Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, we review the famous Landau theory of superfluidity at finite temperatures. This theory is based on coupled hydrodynamic equations for the superfluid and normal fluid components. Landau's two-fluid description is only valid when collisions among the thermal excitations making up the normal fluid are strong enough to produce local hydrodynamic equilibrium. These two-fluid equations were originally developed for liquid. He but are thought to be generic in form, describing the collision-dominated hydrodynamic region of all Bose superfluids. In this chapter, we will consider the solutions of the two-fluid equations mainly for a uniform superfluid. We discuss the existence of second sound (involving the out-of-phase motion of the superfluid and normal fluid components) as a characteristic feature of a Bose superfluid at finite temperatures. This chapter gives background material needed for Chapters 15–19. In Chapter 15, we will show that, in the appropriate limit, the Landau two-fluid equations can be derived from the ZNG coupled equations given in Chapter 3 for a trapped dilute Bose-condensed gas. In Chapters 17–19, we extend this discussion and derive the Landau–Khalatnikov two-fluid equations, which include hydrodynamic damping associated with various transport coefficients. Useful reviews of the two-fluid equations in the context of dilute spatially uniform Bose-condensed gases are given by Pethick and Smith (2008, Chapter 10) and Pitaevskii and Stringari (2003, Chapter 6). History of two-fluid equations The original discovery of superfluidity in liquid He was dramatically announced with the publication of the famous back-to-back papers of Kapitza (1938) in Moscow and Allen and Misener (1938) in Cambridge. These and subsequent experiments in the next few years showed that superfluid He could exhibit very bizarre hydrodynamic behaviour compared to classical liquids.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".