Bose Einstein More II

arXiv:1709.03840v3 [cond-mat.
quant-gas] 1 Dec 2017
Mathematical models and numerical methods for spinor

Bose-Einstein condensates
Weizhu Bao1 , Yongyong Cai2,∗
1 Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119076
2 Beijing Computational Science Research Center, No. 10 East Xibeiwang Road, Bei-
jing 100193, P. R. China
Abstract. In this paper, we systematically review mathematical models, theories and

numerical methods for ground states and dynamics of spinor Bose-Einstein conden-
sates (BECs) based on the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations (GPEs). We start with a
pseudo spin-1/2 BEC system with/without an internal atomic Josephson junction and
spin-orbit coupling including (i) existence and uniqueness as well as non-existence of
ground states under different parameter regimes, (ii) ground state structures under
different limiting parameter regimes, (iii) dynamical properties, and (iv) efficient and
accurate numerical methods for computing ground states and dynamics. Then we ex-
tend these results to spin-1 BEC and spin-2 BEC. Finally, extensions to dipolar spinor
systems and/or general spin-F (F ≥ 3) BEC are discussed.
Key words: Bose-Einstein condensate, Gross-Pitaeskii equation, spin-orbit, spin-1, spin-2, ground
state, dynamics, numerical methods
Contents
1 Introduction 3
∗ Corresponding author. Email addresses: matbaowz@nus.edu.sg (W. Bao), yongyong.cai@csrc.ac.cn (Y. Cai)
http://www.global-sci.com/ Global Science Preprint

2 CONTENTS
2 Pseudo-spin-1/2 system 4
2.1 Coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Ground states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 Mathematical theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2 Numerical methods and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.3 Another type ground state without Josephson junction . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.1 Dynamical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4 Bogoliubov excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.5 Semiclassical scaling and limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3 Spin-orbit-coupled BEC 23
3.1 The mathematical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Ground states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4 Bogoliubov excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.5 Semiclassical scaling and limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4 Spin-1 BEC 35
4.2 Ground states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.3 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5 Spin-2 BEC 47
5.2 Ground states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.3 Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.3.2 A numerical method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
CONTENTS 3
6 Summary and future perspectives 59

6.1 Spin-3 BEC and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.2 Spinor dipolar BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
1 Introduction
The remarkable experimental achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of dilute
alkali gases in 1995 [4,44,63] reached a milestone in atomic, molecular and optical (AMO)
physics and quantum optics, and it provided a unique opportunity to observe the mys-
terious quantum world directly in laboratory. The BEC phenomenon was predicted by
Einstein in 1924 [66, 67] when he generalized the studies of Bose [43] concerning pho-
tons to atoms which assume the same statistical rule. Based on the derived Bose-Einstein
statistics, Einstein figured that, there exits a critical temperature, below which a finite
fraction of all the particles “condense” into the same quantum state.
Einstein’s prediction was for a system of noninteracting bosons and did not receive
much attention until the observation of superfluidity in liquid 4 He below the λ temper-
ature (2.17K) in 1938, when London [98] suggested that despite the strong interatomic
interactions, part of the system is in the BEC state resulting in its superfluidity. Over
the years, the major difficulty to realize BEC state in laboratory is that almost all the sub-
stances become solid or liquid (strong interatomic interactions) at low temperature where
the BEC phase transition occurs. With the development of magnetic trapping and laser
cooling techniques, BEC was finally achieved in the system of weakly interacting dilute
alkali gases [4, 44, 63] in 1995. The key is to bring down the temperature of the gas before
its relaxation to solid state. In most BEC experiments, the system reaches quantum de-
generacy between 50 nK and 2 µK, at densities between 1011 and 1015 cm−3 . The largest
condensates are of 100 million atoms for sodium, and a billion for hydrogen; the smallest
are just a few hundred atoms. Depending on the magnetic trap, the shape of the conden-
sate is either approximately round, with a diameter of 10–15 µm, or cigar-shaped with
about 15 µm in diameter and 300 µm in length. The full cooling cycle that produces a
condensate may take from a few seconds to as long as several minutes [59, 86]. For better
understanding of the long history towards the BEC and its physics study, we refer to the
Nobel lectures [59, 86] and several review papers [38, 42, 60, 69, 88, 90] as well as the two
books [109, 111] in physics.
The pioneering experiments [4, 44, 63] were conducted for single species of atoms,
which can be theoretically described by a scalar order parameter (or wavefunction) satis-
fying the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE) (or the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE)
with cubic nonlinearity) [60, 69, 90, 109, 111]. For the mathematical models and numerical
methods of single-component BEC based on the GPE, we refer to [3, 6, 11, 15, 64, 68, 77, 82,
92] and references therein. A natural generalization is to explore the multi-component
BEC system, where inter-species interactions lead to more interesting phases and involve
vector order parameters. In 1996, one year after the major breakthrough, an overlapping
4 CONTENTS
two component BEC was produced with | F = 2,m = 2i and | F = 1,m = −1i spin states
of 87 Rb [106], by employing a double magneto-optic trap. During the process, two con-
densates were cooled together and the interaction between different components was ob-
served. Later, it was proposed that the binary BEC system can generate coherent matter
wave (also called atom laser) analogous to the coherent light emitted from a laser. In view
of such potential applications, multi-component BEC systems have attracted numerous
research interests [12, 78, 109, 111].
In the early experiments, magnetic traps were used and the spin degrees of the atoms
were then frozen. In 1998, by using an optical dipole trap, a spinor BEC was first pro-
duced with spin-1 23 Na gases [121], where the internal spin degrees of freedom were
activated. In the optical trap, particles with different hyperfine states allow different
angular momentum in space, resulting in a rich variety of spin texture. Therefore, degen-
erate quantum spinor gases maintain both magnetism and superfluidity, and are quite
promising for many fields, such as topological quantum structure, fractional quantum
Hall effect [85, 122, 127]. For a spin-F Bose condensate, there are 2F + 1 hyperfine states
and the spinor condensate can be described by a 2F + 1 component vector wavefunc-
tion [76, 85, 107, 109, 111, 122].
Up to now, various spinor condensates including spin-1/2 87 Rb condensate (pseudo
spin-1/2) [106], spin-1 23 Na condensate [121], spin-1 87 Rb condensate [39] and spin-2 87 Rb
condensate [53], have been achieved in experiments. For the experimental and theoretical
studies of spinor BEC, we refer to the two recent review papers in physics [85, 122] and
references therein. In this growing research direction, mathematical models and analysis
as well as numerical simulation have been playing an important role in understanding
the theoretical part of spinor BEC and predicting and guiding the experiments. The goal
of this review paper is to offer a short survey on mathematical models and theories as
well as numerical methods for spinor BEC based on the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equa-
tions (CGPEs) [15, 72, 85, 110, 111, 122].
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we present the results on the ground
states and the dynamics for pseudo spin-1/2 BEC system with/without Josephson junc-
tion based on the CGPEs, including the semi-classical limit and the Bogoliubov excitation.
Both theoretical and numerical results will be shown. As a generalization, a spin-1/2 BEC
with spin-orbit-coupling is then discussed in section 3. Section 4 is devoted to the study
of spin-1 system, and spin-2 system is considered in section 5. Some perspectives on
spin-3 system and spinor dipolar BEC system are discussed in section 6.
2 Pseudo-spin-1/2 system
In this section, we consider a two-component (pseudo spin-1/2) BEC system with/without
Josephson junction [10, 135] and discuss its ground state and dynamics based on the
mean-field theory [16]. In the derivation of the mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) the-
ory [15,92,93,109,111], the many body Hamiltonian of the system with two-body interac-
CONTENTS 5
tion is approximated by a single particle Hamiltonian (mean field approximation), lead-

ing to the time dependent GPE in Heisenberg picture and the associated Gross-Pitaevskii
(GP) energy functional. We refer to [15, 85, 92, 93, 109, 111] and references therein for the
derivation of GPE in single component and two component BECs.
2.1 Coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations

At temperature T much smaller than the BEC critical temperature Tc , a pseudo spin-
1/2 BEC with Josephson junction can be well described by the following coupled Gross-
Pitaevskii equations (CGPEs) in three dimensions (3D) [9, 12, 15, 16, 83, 110, 111]:
" #
h̄2 2 h̄δ̃ h̄Ω̃
ih̄∂t ψ↑ = − ∇ + Ṽ↑ (x)+ +( g↑↑ |ψ↑ |2 + g↑↓ |ψ↓ |2 ) ψ↑ + ψ , x ∈ R3 ,
2m 2 2 ↓
" # (2.1)
h̄2 2 h̄δ̃ 2 2 h̄Ω̃ 3
ih̄∂t ψ↓ = − ∇ + Ṽ↓ (x)− +( g↓↑ |ψ↑ | + g↓↓ |ψ↓ | ) ψ↓ + ψ , x∈R .
2m 2 2 ↑
Here, t is time, x=( x,y,z) T ∈R3 is the Cartesian coordinate vector, Ψ(x,t):=(ψ↑ (x,t),ψ↓ (x,t)) T
is the complex-valued macroscopic wave function corresponding to the spin-up and spin-
down components, ∇2 = ∆ is the Laplace operator, Ω̃ is the effective Rabi frequency to
realize the internal atomic Josephson junction by a Raman transition, δ̃ is the Raman tran-
2
sition constant, and gjl = 4πh̄ m a jl with a jl = alj (j,l =↑, ↓) being the s-wave scattering lengths
between the jth and lth component (positive for repulsive interaction and negative for
attractive interaction), m is the mass of the particle and h̄ is the reduced Planck constant.
Ṽj (x) (j =↑, ↓) are the external trapping potentials and may vary in different applications,
and the most commonly used ones in experiments are the following harmonic potentials
mh 2 i
Ṽj (x) = ω x ( x − x̃ j )2 + ωy2 y2 + ωz2 z2 , j =↑, ↓, x = ( x,y,z) T ∈ R3 , (2.2)
2
with ω x , ωy and ωz being the trapping frequencies in x-, y- and z-directions, respectively,
and x̃ j (j =↑, ↓) are the shifts in the x-direction of Ṽj (x) from the origin.
The wavefunction Ψ is normalized as
Z
kΨ(·,t)k2 := |ψ↑ (x,t)|2 +|ψ↓ (x,t)|2 dx = N, (2.3)
R3
where N is the total number of particles in the condensate.

Nondimensionalization and dimension reduction. To nondimensionalize (2.1), introduce
t x Ψ(x,t)
t̃ = , x̃ = , Ψ̃(x̃, t̃) = , (2.4)
ts xs xs−3/2 N 1/2
√
where ts = 1/ωs and xs = h̄/mωs with ωs = min{ω x ,ωy ,ωz } are the time and length units,
respectively. Plugging (2.4) into (2.1), multiplying by t2s /mx1/2
s N
1/2 and then removing
6 CONTENTS
all˜, we obtain the following dimensionless CGPEs for Ψ = (ψ↑ ,ψ↓ ) T as

1 2 δ 2 2 Ω
i∂t ψ↑ = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+ +(κ↑↑ |ψ↑ | + κ↑↓ |ψ↓ | ) ψ↑ + ψ↓ , x ∈ R3 ,
2 2 2
(2.5)
1 2 δ 2 2 Ω
i∂t ψ↓ = − ∇ + V↓ (x)− +(κ↓↑ |ψ↑ | + κ↓↓ |ψ↓ | ) ψ↓ + ψ↑ , x ∈ R3 ,
2 2 2
4πNa jl
where κ jl = xs (j,l =↑, ↓), Ω = ωΩ̃s , δ = ωδ̃s and the trapping potentials are given as
1
Vj (x) = (γ2x ( x − x j )2 + γ2y y2 + γ2z z2 ), j =↑, ↓, x = ( x,y,z) T ∈ R3 , (2.6)
2
with γx = ω x /ωs , γy = ωy /ωs , γz = ωz /ωs and x j = x̃ j /xs (j =↑, ↓). The normalization for
(2.5) becomes
Z
kΨk2 := kψ↑ (·,t)k2 +kψ↓ (·,t)k2 := |ψ↑ (x,t)|2 +|ψ↓ (x,t)|2 dx = 1. (2.7)
R3
In practice, when the harmonic traps (2.6) are strongly anisotropic, e.g. when γx =
O(1), γy = O(1) and γz ≫ 1, following the dimension reduction process for GPE in [15,40],
the 3D CGPEs (2.8) can be reduced to a system in two dimensions (2D) under effec-
tive trapping potentials Vj ( x,y) = 12 (γ2x ( x − x j )2 + γ2y y2 ) (j =↑, ↓) and effective interaction
√
γ
strengths β jl = √2πz κ jl (j,l =↑, ↓); and respectively, when γx =O(1), γy ≫1 and γz ≫1, the 3D
CGPEs (2.8) can be reduced to a system in one dimension (1D) under effective trapping √
γy γz
potentials Vj ( x) = 12 γ2x ( x − x j )2 (j =↑, ↓) and effective interaction strengths β jl = 2π κ jl
(j,l =↑, ↓).
In fact, the CGPEs (2.5) in 3D and the corresponding CGPEs in 2D and 1D obtained
from (2.5) by dimension reduction under strongly anisotropic trapping potentials can be
written in a unified form in d-dimensions (d = 3,2,1) as

1 2 δ Ω
2 2
i∂t ψ↑ = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+ +( β ↑↑ |ψ↑ | + β ↑↓ |ψ↓ | ) ψ↑ + ψ↓ , x ∈ Rd ,
2 2 2
(2.8)
1 2 δ 2 2 Ω d
i∂t ψ↓ = − ∇ + V↓ (x)− +( β ↓↑ |ψ↑ | + β ↓↓ |ψ↓ | ) ψ↓ + ψ↑ , x∈R ,
2 2 2
where the interaction strengths and harmonic trapping potentials are given as
 4πNa jl 
 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
κ√jl = xs ,
  2 (γx ( x − x j ) + γy y + γz z ), d = 3,

γ
β jl = √ z κ jl , Vj (x) = 21 (γ2x ( x − x j )2 + γ2y y2 ), d = 2, j,l =↑, ↓, (2.9)

 √ 2π 

 γ y γ z
κ ,
1 2
γ (x − xj ) , 2 d = 1,
2π jl 2 x
with x = ( x,y,z) T in 3D, x = ( x,y) T in 2D, and x = x in 1D. The normalization for (2.8)
becomes
Z
2 2 2
kΨk := kψ↑ (·,t)k +kψ↓ (·,t)k := |ψ↑ (x,t)|2 +|ψ↓ (x,t)|2 dx = 1. (2.10)
Rd
CONTENTS 7
Without loss of generality and for mathematical convenience, we shall assume Ω, δ and
β jl satisfying β jl = β lj (j,l =↑, ↓) are given real constants, and Vj (x) (j =↑, ↓) are given non-
negative real functions.
Despite the normalization (or mass conservation) (2.10), the CGPEs (2.8) possess an-
other important conserved quantity, i.e. energy per particle,
Z
1
1 δ 1
E ( Ψ) = ∑ |∇ψj | + Vj (x)|ψj | + |ψ↑ |2 −|ψ↓ |2 + β ↑↑ |ψ↑ |4 + β ↓↓ |ψ↓ |4
2 2
R d j=↑,↓ 2 2 2 2

+ β ↑↓ |ψ↑ |2 |ψ↓ |2 + Ω Re(ψ↑ ψ↓ ) dx, (2.11)
where f¯ and Re( f ) denote the conjugate and real parts of a function f , respectively.
2.2 Ground states

g g
The ground state Φg := Φg (x) = (φ↑ (x),φ↓ (x)) T of the pseudo spin-1/2 BEC with an in-
ternal atomic Josephson junction governed by (2.8) is defined as the minimizer of the
following nonconvex minimization problem:

Find Φg ∈ S , such that

Eg := E Φg = min E (Φ) , (2.12)
Φ∈S
where S is a nonconvex set defined as

Z
T 2 2 2

S := Φ = (φ↑ ,φ↓ ) | kΦk = |φ↑ (x)| +|φ↓ (x)| dx = 1, E(Φ) < ∞ . (2.13)
Rd
It is easy to see that the ground state Φg satisfies the following Euler-Lagrange equations

1 2 δ Ω
2 2
µφ↑ = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+ +( β ↑↑ |φ↑ | + β ↑↓ |φ↓ | ) φ↑ + φ↓ , x ∈ Rd ,
2 2 2
(2.14)
1 δ Ω d
µφ↓ = − ∇2 + V↓ (x)− +( β ↓↑ |φ↑ |2 + β ↓↓ |φ↓ |2 ) φ↓ + φ↑ , x∈R ,
2 2 2
under the constraint

Z
kΦk2 := kΦk22 = |φ↑ (x)|2 +|φ↓ (x)|2 dx = 1, (2.15)
Rd
with the eigenvalue µ being the Lagrange multiplier (or chemical potential in physics
literatures) corresponding to the constraint (2.15), which can be computed as
Z
β ↑↑ 4 β ↓↓ 4 2 2
µ = µ(Φ) = E(Φ)+ | φ↑ | + |φ | + β ↑↓ |φ↑ | |φ↓ | dx. (2.16)
Rd 2 2 ↓
8 CONTENTS
In fact, the above time-independent CGPEs (2.14) can also be obtained from the CGPEs
(2.8) by substituting the ansatz
ψ↑ (x,t) = e−iµt φ↑ (x), ψ↓ (x,t) = e−iµt φ↓ (x), x ∈ Rd . (2.17)
The eigenfunctions of the nonlinear eigenvalue problem (2.14) under the normalization
(2.15) are usually called as stationary states of the two-component BEC (2.8) [93, 96, 99].
Among them, the eigenfunction with the minimum energy is the ground state and those
whose energy are larger than that of the ground state are usually called as excited states.
2.2.1 Mathematical theories

Before presenting mathematical theories on ground states, some notations are introduced
below. Define the function I (x) as
2
I (x) = V↑ (x)− V↓ (x)+ δ +( β ↑↑ − β ↑↓ )2 +( β ↑↓ − β ↓↓ )2 , x ∈ Rd , (2.18)
where I (x) ≡ 0 means that the spin-1/2 BEC with Ω = 0 is essentially one component;
denote the interaction matrix as

β ↑↑ β ↑↓
B= , (2.19)
β ↑↓ β ↓↓
and we say B is positive semi-definite iff β ↑↑ ≥ 0 and β ↑↑ β ↓↓ − β2↑↓ ≥ 0; and B is nonnegative

iff β ↑↑ ≥ 0, β ↑↓ ≥ 0 and β ↓↓ ≥ 0. In 2D, i.e. d = 2, let Cb be the best constant as [132]
k∇ f k2L2 (R2 ) k f k2L2 (R2 )

Cb : = inf = π ·(1.86225... ). (2.20)
06 = f ∈ H 1 ( R 2 ) k f k4L4 (R2 )
For the ground state of (2.12), we have [15, 16]
Theorem 2.1 (existence and uniqueness of (2.12) [16]). Suppose Vj (x)≥ 0 (j =↑, ↓) satisfying
lim Vj (x) = +∞ and at least one of the following conditions holds
|x|→∞
(i) d = 1;
p p
(ii) d = 2 and β ↑↑ > −Cb , β ↓↓ > −Cb , and β ↑↓ ≥ −Cb − Cb + β ↑↑ Cb + β ↓↓ ;
(iii) d = 3 and B is either positive semi-definite or nonnegative;

g g e g := (eiθ↑ |φ g |,eiθ↓ |φ g |) is also
there exists a ground state Φg = (φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T of (2.12). In addition, Φ ↑ ↓
a ground state of (2.12) with two constantsθ↑ , θ↓ ∈ [0,2π ) satisfying θ↑ − θ↓ = ±π when Ω > 0
and θ↑ − θ↓ = 0 when Ω < 0, respectively. Furthermore, if the matrix B is positive semi-definite,
g g
Ω 6= 0 and I (x) 6= 0, the ground state (|φ↑ |, −sign(Ω)|φ↓ |) T is unique. In contrast, if one of the
following conditions holds,
CONTENTS 9
p p
(i)′ d = 2 and β ↑↑ ≤ −Cb or β ↓↓ ≤ −Cb or β ↑↓ < −Cb − Cb + β ↑↑ Cb + β ↓↓ ;
(ii)′ d = 3 and β ↑↑ < 0 or β ↓↓ < 0 or β ↑↓ < 0 with β2↑↓ > β ↑↑ β ↓↓ ;
there exists no ground state of (2.12), i.e. inf E(Φ) = −∞.

Φ∈S
Theorem 2.2 (limiting behavior when |Ω|→+∞ [16]). Suppose Vj (x)≥ 0 (j =↑, ↓) satisfying
lim Vj (x) = +∞ and B is either positive semi-definite or nonnegative. For fixed Vj (x) (j =↑, ↓),
|x|→∞
B and δ, let ΦΩ = (φ↑Ω ,φ↓Ω ) T be a ground state of (2.12). Then when |Ω| → +∞, we have
k |φ Ω g
j |− φ k → 0, j =↑, ↓, E(ΦΩ ) ≈ 2E1 (φ g )−|Ω|/2, (2.21)
where φ g is the unique positive minimizer [92] of

Z
1 2 2 β 4
E1 (φ) = |∇φ| + V (x)|φ| + |φ| dx (2.22)
Rd 2 2
under the constraint Z

1
k φ k2 = |φ(x)|2 dx = , (2.23)
Rd 2
β ↑↑ + β ↓↓ +2β ↑↓
with β = 2 and V (x) = 21 (V↑ (x)+ V↓ (x)).
Theorem 2.3 (limiting behavior when δ → ±∞ [16]). Suppose Vj (x) ≥ 0 (j =↑, ↓) satisfying
lim Vj (x) = +∞ and B is either positive semi-definite or nonnegative. For fixed Vj (x) (j =↑, ↓),
|x|→∞
B and Ω, let Φδ = (φ↑δ ,φ↓δ ) T be a ground state of (2.12) with respect to δ. Then when δ → +∞,
we have
δ
kφ↑δ k → 0, k|φ↓δ |− φ g k → 0, E(Φδ ) ≈ E2 (φ g )− , (2.24)
2
and resp.; when δ → −∞, we have
δ
k |φ↑δ |− φ g k → 0, kφ↓δ k → 0, E(Φδ ) ≈ E2 (φ g )+ , (2.25)
2
where φ g is the unique positive minimizer [92] of
Z
1 2 2 β∗ 4
E2 (φ) = |∇φ| + V∗ (x)|φ| + |φ| dx (2.26)
Rd 2 2
under the constraint Z

k φ k2 = |φ(x)|2 dx = 1, (2.27)
Rd
with β ∗ = β ↓↓ and V∗ (x) = V↓ (x) when δ > 0, and resp., β ∗ = β ↑↑ , V∗ (x) = V↑ (x) when δ < 0.
10 CONTENTS
2.2.2 Numerical methods and results

In order to compute the ground state (2.12), we construct the following continuous nor-
malized gradient flow (CNGF) for Φ(x,t) = (φ↑ (x,t),φ↓ (x,t)) T [16]:

∂φ↑ (x,t) 1 2 δ 2 2 Ω
= ∇ − V↑ (x)− −( β ↑↑ |φ↑ | + β ↑↓ |φ↓ | ) φ↑ − φ↓ + µΦ (t)φ↑ ,
∂t 2 2 2
(2.28)
∂φ↓ (x,t) 1 2 δ 2 2 Ω
= ∇ − V↓ (x)+ −( β ↑↓ |φ↑ | + β ↓↓ |φ↓ | ) φ↓ − φ↑ + µΦ (t)φ↓ ,
∂t 2 2 2
with a prescribed initial data Φ(x,0) = Φ0 (x) = (φ↑0 (x),φ↓0 (x)) T satisfying kΦ0 k = 1, where
µΦ (t) is chosen such that the above CNGF is mass (or normalization) conservative and
µ ( Φ(·,t))
energy diminishing. By taking µΦ (t) = kΦ(·,t)k2 with µ(Φ) given in (2.16) [16], it is readily
to check that the CNGF (2.28) conserves the mass and is energy diminishing [16]. There-
fore, one can compute ground sates of (2.12) by discretizing the CNGF (2.28).
In practical computation, an efficient way to discretize the CNGF (2.28) is through
the construction of the following gradient flow with discrete normalization (GFDN) via a
time-splitting approach: let τ > 0 be a chosen time step and denote tn = nτ for n ≥ 0. One
solves

∂φ↑ 1 2 δ 2 2 Ω
= ∇ − V↑ (x)− −( β ↑↑ |φ↑ | + β ↑↓ |φ↓ | ) φ↑ − φ↓ ,
∂t 2 2 2
tn ≤ t < tn+1 , (2.29)
∂φ↓ 1 2 δ 2 2 Ω
= ∇ − V↓ (x)+ −( β ↑↓ |φ↑ | + β ↓↓ |φ↓ | ) φ↓ − φ↑ ,
∂t 2 2 2
followed by a projection step as
φl (x,tn+1 ) := φl (x,t+ n +1
n +1 ) = σl φl (x,t−
n +1 ), l =↑, ↓, n ≥ 0, (2.30)
where φl (x,t± n +1
n +1 )= lim φl ( x,t) and the projection constants σl (l =↑, ↓) are chosen such
t→t±
n +1
that
kΦ(x,tn+1 )k2 = kφ↑ (x,tn+1 )k2 +kφ↓ (x,tn+1 )k2 = 1, n ≥ 0. (2.31)
Since there are two projection constants to be determined, i.e. σ↑n+1 and σ↓n+1 in (2.30),
and there is only one equation, i.e. (2.31), to fix them, we need to find another condition
so that the two projection constants are uniquely determined. In fact, the above GFDN
(2.29)-(2.30) can be viewed as applying the first-order splitting method to the CNGF (2.28)
and the projection step (2.30) is equivalent to solving the following ordinary differential
equations (ODEs)
∂φ↑ (x,t) ∂φ↓ (x,t)
= µ Φ ( t ) φ↑ , = µ Φ ( t ) φ↓ , t n ≤ t ≤ t n +1 , (2.32)
∂t ∂t
which immediately suggests that the projection constants in (2.30) could be chosen as [16]
σ↑n+1 = σ↓n+1 , n ≥ 0. (2.33)
CONTENTS 11
Plugging (2.33) and (2.30) into (2.31), we get

1 1
σ↑n+1 = σ↓n+1 = − =q , n ≥ 0. (2.34)
kΦ(·,tn+1 )k kφ↑ (·,t− )k 2 +kφ (·,t− )k2
n +1 ↓ n +1
In fact, the gradient flow (2.29) can be viewed as applying the steepest decent method
to the energy functional E(Φ) in (2.12) without the constraint, and then projecting the
solution back to the unit sphere S in (2.30). In addition, (2.29) can also be obtained from
the CGPEs (2.8) by the change of variable t → −i t, and thus this kind of algorithm is
usually called as the imaginary time method in the physics literature [88,90,106,122,133].
To fully discretize the GFDN (2.29), it is highly recommended to use backward Euler
scheme in temporal discretization [15, 16, 21] and adopt one’s favorite numerical method,
such as finite difference method, spectral method and finite element, for spatial dis-
cretization. In practical computation, the GFDN (2.29) (or CNGF (2.28)) is usually trun-
cated on a bounded domain with either homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions or
periodic boundary conditions or homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions due to
the trapping potentials Vj (x) (j =↑, ↓) which ensure the wave function decays exponen-
tially fast at far field. For the convenience of readers and simplification of notations, here
we only present a modified backward Euler finite difference (BEFD) discretization of the
GFDN (2.29) in 1D, which is truncated on a bounded domain U = ( a,b) with homoge-
neous Dirichlet boundary condition
Φ( a,t) = Φ(b,t) = 0, t ≥ 0. (2.35)
Choose a mesh size h = (b − a)/L with L being a positive integer and denote x j = a + jh
(0 ≤ j ≤ L) as the grid points, then the BEFD discretization reads
( 1)
φ↑,j − φ↑n,j 1 h ( 1) i
( 1) ( 1) δ ( 1) Ω ( 1)
= 2
φ↑,j+1 − 2φ↑,j + φ↑,j−1 − V↑ ( x j )+ + α∗ φ↑,j − φ↓,j
τ 2h 2 2

n 2 n 2 ( 1) n
− β ↑↑ |φ↑,j | + β ↑↓ |φ↓,j | φ↑,j + α∗ φ↑,j , 1 ≤ j ≤ L − 1, (2.36)
( 1)
φ↓,j − φ↓n,j 1 h ( 1) i
( 1) ( 1) δ ( 1) Ω ( 1)
= 2
φ↓,j+1 − 2φ↓,j + φ↓,j−1 − V↓ ( x j )− + α∗ φ↑,j − φ↑,j
τ 2h 2 2

n 2 n 2 ( 1) n
− β ↑↓ |φ↑,j | + β ↓↓ |φ↓,j | φ↓,j + α∗ φ↓,j , 1 ≤ j ≤ L − 1, (2.37)
( 1)
φl,j
n +1
φl,j = , j = 0,1,..., L, n ≥ 0, l =↑, ↓; (2.38)
k Φ ( 1) k h
where α∗ ≥ 0 is a stabilization parameter [27] chosen in such a way that the time step τ is
independent of the effective Rabi frequency Ω and
v
u L −1 h i
u ( 1) ( 1)
kΦ kh := th ∑ |φ↑,j |2 +|φ↓,j |2 .
( 1)
(2.39)
j=0
12 CONTENTS
β=0 β=10
0.7 0.7
φg
↑
φg
↑
0.6 φg
↓
0.6
φg
↓
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6
β=100 β=500
0.4 0.35
φg φg
↑ ↑
0.35
φg
↓
0.3 φg
↓
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.2
0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −10 −5 0 5 10
g g
Figure 2.1: Ground states Φg =(φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T in Example 2.1 with δ = 0 and Ω =−2 for different
β.
The initial and boundary conditions are discretized as
0 n n
φl,j = φl0 ( x j ), j = 0,1,..., L; φl,0 = φl,L = 0, n ≥ 0; l =↑, ↓ . (2.40)
We remark here that many other numerical methods proposed in the literatures for
computing the ground state of single-component BEC [2, 7, 8, 18, 19, 33, 36, 49, 52, 54, 56, 61,
62,65,105,113,136] can be extended to computing numerically the ground state of pseudo
spin-1/2 BEC [12, 14].
Example 2.1. To demonstrate the efficiency of the BEFD method (2.36)-(2.40) for com-
puting the ground state of (2.12), we take d = 1, V↑ ( x) = V↓ ( x) = 21 x2 + 24cos2 ( x) and
β ↑↑ : β ↑↓ : β ↓↓ = (1.03 : 1 : 0.97) β in (2.11) with β being a real constant. The computational
1
domain is U = [−16,16] with mesh size h = 32 and time step τ = 0.1. Figure 2.1 plots the
ground states Φg when δ = 0 and Ω = −2 for different β, and Figure 2.2 depicts similar
results when δ = 0 and β = 100 for different Ω.
CONTENTS 13
Ω=0 Ω=−2
0.5 0.4
φg φg
0.45 ↑ ↑
0.35
φg
↓
φg
↓
0.4
0.3
0.35
0.3 0.25
0.25 0.2
0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05 0.05
0
0
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
Ω=−10 Ω=−40
0.4 0.4
φg φg
↑ ↑
0.35 0.35
φg
↓
φg
↓
0.3 0.3
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
−8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8
g g
Figure 2.2: Ground states Φg =(φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T in Example 2.1 with δ = 0 and β = 100 for different
Ω.
2.2.3 Another type ground state without Josephson junction
If there is no internal atomic Josephson junction, i.e. Ω = 0 in (2.8), then the mass of each
component is also conserved [16], i.e.
Z Z
2 2
kψl (·,t)k := |ψl (x,t)| dx ≡ |ψl (x,0)|2 dx, t ≥ 0, l =↑, ↓ . (2.41)
Rd Rd
Without loss of generality, we can assume δ = 0. In this case, for any given ν∈[0,1], one can
consider another type ground state Φνg (x)=(φ↑ν (x),φ↓ν (x)) T of the spin-1/2 BEC, which is
defined as the minimizer of the following nonconvex minimization problem:

Find Φνg ∈ Sν , such that

Egν := E0 Φνg = min E0 (Φ) , (2.42)
Φ ∈ Sν
14 CONTENTS
where E0 (·) is the energy in (2.11) with Ω = δ = 0, i.e.

Z
" #
1 2 2 1 4 1 4 2 2
E0 (Φ) := ∑ |∇φj | + Vj (x)|φj | + 2 β↑↑ |φ↑ | + 2 β↓↓ |φ↓ | + β↑↓ |φ↑ | |φ↓ | dx,
R d j=↑,↓ 2
(2.43)
and Sν is a nonconvex set defined as
n o
Sν := Φ = (φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T | kφ↑ k2 = ν, kφ↓ k2 = 1 − ν, E0 (Φ) < ∞ . (2.44)
Again, it is easy to see that the ground state Φνg satisfies the following Euler-Lagrange
equations

1 2 2 2
µ↑ φ↑ = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+( β ↑↑ |φ↑ | + β ↑↓ |φ↓ | ) φ↑ , x ∈ Rd ,
2
(2.45)
1 2 2 2 d
µ↓ φ↓ = − ∇ + V↓ (x)+( β ↑↓ |φ↑ | + β ↓↓ |φ↓ | ) φ↓ , x∈R ,
2
under the two constraints

Z Z
k φ↑ k 2 : = |φ↑ (x)|2 dx = ν, k φ↓ k 2 : = |φ↓ (x)|2 dx = 1 − ν, (2.46)
Rd Rd
with µ↑ and µ↓ being the Lagrange multipliers or chemical potentials corresponding to

the two constraints in (2.46). Again, the above time-independent CGPEs (2.45) can also
be obtained from the CGPEs (2.8) with Ω = δ = 0 by substituting the ansatz
ψ↑ (x,t) = e−iµ↑ t φ↑ (x), ψ↓ (x,t) = e−iµ↓ t φ↓ (x), x ∈ Rd . (2.47)
We remark here that, when Ω = δ = 0 in (2.11), the ground state Φg defined in (2.12) can
be computed from the ground states Φνg (0 ≤ ν ≤ 1) in (2.43) as
Eg := E(Φg ) = min E0 (Φ) = min Egν = min E0 (Φνg ) = min min E0 (Φ). (2.48)
Φ∈S 0≤ ν ≤ 1 0≤ ν ≤ 1 0≤ ν ≤ 1 Φ ∈ S ν
If ν = 0 or 1 in the nonconvex minimization problem (2.42), it reduces to the ground

state of single-component BEC, which has been well studied in the literature [15, 92].
Thus here we assume ν ∈ (0,1) and denote
q
β′↑↑ := νβ ↑↑ , β′↓↓ = (1 − ν) β ↓↓ , β′↑↓ = ν(1 − ν) β ↑↓ , ν′ = ν(1 − ν),
and we have the following conclusions [16].
Theorem 2.4 (existence and uniqueness of (2.42) [16]). Suppose Vj (x)≥ 0 (j =↑, ↓) satisfying
lim Vj (x) = +∞ and at least one of the following conditions holds
|x|→∞
CONTENTS 15
(i) d = 1;
q
(ii) d = 2 and β′↑↑ > −Cb , β′↓↓ > −Cb , and β′↑↓ ≥ − (Cb + β′↑↑ )(Cb + β′↓↓ );
(iii) d = 3 and B is either positive semi-definite or nonnegative;
there exists a ground state Φνg = (φ↑ν ,φ↓ν ) T of (2.42) for any given ν ∈ (0,1). In addition, Φ e νg :=
(eiθ↑ |φ↑ν |,eiθ↓ |φ↓ν |) is also a ground state of (2.42) with two real phase constants θ↑ and θ↓ . Fur-
thermore, if the matrix B is positive semi-definite, the ground state (|φ↑ν |, |φ↓ν |) T of (2.42) is
unique. In contrast, if one of the following conditions holds

(i)′ d = 2 and β′↑↑ ≤ −Cb or β′↓↓ ≤ −Cb or β′↑↓ < − √1 ′ νβ′↑↑ +(1 − ν) β′↓↓ + Cb ;
2 ν
(ii)′ d = 3 and β ↑↑ < 0 or β ↓↓ < 0 or β ↑↓ < − 2ν1 ′ (ν2 β ↑↑ +(1 − ν)2 β ↓↓ ),
there exists no ground state of (2.42).
Similarly, the BEFD method for computing the ground state of (2.12) can be directly
extended to compute the groud state of (2.42) by replacing the projection step (2.38) by
( 1) ( 1)
ν φ↑,j (1 − ν) φ↓,j
φ↑n,j+1 = ( 1)
, φ↓n,j+1 = ( 1)
, j = 0,1,..., L, n ≥ 0, (2.49)
k φ↑ k h k φ↓ k h
q
( 1) ( 1)
where kφl kh := h ∑ jL=−01 |φl,j |2 for l =↑, ↓.
Phase separation. From Theorem 2.4, we know the positive ground state of (2.42) is
unique p when B is positive semi-definite,
p i.e. the inter-component interaction strength
| β ↑↓ | ≤ β ↑↑ β ↓↓ . When β ↑↓ > β ↑↑ β ↓↓ , the large inter-component interaction will drive
the BEC to a segregated phase where the two components φ↑ and φ↓ tend to be separated
[16,48], especially when β ↑↓ →+∞, the two components tend to be completely separated.
For simplicity of notations, we take ν = 1/2, β ↑↑ = β ↓↓ = β > 0 and Ω = δ = 0 in (2.42)
with β ↑↓ ≥ 0 as a parameter, i.e. each component has the same mass 21 with kφ↑1/2 k2 =
p
kφ↓1/2 k2 = 12 . From Theorem 2.4, we know for 0 ≤ β ↑↓ < β ↑↑ β ↓↓ = β, the positive ground
state Φ1/2
g is unique and by symmetry there must hold φ↑1/2 = φ↓1/2 . To measure phase
separation for different inter-component interaction β ↑↓ ≥ 0, we define the mixing factor
1/2 1/2 T
for the positive ground state Φ1/2
g = ( φ↑ ,φ↓ ) ∈ S1/2 as
Z
1 1
0 ≤ η := 2 φ↑1/2 φ↓1/2 dx ≤ 2kφ↑1/2 k×kφ↓1/2 k ≤ 2 × √ × √ = 1. (2.50)
Rd 2 2
In fact, when η = 1, it means that the two components are totally mixed, i.e. φ↑1/2 ≡ φ↓1/2 ,
and resp., when η = 0, it indicates that the two components are totally separated, i.e.
16 CONTENTS
I
1
II
0
β βcr
↑↓
−0.1
0
β↑↓
Figure 2.3: Illustration of the mixing factor η defined in (2.50) v.s. the inter-component
interaction β ↑↓ ≥ 0 for a pseudo spin-1/2 BEC with β ↑↑ = β ↓↓ = β > 0 and Ω = δ = 0 under
a uniform potential (dashed line I) and a box potential (2.51) (solid line II).
φ↑1/2 φ↓1/2 ≡ 0. In this scenario, for a uniform spin-1/2 BEC system without kinetic en-
ergy terms, i.e. the problem (2.42) is defined on a bounded domain U ⊂ R d with periodic
boundary condition and Vj (x) ≡ 0 (j =↑, ↓), then the ground state φ↑1/2 and φ↓1/2 are con-
stants. In this case, 0 ≤ β ↑↓ ≤= β is a sharp criteria for the phase separation, i.e. η = 1 when
0 ≤ β ↑↓ ≤ β, and resp., 0 ≤ η < 1 when β ↑↓ > β with η → 0 when β ↑↓ → +∞ [133]. How-
ever, as observed and proved in [133], when the BEC system is no longer uniform in the
presence of the external confinement, i.e. there exists kinetic energy, the phase separation
will be affected by the kinetic energy [133]. More specifically, we consider a box potential
V↑ (x) = V↓ (x) = V (x) taken as
(
0, x ∈ U ⊂ Rd ,
V ( x) = (2.51)
+∞, otherwise.
In this case, there exists a constant βcr ↑↓ > β, which depends on β and U, such that the total
mixing still holds, i.e. η = 1 for 0 ≤ β ↑↓ ≤ βcr cr
↑↓ , and resp., 0 ≤ η < 1 when β ↑↓ > β ↑↓ with η → 0
as β ↑↓ → +∞. In other words, the phase separation position is shifted from β ↑↓ = β in the
uniform case to β ↑↓ = βcr↑↓ > β in the nonuniform case due to the appearance of the kinetic
energy, which is illustrated in Figure 2.3.
In addition, the following result on phase separation was established in [133].
Theorem 2.5 (phase separation of (2.42) [133]). Suppose β ↑↑ = β ↓↓ = β ≥ 0, Ω = δ = 0 and

Vj (x) = V (x) (j =↑, ↓) in (2.51) with U sufficiently smooth, then there exists a constant βcr
↑↓ > β
which depends on β and U, such that the mixing factor η defined in (2.50) for the positive ground
1/2 1/2 T
state Φ1/2 cr
g = ( φ↑ ,φ↓ ) ∈ S1/2 of (2.42) with ν = 1/2 satisfies η = 1 when 0 ≤ β ↑↓ ≤ β ↑↓ , and
CONTENTS 17
resp., 0 ≤ η < 1 when β ↑↓ > βcr

↑↓ with η → 0 as β ↑↓ →+ ∞ (cf. Fig 2.3 dashed line). In other words,
the box potential confinement V (x) (by adjusting the size of U) can control phase separation of
the underlying pseudo spin-1/2 BEC system without the internal atomic Josephson Junction.
Remark 2.1. Theorem 2.5 can be extended to the pseudo spin-1/2 BEC system in the
whole space with the harmonic trapping potentials by using the fundamental gap result
of the Schrödinger operator, which was established in [5].
2.3 Dynamics
Here we discuss dynamical properties of a spin-1/2 BEC system described by the CG-
PEs (2.8), including the center-of-mass (COM) motion and the spin dynamics (or mass
transfer). For the study of dynamics, the initial condition for (2.8) is usually given as
Ψ(x,t = 0) = Ψ0 (x) = (ψ↑0 (x),ψ↓0 (x)) T , x ∈ Rd with kΨ0 k = 1. (2.52)
2.3.1 Dynamical properties

Let Ψ(x,t) = (ψ↑ (x,t),ψ↓ (x,t)) T be a solution of the CGPEs (2.8) with (2.52), and the total
mass is defined as
N (t) = kΨ(·,t)k2 = N↑ (t)+ N↓ (t), t ≥ 0, (2.53)
where the mass of each component and their difference are defined as
Z
Nj (t) = kψj (·,t)k2 := |ψj (x,t)|2 dx, j =↑, ↓; δN (t) = N↑ (t)− N↓ (t), t ≥ 0. (2.54)
Rd
Since N (t) = N↑ (t)+ N↓ (t) is conserved, it suffices to consider the difference δN (t). The
condensate width is defined as
q Z
2
σα (t) = δα (t), where δα (t) = hα i(t) = α2 |Ψ(x,t)|2 dx, t ≥ 0, (2.55)
Rd
with α being either x,y or z; the center-of-mass is given as

Z
xc ( t) = x|Ψ(x,t)|2 dx, t ≥ 0; (2.56)
Rd
and the momentum is defined as

Z
P ( t) = ∑
R d j=↑,↓
Im(ψj (x,t)∇ψj (x,t)) dx, t ≥ 0, (2.57)
where Im( f ) denotes the imaginary part of f . Then we could obtain the following results.
18 CONTENTS
Lemma 2.1 (mass difference [16]). Suppose Ψ(x,t) = (ψ↑ (x,t),ψ↓ (x,t)) T is a sufficiently reg-
ular solution of the CGPEs (2.8) with (2.52), then we have
Z

2 2
δ̈N (t) =2Ω Re V↑ (x)− V↓ (x)+ δ +( β ↑↑ − β ↑↓ )|ψ↑ | +( β ↑↓ − β ↓↓ )|ψ↓ | ψ↑ ψ↓ dx
Rd
− Ω2 δN ( t ), t ≥ 0, (2.58)
with initial conditions
Z
δN (0) = δ(0) = kψ↑ (·,0)k2 −kψ↓ (·,0)k2 , δ̇N (0) = δ(1) = 2ΩIm ψ↑ (x,0) ψ↓ (x,0) dx.
Rd
Therefore, if Ω 6= 0 and
V↑ (x)− V↓ (x) ≡ −δ, x ∈ Rd , β ↑↑ = β ↑↓ = β ↓↓ , (2.59)
we have
δ ( 1)
δN (t) = δ(0) cos(Ωt)+
sin(Ωt), t ≥ 0, (2.60)
Ω
which implies the mass of each component is a periodic function with period T = |2π
Ω|
depending
only on Ω.
Lemma 2.2 (center-of-mass motion [16]). Assume V↑ (x) = V↓ (x) are harmonic potentials in
(2.9) with x↑ = x↓ = 0, and Ψ(x,t) is a sufficiently regular solution of the CGPEs (2.8) with (2.52),
then we have
ẋc (t) = P(t), Ṗ(t) = −Λxc (t), t ≥ 0, (2.61)

with the initial conditions
Z Z
x c ( 0) = x|Ψ(x,0)|2 dx, ẋc (0) = P(0) = ∑ Im(ψj (x,0)∇ψj (x,0)) dx, (2.62)
Rd R d j=↑,↓
where Λ = γ2x in 1D, Λ = diag(γ2x ,γ2y ) in 2D and Λ = diag(γ2x ,γ2y ,γ2z ) in 3D.
Lemma 2.3 (condensate width [16]). Assume Ψ(x,t) = (ψ↑ (x,t),ψ↓ (x,t)) T is a sufficiently
regular solution of the CGPEs (2.8) with (2.52), then we have
Z
" #
δ̈α (t) = ∑ 2|∂α ψj |2 − 2α|ψj |2 ∂α (Vj (x))+|ψj |2 ∑ β jl |ψl |2 dx, t ≥ 0, (2.63)
R d j=↑,↓ l =↑,↓
Z
( 0)
δα (0) = δα = α2 |ψ↑0 (x)|2 +|ψ↓0 (x)|2 dx, α = x,y,z, (2.64)
Rd
Z h i
( 1)
δ̇α (0) = δα = 2 ∑ α Im (ψ0j )∗ ∂α ψ0j dx. (2.65)
d
j=↑,↓ R
Remark 2.2. The above results can be generalized to the case where an angular momen-
tum rotating term is added in the CGPEs (2.8), see [144] for more details.
CONTENTS 19

In order to solve the CGPEs (2.8) with (2.52) numerically, similar to the ground state case,
the CGPEs (2.8) with (2.52) are truncated onto a bounded computational domain U ⊂ R d
with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions:

∂ψ↑ 1 2 δ 2 2 Ω
i = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+ +( β ↑↑ |ψ↑ | + β ↑↓ |ψ↓ | ) ψ↑ + ψ↓ , x ∈ U, t > 0, (2.66)
∂t 2 2 2

∂ψ↓ 1 δ Ω
i = − ∇2 + V↓ (x)− +( β ↑↓ |ψ↑ |2 + β ↓↓ |ψ↓ |2 ) ψ↓ + ψ↑ , x ∈ U, t > 0, (2.67)
∂t 2 2 2
ψj (x,t) = 0, x ∈ ∂U, j =↑, ↓, t ≥ 0, (2.68)
ψj (x,0) = ψ0j (x), x ∈ U, j =↑, ↓ . (2.69)
In practical computation, a large bounded computational domain U is usually taken such

that the truncation error can be neglected due to that the homogeneous Dirichlet bound-
ary conditions (2.68) are adopted. Different numerical methods have been proposed for
discretizing the problem (2.66)-(2.69) in the literature [6,14–16,144]. Here we only present
one of the most efficient and accurate time splitting spectral method (TSSP) [24,26,29,34].
Time-splitting procedure. For n ≥ 0, from time t = tn = nτ to t = tn+1 = tn + τ, the CGPEs
(2.66)-(2.67) are solved in two splitting steps. One first solves
∂ψ↑ (x,t) 1 Ω
i = − ∇2 ψ↑ (x,t)+ ψ↓ (x,t),
∂t 2 2 (2.70)
∂ψ↓ (x,t) 1 2 Ω
i = − ∇ ψ↓ (x,t)+ ψ↑ (x,t),
∂t 2 2
for the time step of length τ, followed by solving
∂ψ↑ (x,t) δ
i = V↑ (x)ψ↑ (x,t)+ +( β ↑↑ |ψ↑ (x,t)|2 + β ↑↓ |ψ↓ (x,t)|2 )ψ↑ (x,t),
∂t 2 (2.71)
∂ψ↓ (x,t) δ
i = V↓ (x)ψ↓ (x,t)− +( β ↑↓ |ψ↑ (x,t)|2 + β ↓↓ |ψ↓ (x,t)|2 )ψ↓ (x,t),
∂t 2
for the same time step. For time t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ], the ODE system (2.71) leaves |ψ↑ (x,t)| and
|ψ↓ (x,t)| invariant in t, and thus it can be integrated exactly as [16]

δ 2 2

ψ↑ (x,t) = ψ↑ (x,tn ) exp −i V↑ (x)+ + β ↑↑ ψ↑ (x,tn ) + β ↑↓ ψ↓ (x,tn ) (t − tn ) ,
2
(2.72)
δ 2 2
ψ↓ (x,t) = ψ↓ (x,tn ) exp −i V↓ (x)− + β ↑↓ ψ↑ (x,tn ) + β ↓↓ ψ↓ (x,tn ) (t − tn ) .
2
For (2.70), it can be discretized in space by the sine spectral method and then integrated
(in phase space or Fourier space) in time analytically. For details, we refer the readers
to [6, 12, 15, 22] and references therein.
20 CONTENTS
For the convenience of readers and simplicity of notations, here we present the method
in 1D. Extensions to 2D and 3D are straightforward. In 1D, let h = ∆x =(b − a)/L (L a pos-
itive integer), x j = a + jh (j = 0,..., L), Ψnj = (ψ↑n,j ,ψ↓n,j ) T be the numerical approximation of
Ψ( x j ,tn )=(ψ↑ ( x j ,tn ),ψ↓ ( x j ,tn )) T , and for each fixed l =↑, ↓, denote Ψnl to be the vector con-
n for j = 0,1,..., L − 1. From time t = t to t = t
sisting of ψl,j n n +1 , a second-order time-splitting
sine pseudospectral (TSSP) method for the CGPEs (2.66)-(2.69) in 1D reads
L −1
( 1) iτ
Ψ j = ∑ sin(λk ( x j − a)) Q0T e− 4 Uk Q0 (Ψ
fn )k ,
k=1
(1)
( 2) − iτPj ( 1)
Ψj = e Ψj , j = 0,1,..., L, (2.73)
L −1
iτ
g
Ψnj +1 = ∑ sin(λk ( x j − a)) Q0T e− 4 Uk Q0 (Ψ ( 2) ) ,
k
k=1
where λk = bkπ e n)
(Ψ fn fn )k = 2 ∑ L−1 (ψn ) j sin(πjk/L) (k = 1,2,..., L −
en )k ) T with (ψ
k =(( ψ↑ ) k , ( ψ
−a , ↓ l L j=1 l
1) being the discrete sine transform coefficients of ψln (l =↑, ↓), Uk = diag λ2k + Ω,λ2k − Ω
( 1) ( 1) ( 1)
is a diagonal matrix, Pj = diag V↑ ( x j )+ ∑ β ↑l |ψl,j |2 ,V↓ ( x j )+ ∑ β ↓l |ψl,j |2 for j =
l =↑,↓ l =↑,↓
0,1..., L, and !
√1 √1
Q0 = 2 2 .
− √12 √1
2
We remark here again that many other numerical methods proposed in the literatures
for computing the dynamics of single-component BEC [6, 15, 17, 18, 22–26, 28–30, 32, 34, 56,
64, 65, 77, 80, 103, 105, 126, 137] can be extended to computing numerically the dynamics
of pseudo spin-1/2 BEC, i.e. the problem (2.66)-(2.69).
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
−0.5 −0.5
−1 −1
−1.5 −1.5
xc(t) xc(t)
−2 −2
N(t) N(t)
−2.5 δN(t) −2.5 δN(t)
−3 −3
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 2.4: Dynamics of xc (t), N (t) and δN (t) in Example 2.2 for β ↑↑ = β ↑↓ = β ↓↓ = 20 (left)
and β ↑↑ = 20, β ↑↓ = 8, β ↓↓ = 6 (right).
Example 2.2. To demonstrate the efficiency of the TSSP method (2.73) for computing
the dynamics of (2.8) with (2.52), we take d = 1, Ω = 2, δ = 0 and V↑ ( x) = V↓ ( x) = 21 x2 in
CONTENTS 21
(2.8) and the initial data in (2.52) as
1 2 /2
ψ↑0 ( x) = e−( x −1) , ψ↓0 ( x) = 0, x ∈ R. (2.74)
π 1/4
The computational domain is U = [−16,16] with mesh size h = 32 1

and time step τ = 10−4 .
Figure 2.4 shows time evolution of the center-of-mass xc (t), the total mass N (t) and the
mass difference δN (t) for different interaction strengths, which confirms the conclusions
in Lemmas 2.1&2.2.
2.4 Bogoliubov excitation

In the mean field description of a BEC system, the many body effects are absent in the
mean field ground states. However, due to the interaction of the atoms, there are ex-
citations in the system even in the lowest energy state, which is a result of many body
effect. Such excitations could be regarded as quasi particles and are known as Bogoliubov
excitations (or collective excitation or linear response) [42].
To determine the Bogoliubov excitation spectrum, we consider small perturbations
g g
around the ground state of the CGPEs (2.8) with Ω 6= 0. Assume Φg (x) = (φ↑ (x),φ↓ (x)) T
is a ground state of the CGPEs (2.8) with chemical potential µ g , we write the perturbed
wave function Ψ(x,t) as [11, 111]
h i
Ψ(x,t) = e−iµ g t Φg (x)+ u(x) e−iωt + v(x) eiωt , (2.75)
where ω is the frequency of perturbation and u(x) = (u↑ ,u↓ ) T and v(x) = (v↑ ,v↓ ) T are the
two vector amplitude functions. Plugging (2.75) into the CGPEs (2.8) and keep only the
linear terms (w.r.t. u and v), separating the e−i(µ g −ω )t and e−i(µ g +ω)t parts, we could find
 g g g g g 
L1 β ↑↑ (φ↑ )2 β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑ + Ω2 β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑    
  u↑ u↑
 − β ↑↑ (φ↑g )2 −L1 − β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑
g g g g
− β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑ − Ω2   v↑   v↑ 
    = ω   , (2.76)
 
β ↓↓ (φ↓ )2  u↓  u ↓ 
g g Ω g g g
 β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑ + 2 β ↑↓ φ↑ φ↓ L2
g g g g g v↓ v↓
− β ↑↓ φ↑ φ↓ − β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑ − Ω2 − β ↓↓ (φ↓ )2 −L2
where
1 δ g g
L1 = − ∇2 + V↑ + + 2β ↑↑ |φ↑ |2 + β ↑↓ |φ↓ |2 − µ g , (2.77)
2 2
1 δ g g
L2 = − ∇2 + V↓ − + β ↑↓ |φ↑ |2 + 2β ↓↓ |φ↓ |2 − µ g . (2.78)
2 2
The Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equations (2.76), which can be numerically solved, de-
termine the spectrum of the quasi-particle excitations. The solution (ω,u(x),v(x)) is cru-
cial in understanding the collective excitations in the BEC system.
22 CONTENTS
2.5 Semiclassical scaling and limits

Let βmax = max{ β ↑↑ ,β ↑↓ ,β ↓↓ }. If βmax ≫ 1, i.e. in the strong repulsive interaction regime
or there are many particles in the condensate, under the normalization (2.10), the semi-
classical scaling for the CGPEs (2.8) with harmonic trapping potentials (2.9) is also very
useful in practice by choosing
−2/( d+2)
x̃ = ε−1/2 x, Ψε = εd/4 Ψ, ε = βmax . (2.79)
Substituting (2.79) into (2.8) and then remove all˜, we get the CGPEs in the semiclassical
(or Thomas-Fermi) scaling under the normalization (2.10) with Ψ = Ψε :
2
ε 2 εδ εΩ ε
ε ε 2
iε∂t ψ↑ = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+ + ∑ β ↑ j |ψj | ψ↑ε +
ε
ψ ,
2 2 j=↑,↓ 2 ↓
2 (2.80)
ε ε 2 εδ ε ε 2 ε εΩ ε
iε∂t ψ↓ = − ∇ + V↓ (x)− + ∑ β ↓ j |ψj | ψ↓ + ψ ,
2 2 j=↑,↓ 2 ↑
where βεjl = β jl /βmax with βεjl → β0jl as ε → 0+ .

If Ω = 0 and 0 < ε ≪ 1 in (2.80), take the WKB ansatz [50, 71, 81]
q
ε ε i ε
ψj (x,t) = ρ j (x,t) exp S j (x,t) , j =↑, ↓, (2.81)
ε

where ρεj =|ψεj |2 and Sεj = εarg ψεj are the position density and phase of the wave function
ψεj of j-component (j =↑, ↓), respectively. Then the coupled transport equations for the
densities ρεj and the Hamilton-Jacobi equations for the phases Sεj (j =↑, ↓) can be written
as:

∂t ρεj + div ρεj ∇Sεj = 0,
1 εδj ε2 q
∂t Sεj + |∇Sεj |2 + Vj (x)+ + ∑ βεjl ρεl = q ∇2 ρεj , j =↑, ↓,
2 2 l =↑,↓ 2 ρε j
where δ↑ = δ and δ↓ = −δ. As ε → 0+ , by formally dropping the ε terms, we have

∂t ρ0j + div ρ0j ∇S0j = 0,
1
∂t S0j + |∇S0j |2 + Vj (x)+ ∑ β0jl ρ0l = 0, j =↑, ↓,
2 l =↑,↓
with ρ0j = limε→0+ ρεj and S0j = limε→0+ Sεj .

Introduce the current densities
h i
Jεj (x,t) = ρεj ∇Sεj = εIm ψεj ∇ψεj , j =↑, ↓, (2.82)
CONTENTS 23
we can obtain an Euler system for the densities ρ j and J j and the details are omitted here.
A rigorous proof can be found in [89]. We remark here that it is a tough problem to study
the semiclassical limit of the CGPEs (2.80) when Ω 6= 0 since, in general, the ansatz (2.81)
is no longer valid. Wigner transform is another widely used tool in semiclassical analysis,
and will be discussed in section 3.5 for a different system.
3 Spin-orbit-coupled BEC
Spin-orbit (SO) coupling is the interaction between the spin and motion of a particle, and
is crucial for understanding many physical phenomenon, such as quantum Hall effects
and topological insulators. However, the SO coupling is only for fermions in solid state
matters. In a recent experiment [97], Lin et al. have created a spin-orbit-coupled BEC
with two spin states of 85 Rb: |↑i = | F = 1, m f = 0i and |↓i = | F = 1, m f = −1i. It is then
desirable to study the SO coupling in the context of BEC.
3.1 The mathematical model

We focus on the experimental case, where the SO-coupled BEC is described by the macro-
scopic wave function Ψ:= Ψ(x,t)=(ψ↑ (x,t),ψ↓ (x,t)) T :=(ψ↑ ,ψ↓ ) T governed by the CGPEs
in 3D [91, 97, 142, 143]

h̄2 2 ih̄ 2 k̃0 h̄δ̃ h̄ Ω̃
ih̄∂t ψ↑ = − ∇ + Ṽ↑ (x)+ ∂ x + + ∑ g̃l ↑ |ψl |2 ψ↑ + ψ ,
2m m 2 l =↑,↓ 2 ↓
(3.1)
h̄2 2 ih̄ 2 k̃0 h̄δ̃ h̄ Ω̃
ih̄∂t ψ↓ = − ∇ + Ṽ↓ (x)− ∂ x − + ∑ g̃l ↓ |ψl |2 ψ↓ + ψ ,
2m m 2 l =↑,↓ 2 ↑
where k̃0 is the wave number of Raman lasers representing the SO coupling strength,
and all the other parameters are the same as those in psuedo spin-1/2 BEC system (2.1).
Again, here the wave function Ψ is normalized according to (2.3).
Similar to the nondimensionalization and dimension reduction of (2.1), by introduc-
ing the same scaling as (2.4) and performing necessary dimension reduction process from
3D to 1D or 2D, we can obtain the CGPEs for Ψ = (ψ↑ ,ψ↓ ) T in d (d = 1,2,3) dimensions as

1 2 δ 2 2 Ω
i∂t ψ↑ = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+ ik0 ∂ x + +( β ↑↑ |ψ↑ | + β ↑↓ |ψ↓ | ) ψ↑ + ψ↓ ,
2 2 2
(3.2)
1 δ Ω
i∂t ψ↓ = − ∇2 + V↓ (x)− ik0 ∂ x − +( β ↑↓ |ψ↑ |2 + β ↓↓ |ψ↓ |2 ) ψ↓ + ψ↑ ,
2 2 2
√
where k0 = k̃0 h̄/mω0 and all the rest parameters are the same as those in (2.8). The
24 CONTENTS
normalization condition for Ψ becomes (2.10). The CGPEs (3.2) conserve the energy
Z
1
1 δ 1
E ( Ψ) = ∑ |∇ψj | + Vj (x)|ψj | + |ψ↑ |2 −|ψ↓ |2 + β ↑↑ |ψ↑ |4 + β ↓↓ |ψ↓ |4
2 2
R d j=↑,↓ 2 2 2 2

+ β ↑↓ |ψ↑ |2 |ψ↓ |2 + ik0 ψ ↑ ∂x ψ↑ − ψ↓ ∂x ψ↓ + Ω · Re(ψ↑ ψ↓ ) dx. (3.3)
Finally, by introducing the following change of variables
ψ↑ (x,t) = ψ̃↑ (x,t)ei(ωt+k0 x ) , ψ↓ (x,t) = ψ̃↓ (x,t)ei(ωt−k0 x ) , x ∈ Rd , (3.4)

− k20
with ω = 2 in the CGPEs (3.2), we obtain for x ∈ R d and t > 0

1 2 δ Ω
i∂t ψ̃↑ = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+ + β ↑↑ |ψ̃↑ | + β ↑↓ |ψ̃↓ | ψ̃↑ + e−i2k0 x ψ̃↓ ,
2 2
2 2 2
(3.5)
1 δ Ω
i∂t ψ̃↓ = − ∇2 + V↓ (x)− + β ↑↓ |ψ̃↑ |2 + β ↓↓ |ψ̃↓ |2 ψ̃↓ + ei2k0 x ψ̃↑ .
2 2 2
If Ω = 0, (3.3) is equivalent to a pseudo-spin 1/2 BEC system without Josephson junc-
tion through transformation (3.4), which has been studied in section 2. Therefore, we will
assume Ω 6= 0 through out this section.
3.2 Ground states

g g
The ground state Φg := Φg (x) = (φ↑ (x),φ↓ (x)) T of a two-component SO-coupled BEC
based on (3.2) is defined as the minimizer of the energy functional (3.3) under the con-
straint (2.15), i.e.
Find Φg ∈ S, such that
Eg := E Φg = min E ( Φ) , (3.6)
Φ∈S
where S is defined in (2.13). The ground state Φg is a solution of the following nonlinear
eigenvalue problem, i.e. Euler-Lagrange equation of the problem (3.6)

1 2 δ 2 2 Ω
µφ↑ = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+ ik0 ∂ x + +( β ↑↑ |φ↑ | + β ↑↓ |φ↓ | ) φ↑ + φ↓ ,
2 2 2
(3.7)
1 2 δ Ω
µφ↓ = − ∇ + V↓ (x)− ik0 ∂ x − +( β ↑↓ |φ↑ |2 + β ↓↓ |φ↓ |2 ) φ↓ + φ↑ ,
2 2 2
under the normalization constraint Φ ∈ S. For an eigenfunction Φ = (φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T of (3.7), its
corresponding eigenvalue (or chemical potential in the physics literature) µ := µ(Φ) =
µ(φ↑ ,φ↓ ) can be computed as
Z
β ↑↑ 4 β ↓↓ 4 2 2
µ = E(Φ)+ | φ↑ | + |φ↓ | + β ↑↓ |φ↑ | |φ↓ | dx. (3.8)
Rd 2 2
CONTENTS 25

For the existence and uniqueness concerning the ground state, we have the following
results [14].
Theorem 3.1 (existence and uniqueness [14]). Suppose Vj (x)≥0 (j=↑, ↓) satisfying lim Vj (x)=
|x|→∞
g g
+∞, then there exists a minimizer Φg = (φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T ∈ S of (3.6) if one of the following conditions
holds
(i) d = 1;
q
(ii) d = 2, β ↑↑ > −Cb , β ↓↓ > −Cb and β ↑↓ ≥ −Cb − (Cb + β ↑↑ )(Cb + β ↓↓ );
(iii) d = 3 and the matrix B (2.19) is either positive semi-definite or nonnegative.
In addition, eiθ0 Φg is also a ground state of (3.6) for any θ0 ∈[ 0,2π ). In particular, when k0 = 0 or
Ω = 0, the ground state is unique up to a phase factor if the matrix B is positive semi-definite and
I (x) 6≡ 0 in (2.18). In contrast, there exists no ground state of (3.6) if one of the following holds
q
(i)′ d = 2, β ↑↑ ≤ −Cb or β ↓↓ ≤ −Cb or β ↑↓ < −Cb − (Cb + β ↑↑ )(Cb + β ↓↓ );
(ii)′ d = 3, β ↑↑ < 0 or β ↓↓ < 0 or β ↑↓ < 0 with β2↑↓ > β ↑↑ β ↓↓ .
As observed in (3.5), the SO coupling k0 is competing with the Raman transition Ω. In-
deed, when letting either |Ω| or |k0 | tend to infinity, the asymptotic profile of the ground
state can be classified. Introducing an auxiliary energy functional Ẽ0 (Φ̃) for Φ̃ = (φ̃↑ , φ̃↓ ) T
Z
1 δ β ↑↑ β ↓↓
Ẽ0 (Φ̃) =
Rd
∑ 2 |∇φ̃j | + Vj (x)|φ̃j | + 2 (|φ̃↑ |2 −|φ̃↓ |2 )+ 2 |φ̃↑ |4 + 2 |φ̃↓ |4
2 2
j=↑,↓
Z
2 2
+ β ↑↓ |φ̃↑ | |φ̃↓ | dx = Ẽ (Φ̃)− Ω Re(ei2k0 x φ̃↑ φ̃↓ )dx, (3.9)
Rd
we know that the nonconvex minimization problem

( 0) ( 0)
Ẽg := Ẽ0 (Φ̃g ) = min Ẽ0 (Φ̃), (3.10)
Φ̃∈S
( 0) g,0 g,0
admits a unique positive minimizer Φ̃g =(φ̃↑ , φ̃↓ ) T ∈ S if the matrix B is positive semi-
definite and I (x) 6≡ 0 in (2.18). For a given k0 ∈ R, let Φ̃k0 = (φ̃↑k0 , φ̃↓k0 ) T ∈ S be a ground state
of (3.6) when all other parameters are fixed, then we can draw the conclusions as follows.
Theorem 3.2 (large k0 limit [14]). Suppose the matrix B is positive semi-definite and I (x) 6≡ 0
in (2.18), and Φk0 = (φ↑k0 ,φ↓k0 ) T is a ground state of (3.6). When k0 → ∞, let Φ̃k0 = (φ̃↑k0 , φ̃↓k0 ) T =
(e−ik0 x φ↑k0 ,eik0 x φ↓k0 ) T , then Φ̃k0 converges to a ground state of (3.10) in L p1 × L p2 sense with p1 , p2
26 CONTENTS
satisfying (i) p1 , p2 ∈[2,6) when d = 3, (ii) p1 , p2 ∈[2,∞) when d = 2, and (iii) p1 , p2 ∈[2,∞] when
d=1. Equivalently speaking, there exist constants θk0 ∈[0,2π ) such that eiθk0 (φ̃↑k0 , φ̃↓k0 ) T converges
( 0)
to the unique positive ground state Φ̃g of (3.10). In other words, large k0 in the CGPEs (3.2)
will remove the effect of Raman coupling Ω, i.e. large k0 limit is effectively letting Ω → 0.
When either Ω or δ tends to infinity, similar results as Theorems 2.2&2.3 hold and
they are omitted here for brevity. Indeed, large Raman coupling Ω will remove the effect
of SO coupling k0 in the asymptotic profile of the ground states of (3.6) and the reverse is
true, i.e. there is a competition between these two parameters.
Theorem 3.3 (ground states property [14]). Suppose lim Vj (x) = +∞ (j =↑, ↓), the matrix
|x|→∞
B is either positive semi-definite or nonnegative, then we have
g g
(i) If |Ω|/|k0 |2 ≫ 1, |Ω| → +∞, the ground state Φg = (φ1 ,φ2 ) T of (3.6) for the CGPEs
(3.2) converges to a state (φg ,sgn(−Ω)φg ) T , where φg minimizes the energy (2.22) under the
√
constraint kφg k = 1/ 2.
g g
(ii) If |Ω|/|k0 | ≪ 1, |k0 | → +∞, the ground state Φg = (φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T of (3.6) for the CGPEs (3.2)
g,0 g,0 e (g0) = (φ̃ g,0 , φ̃ g,0 ) T is a ground state of (3.10)
converges to a state (e−ik0 x φ̃ ,eik0 x φ̃ ) T , where Φ
↑ ↓ ↑ ↓
for the energy Ẽ0 (·) in (3.9).
(iii) If |k0 | ≪ |Ω| ≪ |k0 |2 and |k0 | → +∞, the leading order of the ground state energy Eg :=
2
k2 2
E(Φg ) of (3.6) for the CGPEs (3.2) is given by Eg = − 20 − C0 ||kΩ||2 + o ||kΩ||2 , where C0 > 0 is a
0 0
generic constant.
Remark 3.1. For |k0 | ≪ |Ω| ≪ |k0 |2 , the ground state of (3.6) is very complicated. The
ground state energy expansion indicates that −k20 /2 is the leading order term and is
much larger than the next order term. In such situation, the above theorem shows that
g g g
the ground state Φg ≈(eik0 x |φ1 |,e−ik0 x |φ2 |) T , and oscillation of ground state densities |φj |2
(j =↑, ↓) may occur at the order of O(|Ω|/|k0 |2 ) in amplitude and k0 in frequency. Such
density oscillation is predicted in the physics literature [91], known as the density mod-
ulation.
Similar to the pseudo spin-1/2 case in section 2.2.2, we construct a GFDN to compute the
g g
ground state Φg = (φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T of (3.6) for a SO-coupled BEC. Let tn = nτ (n = 0,1,2,...) be the
( 0) ( 0)
time steps with τ > 0 as the time step size and we evolve an initial state Φ0 := (φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T
CONTENTS 27
through the following GFDN

" #
1 2 δ 2 Ω
∂t φ↑ = ∇ − V↑ (x)− ik0 ∂x − − ∑ β ↑l |φl | φ↑ − φ↓ , t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ),
2 2 l =↑,↓ 2
" #
2
1 δ Ω
∂t φ↓ = ∇2 − V↓ (x)+ ik0 ∂x + − ∑ β ↓l |φl |2 φ↓ − φ↑ , t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ),
2 2 l =↑,↓ 2 (3.11)
φ↑ (x,t−
n +1 ) φ↓ (x,t−
n +1 )
φ↑ (x,tn+1 ) = , φ ↓ ( x,t n + 1 ) = , x ∈ Rd ,
kΦ(·,t− n +1 )k kΦ(·,t−n +1 )k
( 0) ( 0)
φ↑ (x,0) = φ↑ (x), φ↓ (x,0) = φ↓ (x), x ∈ R d .
The above GFDN (3.11) is then truncated on a bounded large computational domain U,
e.g. an interval [ a,b] in 1D, a rectangle [ a,b]×[c,d] in 2D and a box [ a,b]×[c,d]×[e, f ] in
3D, with periodic boundary conditions. The GFDN on U can be further discretized in
space via the pseudospectral method with the Fourier basis or second-order central finite
difference method and in time via backward Euler scheme as discussed in section 2.2.2.
For more details, we refer to [16–19, 21, 28] and references therein.
Remark 3.2. If the box potential (2.51) is used in the CGPEs (3.2) instead of the harmonic
potentials (2.9), due to the appearance of the SO coupling, in order to compute the ground
state, it is better to construct the GFDN based on CGPEs (3.5) (imaginary time) and then
discretize it via the backward Euler sine pseudospectral (BESP) method due to that the
homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on ∂U must be used in this case. Again, for
details, we refer to [16, 18, 21, 28] and references therein.
Example 3.1. To verify the asymptotic property of the ground states in Theorem 3.2,
we take d = 2, δ = 0, β ↑↑ : β ↑↓ : β ↓↓ = (1 : 0.9 : 0.9) β with β ↑↑ = 10 in (3.2). The potential Vj (x)
(j =↑, ↓) are taken as the box potential given in (2.51) with U =[−1,1]×[−1,1]. We compute
1
the ground state via the above BESP method with mesh size h = 128 and time step τ = 0.01
(τ = 0.001 for large Ω). For the chosen parameters, it is easy to find that when Ω = 0, the
g g g
ground state Φg satisfies φ↑ = 0. Figure 3.1 shows the profile of Φ̃g = (e−ik0 x φ↑ ,eik0 x φ↓ ) T
g g
where Φg = (φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T is a ground state of (3.6) with Ω = 50 for different k0 , which clearly
demonstrates that as k0 → +∞, effect of Ω disappears. This is consistent with Theorem
3.2.
3.3 Dynamics
For a SO-coupled BEC described by the CGPEs (3.2), we consider the dynamics charac-
terized by the center-of-mass xc (t) in (2.56), momentum P(t) in (2.57) and spin density
δN in (2.54).
28 CONTENTS
1 1 1 1
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0 0 0 0
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
−1 0 −1 0 −1 0 −1 0
−1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1
(a) (b)
1 3 1 1 1 1
2 0.5
0.5
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
−0.5
−2 −0.5
−1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1
−1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1
1 1 1 1 0.8
0.06
0.15 0.6 0.6
0.04
0 0.1 0 0.4 0 0 0.4
0.05 0.2 0.02 0.2
−1 0 −1 0 −1 0 −1 0
−1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1
(d) (e) x 10
−3
1 1 1 1
1 0.2 2 2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
−1
−2 −0.2 −2 −2
−1 −3 −1 −1 −1
−1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1 −1 0 1
g g
Figure 3.1: Modulated ground state Φ̃g = (φ̃↑ , φ̃↓ ) T in Example 3.1 for a SO-coupled BEC
in 2D with Ω = 50, δ = 0, β 11 = 10, β12 = β 21 = β22 = 9 for: (a) k0 = 0, (b) k0 = 1,(d) k0 = 10 and
(e) k0 = 50. In each subplot, top panel shows densities and bottom panel shows phases of
g g
φ̃↑ (left column) and φ̃↓ (right column).

For the center-of-mass motion, we have the lemma.
Lemma 3.1 (dynamics of center-of-mass [14]). Let V↑ (x) = V↓ (x) be the d-dimensional (d =
1,2,3) harmonic potentials given in (2.9), then the motion of the center-of-mass xc (t) for the
CGPEs (3.2) is governed by
Z
ẍc (t) = −Λxc (t)− 2k0 ΩIm ψ↑ (x,t) ψ↓ (x,t) dx ex , t > 0, (3.12)
Rd
where Λ is a d × d diagonal matrix with Λ = γ2x in 1D (d = 1), Λ = diag(γ2x ,γ2y ) in 2D (d = 2)

and Λ = diag(γ2x ,γ2y ,γ2z ) in 3D (d = 3), ex is the unit vector for x-axis. The initial conditions for
(3.12) are given as
Z
x c ( 0) = x ∑ |ψj (x,0)|2 dx, ẋc (0) = P(0)− k0 δN (0) ex .
Rd j=↑,↓
CONTENTS 29
In particular, (3.12) implies that the center-of-mass xc (t) is periodic in y-component with fre-
quency γy when d = 2,3, and in z-component with frequency γz when d = 3. If k0 Ω = 0, xc (t) is
also periodic in x-component with frequency γx .
The above lemma leads to the following approximations of xc (t).
Theorem 3.4 (approximation of center-of-mass [14]). Let V↑ (x) = V↓ (x) be the harmonic
potential as (2.9) in d dimensions (d=1,2,3) and k0 Ω6=0. For the x-component xc (t) of the center-
of-mass xc (t) of the CGPEs (3.2) with any initial data Ψ(x,0) := Ψ0 (x) satisfying kΨ0 k = 1, we
have
Z t
P0x
xc (t) = x0 cos(γx t)+ sin(γx t)− k0 cos(γx (t − s))δN (s) ds, t ≥ 0, (3.13)
γx 0
R R
where x0 = R d x ∑ j=↑,↓ |ψj (x,0)|2 dx and P0x = R d ∑ j=↑,↓ Im(ψj (x,0) ∂x ψj (x,0)) dx. In addition,
if δ ≈ 0, |k0 | is small, β ↑↑ ≈ β, β ↑↓ = β ↓↑ ≈ β and β ↓↓ ≈ β with β being a fixed constant, we can
approximate the solution xc (t) as follows:
(i) If |Ω| = γx , we can get

k0 1 x k0 γx k0 C0
xc (t) ≈ x0 − δN (0)t cos(γx t)+ P0 − δN (0)− sgn(Ω) t sin(γx t), (3.14)
2 γx 2 2
R
where C0 = 2Im R d ψ↑ (x,0) ψ↓ (x,0) dx.
(ii) If |Ω| 6= γx , we can get

k0 C0 1 x γ2x k0 δN (0)
x c ( t ) ≈ x0 + 2 cos(γx t)+ P0 − 2 sin(γx t)
γ x − Ω2 γx γ x − Ω2
(3.15)
k0 C0 k 0 δ N ( 0) Ω
− 2 2
cos(Ωt)+ 2 sin(Ωt).
γx − Ω γ x − Ω2
Ω
Based on the above approximation, if |Ω|= γx or γx is an irrational number, xc (t) is not periodic;
Ω
and if γxis a rational number, xc (t) is a periodic function, but its frequency is different from the
trapping frequency γx .
As in the experiments, the initial data of CGPEs (3.2) are usually prepared in a special
g g
form, i.e. shift of the ground state Φg =(φ↑ ,φ↓ ) T of (3.6) for the CGPEs (3.2), i.e., the initial
condition for (3.2) is chosen as
g g
ψ↑ (x,0) = φ↑ (x − x0 ), ψ↓ (x,0) = φ2 (x − x0 ), x ∈ Rd , (3.16)
where x0 = x0 in 1D, x0 = ( x0 ,y0 ) T in 2D and x0 = ( x0 ,y0 ,z0 ) T in 3D. Then we have the
approximate dynamical law for the center-of-mass in x-direction xc (t).
30 CONTENTS
Theorem 3.5 (approximation of center-of-mass [14]). Suppose V↑ (x) = V↓ (x) for x ∈ R d are
harmonic potentials given in (2.9), and the initial data for the CGPEs (3.2) is taken as (3.16), then
we have 2
(i) when ||kΩ0 || ≫ 1, the dynamics of the center-of-mass xc (t) can be approximated by the ODE
ẍc (t) = −γ2x xc (t), x c ( 0) = x0 , ẋc (0) = 0, (3.17)
i.e., xc (t) = x0 cos(γx t), which is the same as the case without SO coupling k0 ;
2
(ii) when ||kΩ0 || ≪ 1, β ↑↑ ≈ β, β ↑↓ = β ↓↑ ≈ β and β ↓↓ ≈ β with β a fixed constant, the dynamics
of the center-of-mass xc (t) can be approximated by the following ODE
k0 [2k0 P x (t)− δ]
ẋc (t) = P x (t)− p , Ṗ x (t) = −γ2x xc (t), t ≥ 0, (3.18)
[2k0 P x (t)− δ]2 + Ω2
with xc (0) = x0 and P x (0) = k0 δN (0). In particular, the solution to (3.18) is periodic, and, in
general, its frequency is different from the trapping frequency γx .

Different from the pseudo spin-1/2 case in section 2.3.2, we propose a time splitting
Fourier spectral (TSFP) scheme for solving the CGPEs (3.2). Similarly, we truncate the
equations onto a bounded computational domain U, e.g. an interval [ a,b] in 1D, a rectan-
gle [ a,b]×[c,d] in 2D and a box [ a,b]×[c,d]×[e, f ] in 3D, equipped with periodic boundary
conditions. Then from tn to tn+1 , the CGPEs (3.2) can be solved in two steps. One first
solve for x ∈ U

1 2 δ Ω
i∂t ψ↑ = − ∇ + ik0 ∂x + ψ↑ + ψ↓ ,
2 2 2
(3.19)
1 2 δ Ω
i∂t ψ↓ = − ∇ + ik0 ∂x + ψ↓ + ψ↑ ,
2 2 2
for time step τ, followed by solving

i∂t ψj = Vj (x)+ β j↑ |ψ↑ |2 + β j↓ |ψ↓ |2 ψj , j =↑, ↓, x ∈ U, (3.20)
for another time step τ. Eq. (3.19) with periodic boundary conditions can be discretized
by the Fourier spectral method in space and then integrated in time exactly. Eq. (3.20)
leaves the densities |ψ↑ | and |ψ↓ | unchanged and it can be integrated in time exactly.
Then a full discretization scheme can be constructed via a combination of the splitting
steps (3.19) and (3.20) with a second-order or higher-order time-splitting method.
For the convenience of the readers, here we present the method in 1D for the simplic-
ity of notations. Extensions to 2D and 3D are straightforward. In 1D, let h = ∆x =(b − a)/L
(L an even positive integer), x j = a + jh (j = 0,..., L), Ψnj = (ψ↑n,j ,ψ↓n,j ) T be the numerical ap-
proximation of Ψ( x j ,tn )=(ψ↑ ( x j ,tn ),ψ↓ ( x j ,tn )) T , and for each fixed l =↑, ↓, denote ψln to be
CONTENTS 31
n for j = 0,1,..., L − 1. From time t = t to t = t

the vector consisting of ψl,j n n +1 , a second-order
time-splitting Fourier pseudospectral (TSFP) method for the CGPEs (3.2) in 1D reads
L/2−1
( 1) iτ
Ψj = ∑ eiµk ( x j − a) QkT e− 4 Uk Qk (Ψ
fn )k ,
k=− L/2
(1)
( 2) − iτPj ( 1)
Ψj = e Ψj , j = 0,1,..., L − 1, (3.21)
L/2−1
Ψnj +1 =
iτ
g
eiµk ( x j − a) QkT e− 4 Uk Qk (Ψ
∑ ( 2) ) ,
k
k=− L/2
where for each fixed k =− L2 , − L2 + 1,..., L2 − 1, µk = b2kπ en fn en T fn

− a , ( Ψ ) k =(( ψ↑ ) k , ( ψ↓ ) k ) with ( ψl ) k =
2π jk
1 L −1 n i L being
L ∑ j=0 ( ψl ) j e the discrete Fourier transform coefficients of ψln (l =↑, ↓), Uk =

diag µ2k + 2λk ,µ2k − 2λk is a diagonal matrix, and
√ Ω

λk −χk √
√ 2 q
 √ 2λk 2λk ( λk − χ k )  δ 1
Qk =  Ω  with χ k = k0 µk − , λk = 4χ2k + Ω2 ,
− √λk + χk √ 2 2 2
2λk 2λk ( λk + χ k )
( 1) ( 1) ( 1)
and Pj = diag V↑ ( x j )+ ∑ β ↑l |ψl,j |2 ,V↓ ( x j )+ ∑ β ↓l |ψl,j |2 for j = 0,1..., L − 1.
l =↑,↓ l =↑,↓
Example 3.2. To verify the the asymptotic (or approximate) results for xc (t) in Theorem
3.4, we take d = 2, δ = 0 and β ↑↑ = β ↑↓ = β ↓↓ = 1 in (3.2), and choose the initial data as
| x − x 0 |2
ψ↑ (x,0) = π −1/2 e− 2 , ψ↓ (x,0) = 0, x ∈ R2 , (3.22)
where x0 =(1,1) T . The problem is solved numerically on a bounded domain [−16,16]2 by

the TSFP method (3.21) with mesh size h = 1/128 and time step τ = 10−4 . Figure 3.2 de-
picts time evolution of xc (t) obtained numerically and asymptotically as in Theorem 3.4
with Ω = 20 and k0 = 1 for different γx . From this figure, we see that: for short time t, the
approximation given in Theorem 3.4 is very accurate; and when t ≫ 1, it becomes inaccu-
rate. Similarly, to verify the asymptotic (or approximate) results for xc (t) in Theorem 3.5,
we take d = 2, δ = 0, γx = γy = 2 and β ↑↑ = β ↑↓ = β ↓↓ = 10 in the CGPEs (3.2), and choose the
initial data in (2.9) as (3.16) with x0 = (2,2) T and the ground state computed numerically.
Figure 3.3 depicts time evolution of xc (t) obtained numerically and asymptotically as in
Theorem 3.5 with different Ω and k0 .
3.4 Bogoliubov excitation

Similar to section 2.4, to determine the Bogoliubov excitation spectrum, we consider
small perturbations around the ground state of the CGPEs (3.2) with Ω 6= 0. Assume
32 CONTENTS
1.5 x (t) x (t)

c 1.5
(a) Eq. (3.15) (b) c
Eq. (3.15)
1 1
0.5 0.5
0
0
−0.5
−0.5
−1
−1
−1.5
0 10 20 30 40 0 2 4 6 8
t t
1.5 xc(t)
(c) Eq. (3.15)
1
(d)
0.8
1
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.5
−0.6
−1 −0.8 xc(t)
−1
Eq. (3.14)
−1.5
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
t t
Figure 3.2: Time evolution of xc (t) for the CGPEs (3.2) as in Example 3.2 obtained nu-
merically from its numerical solution (i.e. labeled by ’xc (t)’ with solid lines) and asymp-
totically as Eqs. (3.14) and (3.15) in Theorem 3.4 (i.e. labeled by ’Eq.’ with ‘+ + +’) with
Ω = 20 and k0 = 1 for different γx : (a) γx = 1, (b) γx = 5, (c) γx = 3π, and (d) γx = 20.
g g
Φg (x) = (φ↑ (x),φ↓ (x)) T is a ground state of the CGPEs (3.2) with chemical potential µ g ,
we write perturbed wave function Ψ(x,t) as
h i
Ψ(x,t) = e−iµ g t Φg (x)+ u(x)e−iωt + v(x) eiωt , (3.23)
where ω is the frequency of perturbation and u(x) = (u↑ ,u↓ ) T and v(x) = (v↑ ,v↓ ) T are the
two vector amplitude functions. Plugging (3.23) into the CGPEs (3.2) and keep the linear
terms (w.r.t u and v), separating the e−i(µ g −ω )t and e−i(µ g +ω)t parts, we could find
 g g g g g 
L1 + ik0 ∂x β ↑↑ (φ↑ )2 β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑ + Ω2 β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑    
  u↑ u↑
g 2 g g g g Ω  
 − β ↑↑ (φ↑ ) −L + ik ∂ − β φ φ − β φ φ − v  
 1 0 x ↑↓ ↓ ↑ ↑↓ ↓ ↑ 2  ↑
= ω  v↑  , (3.24)
 
β ↓↓ (φ↓ )2  u↓  u ↓ 
g g Ω g g g
 β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑ + 2 β ↑↓ φ↑ φ↓ L2 − ik0 ∂x
g g g g g v↓ v↓
− β ↑↓ φ↑ φ↓ − β ↑↓ φ↓ φ↑ − Ω2 − β ↓↓ (φ↓ )2 −L2 − ik0 ∂x
where
1 δ g g
L1 = − ∇2 + V↑ + + 2β ↑↑ |φ↑ |2 + β ↑↓ |φ↓ |2 − µ g , (3.25)
2 2
1 2 δ g g
L2 = − ∇ + V↓ − + β ↑↓ |φ↑ |2 + 2β ↓↓ |φ↓ |2 − µ g . (3.26)
2 2
CONTENTS 33
3
x (t) x (t)
(a) c
Eq. (3.17)
3 (b) c
Eq. (3.17)
2
2
1
1
0 0
−1 −1
−2 −2
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
t t
xc(t) 3 xc(t)
3 (c) Eq. (3.18)
(d) Eq. (3.18)
2
2
1
1
0 0
−1 −1
−2 −2
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
t t
Figure 3.3: Time evolution of xc (t) for the CGPEs (3.2) as in Example 3.2 obtained numer-
ically from its numerical solution (i.e. labeled as xc (t) with solid lines) and asymptotically
as Eqs. (3.17) and (3.18) in Theorem 3.5 (i.e. labeled as ’Eq.’ with ‘+ + +’) for different sets
of parameters: (a) (Ω,k0 ) = (50,20), (b) and (c) (Ω,k0 ) = (2,2), and (d) (Ω,k0 ) = (50,2).
The Bogoliubov excitations are then determined by the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG)
equations (3.24).
3.5 Semiclassical scaling and limits

For strong interaction β jl ≫ 1 (j,l =↑, ↓) and harmonic trapping potentials (2.9), we could
rescale (3.2) by choosing x→xε−1/2 , ψj →ψεj εd/4 , ε=1/β2/(d+2) , β max =max{| β ↑↑ |, | β ↑↓ |, | β ↓↓ |},
which gives the following CGPEs

ε2 2 εδ εΩ
iε∂t ψ↑ε = − ∇ + V↑ (x)+ ik0 ε ∂x + + ∑ β ↑ j |ψj | ψ↑ε + ψ↓ε ,
3/2 ε ε 2
2 2 j=↑,↓ 2
2 (3.27)
ε εδ εΩ ε
iε∂t ψ↓ε = − ∇2 + V↓ (x)− ik0 ε3/2 ∂x − + ∑ βε↓ j |ψεj |2 ψ↓ε + ψ ,
2 2 j=↑,↓ 2 ↑
β
where βεjl = βmax
jl
with βεjl → β0jl as ε → 0+ and the potential functions are given in (2.9). It
is of great interest to study the behavior of (3.27) when the small parameter ε tends to 0,
i.e. the semiclassical limit.
34 CONTENTS
In the linear case, i.e. βεjl = 0 for j,l =↑, ↓, (3.27) collapses to
" #
− ε2 3/2 ∂ + εδ + V εΩ
iε∂t Ψε = 2 ∆ + ik0 ε x 2 ↑ 2 Ψε , (3.28)
εΩ − ε2 εδ
2 2 ∆ − ik0 ε3/2 ∂ x − 2 + V↓
where Ψε = (ψ↑ε ,ψ↓ε ) T . We now describe the limit as ε → 0+ using the Wigner transform
instead of WKB approach in section 2,
Z
W ε (Ψε )(x,ξ ) = (2π )−d Ψε (x − εv/2)⊗ Ψε (x + εv/2)eiv·ξ dv, (3.29)
Rd
where W ε is a 2 × 2 matrix-valued function. The symbol corresponds to (3.28) can be

written as
1/2
i k ε ξ 1 + V↑ (x)+ εδ2 εΩ
Pε (x,ξ ) = |ξ |2 + i 0 εΩ
2 , (3.30)
2 2 −k0 ε1/2 ξ 1 + V↓ (x)− εδ2
where ξ =(ξ 1 ,ξ 2 ,...,ξ d ) T . Let us consider the principal part P of Pε = P +O(ε), i.e., we omit
small O(ε) terms, and we know that −iP(x,ξ ) has two eigenvalues λ↑ (x,ξ ) and λ↓ (x,ξ ).
Let Π j (j =↑, ↓) be the projection matrix from C2 to the eigenvector space associated with
λ j . If λ↑,↓ are well separated, then W ε (Ψε ) converges to the Wigner measure W 0 which
can be decomposed as
W 0 = u↑ (x,ξ,t)Π↑ + u↓ (x,ξ,t)Π↓ , (3.31)
where u j (x,ξ,t) (j =↑, ↓) satisfies the Liouville equation
∂t u j (x,ξ,t)+∇ξ λ j (x,ξ,t)·∇x u j (x,ξ,t)−∇x λ j (x,ξ,t)·∇ξ u j (x,ξ,t) = 0. (3.32)
It is known that such semi-classical limit fails at regions when λ↑ and λ↓ are close.
Specifically, when k0 = O(1), δ = O(1) and Ω = O(1), the limit of the Wigner transform
W ε (Ψε ) only has diagonal elements, and we have

i 2 V↑ (x) 0 1 1
P = |ξ | + i , λ↑ = |ξ |2 + V↑ (x), λ↓ = |ξ |2 + V↓ (x). (3.33)
2 0 V↓ (x) 2 2
In the limit of this case, W 0 in (3.31), Π↑ and Π↓ are diagonal matrices, which means
the two components of Ψε in (3.28) are decoupled as ε → 0+ . In addition, the Liouville
equation (3.32) is valid with λ↑ and λ↓ defined in (3.33).
Similarly, when k0 = O(1/ε1/2 ), δ = O(1/ε) and Ω = O(1/ε), e.g. k0 = εk1/2
∞
, Ω = Ωε∞ and
δ = δε∞ with k∞ , Ω∞ and δ∞ nonzero constants, the limit of the Wigner transform W ε (Ψε )
has nonzero diagonal and off-diagonal elements, and we have
Ω∞

i 2 k ξ + V (x)+ δ2∞
P = |ξ | + i ∞ 1 Ω↑∞ 2 , (3.34)
2 2 −k∞ ξ 1 + V↓ (x)− δ2∞
CONTENTS 35
and q
|ξ |2 V1 (x)+ V2 (x) [V↑ (x)− V↓ (x)+ 2k∞ ξ 1 + δ∞ ]2 + Ω2∞
λ ↑,↓ = + ± . (3.35)
2 2 2
In the limit of this case, W 0 in (3.31), Π1 and Π2 are full matrices, which means that the
two components of Ψε in (3.28) are coupled as ε → 0+ . Again, the Liouville equation (3.32)
is valid with λ↑ and λ↓ defined in (3.35).
Of course, for the nonlinear case, i.e. β0jl 6= 0 for j,l =↑, ↓, only the case when Ω = 0
and k0 = 0 has been addressed [89]. For Ω 6= 0 and k0 6= 0, it is still not clear about the
semi-classical limit of the CGPEs (3.27).
4 Spin-1 BEC
When an optical trap is used to confine the particles instead of a magnetic trap, a spinor
condensate can be achieved experimentally. In current experiments, alkali atoms are
widely used and have an electron spin of 1/2 with a nuclear spin of 3/2 for 23 Na, 87 Rb
and 41 Kb. Therefore, the hyperfine spin for these atoms as a consequence of the interac-
tion between the electron spin and the nuclear spin can be 1 or 2. In this section, we focus
on the spin-1 BEC.

At temperature T much lower than the critical temperature Tc , a spin-1 condensate sub-
ject to an external uniform magnetic field B, can be described by the three-component
wave functions Ψ(x,t) = (ψ1 (x,t),ψ0 (x,t),ψ−1 (x,t) T ) (x ∈ R3 ) (ψl for the m F = l state, l =
−1,0,1) governed by the following CGPEs in 3D [76, 85, 107, 122] as
h i
ih̄∂t ψ1 = He − p0 + q0 + c0 ρ + c1 (ρ1 + ρ0 − ρ−1 ) ψ1 + c1 ψ̄−1 ψ02 ,
h i
ih̄∂t ψ0 = He + c0 ρ + c1 (ρ1 + ρ−1 ) ψ0 + 2c1 ψ−1 ψ̄0 ψ1 , (4.1)
h i
ih̄∂t ψ−1 = H e + p0 + q0 + c0 ρ + c1 (ρ−1 + ρ0 − ρ1 ) ψ−1 + c1 ψ02 ψ̄1 ,
e = − h̄2 ∇2 + Ṽ (x) with the trapping potential Ṽ (x) usu-

where the single Hamiltonian H 2m
µ B µ2 B 2
ally chosen as the harmonic potential in (2.2), p0 = − B2 and q0 = 4EB hfs are the linear
and quadratic Zeeman energy shifts, respectively. Here µ B = eh̄/me is the Bohr mag-
neton, e > 0 is the elementary charge and me is the electron mass, Ehfs is the hyperfine
energy splitting [85]. ρ = ∑l =−1,0,1 ρl and ρl = |ψl |2 (l = −1,0,1) is the density of l-th com-
g +2g
ponent; c0 = 0 3 2 characterizes the spin-independent interaction (positive for repulsive
g −g
interaction and negative for attractive interaction) while c1 = 2 3 0 characterizes the spin-
exchange interaction (negative for ferromagnetic interaction and positive for antiferro-
36 CONTENTS
2 2
magnetic interaction) with g0 = 4πh̄ 4πh̄
m a0 (g2 = m a2 ), and a0 (a2 ) being the s-wave scattering
length for scattering channel of total hyperfine spin 0 (spin 2).
Similar to the CGPEs (2.1) for pseudo spin-1/2 condensate, q introducing the√scaling:
h̄
t → t/ωs with ωs = min{ω x ,ωy ,ωz }, x → x/xs with xs = mω s
, ψl → ψl x3/2
s / N (l =
−1,0,1) with N being the total number of particles in the system, after a proper dimension
reduction process in 1D and 2D, the dimensionless CGPEs are obtained in d dimensions
(d = 1,2,3) for Ψ = (ψ1 ,ψ0 ,ψ−1 ) T as
i∂t ψ1 = [ H + q − p + β 0 ρ + β1 (ρ1 + ρ0 − ρ−1 )] ψ1 + β1 ψ̄−1 ψ02 ,

i∂t ψ0 = [ H + β0 ρ + β1 (ρ1 + ρ−1 )] ψ0 + 2β1 ψ−1 ψ̄0 ψ1 , (4.2)
i∂t ψ−1 = [ H + q + p + β 0 ρ + β1 (ρ−1 + ρ0 − ρ1 )] ψ−1 + β1 ψ02 ψ̄1 ,
where H =− 12 ∇2 +V (x) and the dimensionless harmonic trapping potential V (x) is given
p
in (2.6). The linear and quadratic Zeeman terms are scaled according to p = h̄ω0s and
q
q = h̄ω0 s . The dimensionless mean-field and spin-exchange interaction terms are now given
√
Nc0 4πN ( a0 +2a2 ) Nc2 4πN ( a2 − a0 ) 4πN ( a0 +2a2 ) γz
by β0 = 3
xs h̄ωs √
= 3xs and β 1 = 3
xs h̄ω√s
= 3xs in 3D; β 0 = 3xs
√
2π
and
√
4πN ( a2 − a0 ) γz 4πN ( a0 +2a2 ) γz γy 4πN ( a2 − a0 ) γz γy
β1 = 3xs
√
2π
in 2D; β0 = 3xs 2π and β 1 = 3xs 2π in 1D.
Introduce the spin-1 matrices f = (fx ,fy ,fz ) as T
     
0 1 0 0 −1 0 1 0 0
1  i  1 
fx = √ 1 0 1 , fy = √ 1 0 −1 , fz = √ 0 0 0  (4.3)
2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 −1
and the spin vector F(Ψ) = ( Fx (Ψ),Fy (Ψ),Fz (Ψ)) T = ( Fx ,Fy ,Fz ) T = (Ψ∗ fx Ψ,Ψ∗ fy Ψ,Ψ∗ fz Ψ) T
T
(Ψ∗ = Ψ is the conjugate transpose) of the condensate can be expressed as
1
Fx = √ ψ1 ψ0 + ψ0 (ψ1 + ψ−1 )+ ψ−1 ψ0 ,
2
i (4.4)
Fy = √ −ψ1 ψ0 + ψ0 (ψ1 − ψ−1 )+ ψ−1 ψ0 ,
2
Fz = |ψ1 |2 −|ψ−1 |2 ,
and the CGPEs (4.2) can be written in the compact form as
i∂t Ψ = [ H + β 0 ρ − pfz + qf2z + β1 F · f]Ψ, (4.5)
where F · f = Fx fx + Fy fy + Fz fz and ρ = |Ψ|2 = ∑1l =−1 |ψl |2 .

The CGPEs (4.2) (or (4.5)) conserve the following three important quantities, i.e. the
mass (or normalization)
Z
N (Ψ(·,t)) := kΨ(·,t)k2 = ∑ |ψl (x,t)|2 dx = N (Ψ(·,0)) = 1, (4.6)
R d l =−1,0,1
CONTENTS 37
the magnetization (with M ∈ [−1,1])

Z
M (Ψ(·,t)) := ∑ l |ψl (x,t)|2 dx = M (Ψ(·,0)) = M, (4.7)
R d l =−1,0,1
and the energy per particle

( )
Z 1
1 β 0 β 1
E(Ψ(·,t)) = ∑ |∇ψl |2 +(V (x)− pl + ql2 )|ψl |2 + 2 |Ψ|4 + 2 |F|2 dx
R d l =−1 2
≡ E(Ψ(·,0)), t ≥ 0. (4.8)
In practice, introducing ψl → e−il pt ψl in the CGPEs (4.2) (or (4.5)), the system is unchanged
and it is thus reasonable to assume the linear Zeeman term p = 0 in the subsequent dis-
cussion. On the other hand, it is easy to observe from (4.8) that the linear Zeeman term
does not contribute to the energy due to the magnetization conservation (4.7).
4.2 Ground states

The ground state Φg (x) of the spin-1 BEC described by the CGPEs (4.2) is obtained from
the minimization of the energy functional subject to the conservation of total mass and
magnetization:

Find Φg ∈ S M such that

Eg := E Φg = min E (Φ) , (4.9)
Φ∈S M
where the nonconvex set S M is defined as

Z
T 2 2

S M = Φ = (φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ) | kΦk = 1, |φ1 (x)| −|φ−1 (x)| dx = M, E(Φ) < ∞ . (4.10)
Rd
This is a nonconvex minimization problem and the Euler-Lagrange equations associated

to the minimization problem (4.9) read:

1 2 2 2
2
(µ + λ) φ1 (x) = − ∇ + V (x)− p + q +( β0 + β1 ) |φ1 | +|φ0 | +( β0 − β1 )|φ−1 | φ1
2
+ β1 φ̄−1 φ02 , (4.11)

1
µ φ0 (x) = − ∇2 + V (x)+( β 0 + β1 ) |φ1 |2 +|φ−1 |2 + β0 |φ0 |2 φ0
2
+ 2β1 φ−1 φ̄0 φ1, (4.12)

1
(µ − λ) φ−1 (x) = − ∇2 + V (x)+ p + q +( β0 + β1 ) |φ−1 |2 +|φ0 |2 +( β0 − β1 )|φ1 |2 φ−1
2
+ β1 φ02 φ̄1 . (4.13)
Here µ and λ are the Lagrange multipliers (or chemical potentials) corresponding to the
normalization constraint (5.8) and the magnetization constraint (5.9), respectively.
38 CONTENTS

We collect the existence and uniqueness results on the ground state (4.9) below.
Theorem 4.1 (existence and uniqueness [95]). Suppose lim V (x) = +∞, there exists a
|x|→∞
g g g
ground state Φg = (φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ) T ∈ S M of (4.9) for the spin-1 BEC governed by the CGPEs (4.2),
if one of the following conditions hold,
(i) d = 1;
(ii) d = 2, M = ±1 and β0 + β1 > −Cb or M ∈ (−1,1) and β 0 + β1 > −Cb with β 1 ≤ 0, or

Cb2 + β 1 Cb
M ∈ (−1,1), β0 + β1 > 1−+|2CMb | and β 0 ≥ − β 2 with β 1 > 0;
1 (1− M )+ Cb
(iii) d = 3, M = ±1 and β0 + β1 ≥ 0 or M ∈ (−1,1) and β0 ≥ 0, β0 + β1 ≥ 0.

g g g
In particular, (eiθ1 φ1 ,eiθ0 φ0 ,eiθ−1 φ−1 ) T ∈ S M with real constants θ1 + θ−1 − 2θ0 = 2kπ (k ∈ Z) if
β 1 6= 0 or arbitrary constants θl (l = −1,0,1) if β1 = 0, is also a ground state of (4.9). Moreover,
g g g g g g
the ground state can be chosen as (|φ1 |, −sgn( β 1 )|φ0 |, |φ−1 |) T (β1 6= 0) and (|φ1 |, |φ0 |, |φ−1 |) T
(β1 = 0). These special ground states are unique if
(i)′ when M = ±1, β0 + β1 ≥ 0;
(ii)′ when M ∈ (−1,1) and q = 0, β1 > 0 and β0 ≥ 0 or β1 < 0 and β0 + β1 ≥ 0.
When √ M ∈ (−1,1), q = 0 and β√ 1 = 0, the ground states with nonnegative components are of the
√
form ( 1 + M − α0 /2φ, α0 φ, 1 − M − α0 /2φ) with φ:= φ(x)≥ 0 and 0 ≤ α0 ≤ 1−| M |. On the
other hand, there exists no ground state of (4.9), i.e. infΦ∈S M E(Φ) = −∞, if one of the following
conditions hold,
(i)′′ d = 2, if M = ±1 and β0 + β1 ≤ −Cb or M ∈ (−1,1) and β0 + β1 ≤ −Cb with β1 ≤ 0, or

M ∈ (−1,1), β1 > 0, β0 + β1 ≤ 1−+|2CMb | or β 0 < −Cb − M2 β1 ;
(ii)′′ d = 3, β 0 + β1 < 0 or M ∈ (−1,1) and β0 < 0.
When M = ±1, the ground state of (4.9) collapses to a single component case which
has been widely studied [15]. Most of the results in Theorem 4.1 can be drawn from the
following observations when the quadratic Zeeman term is absent in the CGPEs (4.2),
i.e. q = 0. Firstly, when q = 0 and M ∈ (−1,1), for the ferromagnetic system β1 < 0, we
have the single mode approximation (SMA), i.e. each component of the ground state Φg
is identical up to a constant factor [20, 95].
Theorem 4.2 (single mode approximation (SMA) [95]). Suppose lim V (x) = +∞, q = 0,
|x|→∞
M ∈ (−1,1), β1 < 0 and the existence conditions in Theorem 4.1 hold, the ground state Φg =
CONTENTS 39
g g g g
(φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ) T ∈ S M satisfies φl = eiθl αl φg (θ1 + θ−1 − 2θ0 = (2k + 1)π, k ∈ Z), where φg is the
unique positive minimizer of the energy functional
Z
1 2 2 β0 + β1 4
ESMA (φ) = |∇φ| + V (x)|φ| + |φ| dx, (4.14)
Rd 2 2
q
1− M 2
under the constraint kφk = 1, and α1 = 1+2M , α−1 = 1−2M , α0 = 2 .
Secondly, when q = 0 and M ∈ (−1,1), for the anti-ferromagnetic system β1 > 0, we

g g g g
have the vanishing phenomenon, i.e. the ground state Φg = (φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ) T satisfies φ0 = 0.
Theorem 4.3 (two-component case [95]). Suppose lim V (x) = +∞, q < 0, M ∈ (−1,1),
|x|→∞
g g g
β 1 > 0 and the existence conditions in Theorem 4.1 hold, the ground state Φg =(φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ) T ∈ S M
g g g
satisfies φ0 = 0, and Φ̃g =(φ1 ,φ−1 ) T is a minimizer of the pseudo spin-1/2 system given in section
2 described by (2.42) with δ = 0, ν = 1+2M and β ↑↑ = β ↓↓ = β0 + β1 , β ↑↓ = β0 − β1 .
When quadratic Zeeman effects are considered, the above Theorems 4.2&4.3 are gen-
erally no longer valid, more rich phases will appear in the spin-1 system.

To compute the ground state (4.9), we generalize the GFDN method in section 2.2.2. We
start with the following CNGF for Φ = (φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ) T [35]

1 2 2 2
2
∂t φ1 (x,t) = ∇ − V (x)− q −( β 0 + β1 ) |φ1 | +|φ0 | −( β0 − β1 )|φ−1 | φ1
2
− β1 φ̄−1 φ02 +[µΦ (t)+ λΦ (t)] φ1, (4.15)

1
∂t φ0 (x,t) = ∇2 − V (x)−( β 0 + β1 ) |φ1 |2 +|φ−1 |2 − β0 |φ0 |2 φ0
2
− 2β1 φ−1 φ̄0 φ1 + µΦ (t) φ0 , (4.16)

1
∂t φ−1 (x,t) = ∇2 − V (x)− q −( β 0 + β1 ) |φ−1 |2 +|φ0 |2 −( β0 − β1 )|φ1 |2 φ−1
2
− β1 φ02 φ̄1 +[µΦ (t)− λΦ (t)] φ−1, (4.17)
where µΦ (t) and λΦ (t) are Lagrange multipliers such that the normalization condition
(4.6) and the magnetization constraint (4.7) are preserved during the evolution. For given
initial data Φ(x,t = 0) = Φ(0) satisfying kΦ(x,t = 0)k = 1 and M (Φ(·,t = 0)) = M, the above
CNGF (4.15)-(4.17) will preserve the constraints (4.6) and (4.7), while the energy is dimin-
ishing.
40 CONTENTS
We approximate the CNGF (4.15)-(4.17) following the spin-1/2 system case in section
2.2.2, resulting in the GFDN below, for t ∈ [tn−1 ,tn ) (n ≥ 1), one solves

1
∂t φ1 = ∇2 − V (x)− q −( β 0 + β1 )(|φ1 |2 +|φ0 |2 )−( β 0 − β1 )|φ−1 |2 φ1 − β1 φ̄−1 φ02 , (4.18)
2

1 2 2 2
2
∂t φ0 = ∇ − V (x)−( β 0 + β1 ) |φ1 | +|φ−1 | − β0 |φ0 | φ0 − 2β1 φ−1 φ̄0 φ1 , (4.19)
2

1
∂t φ−1 = ∇2 − V (x)− q −( β 0 + β1 )(|φ−1 |2 +|φ0 |2 )−( β 0 − β1 )|φ1 |2 φ−1 − β1 φ02 φ̄1 , (4.20)
2
followed by a projection step as
φl (x,tn ) := φl (x,t+ n −
n ) = σl φl ( x,tn ), x ∈ Rd , n ≥ 1, l = −1,0,1, (4.21)
where φl (x,t±
n ) = lim t→t±
n
φl (x,t) (l = −1,0,1) and the projection constants σln (l = −1,0,1)
are chosen such that
1
kΦ(·,tn )k2 = ∑ kφl (·,tn )k2 = 1, kφ1 (·,tn )k2 −kφ−1 (·,tn )k2 = M. (4.22)
l =−1
Similar to the pseudo spin-1/2 BEC case, there are three projection constants to be de-
termined, i.e. σln (l = −1,0,1) in (4.21), and there are only two equations, i.e. (4.22), to
fix them, we need to find another condition so that the three projection constants are
uniquely determined. Again, in fact, the above GFDN can be viewed as a split-step
discretization of the CNGF (4.15)-(4.17) and the projection step is equivalent to solve
∂t φl (x,t)=[µΦ (t)+ lλΦ (t)]φl (x,t) (l =−1,0,1). From this observation, we can find another
condition for the projection constants in (4.21) as [27, 94]
n
σ1n σ− n 2
1 = ( σ0 ) . (4.23)
Solving (4.22)-(4.23), we get explicitly the projection constants

√
1 − M2
σ0n = q 1/2 , (4.24)
− 2 2 − 2 − 2 2 − 4
kφ0 (·,tn )k + 4(1 − M )kφ1 (·,tn )k kφ−1 (·,tn )k + M kφ0 (·,tn )k
and
q q
1 + M −(σ0n )2 kφ0 (·,t−
n )k
2 1 − M −(σ0n )2 kφ0 (·,t−
n )k
2
σ1n = √ , n
σ− 1= √ . (4.25)
2 kφ1 (·,t−
n )k 2 kφ−1 (·,t−
n )k
To fully discretize the GFDN (4.18)-(4.21) together with the projection constants (4.24)-
(4.25), we use backward Euler scheme in temporal discretization and one can choose fi-
nite difference method, spectral method and finite element method for spatial discretiza-
tion [27, 35]. For the simplicity, we omit the detail here.
CONTENTS 41
M=0 M=0.2
φg
1
0.25 0.25
φg
0
φg
−1
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
−16 −8 0 8 16 −16 −8 0 8 16
M=0.5 M=0.9
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
−16 −8 0 8 16 −16 −8 0 8 16
x x
g g
Figure 4.1: Wave functions of the ground state, i.e., φ1 ( x) (dashed line), φ0 ( x) (solid line),
g
and φ−1 ( x) (dotted line), of 87 Rb in Example 4.1 case I with a fixed number of particles
N = 104 for different magnetizations M = 0,0.2,0.5,0.9 in an optical lattice potential.
Example 4.1. To show the ground states of the spin-1 BEC, we take d = 1, p = q = 0,
V ( x) = x2 /2 + 25sin2 πx
4 in (4.2). Two different types of interaction strengths are chosen
as
• Case I. For 87 Rb with dimensionless quantities in (4.2) used as β 0 = 0.0885N, and

β1 = −0.00041N with N the total number of atoms in the condensate and the di-
mensionless length unit as = 2.4116 × 10−6 [m] and time unit ts = 0.007958 [s].
• Case II. For 23 Na with dimensionless quantities in (4.2) used as β 0 = 0.0241N, and
β1 = 0.00075N, with N the total number of atoms in the condensate and the dimen-
sionless length unit as = 4.6896 × 10−6 [m] and time unit ts = 0.007958 [s].
The ground states are computed numerically by the backward Euler sine pseudospec-
tral method presented in [27]. Figure 4.1 shows the ground state solutions of 87 Rb in case
I with N = 104 for different magnetizations M. Figure 4.2 shows similar results for 23 Na
in case II.
42 CONTENTS
M=0 M=0.2
0.4 0.4
0.35 φg
1 0.35
φg
0.3 0 0.3
φg
−1
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
−12 −6 0 6 12 −12 −6 0 6 12
M=0.5 M=0.9
0.4 0.4
0.35 0.35
0.3 0.3
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
−12 −6 0 6 12 −12 −6 0 6 12
x x
g g
Figure 4.2: Wave functions of the ground state, i.e., φ1 ( x) (dashed line), φ0 ( x) (solid
g
line), and φ−1 ( x) (dotted line), of 23 Na in Example 4.1 case II with N = 104 for different
magnetizations M = 0,0.2,0.5,0.9 in an optical lattice potential.
For the cases when q = 0 in Theorems 4.2&4.3, the minimization problem (4.9) can
be reduced to a single component and a two component system, respectively, where the
numerical methods could be simplified [20].
We remark here that there is another type of ground state of the spin-1 BEC, especially
with an Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic field B(x), in the literatures [20, 70], which is defined as
the minimizer of the energy functional subject to the conservation of total mass:

Find Φ̃g ∈ S such that

Ẽg := E Φ̃g = min E ( Φ) , (4.26)
Φ∈S
where the nonconvex set S is defined as
n o
S = Φ = (φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ) T | kΦk = 1, E(Φ) < ∞ . (4.27)
For the analysis and numerical simulation of this type of the ground state of spin-1 BEC,
we refer to [20,57,70] and references therein. In addition, when there is no Ioffe-Pritchard
CONTENTS 43
magnetic field in the spin-1 BEC, the ground state Φ̃g defined in (4.26) can be computed
from the ground state Φg in (4.9) as

Ẽg := E Φ̃g = min E (Φ) = min E Φg = min min E (Φ) . (4.28)
Φ∈S − 1≤ M ≤ 1 − 1≤ M ≤ 1 Φ ∈ S M
4.3 Dynamics
For a spin-1 system governed by the CGPEs (4.2) (or (4.5)), define the mass (or density)
of each spin component as
Z
Nl (t) := |ψl (x,t)|2 dx, t ≥ 0, l = −1,0,1, (4.29)
Rd
and the condensate width as

q q
σα (t) = δα (t) = δα,1 (t)+ δα,0 (t)+ δα,−1 (t), α = x,y,z, (4.30)
where Z
δα,j (t) = hα2 il (t) = α2 |ψj (x,t)|2 dx, t ≥ 0, j = 1,0, −1. (4.31)
Rd

The most interesting property would be the change of density Nl (t) w.r.t time t [37].
Lemma 4.1. Suppose Ψ(x,t) is the solution of the CGPEs (4.2) for spin-1 BEC, then we have
Ṅ1 (t) = Ṅ−1 (t) = Fe(t), Ṅ0 (t) = −2Fe(t), (4.32)

R 2 dx
with Nl (0) = R d |ψl ( x,0)| (l = −1,0,1) and
Z
Fe(t) = 2β1 Im ψ̄−1 ψ02 ψ̄1 dx, t ≥ 0. (4.33)
Rd
For the condensate width, we have the following results.
Lemma 4.2. Suppose Ψ(x,t) is the solution of the CGPEs (4.2), then we have
Z
" #
1
2 2 2 2
δ̈α (t) = ∑ 2|∂α ψj | − 2α|ψj | ∂α V (x) + β0 |Ψ| + β1 |F(Ψ)| dx,
Rd
t ≥ 0, (4.34)
j=−1
Z
δα (0) = α2 |ψ1 (x,0)|2 +|ψ0 (x,0)|2 +|ψ−1 (x,0)|2 dx, α = x,y,z, (4.35)
Rd
1 Z
( 0)
δ̇α (0) = 2 ∑ αIm ψ̄j ∂α ψ0j dx. (4.36)
d
j=−1 R
44 CONTENTS
Lemma 4.3. Suppose Ψ(x,t) is the solution of the CGPEs (4.2), q = 0 and V (x) is the harmonic
potential in (2.9), then we have
(i) In 1D without nonlinear terms, i.e. d = 1, β0 = β1 = 0 in (4.2), for any initial data Ψ(x,0)=
Ψ(0) ( x), we have,
E ( Ψ ( 0) ) ( 0) δx′ (0)
δx ( t ) = [ 1 − cos ( 2γ x t )]+ δ x cos ( 2γ x t )+ sin(2γx t). (4.37)
γ2x 2γx
(ii) In 2D with a radially symmetric trap, i.e. d = 2, γx = γy := γr and β1 = 0 in (5.7), for any
initial data Ψ(x,0) = Ψ(0) ( x,y), we have, for any t ≥ 0,
( 1)
E ( Ψ ( 0) ) ( 0) δ ( 0)
δr (t) = [1 − cos(2γr t)]+ δr cos(2γr t)+ r sin(2γr t), (4.38)
γr2 2γr
( 0) ( 1)
where δr (t) = δx (t)+ δy (t), δr := δx (0)+ δy (0) and δr := δx′ (0)+ δy′ (0).
Let Φs := Φs (x) be a stationary state of the CGPEs (4.2), i.e. Φs solves the Euler-
Lagrange system (4.11)-(4.13). If the initial data Ψ(x,0) for the CGPEs (4.2) is chosen as a
stationary state with its center-of-mass shifted from the trap center, we can construct an
exact solution of the CGPEs (4.2) with a harmonic oscillator potential (2.9).
Lemma 4.4. If the initial data Ψ(x,0) for the CGPEs (4.2) is chosen as
(0) · x + b (0) )
Ψ(x,0) = Φs (x − x0 )ei(a , x ∈ Rd , (4.39)
( 0) ( 0)
where x0 is a given point in R d , a(0) = ( a1 ,...,ad ) T is a given vector in R d and b(0) is a given
real number, then the exact solution of (4.2) with the initial data (4.39) satisfies:
s
ψl (x,t) = φls (x − x(t)) e−iµl t ei(a(t)·x+b(t)), x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0, l = −1,0,1, (4.40)
where for any time t ≥ 0, x(t) satisfies the following second-order ODE system:
ẍ(t)+ Λx(t) = 0, (4.41)

( 0)
x ( 0) = x0 , ẋ(0) = a . (4.42)
In addition, a(t) = ( a1 (t),...,ad (t)) T and b(t) satisfy
1 1
ȧ(t) = −Λx(t), b′ (t) = − |a(t)|2 − x(t) T Λx(t), t > 0, (4.43)
2 2
with initial data a(0) = a(0) , b(0) = b(0) and Λ = diag(γ2x ) in 1D, Λ = diag(γ2x ,γ2y ) in 2D and
Λ = diag(γ2x ,γ2y ,γ2z ) in 3D.
CONTENTS 45

To compute the dynamics, we numerically solve the Cauchy problem for the CGPEs (4.2).
The time splitting technique can be used here, and the basic idea is to divide the evolution
of the CGPEs (4.2) into several subproblems which are much easier to deal with. In
[37,129], the nonlinear subproblem are not integrated exactly and are solved by numerical
quadratures. Recently, Symes et al. [124] proposed a time-splitting scheme where the
nonlinear subproblem are solved exactly and we will introduce the procedure below.
After truncating the CGPEs (4.2) (or (4.5)) onto a bounded domain with homogeneous
Dirichlet boundary conditions or periodic boundary conditions, we solve (4.2) (or (4.5))
from time tn = nτ to tn+1 = tn + τ through the following subproblems. One first solves
∂ψl 1
i = (− ∇2 + pl + ql 2 )ψl , l = −1,0,1, (4.44)
∂t 2
i∂t Ψ = [V (x)+ β 0 |Ψ|2 + β1 ( Fxn fx + Fyn fy + Fzn fz )]Ψ (4.45)
for the same time step. Again, (4.44) can be integrated exactly in phase space. For (4.45),
noticing fα (α = x,y,z) are Hermitian matrices and satisfy the commutator relations [fx ,fy ]=
fx fy − fy fx = ifz , [fy ,fz ] = ifx and [fz ,fx ] = ify , we find ∂t |Ψ(t,x)|2 = 0 (t ∈ (tn ,tn+1 )) and for
α = x,y,z,
∂t (Ψ∗ f α Ψ) =Im(Ψ∗ f α [V (x)+ β 0 |Ψ|2 + β1 ( Fx (Ψ)fx + Fy (Ψ)fy + Fz (Ψ)fz )]Ψ)

− Im(Ψ∗ [V (x)+ β0 |Ψ|2 + β1 ( Fx (Ψ)fx + Fy (Ψ)fy + Fz (Ψ)fz )]∗ f α Ψ)

=2Im Fx (Ψ)Ψ∗ [fα ,fx ]Ψ + Fy (Ψ)Ψ∗ [fα ,fy ]Ψ + Fz (Ψ)Ψ∗ [fα ,fz ]Ψ = 0,
which implies that the spin vector components Fα (Ψ(x,t)) = Fα (Ψ(x,tn )) (t ∈ (tn ,tn+1 )).
Now, it is clear that (4.45) becomes a linear ODE with solution
2+β n n n
Ψ(x,t) = e−i(t−tn )[V (x)+ β0 |Ψ(x,tn )| 1 ( Fx f x + Fy fy + Fz fz )]
Ψ(x,tn ), t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ], (4.46)
where the spin vector Fn = ( Fxn ,Fyn ,Fzn ) T is evaluated using Ψ(x,tn ), i.e. Fαn = Fα (Ψ(x,tn )).
Denote the matrix Sn = Fxn fx + Fyn fy + Fzn fz with detailed form as
 
Fzn √1 F−
n 0
2
 n n
Sn =  √12 F+n 0 √1 F−
2 , F+n = F − = Fxn + iFyn , (4.47)
1 n
0 √ F+
2
− Fzn
e (x,t) = ei(t−tn )(V (x)+ β0|Ψ(x,tn )|2 ) Ψ(x,t) (t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ]) satisfies
and then Ψ
e (x,t) = e−i(t−tn ) β1 Sn Ψ
Ψ e (x,tn ), t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ]. (4.48)
46 CONTENTS
Now Sn has eigenvalues 0 and ±|Fn |, and the eigenvector corresponding to 0 is

n 1 1 n n 1 n T
e = n − √ F− ,Fz , √ F+ . (4.49)
|F | 2 2
e (x,t) = ((en )∗ Ψn ) = 0 (t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ]). Therefore,

By computation, it is easy to verify (en )∗ Ψ
n 2 e n 2 e
we have (S ) Ψ = |F | Ψ and the exponential of Sn can be computed as
n
e (x,t) = cos( β 1 (t − tn )|Fn |)Ψ(x,tn )− i sin( β 1 (t − tn )|F |) Sn Ψ(x,tn ),
Ψ (4.50)
n
|F |
e (x,tn ) = Ψ(x,tn ). The ODE (4.45) can be solved exactly as

where we used the fact that Ψ

sin( β 1 τ |Fn |) n
2)
Ψ(x,tn+1 ) = e−iτ (V (x)+ β0 |Ψ(x,tn )| cos( β1 τ |Fn |)Ψ(x,tn )− i
S Ψ ( x,t n ) .
|F n |
(4.51)
n n n n T
Let Ψ = (ψ1 ,ψ0 ,ψ−1 ) be the numerical approximation of Ψ(x,t) at tn = nτ. Combining
the subproblems (4.44) and (4.45) via Strang Splitting, we obtain a second order semi-
discretization in time as: from tn to tn+1 ,
( 1) 1 2 − pl − ql 2 ) /2
ψl = eiτ ( 2 ∇ ψln , l = −1,0,1, (4.52)
!
(1 ) |2 ) sin( β 1 τ |F(1) |) (1) (1)
Ψ(2) = e−iτ (V (x)+ β0 |Ψ cos( β1 τ |F(1) |)Ψ(1) − i S Ψ , (4.53)
| F ( 1) |
1 2 − pl − ql 2 ) /2 ( 2)
ψln+1 = eiτ ( 2 ∇ ψl , l = −1,0,1, (4.54)
( 1) ( 1) ( 1)
where the spin vector F(1) = F(Ψ(1) ) = ( Fx ,Fy ,Fz ) T and S(1) is given in (4.47) with
elements computed from F(1) . The above splitting procedure (4.52)-(4.54) can be imple-
mented with Fourier/sine/cosine spectral method for periodic/homogeneou Dirichlet/
homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions for spatial discretizations, and we refer
to [15] for detail.
Example 4.2. To show the dynamics of spin-1 BEC, we take d = 1, p = q = 0, β0 = 100,

β 1 = 2 and V ( x) = 12 x2 in the CGPEs (4.2). The initial data is taken as
√ √
0.05 − x2 0.9 − x2
ψ1 ( x,0) = ψ−1 ( x,0) = 1 e 2 , ψ0 ( x,0) = 1 e 2 , x ∈ R.
π 4 π 4
The problem is solved on a bounded domain [−10,10] with h = 5/128 and τ = 10−3 by
the TSSP method [15]. Fig. 4.3 shows that the total normalization N = N1 + N0 + N−1 , the
magnetization M (t) = N1 − N−1 and the energy E := E(t) are conserved very well.
CONTENTS 47
E
1 35 δ
30
N
0.5 N1−N−1
25
20
0
15
−0.5 10
5
−1
0 5 10 15 20 0
t 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4.3: Time evolutions of the total normalization N (t) and the magnetization M (t)=
N1 − N−1 (left); and the energy E and condensate width δ := δx (right) in Example 4.2.
5 Spin-2 BEC
In recent experiments, spin-2 BEC has been realized in F = 2 87 Rb and 23 Na systems. The
spin-2 condensates exhibited rich phenomenon, and many properties have been investi-
gated including magnetic phases, charged vortices, and the phase separation, etc. Below,
we briefly discuss the mathematical model, mathematical theories and numerical meth-
ods.
At temperature T much smaller than the critical temperature Tc [85], a spin-2 BEC can
be well described by the spin-2 vector wave function Ψ := Ψ(x,t) = (ψ2 ,ψ1 ,ψ0 ,ψ−1 ,ψ−2 ) T
(ψl for m F = l state, l = −2, −1,0,1,2) governed by the CGPEs in the compact form as
[76, 85, 107, 122]:
ih̄∂t Ψ = [ H̃ + c0 ρ − p̃fz + q̃f2z + c1 F · f]Ψ + c2 A00 AΨ, (5.1)
2
h̄
where as described in section 4.1, H̃ = − 2m ∇2 + Ṽ (x) is the single particle Hamiltonian,
p̃ and q̃ are the linear and quadratic Zeeman energy shifts, respectively. ρ = |Ψ|2 =
4g +3g g −g 7g −10g +3g
∑2l =−2 |ψl |2 is the total density. c0 = 2 7 4 , c1 = 4 7 2 and c2 = 0 7 2 4 characterizes
the spin-independent interaction, spin-exchange interaction and spin-singlet interaction,
2
respectively, with gk = 4πh̄ m ak (k = 0,2,4) and ak being the s-wave scattering length for
scattering channel of total hyperfine spin k. The spin-2 matrices f = (fx ,fy ,fz ) T are given
48 CONTENTS
as    
0 1 q0 0 0 0 −1 0
q 0 0
 3   3 
1 0 2 0 0 1 0 − 2 0 0 
 q q   q q 
 3 3   3 3 
fx = 0 2 0 2 0 , fy = i  0 2 0 − 2 0  (5.2)
 q   q 
 3   3 
0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 − 1
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
and
fz = diag(2,1,0, −1, −2), (5.3)
and the spin vector F = F(Ψ) = ( Fx ,Fy ,Fz ) T with Fα = Ψ∗ fα Ψ (α = x,y,z) is given as
√
6
Fx = ψ2 ψ1 + ψ1 ψ2 + ψ −2 ψ−1 + ψ −1 ψ−2 + (ψ1 ψ0 + ψ0 ψ1 + ψ0 ψ−1 + ψ−1 ψ0 ),
" 2 #
√
6 (5.4)
Fy = i ψ1 ψ2 − ψ2 ψ1 + ψ −2 ψ−1 − ψ −1 ψ−2 + (ψ0 ψ1 − ψ1 ψ0 + ψ −1 ψ0 − ψ0 ψ−1 ) ,
2
Fz = 2|ψ2 |2 +|ψ1 |2 −|ψ−1 |2 − 2|ψ−2 |2 ,
with F · f = Fx fx + Fy fy + Fz fz . The matric A is

 
0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 −1 0
1  
A= √  0 0 1 0 0 (5.5)
50 −1 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0
and A00 := A00 (Ψ) = ΨT AΨ with

1
A00 = √ (2ψ2 ψ−2 − 2ψ1 ψ−1 + ψ02 ). (5.6)
5
Here, we adopt notations similar to the spin-1 case, while there should be no confusion
about such abuse of notations.
Similar to section 4.1, introducing the scaling: t → t/ωs with ωs = min{ω x ,ωy ,ωz },
q √
h̄
x→ x/xs with xs = mω s
, ψl → ψl x3/2
s / N (l =−2, −1,0,1,2) with N being the total number
of particles in the system, after a proper dimension reduction process in 1D and 2D,
the dimensionless CGPEs for spin-2 BEC are obtained in d dimensions (d = 1,2,3) for
Ψ = (ψ2 ,ψ1 ,ψ0 ,ψ−1 ,ψ−2 ) T as
i∂t Ψ = [ H + β 0 ρ − pfz + qf2z + β1 F · f]Ψ + β2 A00 AΨ, (5.7)
where the Hamiltonian H, linear and quadratic Zeeman parameters p and q, ρ = |Ψ|2 are
4πN (4a2 +3a4 )
the same as the spin-1 case in section 4.1, and interaction parameters β0 = 7xs ,
CONTENTS 49
√ √
( a4 − a2 ) γz ( a4 − a2 ) √ γ z
β 1 = 4πN 7x and β2 = 4πN (7a0 − 10a2 +3a4 )
7xs in 3D; β0 = 4πN (4a
7xs
2 +3a4 ) √
, β1 = 4πN 7x
s
√ √ 2π √ s 2π
γz γz γy 4πN (4a2 +3a4 ) γz γy
and β2 = 4πN (7a0 − 10a2 +3a4 ) √
7xs ; β2 = 4πN (7a0 − 10a2 +3a4 )
7xs 2π , β0 = 7xs 2π andβ 1 =
√ 2π
4πN ( a4 − a2 ) γz γy
7xs in 1D. 2π
The CGPEs (5.7) conserve the following three important quantities, i.e. the mass (or
normalization)
Z 2
R d l =−2
Z 2
M (Ψ(·,t)) := ∑ l |ψl (x,t)|2 dx = M (Ψ(·,0)) = M, (5.9)
Rd l =−2
Z 2
1 β β β
E(Ψ(·,t)) = ∑ |∇ψl |2 +(V (x)− pl + ql 2 )|ψl |2 + 0 |Ψ|4 + 1 |F|2 + 2 | A00 |2 dx
Rd l =−2
2 2 2 2
≡ E(Ψ(·,0)). (5.10)
In practice, introducing ψl → e−il pt ψl in the CGPEs (5.7), the system is unchanged and it
is thus reasonable to assume the linear Zeeman term p = 0 in the subsequent discussion.
On the other hand, it is easy to observe from (5.10) that the linear Zeeman term does not
contribute to the energy due to the magnetization conservation (5.9).
5.2 Ground states

The ground state Φg (x) of the spin-2 BEC described by the CGPEs (5.7) can be obtained
from the minimization of the energy functional (5.10) subject to the conservation of total
mass and magnetization:

Find Φg ∈ S M such that

Eg := E Φg = min E (Φ) , (5.11)
Φ∈S M
where the nonconvex set S M is defined as

( Z
)
2
T 2
S M = Φ = (φ2 ,φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ,φ−2 ) | kΦk = 1, ∑
R d l =−2
l |φ1 (x)| dx = M, E(Φ) < ∞ . (5.12)
50 CONTENTS
This is a nonconvex minimization problem and the Euler-Lagrange equations associated

to the minimization problem (4.9) reads:
β2
(µ ± 2λ) φ±2 (x) = [ H ∓ 2p + 4q + β0 ρ ± 2β1 Fz ] φ±2 + β1 F∓ φ±1 + √ A00 φ∓2 , (5.13)
5
√ !
6 β2
(µ ± λ) φ±1 (x) = [ H ∓ p + q + β0 ρ ± β1 Fz ] φ±1 + β1 F∓ φ0 + F± φ±2 − √ A00 φ∓1 ,
2 5
√
6 β2
µ φ0 (x) = [ H + β0 ρ] φ0 + β1 ( F+ φ1 + F− φ−1 )+ √ A00 φ0 , (5.14)
2 5
where H = − 12 ∇2 + V (x), F+ = F − = Fx + iFy . Here µ and λ are the Lagrange multipli-

ers (or chemical potentials) corresponding to the normalization constraint (5.8) and the
magnetization constraint (5.9), respectively.

We collect the existence and uniqueness results on the ground state (5.11) below.
Theorem 5.1 (existence and uniqueness [45]). Suppose lim V (x) = +∞, there exists a
|x|→∞
g g g g g
ground state Φg =(φ2 ,φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ,φ−2 ) T ∈ S M of (5.11) of the spin-2 BEC governed by the CGPEs
(5.7), if one of the following conditions hold
(i) d = 1;
β2
(ii) d = 2, if M = ±2 and β0 + 4β1 > −Cb ; or M ∈ (−2,2), β0 + 4β1 > −Cb with 20 > β 1 and
M2
Cb2 +4Cb β 1 + 4−100 β 2 (20β 1 − β 2 )
β1 < 0; or M ∈(−2,2), β0 + 4β1 >−4Cb /(2 +| M |), β0 ≥− 2 with
Cb + 4−20M (20β 1 − β 2 )
β C2 +4β C
β2 < 0 and 202 ≤ β 1 ; or M ∈ (−2,2), β0 + 4β1 > −4Cb /(2 +| M |), β0 ≥ − β (4b− M21)+bC with
1 b
β1 ≥ 0 and β2 ≥ 0;
β
(iii) d = 3, M = ±2 and β0 + 4β1 ≥ 0; or M ∈ (−2,2) β0 + 4β1 ≥ 0 with 202 > β1 and β1 < 0; or
β β
M ∈(−2,2), β0 + 52 ≥ 0 with β2 < 0 and 202 ≤ β1 ; or M ∈(−2,2), β 0 ≥ 0, β 1 ≥ 0 and β2 ≥ 0.
g g g g g
In particular, (ei(θ1 +2θ2 ) φ2 ,ei(θ1 +θ2 ) φ1 ,eiθ1 φ0 ,ei(θ1 −θ2 ) φ−1 ,ei(θ1 −2θ2 ) φ−2 ) T ∈ S M with real con-
stants θ1 and θ2 is also a ground state of (5.11). We could obtain uniqueness of the ground
state under the constant phase factors satisfying the aforementioned conditions in the following
cases.
g
(i)′ M = ±2, β 0 + 4β1 ≥ 0, the ground state can be chosen as (|φ2 |,0,0,0,0) T (M = 2) or
g
(0,0,0,0, |φ−2 |) T (M = −2), and such special form is unique.
β
(ii)′ M ∈ (−2,2) and q = 0, for the ferromagnetic interactions, i.e., β 1 < 0 and β 1 ≤ 202 . Under
the above conditions for the existence, the ground state can be chosen as ~αφg ∈ S M with ~α =
CONTENTS 51
2
√ √ √
2 6( 4− M 2 ) ( 2− M ) 4− M 2
(α2 ,α1 ,α0 ,α−1 ,α−2 ) T , α2 = (2+16M) , α1 = (2+ M)8 4− M , α0 = 16 , α −1 = 8
2
and α−2 = (2−16M) , where φg is a positive function satisfying kφg k = 1. If β0 + 4β1 ≥ 0, φg
is unique.
β
(iii)′ M ∈ (−2,2) and q = 0, for the nematic interactions, i.e. β 2 < 0 and β 1 > 202 . Under
the above conditions for the existence, when M 6= 0, the ground state (real valued) can be
g g β
chosen as (|φ2 |,0,0,0, |φ−2 |) T ∈ S M and such ground state is unique if β0 + 51 ≥ 0. When
M = 0, the ground state (real valued) can be chosen as (α2 ,α1 ,α0 , −α1 ,α2 ) T φg ∈ S M with
2α22 + 2α21 + α20 = 1 (αl ∈ R, l = 0,1,2) or (α2 ,α1 ,0,α1 , −α2 ) T φg ∈ S M if α0 = 0. φg is a positive
β
function satisfying kφg k = 1 and is unique if β0 + 51 ≥ 0.
(iv)′ M ∈ (−2,2) and q = 0, for the cyclic interactions, i.e. β2 ≥ 0 and β 1 ≥ 0. Under the
above conditions for the existence, if M = 0, the ground state (real valued) can be chosen as
(α2 ,α1 ,α0 ,α−1 ,α−2 ) T φg ∈ S M (αl ∈ R, l =−2,...,2) such that with ∑l |αl |2 = 1, ∑l l |α|2l = 0,
√
α20 − 2α1 α−1 + 2α2 α−2 = 0 and α1 α2 + α−2 α−1 + 26 (α0 α1 + α0 α−1 ) = 0. φg is a positive
function satisfying kφg k = 1 and is unique if β0 ≥ 0.
On the other hand, there exists no ground state of (5.11) if one of the following conditions holds,
i.e. infΦ∈S M E(Φ) = −∞
β
(i)′′ d = 2, M = ±2 and β 0 + 4β1 ≤ −Cb ; or M ∈ (−2,2), β0 + 4β1 ≤ −Cb with 202 ≤ β1 and
2
β1 < 0; or M ∈ (−2,2), β0 + 4β1 ≤ −4Cb /(2 +| M |) or β 0 < − M2 β1 − 4−20M β 2 − Cb , with
β
β2 < 0 and 202 ≤ β 1 ; or M ∈(−2,2), β0 + 4β1 ≤−4Cb /(2 +| M |) or β0 <− M2 β1 − Cb with
β1 ≥ 0 and β 2 ≥ 0.
β
(ii)′′ d = 3, M = ±2 and β0 + 4β1 < 0; or M ∈ (−2,2) β0 + 4β1 < 0 with 202 > β1 and β1 < 0; or
β β
M ∈(−2,2), β0 + 52 < 0 with β 2 < 0 and 202 ≤ β1 ; or M ∈(−2,2), β0 < 0, β 1 ≥ 0 and β 2 ≥ 0.
As in section 4 for the spin-1 case, most of the results in Theorem 5.1 can be derived
from the following observations when the quadratic Zeeman term is absent in the CGPEs
(5.7), i.e. q = 0. Firstly, when q = 0 and M ∈(−2,2), for the ferromagnetic interactions β1 < 0
β
and β 1 ≤ 202 , we have the single mode approximation (SMA), i.e. each component of the
ground state Φg is identical up to a constant factor.
Theorem 5.2 (single mode approximation [45]). Suppose lim V (x) = +∞, q = 0, M ∈
|x|→∞
β2
(−2,2), β1 < 0, β1 ≤ 20 and the existence conditions in Theorem 5.1 hold, the ground √
state
g g g g g T g iθ + ilθ ( 2+ M ) 2 ( 2+ M ) 4− M 2
Φg =(φ2 ,φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ,φ−2 ) ∈ S M satisfies φl = e 1 2 αl φg with α2 = 16 , α1 = 8 ,
√ √
6( 4− M 2 ) ( 2− M ) 4− M 2 ( 2− M ) 2
α0 = 16 , α −1 = 8 and α−2 = 16 and θ1 ,θ2 ∈ R, and φg is the unique positive
minimizer of the energy functional
Z
1 2 2 β0 + 4β1 4
ẼSMA (φ) = |∇φ| + V (x)|φ| + |φ| dx, (5.15)
Rd 2 2
52 CONTENTS
under the constraint kφk = 1.

Secondly, when q = 0 and M ∈ (−2,2), for the anti-ferromagnetic interactions β2 < 0
β
and β1 ≥ 202 , we have similar simplification for the ground state Φg .
Theorem 5.3 (two-component case [45]). Suppose lim V (x) = +∞, q ≤ 0, M ∈ (−2,2) and
|x|→∞
β
M2 + q2 6= 0, β 1 < 0, β1 ≥ 202 and the existence conditions in Theorem 5.1 hold, the ground state
g g g g g g g g g g
Φg =(φ2 ,φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ,φ−2 ) T ∈ S M satisfies φ0 = φ1 = φ−1 = 0, and Φ̃g =(φ2 ,φ−2 ) T is a minimizer
of the pseudo spin-1/2 system given in section 2 described by (2.42) with δ = 0, ν = 2+4M and
β ↑↑ = β ↓↓ = β0 + 4β1 , β ↑↓ = β0 − 4β1 + 52 β 2 .
g
If M = q = 0, the ground state satisfies φl = eiθ1 +ilθ2 αl φg (θ1 ,θ2 ∈ R) where α1 =−α−1 , α2 = α−2
or α1 = α−1 , α2 = −α−2 if α0 = 0, with 2α22 + 2α21 + α20 = 1. φg is the unique positive minimizer of
the energy functional
Z
1 2 2 β0 4
Ec (φ) = |∇φ| + V (x)|φ| + |φ| dx, (5.16)
Rd 2 2
under the constraint kφk = 1.

For the cyclic interactions β2 ≥ 0 and β1 ≥ 0, the classification of the ground states
become more complicated and we leave the discussion somewhere else.

To compute the ground state (5.11), we generalize the GFDN method in section 2.2.2 for
M ∈ (−2,2). We start with the following CNGF for Φ = (φ2 ,φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ,φ−2 ) T [131]
∂t Φ = −[ H + β0 ρ − pfz + qf2z + β1 F · f]Φ − β2 A00 AΦ + µΦ (t)Φ + µΦ (t)fz Φ, (5.17)
where F = F(Φ) is given in (5.4) and A00 = A00 (Φ) is defined in (5.6), µΦ (t) and λΦ (t) are
the Lagrange multipliers to make the flow preserve the mass constraint (5.8) and mag-
netization constraint (5.9), respectively. It is not difficult to see that if initially Φ(x,0)
satisfies (5.8) and (5.9), the continuous flow (5.17) is globally wellposed under appropri-
ate assumptions. Moreover, the CNGF (5.17) is energy diminishing.
The GFDN method to compute the ground state (5.11) then can be regarded as ap-
plying a first order splitting algorithm to discretize the above CNGF. We present a semi-
discretization in time as follows. Let Φn = (φ2n ,φ1n ,φ0n ,φ− n ,φ n ) T , from t to t
1 −2 n n +1 , we first
solve
Φ ( 1) − Φ n
= −[ H + β0 ρn − pfz + qf2z + β1 Fn · f]Φ(1) − β2 A00n
AΦ(1) , (5.18)
τ
n = A ( Φn ). Then we have the projection step for
where ρn = |Φn |2 , Fn = F(Φn ) and A00 00
( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1)
Φ(1) = (φ2 ,φ1 ,φ0 ,φ−1 ,φ−2 ) T
Φn+1 = diag(α2 ,α1 ,α0 ,α−1 ,α−2 )Φ(1) , (5.19)

CONTENTS 53
and the projection constants αl (−2 ≤ l ≤ 2) are chosen such that Φn+1 satisfies the con-
straints (5.8) and (5.9).
Similar to the spin-1 BEC, here there are five projection constants to be determined,
i.e. σln (−2 ≤ l ≤ 2) in (5.19), and there are only two equations to fix them, we need to
find three more conditions so that the five projection constants are uniquely determined.
Again, in fact, the projection step (5.19) can be regarded as an approximation of the ODE
Rt
∂t Φ=(µ(t)+ λ(t)fz )Φ whose solution can be written as Φ(t)= e tn (µ(s)+λ(s)fz) ds Φ(tn ). From
this observation, three additional equations are proposed for determining the projection
constants in (5.19) as [31]
α2 α−2 = α20 , α1 α−1 = α20 , α2 α0 = α21 . (5.20)
The above equations suggest that the projection constants can be assumed as αl = c̃0 c̃1l
(l = −2,...,2) with c̃0 , c̃1 > 0 [31] satisfying

( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1)
c̃20 c̃41 kφ2 k2 + c̃21 kφ1 k2 +kφ0 k2 + c̃1−2 kφ−1 k2 + c̃1−4 kφ−2 k2 = 1,
(5.21)
2 4 ( 1) 2 2 ( 1) 2 −2 ( 1) 2 −4 ( 1) 2
c̃0 2c̃1 kφ2 k + c̃1 kφ1 k − c̃1 kφ−1 k − 2c̃1 kφ−2 k = M.
It is proved that the equations (5.21) admit a unique positive solution (c̃0 , c̃1 ) [31]. Of
course, it is a little tedious to write down the solution explicitly since it can be reduced to
find the positive root of a fourth-order polynomial and this approach is very hard and/or
tedious to extend to the computation of the ground state of spin-F (F ≥ 3) BEC.
Rt
Based on the observation that Φ(t) = e tn (µ(s)+λ(s)fz) ds Φ(tn ) can be approximated (by
Rt
Taylor expansion) as Φ(t) ≈ ( Id + tn (µ(s) Id + λ(s)fz ) ds)Φ(tn ) and the projection step
Rt
(5.19) can be regarded as an approximation of Φ(t) = e tn (µ(s)+λ(s)fz) ds Φ(tn ), alternatively,
here we propose the following three additional equations to determine the projection
constants in (5.19) as [47]
α2 + α−2 = 2α0 , α1 + α−1 = 2α0 , α2 + α0 = 2α1 . (5.22)
Again, the above equations suggest that the projection constants can be assumed as αl =
c0 + lc = c0 (1 + lc1 ) (l = −2,...,2) with c0 ,c1 > 0 satisfying
( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) 1
(1 + 2c1 )2 kφ2 k2 +(1 + c1 )2 kφ1 k2 +kφ0 k2 +(1 − c1 )2 kφ−1 k2 +(1 − 2c1 )2 kφ−2 k2 = ,
c20
(5.23)
( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) M
2(1 + 2c1 )2 kφ2 k2 +(1 + c1 )2 kφ1 k2 −(1 − c1 )2 kφ−1 k2 − 2(1 − 2c1 )2 kφ−2 k2 = . (5.24)
c20
The above equations turn out that c1 satisfies a quadratic equation which can be solved
very easily [47]. Thus, (5.19) with αl = c0 + lc = c0 (1 + lc1 ) (l = −2,...,2) and (5.23)-(5.24)
complete the projection step. Then a full discretization can be constructed similarly as
the pseudo spin-1/2 case in section 2, and we omit the details here.
54 CONTENTS
Remark 5.1. The idea of determining the projection constants through (5.23)-(5.24) can
be generalized to other spin-F system very easily [47].
M=0 M=0.5
0.3 φg 0.3
0
φg
2
φg
−2
φg
1
0.15 φg 0.15
−1
0 0
-8 0 x 8 -8 0 x 8
M=0 M=0.5
0.3 0.3
φg
0
0.15 φg
2 0.15
φg
−2
φg
1
φg
−1
0 0
-8 0 x 8 -8 0 x 8
M=0 M=0.5
0.3 0.3
φg
0
φg
2
φg
−2
0.15 φg
1 0.15
φg
−1
0 0
-8 0 x 8 -8 0 x 8
Figure 5.1: Ground states of spin-2 BEC in Example 5.1 for different magnetization M = 0
(left column) and M = 0.5 (right column). The set of parameters are those in case (i) for
the top panel, case (iii) for the bottom panel and case (ii) for the middle panel.
Example 5.1. To show the ground state of a spin-2 BEC, we take d = 1, p = q = 0 and
V (x) = 21 x2 in (5.7) and consider three types of interactions, i.e. (i) β 0 = 100, β 1 = −1 and
β 2 = 2 (ferromagnetic interaction); (ii) β0 = 100, β 1 = 1 and β 2 = −2 (nematic interaction);
(iii) β0 = 100, β1 = 10 and β2 = 2 (cyclic interaction). Figure 5.1 depicts the numerical
ground state profiles under different types of interactions, which shows very rich struc-
tures. In particular, we find that the single mode approximation in Theorem 5.2 and the
vanishing components approximation in Theorem 5.3 hold for the ferromagnetic interac-
tions and the nematic interactions, respectively.
CONTENTS 55
5.3 Dynamics
For the CGPEs (5.7), we consider the mass (or density) of each component as
Z
Nl (t) := |ψl (x,t)|2 dx, t ≥ 0, l = −2, −1,0,1,2, (5.25)
Rd
and the condensate width as

v
q u 2
u
σα (t) = δα (t) = t ∑ δα,j (t), α = x,y,z, (5.26)
j=−2
where Z
δα,j (t) = α2 |ψj (x,t)|2 dx, t ≥ 0, j = 2,1,0, −1, −2. (5.27)
Rd

We have the spin dynamics of spin-2 BEC as follows.
Ṅl (t) = Fel (t), l = −2, −1,0,1,2, (5.28)

R
with Nl (0) = Rd
|ψl (x,0)|2 dx and
Z Z
2
Fe2 (t) =2β1 Im F− (Ψ)ψ1 ψ̄2 dx + √ β2 Im A00 (Ψ)ψ̄−2 ψ̄2 dx,
Rd 5 Rd
Z √ ! Z
e 6 2
F1 (t) =2β1 Im F− (Ψ)ψ0 ψ̄1 + F+ (Ψ)ψ2 ψ̄1 dx − √ β 2 Im A00 (Ψ)ψ̄−1 ψ̄1 dx,
Rd 2 5 Rd
Z √ √ ! Z
6 6 2
Fe0 (t) =2β1 Im F+ (Ψ)ψ1 ψ̄0 + F− (Ψ)ψ−1 ψ̄0 dx − √ β2 Im A00 (Ψ)ψ̄02 dx,
Rd 2 2 5 R d
Z √ ! Z
6 2
Fe−1 (t) =2β1 Im F+ (Ψ)ψ0 ψ̄−1 + F− (Ψ)ψ−2 ψ̄−1 dx − √ β2 Im A00 (Ψ)ψ̄−1 ψ̄1 dx,
Rd 2 5 Rd
Z Z
2
Fe−2 (t) =2β1 Im F+ (Ψ)ψ−1 ψ̄−2 dx + √ β2 Im A00 (Ψ)ψ̄−2 ψ̄2 dx.
R d 5 Rd
For the condensate width, we have the following results.

56 CONTENTS
Z
δ̈α (t) = 2|∂α Ψ|2 − 2α|Ψ|2 ∂α V (x) + β0 |Ψ|2 + β1 |F|2 + β2 | A00 |2 dx, t ≥ 0, (5.29)
Rd
Z 2
δα (0) = α2 ∑ |ψj (x,0)|2 dx, α = x,y,z, (5.30)
Rd j=−2
2 Z
( 0)
δ̇α (0) = 2 ∑ αIm ψ̄j ∂α ψ0j dx, (5.31)
d
j=−2 R
where F(Ψ) and A00 (Ψ) are defined in (5.4) and (5.6), respectively.
Lemma 5.3. Suppose Ψ(x,t) is the solution of the CGPEs (5.7), q = 0 and V (x) is the harmonic
potential in (2.9), then we have
(i) In 1D without nonlinear terms, i.e. d = 1, β0 = β 1 = β 2 = 0 in (4.2), for any initial data
Ψ(x,0) = Ψ(0) ( x), we have,
E ( Ψ ( 0) ) ( 0) δ̇x (0)
δx ( t ) = [1 − cos(2γx t)]+ δx cos(2γx t)+ sin(2γx t). (5.32)
γ2x 2γx
(ii) In 2D with a radial symmetric trap, i.e. d = 2, γx = γy := γr and β1 = 0 in (4.2), for any
initial data Ψ(x,0) = Ψ(0) ( x,y), we have, for any t ≥ 0,
( 1)
E ( Ψ ( 0) ) ( 0) δr (0)
δr (t) = [1 − cos(2γr t)]+ δr cos(2γr t)+ sin(2γr t), (5.33)
γr2 2γr
( 0) ( 1)
where δr (t) = δx (t)+ δy (t), δr := δx (0)+ δy (0) and δr := δ̇x (0)+ δ̇y (0).
s ( x),φ s ( x)) T be a stationary state of the CG-
Let Φs := Φs (x) = (φ2s (x),φ1s (x),φ0s (x),φ− 1 −2
PEs (5.7), i.e. Φs solves the Euler-Lagrange system (5.13)-(5.14). If the initial data Ψ(x,0)
for the CGPEs (5.7) is chosen as a stationary state with its center-of-mass shifted from
the trap center, we can construct an exact solution of the CGPEs (5.7) with a harmonic
potential (2.9).
Lemma 5.4. If the initial data Ψ(x,0) for the CGPEs (5.7) is chosen as
(0) · x + b (0) )
Ψ(x,0) = Φs (x − x0 )ei(a , x ∈ Rd , (5.34)
( 0) ( 0)
where x0 is a given point in R d , a(0) = ( a1 ,...,ad ) T is a given vector in R d and b(0) is a given
real number, then the exact solution of (5.7) with the initial data (5.34) satisfies:
s
ψl (x,t) = φls (x − x(t)) e−iµl t ei(a(t)·x+b(t)), x ∈ Rd , t ≥ 0, l = −2, −1,1,0,1,2, (5.35)
where for any time t ≥ 0, x(t) satisfies the following second-order ODE system:
ẍ(t)+ Λx(t) = 0, (5.36)
( 0)
x ( 0) = x0 , ẋ(0) = a . (5.37)
CONTENTS 57
In addition, a(t) = ( a1 (t),...,ad (t)) T and b(t) satisfy
1 1
ȧ(t) = −Λx(t), ḃ(t) = − |a(t)|2 − x(t) T Λx(t), t > 0, (5.38)
2 2
with initial data a(0) = a(0) , b(0) = b(0) and Λ = diag(γ2x ) in 1D, Λ = diag(γ2x ,γ2y ) in 2D and
Λ = diag(γ2x ,γ2y ,γ2z ) in 3D.
5.3.2 A numerical method

To compute the dynamics of spin-2 system governed by the CGPEs (5.7) with prescribed
initial data
Ψ(x,0) = Ψ0 (x), (5.39)
we adopt the time splitting technique [130]. The key idea is to divide the evolution of
the CGPEs (5.7) into several subproblems. Recently, Symes et al. [123] introduced a time-
splitting scheme where only two subproblems are involved and the nonlinear subprob-
lem is solved exactly and we will sketch the procedure below.
After truncating the CGPEs (5.7) onto a bounded domain with homogeneous Dirich-
let boundary conditions or periodic boundary conditions, we solve (5.7) from time tn = nτ
to tn+1 = tn + τ through the following subproblems. One first solves
∂ψl 1
i = (− ∇2 + pl + ql 2 )ψl , l = −2, −1,0,1,2, (5.40)
∂t 2
i∂t Ψ = [V (x)+ β 0 |Ψ|2 + β1 ( Fxn fx + Fyn fy + Fzn fz )]Ψ + β2 A00 AΨ, (5.41)
for the same time step. (5.40) can be integrated exactly in phase space.
For (5.41), noticing fα (α = x,y,z) are Hermitian matrices and A00 (Ψ) = ΨT AΨ, we
find ∂t |Ψ(t,x)|2 = 0 (t ∈ (tn ,tn+1 )). Similar to the spin-1 case, the commutator relations
[fx ,fy ] = fx fy − fy fx = ifz , [fy ,fz ] = ifx and [fz ,fx ] = ify hold and fα A = −Afα (α = x,y,z ), then
we can compute that
∂t (Ψ∗ f α Ψ) =Im(Ψ∗ f α [ β2 A00 AΨ])− Im(ΨT [ β2 Ā00 A] f α Ψ)

=− Im( β2 A00 Ψ∗ Afα Ψ)− Im(ΨT [ β2 Ā00 A] f α Ψ) = 0,
which implies that the spin vector components Fα (Ψ(t,x))= Fα (Ψ(x,tn )) (t ∈(tn ,tn+1 )) are
independent of t. Similar computations show that
∂t A00 (Ψ)(t) = ∂t ΨT AΨ + ΨT A∂t Ψ = −2i (V (x)+ β0 |Ψ|2 + β2 |Ψ|2 ) A00 ,
and thus
A00 (x,t) = e−2i(t−tn )(V (x)+( β0 + β2 )|Ψ(x,tn )| ) A00
2
n
, t n ≤ t ≤ t n +1 , (5.42)
58 CONTENTS
n = A ( Ψ( x,t )). Now, it is clear that (5.41) becomes a linear ODE

where A00 00 n
i∂t Ψ = [V (x)+ β 0 |Ψ(x,tn )|2 + β1 ( Fxn fx + Fyn fy + Fzn fz )]Ψ + β2 A00 (t)AΨ, (5.43)
where the spin vector Fn = ( Fxn ,Fyn ,Fzn ) T is evaluated using Ψ(x,tn ), i.e. Fαn = Fα (Ψ(x,tn )),
and A00 (t) is given in (5.42). Introducing
e (1) (x,t) = ei(t−tn )(V (x)+( β0 + β2 )|Ψ(x,tn )|2 ) Ψ(x,t), t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ],
Ψ (5.44)
e (2) (x,t) = ei(t−tn )( β1 Fn ·f) Ψ
Ψ e (1) (x,t), t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ], (5.45)
and plugging the above equalities into (5.43), noticing that (Fn · f)A = −A(Fn · f), which
n
implies Ae−i(t−tn )( β1 F ·f) Ψ(1) = e−i(t−tn )( β1 F ·f) AΨ(1) , we can derive that
n
( 1)
i∂t Ψe (1) (x,t) = β1 Fn · f − β2 |Ψ(x,tn )|2 Ψ e + β2 A00 n
AΨe ( 1) ,
e (2) (x,t) =− β2 |Ψ(x,tn )|2 Ψ
i∂t Ψ e (2) + β2 A00
n e ( 2) ,
AΨ
and
∂tt Ψ n 2 e ( 2)
e (2) (x,t) = − β22 (|Ψ(x,tn )|4 −| A00 | )Ψ , t ∈ [tn ,tn+1 ],
with solution given by
e (2) (x,t) = cos( β 2 (t − tn )κ n (x))Ψ(x,tn )
Ψ (5.46)
i h i
+ n sin( β2 (t − tn )κ n (x)) |Ψ(x,tn )|2 Ψ(x,tn )− A00 n
AΨ(x,tn ) ,
κ ( x)
q
where κ n (x)= |Ψ(x,tn )|4 −| A00 n |2 . Combining (5.44)-(5.46), we find the solution to (5.41)
as [123]

− i( t− tn ) (V ( x)+( β0 + β2 )|Ψ( x,tn )|2 ) − i( t− tn )( β1 Fn ·f )
Ψ(x,t) = e e cos( β 2 (t − tn )κ n (x))Ψ(x,tn )
i h i
n 2 n
+ n sin( β2 (t − tn )κ (x)) |Ψ(x,tn )| Ψ(x,tn )− A00 AΨ(x,tn ) , (5.47)
κ ( x)
n ·f
where the exponential e−it( β1 F ) is calculated as
n
− it( β1 Fn ·f ) 1 n 4 n F ·f
e = I5 + i sin(2β1 |F |t)− sin( β1 |F |t)
6 3 |F n |

4 n 1 n 5 ( F n · f )2
+ cos( β1 |F |t)− cos(2β1 |F |t)−
3 12 4 | F n |2
n 3
1 1 ( F · f)
+i sin( β 1 |Fn |t)− cos(2β1 |Fn |t)
3 6 | F n |3

1 n 1 n 1 ( F n · f )4
+ cos(2β1 |F |t)− cos( β 1 |F |t)+ ,
12 3 4 | F n |4
CONTENTS 59
with I5 being the 5-by-5 identity matrix.

Now, we are able to solve the two subproblems (5.40)-(5.41), and a standard splitting
procedure such as second order Strang splitting or fourth-order partition Runge-Kutta
time splitting method [101] can be applied to construct a numerical scheme for solving
the CGPEs (5.7). Fourier/sine spectral discretizations can be used according to the peri-
odic/homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, and the details are omitted here for
brevity.
6 Summary and future perspectives

In the previous sections, we have briefly reviewed the mathematical models, theories
and numerical methods for the pseudo spin-1/2 system, spin-orbit coupled BEC, spin-1
and spin-2 systems. When higher spin and/or other effects such as rotating frame, non-
local dipole-dipole interactions and random potentials are relevant, more complicated
structure and interesting phenomenons would emerge and mathematical and numerical
studies would be quite challenging [15, 18, 28, 103]. As examples, we will present the
mean field models for spin-3 BEC and spinor dipolar BEC below.
6.1 Spin-3 BEC and beyond

For a spin-3 BEC system [85, 108, 127] at zero temperature, the condensate can be de-
scribed by the vector wave function Ψ := Ψ(x,t) = (ψ3 ,ψ2 ,ψ1 ,ψ0 ,ψ−1 ,ψ−2 ,ψ−3 ) T (ψl for
m F = l state, l = −3, −2, −1,0,1,2,3) satisfying the CGPEs as [76, 85, 122]:
2
ih̄∂t Ψ = [ H̃ + c0 ρ − p̃fz + q̃f2z + c1 F · f]Ψ + c2 A00 AΨ + c3 ∑ A2l Al Ψ, (6.1)
l =−2
2
h̄
where as described in section 4.1, H̃ =− 2m ∇2 + Ṽ (x) is the single particle Hamiltonian, p̃
and q̃ are the linear and quadratic Zeeman energy shifts, respectively, ρ=|Ψ|2 = ∑3l =−3 |ψl |2
9g +2g g −g 11g −21g +10g6 11g −18g +7g
is the total density. c0 = 411 6 , c1 = 611 4 , c2 = 0 11 4 and c3 = 2 11 4 6 charac-
terizes the spin-independent interaction, spin-exchange interaction, spin-singlet interac-
2
tion and spin-quintet interaction, respectively, with gk = 4πh̄ m ak (k = 0,2,4,6) and ak being
the s-wave scattering length for scattering channel of total hyperfine spin k. The spin-3
matrices f = (fx ,fy ,fz ) T are given as
 √ 
0 3/2 0 0 0 0 0
√3/2 0
√
5/2 √0 0 0 0 
 √ 
 0 5/2 0 3 0 0 0 
 √ √ 
 
fx =  0 0 3 √0 3 √0 0 , (6.2)
 
 0 0 0 3 √0 5/2 √ 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 5/2 √ 0 3/2
0 0 0 0 0 3/2 0
60 CONTENTS
 √ 
√0 i 3/2 √ 0 0 0 0 0
−i 3/2 i 5/2 0 

 √0 √0 0 0 

 0 − i 5/2 0
√ i 3 √0 0 0 
 
fy =  0 0 −i 3 0√ i 3 0 0  (6.3)
 √ 
 0 0 0 − i 3 0 i 5/2 0 
 √ √ 
 0 0 0 0 −i 5/2 i 3/2
√0
0 0 0 0 0 −i 3/2 0
and
fz = diag(3,2,1,0, −1, −2, −3). (6.4)
The spin vector F = F(Ψ) = ( Fx ,Fy ,Fz ) T with Fα = Ψ∗ fα Ψ (α = x,y,z) is given as
√ √ √ √ √ √
F+ = Fx + iFy = 6ψ3 ψ2 + 10ψ2 ψ1 + 2 3ψ1 ψ0 + 2 3ψ0 ψ−1 + 10ψ−1 ψ−2 + 6ψ−2 ψ−3 ,
Fz = 3|ψ3 |2 + 2|ψ2 |2 +|ψ1 |2 −|ψ−1 |2 − 2|ψ−2 |2 − 3|ψ−3 |2 ,
with F · f = Fx fx + Fy fy + Fz fz . The matrices A and A0 are defined as
 5

  0 0 0 0 0 0 √
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
 
0 0  0 0 0 0 0√ 0 0 
 0 0 0 −1 0  
 − 3 
0 0 0 0 1 0 0  0 0 0 q0 2 0 0 
1   1  
A= √  0 0 0 −1 0 0 0 ,A = √  0 0 0 2
0 0 0 .
7  0 3
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7

√ 

  − 3
0 − 1   0 0 2 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0  
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
√
2 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
Al = ( al,jk )7×7 (l = ±1, ±2) and al,jk is zero except for those j + k = 8 − l; for the simplic-
ity of notations, we denote ~al = ( al,1(7−l ) ,al,2(6−l ) ,...,al,(7−l )1 ) T ∈ R7−l for l = 1,2 and ~al =
( al,(1−l )7 ,al,(−l )6,...,al,7(1−l ) ) T ∈ R7+l for l = −1, −2 with
√ √ !T
1 5 5 1 1 5 5
~a±1 = √ √ ,− , √ , √ ,− , √ ,
7 2 3 2 6 6 2 2 3
r r r r !T
1 5 5 √ 5 5
~a±2 = √ ,− , 2, − , .
7 6 3 3 6
CONTENTS 61
A00 := A00 (Ψ) = ΨT AΨ and A2l = A2l (Ψ) = ΨT Al Ψ can be expressed as
1
A00 = √ (2ψ3 ψ−3 − 2ψ2 ψ−2 + 2ψ1 ψ−1 − ψ02 ), (6.5)
5
1 √
A20 = √ (5ψ3 ψ−3 − 3ψ1 ψ−1 + 2ψ02 ), (6.6)
21
1 √ √
A2±1 = √ (5ψ±3 ψ∓2 − 15ψ±2 ψ∓1 + 2ψ±1 ψ0 ), (6.7)
21
1 √ √ √ 2
A2±2 = √ ( 10ψ±3 ψ∓1 − 20ψ±2 ψ0 + 2ψ± 1 ). (6.8)
21
Similar to the spin-2 case, after nondimensionalization and proper dimension reduc-
tion, the CGPEs (6.1) can be written as
2
1
i∂t Ψ = [− ∇2 + V (x)+ β 0 ρ − pfz + qf2z + β1 F · f]Ψ + β2 A00 AΨ + β3 ∑ A2l Al Ψ, (6.9)
2 l =−2
where x ∈ R d , d = 1,2,3, β k (k = 0,1,2,3) are real constants. The CGPEs (6.9) conserve the
following three important quantities, i.e. the mass (or normalization)
Z 3
R d l =−3
Z 3
M (Ψ(·,t)) := ∑ l |ψl (x,t)|2 dx = M (Ψ(·,0)) = M, (6.11)
Rd l =−3
Z 3
1 β0 β1 β2
E(Ψ(·,t)) =
Rd
∑ 2 |∇ψl | +(V (x)− pl + ql )|ψl | + 2 |Ψ|4 + 2 |F|2 + 2 | A00 |2
2 2 2
l =−3

β3 2 2
+ ∑ | A2l | dx ≡ E(Ψ(·,0)).
2 l =−
(6.12)
2
For a spin-F BEC system within the mean field regime, the order parameter has 2F + 1
components as Ψ = (ψF ,ψF−1 ,...,ψ− F ) T ∈ C2F+1 , and the corresponding CGPEs could be
similarly derived [85]. Understanding the ground state pattern and the dynamics of such
higher spin BEC system requires extensive mathematical and numerical studies.
62 CONTENTS
6.2 Spinor dipolar BEC

In a spinor condensate, the dipole-dipole interaction (DDI) due to the atomic spin or
magnetization emerges and the DDI could affect the spin texture of the system for a DDI
strength comparable to the spin-dependent interactions. For example, the DDI plays a
crucial role in the spin-3 52 Cr system [108]. For a spinor dipolar BEC where the spin is
not polarized by an external magnetic field and can vary in space, the mean-field CGPEs
will include a nonlocal term. Here, we present the CGPEs for spin-1 dipolar BEC in 3D
as [38, 85, 122]
h̄2 2
ih̄∂t Ψ = [− ∇ + Ṽ (x)+ c0 ρ − p0 fz + q0 f2z + c1 F · f + cdd V(Ψ)· f]Ψ, (6.13)
2m
µ ( gµ )2
where Ψ := Ψ(t,x) = (ψ1 ,ψ0 ,ψ−1 ) T , cdd = 0 4π B is the DDI interaction strength with µ0
being the magnetic permeability of vacuum, µ B being the Bohr magneton and g being
the Landé g-factor for the particle, V := V(Ψ) = (Vx ,Vy ,Vz ) T is a vector-valued function
representing the DDI interaction induced potential, V·f=Vx fx +Vy fy +Vz fz and the rest pa-
rameters are the same as those in the CGPEs (4.1). In detail, for spin vector F =( Fx ,Fy ,Fz ) T ,
the DDI interaction is given as
Z
Vα = ∑ Uαα′ (x − x′ ) Fα′ (x′ ) dx′ , α = x,y,z, (6.14)
R3 α′ = x,y,z
and the DDI kernel U = (Uαα′ ) [38, 88] is a 3 × 3 matrix with
eα · eα′ − 3(eα · x)(eα′ · x)/|x|2

Uαα′ (x) = , x = ( x,y,z) T ∈ R3 , α,α′ = x,y,z, (6.15)
| x |3
where ex = (1,0,0) T , ey = (0,1,0) T and ez = (0,0,1) T are the corresponding unit vectors for
x-, y- and z- axes, respectively.
After proper scaling, the dimensionless spin-1 dipolar Gross-Pitaevskii equations read
as
1
i∂t Ψ(x,t) = [− ∇2 + V (x)+ β0 ρ − pfz + qf2z + β1 F · f + λV(Ψ)· f]Ψ, x ∈ Rd , (6.16)
2
where V (x) is the real-valued trapping potential, β 0 denotes the spin-independent con-
tact interaction, β1 represents the spin-dependent interaction, λ is the DDI parameter, the
spin vector F and the DDI potential V(Ψ) are given in (4.4) and (6.14), respectively. The
important conserved quantities of (6.16) include the mass (or normalization)
Z 1
R3 l =−1
CONTENTS 63

Z 1
M (Ψ(·,t)) := ∑ l |ψl (x,t)|2 dx = M (Ψ(·,0)) = M, (6.18)
R3 l =−1

Z 1
1 2 2 2 β0 4 β1 2 λ
E(Ψ(·,t)) =
R3
∑ 2
|∇ψl | +(V (x)− pl + ql )|ψl | + |Ψ| + |F| + V(Ψ)· F dx
2 2 2
l =−1
≡ E(Ψ(·,0)). (6.19)
Similarly, the CGPEs with nonlocal DDI can be obtained for spin-2 (or higher spin-
F) dipolar BEC by including the cdd (or λ) term (the same form as above, see [85]) into
the spin-2 CGPEs (6.13) (or (6.16)) and we omit the details here. For lower dimensions
(1D and 2D), dimension reduction of the CGPEs with nonlocal DDI in 3D could be done
following [13, 46, 112]. Similarly, the efficient and accurate numerical methods for com-
puting the ground state and dynamics of single-component dipolar BEC [18, 32, 80, 125],
especially the methods for handling the DDI, can be extended directly for spinor dipo-
lar BEC. In presence of the long range DDI, the ground state structure and dynamical
properties of the spinor dipolar BEC would be very rich and complicated, which requires
further mathematical and numerical studies.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education of Singapore grant R-146-000-
223-112 (W. Bao), the Natural Science Foundation of China grant 91430103 (W. Bao), the
Natural Science Foundation of China grants U1530401, 91630204 and 11771036 (Y. Cai).
References
[1] J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels and W. Ketterle, Observation of vortex lattices in

Bose-Einstein condensates, Science, 292 (2001), 476-479.
[2] S. K. Adhikari, Numerical solution of the two-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii equation for
trapped interacting atoms, Phys. Lett. A, 265 (2000), 91-96.
[3] A. Aftalion and Q. Du, Vortices in a rotating Bose-Einstein condensate: Critical angular
velocities and energy diagrams in the Thomas-Fermi regime, Phys. Rev. A, 64 (2001), article
063603.
[4] M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthewa, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, Observation
of Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor, Science, 269 (1995), 198-201.
[5] B. Andrews and J. Clutterbuck, Proof of the fundamental gap conjecture, J. Amer. Math. Soc.,
24 (2011), 899-916.
[6] X. Antoine, W. Bao and C. Besse, Computational methods for the dynamics of the nonlinear
Schrödinger/Gross-Pitaevskii equations, Comput. Phys. Commun., 184 (2013), 2621-2633.
64 CONTENTS
[7] X. Antoine and R. Duboscq, Robust and efficient preconditioned Krylov spectral solvers for
computing the ground states of fast rotating and strongly interacting Bose-Einstein conden-
sates, J. Comput. Phys., 258 (2014), 509-523.
[8] X. Antoine, A. Levitt and Q. Tang, Efficient spectral computation of the stationary states of
rotating Bose-Einstein condensates by preconditioned nonlinear conjugate gradient meth-
ods, J. Comput. Phys., 343 (2017), 92-109.
[9] P. Antonelli and R. M. Weishäupl, Asymptotic behavior of nonlinear Schrödinger systems
with linear coupling, J. Hyper. Diff. Equ., 11 (2014), 159-183.
[10] S. Ashhab and C. Lobo, External Josephson effect in Bose-Einstein condensates with a spin
degree of freedom, Phys. Rev. A, 66 (2002), article 013609.
[11] W. Bao, Mathematical models and numerical methods for Bose-Einstein condensation, Pro-
ceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Seoul 2014), IV (2014), 971-996.
[12] W. Bao, Ground states and dynamics of multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates, Multi-
scale Model. Simul., 2 (2004), 210-236.
[13] W. Bao, N. Ben Abdallah and Y. Cai, Gross-Pitaevskii-Poisson equations for dipolar Bose-
Einstein condensate with anisotropic confinement, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 44 (2012), 1713-
1741.
[14] W. Bao and Y. Cai, Ground states and dynamics of spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein conden-
sates, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 75 (2015), 492-517.
[15] W. Bao and Y. Cai, Mathematical theory and numerical methods for Bose-Einstein conden-
sation, Kinet. Relat. Mod., 6 (2013), 1-135.
[16] W. Bao and Y. Cai, Ground states of two-component Bose-Einstein condensates with an in-
ternal atomic Josephson junction, East Asia J. Appl. Math., 1 (2010), 49-81.
[17] W. Bao and Y. Cai, Optimal error estimates of finite difference methods for the Gross-
Pitaevskii equation with angular momentum rotation, Math. Comp., 82 (2013), 99-129.
[18] W. Bao, Y. Cai, and H. Wang, Efficient numerical methods for computing ground states and
dynamics of dipolar Bose-Einstein condensates, J. Comput. Phys., 229 (2010), 7874-7892.
[19] W. Bao, I. L. Chern and F. Y. Lim, Efficient and spectrally accurate numerical methods for
computing ground and first excited states in Bose-Einstein condensates, J. Comput. Phys.,
219 (2006), 836-854.
[20] W. Bao, I. L. Chern and Y. Zhang, Efficient numerical methods for computing ground states
of spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates based on their characterizations, J. Comput. Phys., 253
(2013), 189-208.
[21] W. Bao and Q. Du, Computing the ground state solution of Bose-Einstein condensates by a
normalized gradient flow, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 25 (2004), 1674-1697.
[22] W. Bao, Q. Du and Y. Zhang, Dynamics of rotating Bose-Einstein condensates and its efficient
and accurate numerical computation, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 66 (2006), 758-786.
[23] W. Bao and D. Jaksch, An explicit unconditionally stable numerical method for solving
damped nonlinear Schrodinger equations with a focusing nonlinearity, SIAM J. Numer.
Anal., 41 (2003), 1406-1426.
[24] W. Bao, D. Jaksch and P. A. Markowich, Numerical solution of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation
for Bose-Einstein condensation, J. Comput. Phys., 187 (2003), 318-342.
[25] W. Bao, D. Jaksch and P. A. Markowich, Three dimensional simulation of jet formation in
collapsing condensates, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 37 (2004), 329-343.
[26] W. Bao, H. L. Li and J. Shen, A generalized Laguerre-Fourier-Hermite pseudospectral
method for computing the dynamics of rotating Bose-Einstein condensates, SIAM J. Sci.
Comput., 31 (2009), 3685-3711.
CONTENTS 65
[27] W. Bao and F. Y. Lim, Computing ground states of spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates by the
normalized gradient flow, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 30 (2008), 1925-1948.
[28] W. Bao, D. Marahrens, Q. Tang and Y. Zhang, A simple and efficient numerical method for
computing the dynamics of rotating Bose-Einstein condensates via a rotating Lagrangian
coordinate, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 35 (2013), A2671-A2695.
[29] W. Bao and J. Shen, A fourth-order time-splitting Laguerre-Hermite pseudospectral method
for Bose-Einstein condensates, SIAM J. Sci. Comput.,26 (2005), 2020-2028.
[30] W. Bao, Q. Tang and Z. Xu, Numerical methods and comparison for computing dark and
bright solitons in the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, J. Comput. Phys., 235 (2013), 423-445.
[31] W. Bao, Q. Tang and Y. Yuan, Computing ground states of spin-2 Bose-Einstein condensates
by the normalized gradient flow, preprint.
[32] W. Bao, Q. Tang and Y. Zhang, Accurate and efficient numerical methods for computing
ground states and dynamics of dipolar Bose-Einstein condensates via the nonuniform FFT,
Commun. Comput. Phys., 19 (2016), 1141-1166.
[33] W. Bao and W. Tang, Ground state solution of Bose-Einstein condensate by directly mini-
mizing the energy functional, J. Comput. Phys., 187 (2003), 230-254.
[34] W. Bao and H. Wang, An efficient and spectrally accurate numerical method for computing
dynamics of rotating Bose-Einstein condensates, J. Comput. Phys., 217 (2006), 612-626.
[35] W. Bao and H. Wang, A mass and magnetization conservative and energy-diminishing nu-
merical method for computing ground state of spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates, SIAM J.
Numer. Anal., 45 (2007), 2177-2200.
[36] W. Bao, H. Wang and P. A. Markowich, Ground, symmetric and central vortex states in
rotating Bose-Einstein condensates, Commun. Math. Sci., 3 (2005), 57-88.
[37] W. Bao and Y. Zhang, Dynamical laws of the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii qquations for spin-1
Bose-Einstein condensates, Methods Appl. Anal., 17 (2010), 49-80.
[38] M. A. Baranov, Theoretical progress in many-body physics with ultracold dipolar gases,
Phys. Rep., 464 (2008), 71-111.
[39] M. D. Barrett, J. A. Sauer and M. S. Chapman, All-optical formation of an atomic Bose-
Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87 (2001), article 010404.
[40] N. Ben Abdallah, F. Méhats, C. Schmeiser and R. M. Weishäupl, The nonlinear Schrödinger
equation with a strongly anisotropic harmonic potential, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 37 (2005),
189-199.
[41] A. T. Black, E. Gomez, L. D. Turner, S. Jung and P. D. Lett, Spinor dynamics in an antiferro-
magnetic spin-1 condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99 (2007), article 070403.
[42] I. Bloch, J. Dalibard and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod.
Phys., 80 (2008), 885-964.
[43] S. N. Bose, Plancks gesetz und lichtquantenhypothese, Z. Phys., 3 (1924), 178-181.
[44] C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett and R. G. Hulet, Evidence of Bose-Einstein conden-
sation in an atomic gas with attractive interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett., 75 (1995), 1687-1690.
[45] Y. Cai, Ground states and their characterization of spin-2 Bose-Einstein condensates, in
preparation.
[46] Y. Cai, M. Rosenkranz, Z. Lei and W. Bao, Mean-field regime of trapped dipolar Bose-
Einstein condensates in one and two dimensions, Phys. Rev. A, 82 (2010), article 043623.
[47] Y. Cai, Q. Tang and Y. Yuan, New methods for computing ground state of spin-F Bose-
Einstein condensates, in preparation.
[48] M. Caliari and M. Squassina, Location and phase segregation of ground and excited states
for 2D Gross-Pitaevskii systems, Dynamics of PDE, 5 (2008), 117-137.
66 CONTENTS
[49] E. Cancés, R. Chakir and Y. Maday, Numerical analysis of nonlinear eigenvalue problems, J.
Sci. Comput., 45 (2010), 90-117.
[50] R. Carles, Semi-Classical Analysis for Nonlinear Schrödinger Equations, World Scentific,
2008.
[51] R. Carles, P. A. Markowich and C. Sparber, On the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for trapped
dipolar quantum gases, Nonlinearity, 21 (2008), 2569-2590.
[52] S.-L. Chang, C.-S. Chien and B.-W. Jeng, Computing wave functions of nonlinear
Schrödinger equations: A time-independent approach, J. Comput. Phys., 226 (2007), 104-
130.
[53] M.-S. Chang, C. D. Hamley, M. D. Barrett, J. A. Sauer, K. M. Fortier, W. Zhang, L. You and
M. S. Chapman, Observation of spinor dynamics in optically trapped 87 Rb Bose-Einstein
condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92 (2004), article 140403.
[54] S. M. Chang, W. W. Lin and S. F. Shieh, Gauss-Seidel-type methods for energy states of a
multi-component Bose-Einstein condensate, J. Comput. Phys., 202 (2005), 367–390.
[55] M.-S. Chang, Q. Qin, W. Zhang, L. You and M.S. Chapman, Coherent spinor dynamics in a
spin-1 Bose condensate, Nat. Phys., 1 (2005), 111-116.
[56] M. M. Cerimele, F. Pistella and S. Succi, Particle-inspired scheme for the Gross-Pitaevski
equation: An application to Bose-Einstein condensation, Comput. Phys. Comm., 129 (2000),
82-90.
[57] J.-H. Chen, I-L. Chern and W. Wang, Exploring ground states and excited states of spin-1
Bose–Einstein condensates by continuation methods, J. Comput. Phys., 230 (2011), 2222-
2236.
[58] C. V. Ciobanu, S.-K. Yip and T.-L. Ho, Phase diagrams of F = 2 spinor Bose-Einstein conden-
sates, Phys. Rev. A, 61 (2000), article 033607.
[59] E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, Nobel Lecture: Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute gas,
the first 70 years and some recent experiments, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74 (2002), 875-893.
[60] F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Theory of Bose-Einstein condensation
in trapped gases, Rev. Mod. Phys., 71 (1999), 463-512.
[61] I. Danaila and P. Kazemi, A new Sobolev gradient method for direct minimization of the
Gross-Pitaevskii energy with rotation, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 32 (2010), 2447-2467.
[62] I. Danaila and B. Protas, Computation of ground states of the Gross-Pitaevskii functional via
Riemannian optimization, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., to appear (arXiv: 1703.07693).
[63] K. B. Davis, M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn and
W. Ketterle, Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett., 75 (1995),
3969-3973.
[64] C. M. Dion and E. Cances, Spectral method for the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equa-
tion with a harmonic trap, Phys. Rev. E, 67 (2003), article 046706.
[65] M. Edwards and K. Burnett, Numerical solution of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation for
small samples of trapped neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. A, 51 (1995), 1382-1386.
[66] A. Einstein, Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen gases, Sitzungs-berichte der Preussis-
chen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 22 (1924), 261-267.
[67] A. Einstein, Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen gases, zweite abhandlung, Sitzungs-
berichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1 (1925), 3-14.
[68] L. Erdös, B. Schlein and H. T. Yau, Derivation of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the dy-
namics of Bose-Einstein condensate, Ann. Math., 172 (2010), 291-370.
[69] A. L. Fetter, Rotating trapped Bose-Einstein condensates, Rev. Mod. Phys., 81 (2009), 647-691.
[70] U. Ernst, A. Marte, F. Schreck, J. Schuster and G. Rempe, Bose-Einstein condensation in a
CONTENTS 67
pure Ioffe-Pritchard field configuration, Euro. Phys. Lett., 41 (1998), 1-6.

[71] P. Gerard, P. A. Markowich, N. J. Mauser and F. Poupaud, Homogenization limits and
Wigner transforms, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 50 (1997), 321-377.
[72] E. P. Gross, Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems, Nuovo. Cimento., 20 (1961),
454-457.
[73] H. Hajaiej and R. Carles, On the spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates in the presence of Ioffe-
Pritchard magnetic field, Commun. Contemp. Math., 18 (2016), article 1550062.
[74] D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, J. R. Ensher, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, Dynamics of
component separation in a binary mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81
(1998), 1539-1542.
[75] D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman and E.A. Cornell, Measurements of relative phase
in two-component Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81 (1998), 1543-1546.
[76] T. L. Ho, Spinor Bose condensates in optical traps, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81 (1998), 742-745.
[77] Z. Huang, S. Jin, P. A. Markowich and C. Sparber, A Bloch decompositionbased split-step
pseudospectral method for quantum dynamics with periodic potentials, SIAM J. Sci. Com-
put., 29 (2007), 515-538.
[78] D. Jaksch, S. A. Gardiner, K. Schulze, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Uniting Bose-Einstein conden-
sates in optical resonators, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86 (2001), 4733-4736.
[79] A.-C. Ji, W. M. Liu, J. L. Song and F. Zhou, Dynamical creation of fractionalized vortices and
vortex lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett., 101 (2008), articel 010402.
[80] S. Jiang, L. Greengard and W. Bao, Fast and accurate evaluation of nonlocal Coulomb and
dipole-dipole interactions via the nonuniform FFT, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 36 (2014), B777-
B794.
[81] S. Jin, P. A. Markowich and C. Sparber, Mathematical and computational methods for semi-
classical Schrödinger equations, Acta Numer., 20 (2011), 121-209.
[82] T. H. Johnson, Y. Yuan, W. Bao, S. R. Clark, C. Foot and D. Jaksch, Hubbard model for atomic
impurities bound by the vortex lattice of a rotating BEC, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116 (2016), article
240402.
[83] A. Jüngel and R. M. Weishäupl, Blow-up in two-component nonlinear Schrödinger systems
with an external driven field, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 23 (2013), 1699-1727,
[84] K. Kasamatsu, M. Tsubota and M. Ueda, Vortex phase diagram in rotating two-component
Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91 (2003), article 150406.
[85] Y. Kawaguchi and M. Ueda, Spinor Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rep., 520 (2012), 253-
381.
[86] W. Ketterle, Nobel lecture: When atoms behave as waves: Bose-Einstein condensation and
the atom laser, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74 (2002), 1131-1151.
[87] M. Koashi and M. Ueda, Exact eigenstates and magnetic response of Spin-1 and Spin-2 Bose-
Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84 (2000), 1066-1069.
[88] T. Lahaye, C. Menotti, L. Santos, M. Lewenstein and T. Pfau, The physics of dipolar bosonic
quantum gases, Rep. Prog. Phys., 72 (2009), article 126401.
[89] C.-C. Lee and T.-C. Lin, Incompressible and compressible limits of two-component Gross-
Pitaevskii equations with rotating fields and trap potentials, J. Math. Phys., 49 (2008), article
043517.
[90] A. J. Leggett, Bose-Einstein condensation in the alkali gases: Some fundamental concepts,
Rev. Mod. Phys., 73 (2001), 307-356.
[91] Y. Li, L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Quantum tricriticality and phase transitions in spin-orbit
coupled Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108 (2012), article 225301.
68 CONTENTS
[92] E. H. Lieb, R. Seiringer and J. Yngvason, Bosons in a trap: A rigorous derivation of the
Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional, Phys. Rev. A, 61 (2000), article 043602.
[93] E. H. Lieb and J. P. Solovej, Ground state energy of the two-component charged Bose gas,
Comm. Math. Phys., 252 (2004), 485-534.
[94] F. Y. Lim and W. Bao, Numerical methods for computing the ground state of spin-1 Bose-
Einstein condensates in uniform magnetic field, Phys. Rev. E, 78 (2008), article 066704.
[95] L. Lin and I. L. Chern, A kinetic energy reduction technique and characterizations of the
ground states of spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensates, Discrete Cont. Dyn. B, 19 (2014), 1119-
1128.
[96] T. C. Lin and J. C. Wei, Ground state of N coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations in R n ,
n ≤ 3, Commun. Math. Phys., 255 (2005), 629-653.
[97] Y. J. Lin, K. Jiménez-Garcia and I. B. Spielman, Spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein conden-
sates, Nature, 471 (2011), 83-86.
[98] F. London, The λ-phenomenon of liquid helium and the Bose-Einstein degeneracy, Nature,
141 (1938), 643-644.
[99] Z. Lu and Z. Liu, Note on the ground states of two-component Bose-Einstein condensates
with an internal atomic Josephson junction, Bull. Korean Math. Soc., 50 (2013), 1441-1450.
[100] A. M. Martin, N. G. Marchant, D. H. J. O’Dell and N. G. Parker, Vortices and vortex lattices
in quantum ferrofluids, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 29 (2017), article 103004.
[101] R. I. McLachlan and G. R. W. Quispel, Splitting methods, Acta Numer., 11 (2002), 341-434.
[102] H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, J. Stenger, S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur and W. Ketterle,
Observation of metastable states in spinor Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82
(1999), 2228-2231.
[103] B. Min, T. Li, M. Rosenkranz and W. Bao, Subdiffusive spreading of a Bose-Einstein con-
densate in random potentials, Phys. Rev. A, 86 (2012), article 053612.
[104] E. J. Mueller and T.-L. Ho, Two-component Bose-Einstein condensates with a large number
of vortices, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88 (2002), article 180403.
[105] A. Minguzzi, S. Succi, F. Toschi, M. P. Tosi and P. Vignolo, Numerical methods for atomic
quantum gases with applications to Bose-Einstein condensates and to ultracold fermions,
Phys. Rep., 395 (2004), 223-355.
[106] C. J. Myatt, E. A. Burt, R. W. Ghrist, E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, Production of two
overlapping Bose-Einstein condensates by sympathetic cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78 (1997),
586-589.
[107] T. Ohmi and K. Machida, Bose-Einstein condensation with internal degrees of freedom in
alkali atom gases, J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 67 (1998), 1822-1825.
[108] B. Pasquiou, E. Maréchal, G. Bismut, P. Pedri, L. Vernac, O. Gorceix and B. Laburthe-Tolra,
Spontaneous demagnetization of a dipolar spinor Bose gas in an ultralow magnetic field,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 106 (2011), article 255303.
[109] C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2002.
[110] L. P. Pitaevskii, Vortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas, Soviet Phys. JETP, 13 (1961), 451-454.
[111] L. P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2003.
[112] M. Rosenkranz and W. Bao, Scattering and bound states in two-dimensional anisotropic
potentials, Phys. Rev. A, 84 (2011), article 050701(R).
[113] X. Ruan, Y. Cai and W. Bao, Mean-field regime and Thomas-Fermi approximations of
trapped Bose-Einstein condensates with higher order interactions in one and two dimen-
sions, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 49 (2016), article 125304.
CONTENTS 69
[114] H. Sakaguchi, B. Li and B. A. Malomed, Creation of two-dimensional composite solitons in

spin-orbit-coupled self-attractive Bose-Einstein condensates in free space, Phys. Rev. E, 89
(2014), articel 032920.
[115] L. Salasnich and B. A. Malomed, Localized modes in dense repulsive and attractive Bose-
Einstein condensates with spin-orbit and Rabi couplings, Phys. Rev. A, 87 (2013), article
063625.
[116] L. Santos, M. Fattori, J. Stuhler and T. Pfau, Spinor condensates with a laser-induced
quadratic Zeeman effect, Phys. Rev. A, 75 (2007), article 053606.
[117] L. Santos and T. Pfau, Spin-3 chromium Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96
(2006), article 190404.
[118] H. Schmaljohann, M. Erhard, J. Kronjäger, M. Kottke, S. van Staa, L. Cacciapuoti, J. J. Arlt,
K. Bongs and K. Sengstock, Dynamics of F = 2 spinor Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 92 (2004), article 040402.
[119] V. Schweikhard, I. Coddington, P. Engels, S. Tung and E. A. Cornell, Vortex-lattice dynamics
in rotating spinor Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93 (2004), article 210403
[120] R. Seiringer, Gross-Pitaevskii theory of the rotating Bose gas, Comm. Math. Phys., 229
(2002), 491-509.
[121] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, H.-J. Miesner, J. Stenger
and W. Ketterle, Optical confinement of a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80
(1998), 2027-2030.
[122] D. M. Stamper-Kurn and M. Ueda, Spinor Bose gases: Symmetries, magnetism, and quan-
tum dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys., 85 (2013), 1191-1244.
[123] L. M. Symes and P. B. Blakie, Solving the spin-2 Gross-Pitaevskii equation using exact non-
linear dynamics and symplectic composition, Phys. Rev. E, 95 (2017), article 013311.
[124] L. M. Symes, R. I. McLachlan and P. B. Blakie, Efficient and accurate methods for solving
the time-dependent spin-1 Gross-Pitaevskii equation Phys. Rev. E, 93 (2016), article 053309.
[125] Q. Tang, Y. Zhang and N. J. Mauser, A robust and efficient numerical method to compute
the dynamics of the rotating two-component dipolar Bose-Einstein condensates, Comput.
Phys. Commun., 219 (2017), 223-235.
[126] M. Thalhammer, High-order exponential operator splitting methods for time-dependent
Schrödinger equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 46 (2008), 2022-2038.
[127] M. Ueda, Topological aspects in spinor Bose-Einstein condensates, Rep. Prog. Phys., 77
(2014), article 122401.
[128] C. Wang, C. Gao, C.-M. Jian and H. Zhai, Spin-orbit coupled spinor Bose-Einstein conden-
sates, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105 (2010), article 160403.
[129] H. Wang, A time-splitting spectral method for computing the dynamics of spinor F = 1
Bose-Einstein condensates, Int. J. Comput. Math., 84 (2007), 925-944.
[130] H. Wang, An efficient numerical method for computing dynamics of spin F = 2 Bose-
Einstein condensates, J. Comput. Phys., 230 (2011), 6155-6168.
[131] H. Wang, A projection gradient method for computing ground state of spin-2 Bose-Einstein
condensates, J. Comput. Phys., 274 (2014), 473-488.
[132] M. I. Weinstein, Nonlinear Schrödinger equations and sharp interpolation estimates,
Comm. Math. Phys., 87 (1983), 567-576.
[133] L. Wen, W. M. Liu, Y. Cai, J. M. Zhang and J. Hu, Controlling phase separation of a two-
component Bose-Einstein condensate by confinement, Phys. Rev. A, 85 (2012), article 043602.
[134] L. Wen, Q. Sun, Y. Chen, D.-S. Wang, J. Hu, H. Chen, W.-M. Liu, G. Juzeliunas, B. A. Mal-
omed and A.-C. Ji, Motion of solitons in one-dimensional spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein
70 CONTENTS
condensates, Phys. Rev. A, 94 (2016), article 061602(R).

[135] J. Williams, R. Walser, J. Cooper, E. Cornell, and M. Holland, Nonlinear Josephson-type os-
cillations of a driven two-component Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. A (R), 59 (1999),
R31-R34.
[136] X. Wu, Z. Wen and W. Bao, A regularized Newton method for computing ground states of
Bose-Einstein condensates, J. Sci. Comput., 73 (2017), 303-329.
[137] B. Xiong, J. Gong, H. Pu, W. Bao and B. Li, Symmetry breaking and self-trapping of a dipolar
Bose-Einstein condensate in a double-well potential, Phys. Rev. A, 79 (2009), article 013626.
[138] Y. Xu, Y. Zhang and B. Wu, Bright solitons in spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates,
Phys. Rev. A, 87 (2013), article 013614.
[139] S. Yi, O. E. Müstecaplioğlu and L. You, Quantum phase diffusions of a spinor condensate,
Phys. Rev. Lett., 90 (2003), article 140404.
[140] D. A. Zezyulin, R. Driben, V. V. Konotop and B. A. Malomed, Nonlinear modes in bi-
nary bosonic condensates with pseudo-spin-orbital coupling, Phys. Rev. A, 88 (2013), article
013607.
[141] W. Zhang, D. L. Zhou, M.-S. Chang, M. S. Chapman and L. You, Dynamical instability and
domain formation in a spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95 (2005), article
180403.
[142] H. Zhai, Degenerate quantum gases with spin-orbit coupling: a review, Reports on Progress
in Physics, 78 (2015), articel 026001.
[143] H. Zhai, Spin-orbit coupled quantum gases, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, 26 (2012), article 1230001.
[144] Y. Zhang, W. Bao and H. L. Li, Dynamics of rotating two-component Bose-Einstein conden-
sates and its efficient computation, Phys. D, 234 (2007), 49-69.
[145] Y.-C. Zhang, Z.-W. Zhou, B. A. Malomed and H. Pu, Stable solitons in three dimensional
free space without the ground state: Self-trapped Bose-Einstein condensates with spin-orbit
coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), article 253902.
[146] Q. Zhu, C. Zhang and B. Wu, Exotic superfluidity in spin-orbit coupled Bose-Einstein con-
densates, EPL, 100 (2012), article 50003.

Bose Einstein More II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bose Einstein More II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

arXiv:1709.03840v3 [cond-mat.

quant-gas] 1 Dec 2017

Mathematical models and numerical methods for spinor

Abstract. In this paper, we systematically review mathematical models, theories and

http://www.global-sci.com/ Global Science Preprint

6 Summary and future perspectives 59

tion is approximated by a single particle Hamiltonian (mean field approximation), lead-

2.1 Coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations

where N is the total number of particles in the condensate.

all˜, we obtain the following dimensionless CGPEs for Ψ = (ψ↑ ,ψ↓ ) T as

2.2 Ground states

where S is a nonconvex set defined as

under the constraint

ψ↑ (x,t) = e−iµt φ↑ (x), ψ↓ (x,t) = e−iµt φ↓ (x), x ∈ Rd . (2.17)

2.2.1 Mathematical theories

and we say B is positive semi-definite iff β ↑↑ ≥ 0 and β ↑↑ β ↓↓ − β2↑↓ ≥ 0; and B is nonnegative

k∇ f k2L2 (R2 ) k f k2L2 (R2 )

For the ground state of (2.12), we have [15, 16]

(iii) d = 3 and B is either positive semi-definite or nonnegative;

(ii)′ d = 3 and β ↑↑ < 0 or β ↓↓ < 0 or β ↑↓ < 0 with β2↑↓ > β ↑↑ β ↓↓ ;

there exists no ground state of (2.12), i.e. inf E(Φ) = −∞.

where φ g is the unique positive minimizer [92] of

under the constraint Z

under the constraint Z

2.2.2 Numerical methods and results

Plugging (2.33) and (2.30) into (2.31), we get

The initial and boundary conditions are discretized as

2.2.3 Another type ground state without Josephson junction

where E0 (·) is the energy in (2.11) with Ω = δ = 0, i.e.

under the two constraints

with µ↑ and µ↓ being the Lagrange multipliers or chemical potentials corresponding to

ψ↑ (x,t) = e−iµ↑ t φ↑ (x), ψ↓ (x,t) = e−iµ↓ t φ↓ (x), x ∈ Rd . (2.47)

If ν = 0 or 1 in the nonconvex minimization problem (2.42), it reduces to the ground

and we have the following conclusions [16].

(iii) d = 3 and B is either positive semi-definite or nonnegative;

(ii)′ d = 3 and β ↑↑ < 0 or β ↓↓ < 0 or β ↑↓ < − 2ν1 ′ (ν2 β ↑↑ +(1 − ν)2 β ↓↓ ),

there exists no ground state of (2.42).

Theorem 2.5 (phase separation of (2.42) [133]). Suppose β ↑↑ = β ↓↓ = β ≥ 0, Ω = δ = 0 and

resp., 0 ≤ η < 1 when β ↑↓ > βcr

Ψ(x,t = 0) = Ψ0 (x) = (ψ↑0 (x),ψ↓0 (x)) T , x ∈ Rd with kΨ0 k = 1. (2.52)

2.3.1 Dynamical properties

with α being either x,y or z; the center-of-mass is given as

and the momentum is defined as

ẋc (t) = P(t), Ṗ(t) = −Λxc (t), t ≥ 0, (2.61)

2.3.2 Numerical methods and results

In practical computation, a large bounded computational domain U is usually taken such

(2.8) and the initial data in (2.52) as

The computational domain is U = [−16,16] with mesh size h = 32 1

2.4 Bogoliubov excitation

2.5 Semiclassical scaling and limits

where βεjl = β jl /βmax with βεjl → β0jl as ε → 0+ .

where δ↑ = δ and δ↓ = −δ. As ε → 0+ , by formally dropping the ε terms, we have

with ρ0j = limε→0+ ρεj and S0j = limε→0+ Sεj .

3.1 The mathematical model

Finally, by introducing the following change of variables

ψ↑ (x,t) = ψ̃↑ (x,t)ei(ωt+k0 x ) , ψ↓ (x,t) = ψ̃↓ (x,t)ei(ωt−k0 x ) , x ∈ Rd , (3.4)

3.2 Ground states

3.2.1 Mathematical theories

(iii) d = 3 and the matrix B (2.19) is either positive semi-definite or nonnegative.

(ii)′ d = 3, β ↑↑ < 0 or β ↓↓ < 0 or β ↑↓ < 0 with β2↑↓ > β ↑↑ β ↓↓ .

we know that the nonconvex minimization problem

3.2.2 Numerical methods and results

through the following GFDN

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4