The standard theoretical basis for understanding superfluidity in Bose systems was formulated by Beliaev in 1957, based on splitting the quantum field operator into a macroscopically occupied condensate component and a non-condensate component. This leads to a description of the condensate in terms of a 'single-particle state', the so-called macroscopic wavefunction. Since the discovery of Bose-condensed gases, an alternative theoretical picture has been developed which is based on a 'coherent band' of classically occupied states. This is often called the classical or c-field approach. The goal of this chapter is to review the differences between the Beliaev broken symmetry and c-field approach, and to argue that the c-field concept of a coherent condensate band of states has problems as a description of Bose superfluidity. However, the c-field idea of treating the lowest energy excitations classically can be used to advantage to simplify calculations within the Beliaev broken-symmetry formalism.
The standard theoretical basis for understanding superfluidity in Bose systems was formulated by Beliaev in 1957, based on splitting the quantum field operator into a macroscopically occupied condensate component and a non-condensate component. This leads to a description of the condensate in terms of a 'single-particle state', the so-called macroscopic wavefunction. Since the discovery of Bose-condensed gases, an alternative theoretical picture has been developed which is based on a 'coherent band' of classically occupied states. This is often called the classical or c-field approach. The goal of this chapter is to review the differences between the Beliaev broken symmetry and c-field approach, and to argue that the c-field concept of a coherent condensate band of states has problems as a description of Bose superfluidity. However, the c-field idea of treating the lowest energy excitations classically can be used to advantage to simplify calculations within the Beliaev broken-symmetry formalism.
We review how our current ideas about BEC developed in the early period 1925-1965, which had the specific goal of understanding superfluid 4He. This history is presented by commenting on the key contributions made by Einstein, Fritz London, Tisza, Landau, Bogoliubov, Oliver Penrose and Feynman. We emphasize the emergence of the concept of a macroscopic wavefunction describing the condensate. Starting with the fundamental work of Beliaev in 1957, the period 1957-1965 was a golden era for theoretical studies of interacting Bose-condensed gases. This work provided a sound conceptual basis for understanding the properties of trapped atomic gases which were discovered thirty years later.
We present our views on the issues raised in the previous chapter by Griffin and Zaremba. We review some of the strengths and limitations of the Bose symmetry-breaking assumption, and explain how such an approach precludes the description of many important phenomena in degenerate Bose gases. We discuss the theoretical justification for the classical-field (c-field) methods, their relation to other non-perturbative methods for similar systems, and their utility in the description of beyond-mean-field physics. Although it is true that present implementations of c-field methods cannot accurately describe certain collective oscillations of the partially condensed Bose gas, there is no fundamental reason why these methods cannot be extended to treat such scenarios. By contrast, many regimes of non-equilibrium dynamics that can be described with c-field methods are beyond the reach of generalised mean-field kinetic approaches based on symmetry breaking, such as the ZNG formalism.
Single-particle Green's functions, density response functions and other correlation functions are calculated in many different ways in the literature on Bose-condensed gases. An in-depth comparison and classification of different approaches was first given in the classic paper by Hohenberg and Martin (1965), with an emphasis on the various exact identities (conservation laws) that are satisfied. A key feature to be included in any theory is that a Bose broken symmetry leads to a hybridization of the single-particle excitations and the collective density fluctuations in such a way that the two excitation spectra become identical. This key feature is demonstrated in Chapter 5 of Griffin (1993). How to relate and assess various approximations for correlation functions in a Bose superfluid has been a topic of continual interest (and some controversy) since the late 1950s. These questions were largely resolved by the early 1960s at a conceptual level but the detailed applications of the theory were limited to dilute Bose-condensed gases at T = 0. Since it was difficult to relate the theory to the properties of superfluid. He at a quantitative level, this formalism based on a Bose broken symmetry was of little interest to experimentalists. The creation of superfluid Bose condensed gases in 1995 changed all this and has given new life to the many body theory of dilute weakly interacting Bose condensed gases. Various approximations for the Beliaev single-particle self-energies Σ αβ were derived in Sections 4.3 and 4.4. The discussion in Chapter 4 was somewhat abstract.
We review how our current ideas about BEC developed in the early period 1925-1965, which had the specific goal of understanding superfluid 4He. This history is presented by commenting on the key contributions made by Einstein, Fritz London, Tisza, Landau, Bogoliubov, Oliver Penrose and Feynman. We emphasize the emergence of the concept of a macroscopic wavefunction describing the condensate. Starting with the fundamental work of Beliaev in 1957, the period 1957-1965 was a golden era for theoretical studies of interacting Bose-condensed gases. This work provided a sound conceptual basis for understanding the properties of trapped atomic gases which were discovered thirty years later.
Trapped Bose-condensed atomic gases are remarkable because, in spite of the fact that these are very dilute systems, they exhibit robust coherent dynamic behaviour when perturbed. These quantum “wisps of matter” are a new phase of highly coherent matter. While binary collisions are very infrequent, the large coherent mean field associated with the Bose condensate ensures that interactions play a crucial role in determining the collective response of these trapped superfluid gases. In our discussion of the theory of collective oscillations of atomic condensates, the macroscopic Bose wavefunction Φ( r , t ) plays a central role. This wavefunction is the BEC order parameter. As discussed in Chapter 1, the initial attempts at defining this order parameter began with the pioneering work of London (1938a), were further developed by Bogoliubov (1947) and finally extended to deal with any Bose superfluid using the general quantum field theoretic formalism developed by Beliaev (1958a). Almost all this early theoretical work was limited to T = 0 where, in a dilute weakly interacting Bose gas, all the atoms are in the condensate. The first extension of these ideas to nonuniform Bose condensates was by Pitaevskii (1961) and, independently, by Gross (1961), which led to the now famous Gross–Pitaevskii (GP) equation of motion for Φ( r , t ). Before the discovery of BEC in trapped gases, the time-dependent GP equation was mainly used to study vortices in Bose superfluids, which involve a spatially nonuniform ground state. Apart from this application, the GP equation was largely unknown. The situation changed overnight in 1995 with the creation of trapped nonuniform Bose condensates in atomic gases.
A theory of superfluidity (S.F.) is developed from first principles using two novel concepts, (1) that of a 'superfluid Ensemble' (S.E.) i.e. a 'Restricted Ensemble' constructed from a 'Separable Phase Space' (S.P.S.) admitting independent configurations, at least one set of which are statistically equivalent. (2) The notion of 'Dynamical Equivalence' (D.E.), satisfied if and only if (i) all dynamical symmetries are rearranged (not broken) for two Lagrangian formulations of the same problem and if (ii) the expectation values of all the constants of motion are the same, even if their functional expressions are not. The dynamical variables (d.v.) of the S.P.S. are defined from the ('q' and 'c' number) fields of the most general 'Linear Coherent State Representation', more general than those of Glauber and Bogoljubov-Valatin combined. Three independent pairs of d.v. are obtained. D.E. is proven for the Ideal Bose Gas and for a non-linear, interacting zero order Bose problem (I.Z.O.P.). An exact relation is obtained from the action principle, ensuring the cancellation of 'low and high order dangerous diagrams'. From this it follows that D.E. for the exact interacting problem must be demonstrable at infinite order of perturbation, in the finite volume limit. The I.Z.O.P. is posed in the Random Phase Approximation (R.P.A.), free from 'anomalous averages' and solved for the three branches of the excitation spectrum in a pure state description; the lowest branch is gapless, whilst the upper two coincide and show a gap. The standard strategy of linearization is found to be faulty. The partition functions for both superfluid and non-superfluid ensembles are obtained for the I.Z.O.P. in the R.P.A. The coincident upper two branches (in a pure state description) split into a band in thermal equilibrium for the superfluid ensemble, in agreement with an upper band recently observed experimentally. O.D.L.R.O. is found in the second reduced density matrix, but ruled out in the first. Integral equations are obtained in thermal equilibrium - for the I.Z.O.P. in the R.P.A.; which differ, however, from those of existing approaches for the same problem. Most existing theories of S.F. are in fact shown not to predict superfluid behaviour. The present theory is applicable to arbitrary Bose or Fermi systems, whether superfluid or not. O.D.L.R.O. is found to be sufficient for SF. No a priori assumption is made as to the occurrence of Bose-Einstein condensation, its existence being here contingent on the solution of the integral equation; in any case, it is not to be associated with O.D.L.R.O. or S.F.