MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036556681 · doi:10.1103/physreva.87.013630

Observable vortex properties in finite-temperature Bose gases

2013· article· en· W2036556681 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Joy Allen, E. Zaremba, Carlo F. Barenghi, N. P. Proukakis

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein Condensates
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsVortexBose–Einstein condensateDissipative systemThermalObservablePrecessionCondensed matter physicsQuantum mechanicsMechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the dynamics of vortices in finite temperature atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, focusing on decay rates, precession frequencies, and core brightness, motivated by a recent experiment [Science 329, 1182 (2010)] in which real-time dynamics of a single vortex was observed. Using the Zaremba, Nikuni, and Griffin (ZNG) formalism based on a dissipative Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the condensate coupled to a semiclassical Boltzmann equation for the thermal cloud, we find a rapid nonlinear increase of both the decay rate and precession frequency with increasing temperatures. The increase, which is dominated by the dynamical condensate-thermal coupling is also dependent on the intrinsic thermal cloud collisional dynamics; the precession frequency also varies with the initial radial coordinate. The integrated thermal cloud density in the vortex core is for the most part independent of the position of the vortex (except when it is near the condensate edge), with its value increasing with temperature. This could potentially be used as a variant to the method of Coddington et al. [Phys. Rev. A 70, 063607 (2004)] for experimentally determining the temperature.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein CondensatesFrench-language works237,207