On the hydrodynamic canonical formalism of the Gross-Pitaevskii field

Patrik \"Ohberg; Yvan Buggy

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 43 references

On the hydrodynamic canonical formalism of the Gross-Pitaevskii field

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In the Gross-Pitaevskii field, density $\rho$ and phase $\theta$ form a single canonical pair of conjugate variables, so condensate hydrodynamics is Hamilton's mechanics on $(\rho,\theta)$.

desk verdict A correct but largely non-novel derivation of the (rho, theta) canonical structure for GP hydrodynamics, with an unstated vortex-free assumption that should be fixed but does not sink the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07090 v2 pith:CQLVUWRG submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.quant-gas

Yvan Buggy , Patrik Öhberg This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gas MSC 70H4535Q5576Y05

keywords Gross-Pitaevskiiequationhydrodynamicrepresentationdensity-phasecanonicalpairsingularLagrangiansystemDirac-BergmannmethodFaddeev-JackiwpolardecompositionBose-Einsteincondensate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to establish that the hydrodynamic variables of a Bose-Einstein condensate—the density $\rho$ and the phase $\theta$ of the Gross-Pitaevskii wavefunction—are a true canonical pair, not merely convenient fluid variables. Treating the meanfield Lagrangian in polar form as a singular first-order system, the authors apply the Dirac-Bergmann and Faddeev-Jackiw reduction methods and find that the reduced phase space contains only $(\rho,\theta)$, with equations of motion $\dot\rho = \delta H/\delta\theta$ and $\dot\theta = -\delta H/\delta\rho$ and the Poisson bracket (23). A sympathetic reader should care because this turns a frequently postulated identity into a derivation from the Lagrangian, giving a foundation for Hamiltonian and quantum treatments of condensate hydrodynamics.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the polar decomposition $\psi = \sqrt{\rho}\, e^{i\theta/\hbar}$ together with the observation that the resulting Lagrangian density (17) is first order in time derivatives and therefore singular. That singularity makes the momenta functions of the fields ($\pi_\rho = \theta/2$, $\pi_\theta = -\rho/2$), so the full phase space contains two redundant directions; the reduction is carried out by the constraint matrix $Q = \left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\-1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}')$ and a canonical transformation that sends one conjugate pair into the constraints. In the Faddeev-Jackiw route the same work is done by retaining only the antisymmetric part $\omega_A = \left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&-1\\1&0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ of the coefficient matrix and inverting it, which turns functional derivatives of $H$ into the equations of motion. The symplectic two-form on $(\rho,\theta)$ defined by the bracket (23) is what both methods ultimately produce.

What would settle it

Take a condensate containing a quantized vortex, for instance $\psi = f(r)e^{i\varphi}$ in cylindrical coordinates, and check whether the canonical equations (21)--(22) reproduce the Gross-Pitaevskii equation: on the line where $\rho = 0$ the functional derivatives $\delta H/\delta\theta$ and $\delta H/\delta\rho$ become singular and $\theta$ is multivalued, so the equations are ill-defined unless the core is removed or extra variables are introduced. Computing the bracket (23) on such a state, or on a regularized domain with an excluded core and then taking the core radius to zero, would settle whether the claimed reduced phase space covers all Gross-Pitaevskii configurations or only the vortex-free sector.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the reduced phase space of the Gross-Pitaevskii field is exactly the single conjugate pair $(\rho,\theta)$, with the canonical field equations (21)--(22) and the Poisson bracket (23). The argument starts from the polar decomposition $\psi = \sqrt{\rho}\, e^{i\theta/\hbar}$, which casts the Lagrangian density (17) in first-order form; because the Lagrangian is linear in time derivatives, the canonical momenta $\pi_\rho = \theta/2$ and $\pi_\theta = -\rho/2$ are dependent variables, so the system is singular. The Dirac-Bergmann algorithm produces two primary constraints, $C_1 = \pi_\theta + \rho/2 = 0$ and $C_2 = \pi_\rho - \theta/2 = 0$, whose Dirac bracket, after the canonical transformation (54), reduces exactly to the bracket (23) on $(\rho,\theta)$. The Faddeev-Jackiw treatment reaches the same equations by reading off and inverting the antisymmetric coefficient matrix $\omega$ of the first-order Lagrangian. The paper's conclusion is that the hydrodynamic representation of the condensate is a genuine canonical formalism, equivalent to the original Gross-Pitaevskii description for the configurations the polar form covers.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the wavefunction can be written everywhere as $\psi = \sqrt{\rho}\, e^{i\theta/\hbar}$ with positive $\rho$ and a single-valued phase $\theta$; at a wavefunction zero, such as a vortex core, $\theta$ is singular or multivalued and the canonical pair is not defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The superfluid continuity equation and the quantum Bernoulli equation emerge as Hamilton's equations for the Hamiltonian (63), so vortex-free Gross-Pitaevskii hydrodynamics needs no separate variational principle.
The Dirac-Bergmann and Faddeev-Jackiw methods agree on the same reduced bracket, confirming that the two constraints are pure redundancy rather than physical degrees of freedom.
The canonical pair $(\rho,\theta)$ gives a direct route to a Hamiltonian description of density and phase fluctuations in a condensate, with the bracket (23) as the underlying symplectic structure.
A direct corollary is that quantization would promote the bracket (23) to canonical commutation relations, although the paper does not carry out that step itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The polar decomposition requires $\rho > 0$ and a single-valued $\theta$, so the reduced phase space as stated covers only vortex-free configurations; extending to quantized vortices would require excising the cores or adding extra degrees of freedom that track phase singularities.
A testable extension is to apply the same reduction to multi-component or spinor condensates, where more than one density-phase pair should appear and the constraint structure will be richer.
If density and phase are truly conjugate, then a number-phase uncertainty relation for condensate atoms would be a direct consequence of this bracket; the paper does not draw that quantum-statistical conclusion.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: the constrained-dynamics derivation is correct and clean, the algebra holds up, and the paper is honest about the fact that prior work already established the conjugacy of rho and theta. Its real contribution is a self-contained, pedagogically useful derivation via both Dirac-Bergmann and Faddeev-Jackiw. The main flaw is an unstated domain restriction: the Madelung substitution requires psi to be nonzero with a single-valued phase, so the claimed reduced phase space covers only vortex-free configurations. That is a fixable caveat, not a fatal error.

What is genuinely good: the Dirac-Bergmann computation is internally consistent. The constraints (26), the constraint matrix (41) with inverse (42), the Dirac bracket (45), and the reduction to the reduced Poisson bracket (23) all check out. The Faddeev-Jackiw matrix (72) and its antisymmetric inverse correctly reproduce the canonical equations of motion. The paper is also honest about the prior literature—it explicitly cites the symmetry-based derivations [11-13], the canonical-transformation routes [20,37], and Gergely's application of both algorithms to the Schrodinger field [39]. There is no circularity and no fitted parameter.

The soft spots are two. First, novelty is modest. The paper itself concedes that the conjugate nature of rho and theta is known from at least three different approaches; what is new is applying the two constrained-dynamics algorithms directly to the GP Lagrangian in polar variables and showing the Faddeev-Jackiw route is more direct. That is a contribution to clarity, not to substance. Second, and more substantively, the paper overstates the domain of validity. Equations (18)-(19) are not entirely equivalent to the GP equation (8) on the full manifold; the polar decomposition breaks down at wavefunction zeros, where the phase is singular and the quantum pressure term in (63) is singular. The claim that the reduced phase space comprises the single pair (rho, theta) is true only on the vortex-free, nonzero-density sector. The paper should say so in a sentence or two.

Who is it for? Graduate students and researchers who want a careful, explicit derivation of the hydrodynamic canonical structure, or anyone teaching constrained dynamics with a concrete example. It does not produce new physics or predictions, and it is unlikely to change the direction of anyone's research.

My recommendation: it deserves a serious referee. The derivation is correct, the citation practice is honest, and the missing caveat is the kind of thing a referee would request. I would send it to review with the expectation of a minor revision—add a paragraph on the domain of validity, and perhaps temper the entirely equivalent claim. Not a desk reject.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a canonical Hamiltonian structure for the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) field in hydrodynamic variables. After writing ψ = √ρ e^{iθ/ℏ}, the authors treat the mean-field Lagrangian as a singular system and apply the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm, obtaining primary constraints (26), the constraint matrix (41), the Dirac bracket (45), and a canonical transformation (54) that reduces the phase space to the single conjugate pair (ρ, θ). The resulting Poisson bracket (23), Hamiltonian (63), and canonical equations (61)-(62) are also reproduced with the Faddeev-Jackiw method. The central claim is that density and phase form a canonical pair of conjugate field variables for the GP field.

Significance. The paper succeeds in giving a self-contained, internally consistent derivation of the hydrodynamic canonical formalism. The computation contains no free parameters or externally imposed canonical structure; the Dirac-Bergmann and Faddeev-Jackiw routes agree, which is a useful cross-check. If the domain restriction discussed below is added, the result provides a rigorous basis for the commonly postulated (ρ, θ) Poisson bracket and makes the methodological comparison between the two constrained-dynamics algorithms explicit. The limitation is that the polar decomposition assumes a smooth, everywhere-nonzero wavefunction, so the global claim is too strong.

major comments (1)

[Sec. IV.A (Eqs. 13, 18-19) and Sec. IV.B (Eqs. 60-63)] The polar decomposition (13), ψ=√ρ e^{iθ/ℏ}, is used without explicitly stating its domain of validity. The subsequent claims that Eqs. (18)-(19) are 'entirely equivalent' to the GP equation (8) and that the reduced phase space 'comprises the single pair of conjugate variables (ρ,θ)' hold only on regions where ρ>0 and θ is a single-valued function. For a GP field with vortices, ρ vanishes at the cores and the phase is multivalued; in that case the quantum-pressure term ℏ²(∇ρ)²/(8mρ) in Eq. (63) is singular and the Hamiltonian density is not defined. Since vortex configurations are a standard part of the GP field's solution space, the abstract and conclusions should be restricted to the vortex-free, nonzero-density sector, or the formalism should be extended to treat vortex lines explicitly.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. IV.B.1, Eqs. (45)-(59)] The shorthand notation for the partial Poisson brackets {f,g}_{A,B} is not fully defined for the mixed pairs (ρ,θ) and (π_ρ,π_θ); a single defining equation, e.g., {f,g}_{A,B} = ∫ (δf/δA δg/δB - δf/δB δg/δA) d³r, would prevent confusion.
[Sec. IV.B.2, Eqs. (70)-(73)] In the Faddeev-Jackiw treatment, the matrix ω in Eq. (72) is not antisymmetric; the statement that the symmetric part is a total time derivative and may be discarded is correct, and it would be helpful to state explicitly that this discarding is exactly equivalent to the boundary-term addition in Eq. (24).
[Sec. V] The concluding sentence that the Faddeev-Jackiw method involves 'no constraints' could be misread as contradicting the Dirac-Bergmann section; since the constraints in the latter arise from the chosen enlargement of phase space, a one-sentence clarification would improve the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the canonical pair (ρ,θ) is derived from the GP Lagrangian by standard constrained-dynamics reduction, not assumed as input.

full rationale

The paper starts from the mean-field GP Lagrangian (6), performs the polar/Madelung substitution (13) to obtain the hydrodynamic Lagrangian (17), and then applies the Dirac-Bergmann and Faddeev-Jackiw algorithms. The conjugate pair (ρ,θ) and Poisson bracket (23) are outputs of those algorithms, not inputs: the Faddeev-Jackiw matrix ω in Eqs. (70)–(73) is read off from the coefficient of −ρθ̇ in (17), and the Dirac constraints (26) follow from the Legendre map of (24). No parameter is fitted to the target result, no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own prior work, and the cited Maskawa–Nakajima and Faddeev–Jackiw theorems are standard external results. The only caveat is that the polar substitution (13) requires ρ>0 and a single-valued θ, so the claimed equivalence of (18)–(19) with the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (8) holds on vortex-free regions; this is a domain-of-validity concern, not a circularity. Within that domain the derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its own conclusion by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the only inputs are the physical constants, potential, and interaction strength of the GP model. No new entities are postulated. The axioms are the standard meanfield Lagrangian starting point, the regularity of the Madelung variables, and the standard constrained-dynamics framework.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The meanfield Lagrangian (4)-(6) is the correct classical action for the GP condensate.
The entire derivation starts from this Lagrangian; it encodes the meanfield approximation and contact interaction with strength g.
domain assumption The polar decomposition (13), psi = sqrt(rho) exp(i theta / hbar), is valid with rho > 0 and a single-valued phase theta.
This transformation defines the hydrodynamic variables and is used as the starting point for all subsequent derivations. It fails at wavefunction zeros, such as vortex cores, which the paper does not discuss.
standard math The Dirac-Bergmann and Faddeev-Jackiw methods for singular Lagrangian systems are applicable to classical field theories with first-order Lagrangians.
The paper assumes the standard framework of constrained Hamiltonian dynamics, citing refs [21-33].
standard math The Maskawa-Nakajima theorem guarantees that a canonical transformation of the form (54) exists for second-class constraints.
Invoked in Section IV.B.1 to justify the existence of the transformation (54). Accepted as a theorem without proof.
domain assumption The external potential V and interaction strength g are given and time-independent.
The GP Hamiltonian (8) and the hydrodynamic equations assume these are fixed inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the hydrodynamic canonical formalism of the Gross-Pitaevskii field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQLVUWRG

@misc{pith2026190807090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the hydrodynamic canonical formalism of the Gross-Pitaevskii field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQLVUWRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07090}
}

read the original abstract

We derive a canonical formalism for the hydrodynamic representation of the Gross-Pitaevskii field (nonlinear Schr\"odinger field), where the density and the phase of the condensate form a canonical pair of conjugate field variables. To do so, we treat the meanfield as a singular Lagrangian system and apply both the Dirac-Bergmann and Faddeev-Jackiw methods. The Faddeev-Jackiw method is found to be a more direct approach to the problem.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[39]

Hamiltonian formulation of time-dependent variational principles for the many-body system

AK Kerman and SE Koonin. Hamiltonian formulation of time-dependent variational principles for the many-body system. Annals of Physics , 100(1-2):332–358, 1976

work page 1976
[1]

The Dirac-Bergmann algorithm As a starting point to applying the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm, let us transform the Lagrangian density (17), according to L → L + ∂ ∂t ( ρθ 2 ) (24) = 1 2 ( θ ˙ρ −ρ ˙θ ) −ρ ( (∇θ)2 2m + g 2ρ +V ) − ℏ2 8mρ (∇ρ)2. This will allow for the possibility of readily identifying a canonical transformation (54), which separates out the p...

work page
[2]

Quantization without tears

The Faddeev-Jackiw method When the Lagrangian is at most ﬁrst order in the time derivatives of the ﬁelds, the Faddeev-Jackiw method pro- vides a more direct approach to the Dirac-Bergmann al- gorithm. In fact, the method was designed speciﬁcally for such Lagrangians. Here we follow closely Jackiw’s paper “Quantization without tears” [34], which we tai- lo...

work page
[3]

Observation of Bose- Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor

Mike H Anderson, Jason R Ensher, Michael R Matthews, Carl E Wieman, and Eric A Cornell. Observation of Bose- Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor. science, 269(5221):198–201, 1995

work page 1995
[4]

Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms

Kendall B Davis, M-O Mewes, Michael R Andrews, NJ Van Druten, DS Durfee, DM Kurn, and Wolfgang Ketterle. Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms. Physical Review Letters , 75(22):3969, 1995

work page 1995
[5]

Evidence of Bose-Einstein condensation in an atomic gas with attractive interactions

Cl C Bradley, CA Sackett, JJ Tollett, and Randall G Hulet. Evidence of Bose-Einstein condensation in an atomic gas with attractive interactions. Physical Review Letters, 75(9):1687, 1995

work page 1995
[6]

Bose-Einstein con- densation and superﬂuidity , volume 164

Lev Pitaevskii and Sandro Stringari. Bose-Einstein con- densation and superﬂuidity , volume 164. Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2016

work page 2016
[7]

Quantum theory in hydrodynamic form

E Madelung. Quantum theory in hydrodynamic form. Z. Phys., 40:322–326, 1926

work page 1926

Show all 43 references

[8]

Superﬂuids

Fritz London. Superﬂuids. Wiley, 1954

1954
[9]

Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases

Christopher J Pethick and Henrik Smith. Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases . Cambridge university press, 2002

2002
[10]

Hamiltonian formalism for waves in non- linear media with dispersion

VE Zakharov. Hamiltonian formalism for waves in non- linear media with dispersion. Nauchnaia Shkola po Ne- lineinym Kolebaniiam i Volnam v Raspredelennykh Sis- temakh, 2 nd, Gorki, USSR, Mar. 1973.) Radioﬁzika , 17(4):431–453, 1974

1973
[11]

Hamiltonian formalism for nonlinear waves

V Zakharov and EA Kuznetsov. Hamiltonian formalism for nonlinear waves. Physics-Uspekhi, 40(11):1087–1116, 1997

1997
[12]

E x- ample of a quantum anomaly in the physics of ultracold gases

Maxim Olshanii, H´ el` ene Perrin, and Vincent Lorent. E x- ample of a quantum anomaly in the physics of ultracold gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 105:095302, Aug 2010

2010
[13]

Hamiltonian formal- ism in classical and two-ﬂuid

VL Pokrovskii and M Khalatnikov. Hamiltonian formal- ism in classical and two-ﬂuid. JETP Lett, 23(11), 1976

1976
[14]

Canonical equations of hydrodynamics of quantum liquids

IM Khalatnikov and VV Lebedev. Canonical equations of hydrodynamics of quantum liquids. Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 32(5-6):789–801, 1978

1978
[15]

Hydrodynamics of classical and quan- tum liquid with free surface

IM Khalatnikov. Hydrodynamics of classical and quan- tum liquid with free surface. Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 82(1-2):93–101, 1991

1991
[16]

Wave mechanics: advanced general theory

Yakovic Ilich Frenkel. Wave mechanics: advanced general theory
[17]

The principles of quantum mechanics

Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac. The principles of quantum mechanics. Number 27. Oxford university press, 1981

1981
[18]

Quantum Mechanics 3rd

Leonard I Schiﬀ. Quantum Mechanics 3rd . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968

1968
[19]

Progress in classical and quantum variational principles

CG Gray, G Karl, and V A Novikov. Progress in classical and quantum variational principles. Reports on Progress in Physics , 67(2):159, 2004

2004
[20]

Time- dependent theoretical treatments of the dynamics of elec- trons and nuclei in molecular systems

E Deumens, A Diz, R Longo, and Y ¨Ohrn. Time- dependent theoretical treatments of the dynamics of elec- trons and nuclei in molecular systems. Reviews of Modern Physics, 66(3):917, 1994

1994
[21]

Analytical and canonical formalism in physics

Andr´ e Mercier. Analytical and canonical formalism in physics. Courier Corporation, 2004

2004
[22]

Atom-photon inter- actions: basic processes and applications

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Jacques Dupont-Roc, Gilbert Grynberg, and Patricia Thickstun. Atom-photon inter- actions: basic processes and applications . Wiley Online Library, 1992

1992
[23]

Quantization of gauge systems

Marc Henneaux and Claudio Teitelboim. Quantization of gauge systems . Princeton university press, 1992

1992
[24]

Constrained dynamics with applica- tions to Yang-Mills theory, general relativity, classical spin, dual string model

Kurt Sundermeyer. Constrained dynamics with applica- tions to Yang-Mills theory, general relativity, classical spin, dual string model . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982

1982
[25]

Symplectic quantiza- tion of constrained systems

J Barcelos-Neto and C Wotzasek. Symplectic quantiza- tion of constrained systems. Modern Physics Letters A , 7(19):1737–1747, 1992

1992
[26]

Generalized hamiltonian dynamics

Paul AM Dirac. Generalized hamiltonian dynamics. Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 246(1246):326– 332, 1958

1958
[27]

Lectures on quantum me- chanics, volume 2

Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac. Lectures on quantum me- chanics, volume 2. Courier Corporation, 2001

2001
[28]

Lectures on quantum ﬁeld theory

Ashok Das. Lectures on quantum ﬁeld theory . World Scientiﬁc, 2008

2008
[29]

Quantization of ﬁelds with constraints

Dmitri Gitman and Igor V Tyutin. Quantization of ﬁelds with constraints . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[30]

Classical and quantum dynamics of constrained Hamiltonian systems , volume 81

Heinz J Rothe and Klaus Dieter Rothe. Classical and quantum dynamics of constrained Hamiltonian systems , volume 81. World Scientiﬁc, 2010

2010
[31]

Canonical quantization for constraine d systems

Andr´ e Burnel. Canonical quantization for constraine d systems. In Noncovariant Gauges in Canonical Formal- ism, pages 1–23. Springer, 2009

2009
[32]

Symmetries and symmetry breaking in ﬁeld theory

Parthasarathi Mitra. Symmetries and symmetry breaking in ﬁeld theory . CRC Press, 2014

2014
[33]

Singular La- grangian and the Dirac-Faddeev method: Existence the- orem of constraints in ’standard form’

Toshihide Maskawa and Hideo Nakajima. Singular La- grangian and the Dirac-Faddeev method: Existence the- orem of constraints in ’standard form’. Progress of The- oretical Physics, 56(4):1295–1309, 1976

1976
[34]

The quantum theory of ﬁelds

Steven Weinberg. The quantum theory of ﬁelds. Vol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge University Press, 1995

1995
[35]

Hamiltonian reduction of un- constrained and constrained systems

L Faddeev and R Jackiw. Hamiltonian reduction of un- constrained and constrained systems. Physical Review Letters, 60(17):1692, 1988

1988
[36]

Quantization without tears, in constraint th e- ory and quantization methods, 1994

R Jackiw. Quantization without tears, in constraint th e- ory and quantization methods, 1994

1994
[37]

The quantum theory of nonlinear optics

Peter D Drummond and Mark Hillery. The quantum theory of nonlinear optics . Cambridge University Press, 2014

2014
[38]

World Scientiﬁc Publishing Company, 2006

Harald JW M˜ aller Kirsten.Introduction to Quantum Me- chanics: Schr¨ odinger Equation and Path Integral. World Scientiﬁc Publishing Company, 2006

2006
[40]

Elementary quan- tum ﬁeld theory

Ernest-M Henley and Walter Thirring. Elementary quan- tum ﬁeld theory. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., PWN- Polish Scientiﬁc Publishers, 1959

1959
[41]

On Hamiltonian formulations of the Schr¨ odinger system.Annals of Physics , 298(2):394–402, 8 2002

L´ aszl´ o´A Gergely. On Hamiltonian formulations of the Schr¨ odinger system.Annals of Physics , 298(2):394–402, 8 2002

2002
[42]

A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of” hidden” variables

David Bohm. A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of” hidden” variables. i. Physical Review, 85(2):166, 1952

1952
[43]

The variational principles of mechan- ics

Cornelius Lanczos. The variational principles of mechan- ics. Courier Corporation, 2012

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [39]

Hamiltonian formulation of time-dependent variational principles for the many-body system

AK Kerman and SE Koonin. Hamiltonian formulation of time-dependent variational principles for the many-body system. Annals of Physics , 100(1-2):332–358, 1976

work page 1976

[2] [1]

The Dirac-Bergmann algorithm As a starting point to applying the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm, let us transform the Lagrangian density (17), according to L → L + ∂ ∂t ( ρθ 2 ) (24) = 1 2 ( θ ˙ρ −ρ ˙θ ) −ρ ( (∇θ)2 2m + g 2ρ +V ) − ℏ2 8mρ (∇ρ)2. This will allow for the possibility of readily identifying a canonical transformation (54), which separates out the p...

work page

[3] [2]

Quantization without tears

The Faddeev-Jackiw method When the Lagrangian is at most ﬁrst order in the time derivatives of the ﬁelds, the Faddeev-Jackiw method pro- vides a more direct approach to the Dirac-Bergmann al- gorithm. In fact, the method was designed speciﬁcally for such Lagrangians. Here we follow closely Jackiw’s paper “Quantization without tears” [34], which we tai- lo...

work page

[4] [3]

Observation of Bose- Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor

Mike H Anderson, Jason R Ensher, Michael R Matthews, Carl E Wieman, and Eric A Cornell. Observation of Bose- Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor. science, 269(5221):198–201, 1995

work page 1995

[5] [4]

Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms

Kendall B Davis, M-O Mewes, Michael R Andrews, NJ Van Druten, DS Durfee, DM Kurn, and Wolfgang Ketterle. Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms. Physical Review Letters , 75(22):3969, 1995

work page 1995

[6] [5]

Evidence of Bose-Einstein condensation in an atomic gas with attractive interactions

Cl C Bradley, CA Sackett, JJ Tollett, and Randall G Hulet. Evidence of Bose-Einstein condensation in an atomic gas with attractive interactions. Physical Review Letters, 75(9):1687, 1995

work page 1995

[7] [6]

Bose-Einstein con- densation and superﬂuidity , volume 164

Lev Pitaevskii and Sandro Stringari. Bose-Einstein con- densation and superﬂuidity , volume 164. Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2016

work page 2016

[8] [7]

Quantum theory in hydrodynamic form

E Madelung. Quantum theory in hydrodynamic form. Z. Phys., 40:322–326, 1926

work page 1926