Beyond Mean-Field Theory for Attractive Bosons under Transverse Harmonic Confinement

Luca Salasnich

REVIEW

Beyond Mean-Field Theory for Attractive Bosons under Transverse Harmonic Confinement

Luca Salasnich

Statistical Mechanics · Submitted 28 Feb 2006 · 21 references

Pith's verdict: A clean variational extension of McGuire's 1D gas to a 3D harmonic cylinder with a new collapse criterion, but the abstract's 'we prove' overstates the numerics and the frozen-width ansatz leaves a quantitative gap near collapse.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDcond-mat/0602670 (version 1)

Pith IDH76DYH5T, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationLuca Salasnich. "Beyond Mean-Field Theory for Attractive Bosons under Transverse Harmonic Confinement." arXiv:cond-mat/0602670 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/H76DYH5T

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

You should know about this paper: it gives a clean variational extension of McGuire's exact 1D attractive Bose gas to a 3D harmonic cylinder, with a simple collapse criterion and a generalized soliton profile. The math is sound. But the abstract oversells the evidence with 'we prove,' and the frozen transverse-width ansatz leaves a real, unquantified gap near collapse.

What's new is legitimate. The author takes his earlier Gaussian variational treatment of repulsive bosons and applies it to the attractive case, using McGuire's exact axial energy. Minimizing the total energy with respect to the transverse width gives Eq. (11), and the stability analysis correctly yields the collapse boundary γ√(N²−1) = 2/3^(1/4). That is a genuinely new analytical result. The soliton density profile, Eq. (16) with σ from Eq. (11), also generalizes the Calogero-Degasperis form and reduces to it when σ=1. The numerical comparison with the 3D GPE is careful and consistent with earlier computations; the figures are informative.

The soft spots are real but manageable. First, the abstract's 'we prove that for small numbers of particles the Gauss-McGuire theory is more reliable than the GPE' is not backed by a proof in the body. The evidence is numerical for selected values of γ and N. That word should be softened. Second, the variational ansatz forces a single transverse width σ for all axial positions, while the paper's own GPE results (Fig. 3d) show the width varies along z and is smallest at the soliton center. This means the GMG collapse threshold and the energy comparison mix genuine many-body correlations with a frozen-width approximation whose error is never bounded. It's not a fatal flaw, given the paper's aim of a simple analytic model, but it should be discussed honestly. Third, the GPE numerics come without error bars or convergence tests, so the claimed crossover γ_s = 0.044 is only indicative.

The citation pattern is fine. The self-citations are to the author's own variational framework, and that is legitimate. The derivation is correct, the paper is a modest but useful contribution, and the audience is people working on attractive bosons in confined geometries or on bright-soliton experiments.

I recommend engaging with it. It deserves a serious referee, and the likely outcome is a revision: tone down the abstract, quantify or carefully discuss the frozen-width limitation, and add a few convergence checks. It is not a rejection.

Best.

Referee report

Major objections (3)

[Abstract and Section IV] The abstract states that the paper 'proves that for small numbers of particles the Gauss-McGuire theory is more reliable than the mean-field theory described by the 3D Gross-Pitaevskii equation.' The body, however, provides only numerical comparisons for a few values of gamma (Figs. 4 and 5) and no general mathematical argument. The conclusion in Section V uses the more modest word 'verified,' so the abstract should be reworded to say 'we show numerically' or 'we provide evidence for small N,' rather than 'we prove.'
[Section II, Eq. (3) and Figure 3(d)] The variational ansatz of Eq. (3) assumes a single z-independent transverse Gaussian width sigma for all particles and all axial positions. The paper's own GPE solutions, shown in Fig. 3(d), display a transverse width that varies along z and is smallest at the soliton center. Because the GMG energy (Eq. 10) is minimized only over a constant sigma, the comparison with the GPE mixes two effects: genuine many-body correlations captured by the McGuire factor and the neglected z-dependence of the transverse width. The resulting collapse threshold (Eq. 13) and the small-N superiority claims therefore contain an unquantified error. The manuscript should either quantify this error (for example by comparing with a z-dependent variational ansatz or with the GPE width profile) or explicitly restrict the claims to the regime where the frozen-width approximation is expected to hold.
[Section IV, variational comparison] The statement that the GMG theory is 'always more accurate' than the McGuire theory relies on the variational principle only for the energy: since GMG includes sigma as a variational parameter and McGuire fixes sigma=1, the GMG energy is by construction no larger than the McGuire energy. However, the paper also compares density profiles (Fig. 2) and chemical potentials (Fig. 3), where no such variational guarantee exists. The claim of 'more accurate' should be qualified as 'lower variational energy' unless a more general measure of accuracy is established. In addition, the conclusion that the GMG critical particle number is 'more reliable' than the GPE one for gamma > gamma_s is based solely on energy comparisons; no independent benchmark (e.g., an exact or quasi-exact many-body calculation) is provided to establish which collapse point is closer to the true N-body result.

Minor objections (6)

[Abstract and Introduction] The word 'simmetry-breaking' should be 'symmetry-breaking' in the abstract and in the introduction.
[Section II] The word 'expresssion' in the sentence 'It is important to stress that the 1D Hamiltonian that appears in the previous expresssion' should be 'expression.'
[Section III] The word 'algebric' should be 'algebraic' in 'this algebric equation admits real solutions.'
[Section IV] The notation for the relative difference Delta_R is introduced only in the text around Fig. 4; it would be helpful to define Delta_R explicitly in the caption of Fig. 5, since that figure uses three different curve types and the caption is somewhat terse.
[Section IV and Figure 4] It would improve readability to mark the collapse points N_c for the GMG, MG, and GPE solutions directly on Fig. 4, since the text describes the collapses at N=136 (GPE) and N=153 (GMG) but the figure does not show these points explicitly.
[References] The manuscript cites several of the author's own previous works (Refs. [4]-[7], [13], and [15]) without much context; for a general readership, a brief sentence explaining the NPSE method and its relation to the current approach would help.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A variational many-body ansatz predicts that attractive bosons in a harmonic cylinder shrink transversely until they collapse at a critical interaction strength.

The reading

The paper claims that attractive bosons in a transversely harmonic trap become 'ultra one-dimensional' before they collapse: the transverse width of the cloud shrinks as the attraction or particle number grows, down to a critical value where no stable solution exists. To make this quantitative, the author couples the exact one-dimensional Bethe-ansatz wave function for attractive bosons to a variational transverse Gaussian, then minimizes the total energy in the Gaussian width. That minimization yields a stability window, $1/3^{1/4}\le\sigma\le1$, and a collapse threshold $\gamma(N^2-1)^{1/2}=2/3^{1/4}\simeq1.52$. A sympathetic reader would care because the resulting Gauss-McGuire theory supplies simple analytical formulas for the bright-soliton density profile and, for small atom numbers, is claimed to be more accurate than the 3D Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field description.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Gauss-McGuire variational ansatz: the many-body wave function is a product of a purely longitudinal Bethe-ansatz function for attractive delta bosons and one transverse Gaussian of width $\sigma$ common to all particles. Plugging this into the three-dimensional Hamiltonian with a contact pseudo-potential $V=\Gamma\delta^{(3)}(\mathbf r)$ gives the total energy $E=-(\gamma^2/24\sigma^4)N(N^2-1)+(N/2)(\sigma^{-2}+\sigma^2)$. Minimizing with respect to $\sigma$ produces the algebraic equation $\sigma^6-\sigma^2+\gamma^2(N^2-1)/6=0$, whose reality and stability conditions are the source of the width bound and collapse threshold.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the transverse confinement width is not an inert parameter: attractive interactions actively narrow the Gaussian profile, making the gas 'ultra 1D', and this narrowing is what drives collapse. The stable branch of the variational energy runs from $\sigma=1$ down to $\sigma=1/3^{1/4}$, and at the lower end the system reaches the collapse threshold $\gamma(N^2-1)^{1/2}=2/3^{1/4}\simeq1.52$, beyond which the energy is unbounded below. The same ansatz produces an analytic axial density profile, Eq. (16), reducing to the known one-dimensional soliton profile in the wide-width limit and matching the 3D Gross-Pitaevskii profile near collapse. The paper further claims that this variational theory always improves on the fixed-width one-dimensional theory, and that for small $N$ it is more reliable than the 3D Gross-Pitaevskii equation; the numerical comparison places the crossover around $N\simeq40$ at $\gamma=0.01$, and for $\gamma\gtrsim0.044$ the variational theory wins up to collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on the trial wave function being a product of a purely axial Bethe-ansatz state and a single transverse Gaussian whose width is the same at every $z$, together with the dilute-gas contact pseudo-potential; if the true transverse profile departs from a Gaussian or varies strongly along the axis, the predicted width, density profile, and collapse threshold will shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a given transverse frequency and scattering length, the theory predicts a critical atom number $N_c$ below which a bright soliton exists in the harmonic cylinder; at that point the soliton's width is $\sigma=1/3^{1/4}$ and the density profile is right at the edge of collapse.
The variational ground-state energy is always at or below the fixed-width 1D energy, so the GMG collapse threshold is a tighter upper-bound estimate than the 1D theory provides.
For $\gamma\gtrsim0.044$, the GMG energy lies below the 3D Gross-Pitaevskii energy for every atom number up to collapse, so beyond-mean-field corrections dominate in that interaction regime.
At small $N$ (for example $N<40$ at $\gamma=0.01$), the 3D Gross-Pitaevskii energy is higher than the GMG energy, so mean-field theory overestimates the energy of few-body bright solitons.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the ansatz assumes a single $z$-independent Gaussian width, the true collapse threshold should shift when the axial variation of the transverse profile is resolved; the paper's own Gross-Pitaevskii numerics (collapse near $\gamma(N-1)\simeq1.35$) bound the size of that shift from the GMG value $1.52$.
A direct experimental test would measure the soliton's transverse width as a function of atom number: the GMG prediction is a monotone decrease following Eq. (11), while a fixed-width 1D model predicts no change at all.
The same variational structure could be applied to repulsive bosons by replacing the attractive Bethe-ansatz energy with the repulsive one, yielding a finite-width Tonks-Girardeau crossover with an interaction-dependent transverse width.

Original abstract

We study a dilute gas of attractive bosons confined in a harmonic cylinder, i.e. under cylindric confinement due to a transverse harmonic potential. We introduce a many-body wave function which extends the Bethe ansatz proposed by McGuire (J. Math. Phys. {\bf 5}, 622 (1964)) by including a variational transverse Gaussian shape. We investigate the ground state properties of the system comparing them with the ones of the one-dimensional (1D) attractive Bose gas. We find that the gas becomes ultra 1D as a consequence of the attractive interaction: the transverse width of the Bose gas reduces by increasing the number of particles up to a critical width below which there is the collapse of the cloud. In addition, we derive a simple analytical expression for the simmetry-breaking solitonic density profile of the ground-state, which generalize the one deduced by Calogero and Degasperis (Phys. Rev. A {\bf 11}, 265 (1975)). This bright-soliton analytical solution shows near the collapse small deviations with respect to the 3D mean-field numerical solution. Finally, we show that our variational Gauss-McGuire theory is always more accurate than the McGuire theory. In addition, we prove that for small numbers of particles the Gauss-McGuire theory is more reliable than the mean-field theory described by the 3D Gross-Pitaevskii equation.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 7,046 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.68 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.59 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.17 · compares with prior results 0.98 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We study a dilute gas of attractive bosons confined in a harmonic cylinder, i.e. under cylindric confinement due to a transverse harmonic potential. We introduce a many-body wave function which extends the Bethe ansatz proposed by McGuire (J. Math. Phys. {\bf 5}, 622 (1964)) by including a variational transverse Gaussian shape. We investigate the ground state properties of the system comparing them with the ones of the one-dimensional (1D) attractive Bose gas. We find that the gas becomes ultra 1D as a consequence of the attractive interaction: the transverse width of the Bose gas reduces by increasing the number of particles up to a critical width below which there is the collapse of the cloud. In addition, we derive a simple analytical expression for the simmetry-breaking solitonic density profile of the ground-state, which generalize the one deduced by Calogero and Degasperis (Phys. Rev. A {\bf 11}, 265 (1975)). This bright-soliton analytical solution shows near the collapse small deviations with respect to the 3D mean-field numerical solution. Finally, we show that our variational Gauss-McGuire theory is always more accurate than the McGuire theory. In addition, we prove that for small numbers of particles the Gauss-McGuire theory is more reliable than the mean-field theory described by the 3D Gross-Pitaevskii equation.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We study a dilute gas of attractive bosons confined in a harmonic cylinder, i.e. under cylindric confinement due to a transverse harmonic potential.	background 0.53	0.62	0.03	asserted 0.94
s1	We introduce a many-body wave function which extends the Bethe ansatz proposed by McGuire (J. Math.	method 0.52	0.93	0.03	asserted 0.99
s2	Phys. {\bf 5}, 622 (1964)) by including a variational transverse Gaussian shape.	method 0.67	0.77	0.04	asserted 0.98
s3	We investigate the ground state properties of the system comparing them with the ones of the one-dimensional (1D) attractive Bose gas.	contribution 0.65	0.87	0.06	asserted 0.75
s4	We find that the gas becomes ultra 1D as a consequence of the attractive interaction: the transverse width of the Bose gas reduces by increasing the number of particles up to a critical width below which there is the collapse of the cloud.	result 0.99	0.96	0.52	asserted 1.00
s5	In addition, we derive a simple analytical expression for the simmetry-breaking solitonic density profile of the ground-state, which generalize the one deduced by Calogero and Degasperis (Phys. Rev. A {\bf 11}, 265 (1975)).	result 0.57	0.94	0.14	asserted 1.00
s6	This bright-soliton analytical solution shows near the collapse small deviations with respect to the 3D mean-field numerical solution.	result 0.94	0.88	0.11	asserted 0.99
s7	Finally, we show that our variational Gauss-McGuire theory is always more accurate than the McGuire theory.	result 1.00	0.94	0.24	asserted 1.00
s8	In addition, we prove that for small numbers of particles the Gauss-McGuire theory is more reliable than the mean-field theory described by the 3D Gross-Pitaevskii equation.	result 0.99	0.95	0.16	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.84 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.89.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Comparison between our variational Gauss

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Energy per particle

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. Energetic relative difference ∆

Showing 4 of the paper's 5 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:cond-mat/0602670 by the authors.

References

Works cited (21)

[1]

E.P. Gross, Nuovo Cimento 20, 454 (1961)

View on Pith 1961
[2]

L.P. Pitaevskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 451 (1961)

View on Pith 1961
[3]

See, for instance, G.E. Astrakharchik, D. Blume, S. Giorgini, and B.E. Granger, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 37, S205 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[4]

L. Salasnich, Laser Phys. 12, 198 (2002); L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043614 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[5]

L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043603 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[6]

L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 080405 (2003); L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 69, 045601 (2004)

View on Pith 2003
[7]

L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 70, 013606 (2004); L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 72, 025602 (2005)

View on Pith 2004
[8]

E.H. Lieb and W. Liniger, Phys. Rev. 130, 1605 (1963)

View on Pith 1963
[9]

M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 938 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[10]

H.A. Bethe, Z. Physik 71, 205 (1931)

View on Pith 1931
[11]

the axial energy Ez of Eq. (6) reads Ez = − 1 24 γ 2 σ 4N (N 2 − 1). (9) Using this expression the total energy E of our 3D system can be rewritten as E = − 1 24 γ 2 σ 4 (N 2 − 1)N + 1 2 ( 1 σ 2 +σ 2)N . (10) In the weak-coupling 1D limit, where the transverse width σ ≃ 1, one recovers the 1D result obtained by McGuire [11] plus the constant transverse en...

View on Pith 2000
[12]

F. Calogero and A. Degasperis, Phys. Rev. A 11, 265 (1975)

View on Pith 1975
[13]

J.B. McGuire, J. Math. Phys. 5, 622 (1964)

View on Pith 1964
[14]

Y. Castin and C. Herzog, Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences de Paris, tome 2, serie IV, 419-443 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[15]

V.M. Perez-Garcia, H. Machinel, and H. Herrero, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3837 (1998); L. Salasnich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 14, 1 (2000)

View on Pith 1998
[16]

A. Gammal, L. Tomio and T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043619 (2002). 5

View on Pith 2002
[17]

E. Cerboneschi, R. Mannella, E. Arimondo, and L. Salas- nich, Phys. Lett. A 249, 495 (1998); L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 64, 023601 (2001)

View on Pith 1998
[18]

K.E. Strecker, G.B. Partridge, A.G. Truscott, and R.G. Hulet, Nature 417, 150 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[19]

A.M. Kamchatnov and V.S. Shchesnovich, Phys. Rev. A 70, 023604 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[21]

L. Khaykovich, F. Schreck, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cu - bizolles, L.D. Carr, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, Science 296, 1290 (2002). 6

View on Pith 2002
[480]

Just before the collapse of the GPE solution, i.e for N = 1334, ∆ R is 2. 86% and 1. 00% respectively. To better study beyond mean-ﬁeld eﬀects we perform numerical calculations for various values of γ in the inter- val [0. 01, 0. 1]. The results are reported in Fig. 5, where we plot the energetic relative diﬀerence ∆ R for three val- ues of the inter-atom...

View on Pith

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

E.P. Gross, Nuovo Cimento 20, 454 (1961)

View on Pith 1961

[2] [2]

L.P. Pitaevskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 451 (1961)

View on Pith 1961

[3] [3]

See, for instance, G.E. Astrakharchik, D. Blume, S. Giorgini, and B.E. Granger, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 37, S205 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[4] [4]

L. Salasnich, Laser Phys. 12, 198 (2002); L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043614 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[5] [5]

L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043603 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[6] [6]

L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 080405 (2003); L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 69, 045601 (2004)

View on Pith 2003

[7] [7]

L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 70, 013606 (2004); L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 72, 025602 (2005)

View on Pith 2004

[8] [8]

E.H. Lieb and W. Liniger, Phys. Rev. 130, 1605 (1963)

View on Pith 1963

[9] [9]

M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 938 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[10] [10]

H.A. Bethe, Z. Physik 71, 205 (1931)

View on Pith 1931

[11] [11]

the axial energy Ez of Eq. (6) reads Ez = − 1 24 γ 2 σ 4N (N 2 − 1). (9) Using this expression the total energy E of our 3D system can be rewritten as E = − 1 24 γ 2 σ 4 (N 2 − 1)N + 1 2 ( 1 σ 2 +σ 2)N . (10) In the weak-coupling 1D limit, where the transverse width σ ≃ 1, one recovers the 1D result obtained by McGuire [11] plus the constant transverse en...

View on Pith 2000

[12] [12]

F. Calogero and A. Degasperis, Phys. Rev. A 11, 265 (1975)

View on Pith 1975

[13] [13]

J.B. McGuire, J. Math. Phys. 5, 622 (1964)

View on Pith 1964

[14] [14]

Y. Castin and C. Herzog, Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences de Paris, tome 2, serie IV, 419-443 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[15] [15]

V.M. Perez-Garcia, H. Machinel, and H. Herrero, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3837 (1998); L. Salasnich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 14, 1 (2000)

View on Pith 1998

[16] [16]

A. Gammal, L. Tomio and T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043619 (2002). 5

View on Pith 2002

[17] [17]

E. Cerboneschi, R. Mannella, E. Arimondo, and L. Salas- nich, Phys. Lett. A 249, 495 (1998); L. Salasnich, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 64, 023601 (2001)

View on Pith 1998

[18] [18]

K.E. Strecker, G.B. Partridge, A.G. Truscott, and R.G. Hulet, Nature 417, 150 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[19] [19]

A.M. Kamchatnov and V.S. Shchesnovich, Phys. Rev. A 70, 023604 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[20] [21]

L. Khaykovich, F. Schreck, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cu - bizolles, L.D. Carr, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, Science 296, 1290 (2002). 6

View on Pith 2002

[21] [480]

Just before the collapse of the GPE solution, i.e for N = 1334, ∆ R is 2. 86% and 1. 00% respectively. To better study beyond mean-ﬁeld eﬀects we perform numerical calculations for various values of γ in the inter- val [0. 01, 0. 1]. The results are reported in Fig. 5, where we plot the energetic relative diﬀerence ∆ R for three val- ues of the inter-atom...

View on Pith