum per unit volume is $mn(r)r{u}_{\theta }(r)=\hslash n(r)$ for a singly quantized positive quantum vortex. Thus every particle in the prescribed shell contributes $\hslash$:This yieldsThis is $\hslash$ times the shell particle number. For a wall-truncated cloud with $R=R_0<R_r$, the corresponding result is $L_z=\pi H_0\hslash n_0[R^2-a_0^2-(R^4-a_0^4)/(2R_r^2)]$. Reversing the quantized circulation reverses $L_z$ without changing the flow kinetic energy. For winding number $q$, $L_z$ is multiplied by $q$.

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.

Let $n=|\Psi {|}^2$. Two independent approximations are required for the reservoir reduction of a polariton condensate. First the exciton reservoir must follow the changing condensate number density rapidly: after its initial transient, its relaxation time $[{\gamma }_R+R_{R}n{]}^{-1}$ must be small compared with the local density-evolution time. A sufficient modewise condition is that the relevant number density frequencies and growth rates are much smaller than ${\gamma }_R+R_{R}n$; pump variations must be comparably slow. There is no reservoir diffusion in the given model. Adiabatic elimination then givesSecond, to obtain the particular cubic equation by expansion about the empty condensate, require $\epsilon =R_{R}n/{\gamma }_R\ll 1$. ThenKeeping the full denominator instead gives a saturable-gain equation, not exactly the requested cubic complex Ginzburg–Landau equation. A near-threshold condensate is one natural regime in which the second condition holds. Rapid reservoir relaxation alone does not justify this number density expansion.

Multiplying the condensate equation by $-i$ and inserting the expanded reservoir separates real gain from the conservative frequency shift:These are local functions if the pump is spatially varying. Their signs are important: the reservoir blueshift gives negative $s$ in the printed convention $+is\Psi$, while reservoir depletion subtracts from the effective interaction $g$. Positive rates and pump give $\beta >0$; the effective $g$ need not be positive merely because the original interactions are repulsive.

For a spatially uniform pump and $\beta >0$, a nonzero homogeneous solution has constant number density determined by gain saturation. Its complex argument rotates uniformly:This uniform pumped polariton condensate requires $\alpha >0$, equivalentlyIn the cubic approximation its number density isIt is not the exact number density of the original two-field equations, which would be $(P-P_{\mathrm{th}})/{\gamma }_C$: the two coincide to first order in distance above threshold. At or below threshold there is no positive nonzero branch of this form; the vacuum remains a solution. This algebra establishes existence, not stability for every possible sign of $g$.

Choose ${\theta }_0=0$ and seek a time-independent normalized profile throughUsing $\beta n_{\infty }=\alpha$ and $\mu +s=g{n}_{\infty }$, its equation becomesDivision by $i$ therefore yieldsFor a localized zero-winding disturbance the bulk condition is $\psi \to 1$. Here $\xi$ is a complex coefficient with inverse-length-squared dimensions in the scaled equation, not the real wall-healing length denoted by the same letter in Question 1. The constant far-field phase excludes net vortex winding lemma explains why the next part requires interpreting the vortex boundary differently.

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.

Regularity of a unit-charge core gives $f(r)=ar+O(r^3)$ with $a>0$. Integrating the current equation from the origin, with no point source or singular radial flux, givesThe integral is $a^2{r}^4/4+O(r^6)$, so the radial flow near a driven vortex core isFor the phase-gradient convention, $k^{\prime }(0)=-{\xi }_I/4=\alpha /4$. Gain exceeds loss in the depleted core, hence this regular flow is outwards for $\alpha >0$. The real wave amplitude equation also gives $f=ar-{\xi }_{R}a{r}^3/8+O(r^5)$, independently consistent with the linear core behaviour. A nonzero integration constant in the radial-current identity would create a singular $u_r\sim r^{-3}$ and is excluded.

Finally, the literal boundary $\psi \to 1$ from the preceding part cannot apply to a multiplicity-one vortex: its complex argument changes by $2\pi$ around a large circle. Even $f(r)e^{i\theta }$ with $f\to 1$ has different limits along different rays. The usual intended vortex condition concerns the wave amplitude approaching its bulk value, with the winding complex argument retained; it is not a constant complex-field limit. The local equations and core slope derived here do not establish a global stationary vortex satisfying that literal boundary. In a driven system the far-field radial flow and oscillation frequency may also require selection, so no global zero-flow vortex is asserted.