A comparative study of conventional and non-conventional

microscopic theories of a system of interacting bosons-I : Liquid

4
He
Yatendra S Jain

Keywords: Superuidity, Microscopic theory, BEC, He-4

PACS: 47.37.+q, 67.25.-k, 67.25.D-, 67.25.dj
c by author.

Retd. Professor of Physics (Department of Physics, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong -

793 022, Meghalaya, India)
Correspondence : profysjain@gmail.com
1
Abstract
A critical comparison of the conventional microscopic theory (CMT) and Jains non-
conventional microscopic theory (NCMT) of liquid
4
He (LHe-4) and similar systems of
interacting bosons (SIB) is reported. It refers to their basic premises, approximations,
conclusions, accuracies and other important aspects. As reported in a recent review article
[Vilchynskyy et. al.,Low Temp. Phys. 39, 724 (Sept 2013)], even those people who have
been working for the development of CMT agree that the theory has big contradictions
with experiments and questions of self consistency at non-zero T; the review lists several
properties of LHe-4 which are not explained by CMT. In this paper, we not only add other
unexplained properties of LHe-4 to this list but also conclude that all these properties are
explained by NCMT. In addition we nd that CMT could not emerge as a viable theory
of superuidity of liquid
4
He and similar systems because its initial development started
with the use of several premises and approximations which do not agree with certain
physical realities of a SIB at low temperatures.
2
1. Introduction
The development of the microscopic theory of superuidity (ow without viscosity) of liq-
uid
4
He (LHe-4) has been one of the unsolved fundamental problems of physics, -waiting for
solutions for the last several decades. Superuidity was discovered in 1938 when LHe-4, on
its cooling, was found to exhibit a transition at T

= 2.17K from its normal liquid state

(He-I) to superuid state (He-II) [1, 2]. Soon after this discovery London [3] suggested that
the phenomenon is a consequence of the presence of Bose Einstein condensate (BEC) (also
known as p = 0 condensate) of
4
He atoms in He-II. Although, Landau [4] strongly opposed this
suggestion by rightly stating that BEC was predicted for a system of non-interacting bosons
(SNIB), while LHe-4 is a system of interacting bosons (SIB), his opposition did not inuence
the course of future works since many prominent physicists (viz., Tisza [5], Bogoliubov [6],
Feynman [7], Penrose [8], and Yang [9] to count a few) based on their dierent theoretical stud-
ies agreed with Londons suggestion. Naturally, this motivated several physicists to develop
the microscopic theory (which we refer as CMT) to explain dierent properties of LHe-4 and
experimental researchers to establish the existence of p = 0 condensate and determine its value,
n
p=0
(T) = N
p=0
(T)/N (where N
p=0
(T) = number of
4
He atoms in p = 0 state at temperature
(T) and N = total number of atoms in the system). In what follows, CMT uses second quanti-
zation clubbed with single particle basis (SPB) and presumed existence of p = 0 condensate in
He-II as the origin of its superuidity. Although, advances of CMT and its potential to explain
superuidity have been reviewed many times in the last seven decades, however, we quote the
most recent review on the subject published in Sept 2013 by Vilchynskyy et al [10] who not
only summarize the history of development of CMT but also list several important questions
and experimental properties for which CMT has no answer or explanation.
Over the last several years we also made our eorts to develop what can be called as non-
conventional microscopic theory (NCMT) of superuidity of a SIB [11]. However, this theory
uses rst quantization by using no presumption such as the existence of p = 0 condensate used
by CMT. We met the challenge of using rst quantization [against the common belief that it
can not be used because it requires separating innite many degrees of freedom of a system of
innitely large atoms] since we discovered that each particle in a many body system (indepen-
dent of its position) is more accurately described by a macro-orbital (MO) (Eqn.3 in Section
2.2), -a kind of pair wave function. In what follows our approach uses pair of particle basis
(PPB) in place of SPB used in CMT. The fact that MO representation separates the relative
motion of two particles (involved with inter-particle interaction) and CM motion which behaves
simply like a free particle, helps greatly in simplifying the mathematical formulation of NCMT
[11]. Further since this formulation provides unique solutions of the Nbody Schr odinger equa-
tion, NCMT renders unique results and a close agreement of these results with experiments,
obviously, ensures their accuracy.
The paper is arranged as follows. While Section 2 identies questionable foundations of
CMT, Section 3 discusses the extent to which the modied form of condensate [composite
condensate (CC)], presumed to exist in He-II as a source of superuidity, helps CMT to emerge
as a viable theory as per the recent review [10]. While Section 4 analyzes some specic properties
of He-II listed by Vilchynskyy et al [10] as unexplained properties in the framework of CMT,
Section 5 analyzes an additional list of very important properties of He-II which are also not
explained by CMT. To make this analysis more meaningful we add a brief discussion in each
3
case to underline the way NCMT explains all these properties. Finally, the paper oers some
useful concluding remarks in Section 6.
2. Questionable foundations of CMT
2.1: Approximation
The formulation of CMT is simplied by using two step approximation, rstly by replacing
the repulsive part, V
R
(r
ij
), of the two body interaction, V (r
ij
), by hard core (HC) potential,
V
HC
(r
ij
) [dened by V
HC
(r
ij
) = and V
HC
(r
ij
> ) = 0 with being the HC diameter
of an atom] and secondly by using the equivalence [12, 13],
V
HC
(r
ij
)
4 ha
m
(r
ij
), (1a)
where m = mass of an atom and a = s-wave scattering length. Although, Eqn.(1a) helps in
treating V
HC
(r
ij
), perturbatively, however, since V
HC
(r
ij
) representing an impenetrable nite
size repulsion and (4 ha/m)(r
ij
) representing a penetrable repulsion of nite strength are
quantitatively dierent, this equivalence is unjustied and is not expected to render correct
results.
Although NCMT [11] also uses an equivalence, dened by
V
HC
(r
ij
) A(r
ij
)(r
ij
) (1b)
to simplify its mathematical formulation, however, A(r
ij
) representing the strength of (r
ij
)
potential, is assumed to be such that A(r
ij
) with r
ij
0. This equivalence is justied
because it retains impenetrability of V
HC
(r
ij
) with potential. In what follows from more
detailed discussion [11], use of this equivalence is expected to render accurate results.
2.2: Single particle basis
The formulation of CMT assumes that
4
He atoms both in He-I and He-II occupy dierent
quantum states of a single particle placed in a macroscopically large box. Notably, this means
that each particle can be described, to a good approximation, by a plane wave,
u
p
(b) = Aexp(ip.b), (2)
where p (with p measured in wave number) and b, respectively, refer to the momentum and
position of a particle in the system. This description implies that p of each particle remains a
good quantum number in each state of the whole system and p can have any value between 0
and .
However, following a detailed analysis and discussion reported in [14], this description does
not remain valid for the LT states of the system where thermal de Broglie wave length [12]

T
= h/

2mk
B
T (with h = Plancks constant and k
B
= Boltzmanns constant) of atoms
becomes larger than
4
He-
4
He distance because
4
He atoms, under these situations, have their
wave superposition, -an unavoidable consequence of their wave nature. In what follows, one
4
nds that each particle in its wave superposition state is better described by a macro-orbital
(MO) [11, 15], -a kind of pair wave form,

q,K
(r, R) = sin(q.r)) exp(iK.R), (3)
which is obtained by simplifying the superposition of two plane waves representing the pre- and
post-collision states of a single particle [16] colliding with another particle in the system or the
walls of the container of the system. Eqn.(3) implies that;(i) each particle can be considered
either as a part or a representative of a pair of particles moving with equal and opposite momenta
(q, -q) with respect to the center of mass (CM) of the pair which moves with momentum K in
the laboratory frame, (ii) each particle has two motions which can be known as qmotion of
momentum q and Kmotion of momentum K. This makes it evident that NCMT uses PPB
in place of SPB used in CMT.
As evident from Eqn.(3), Kmotion represents a kind of free particle motion indicating
that K can have any value between 0 and . However, this is not true with qmotion which
represents relative motion of momentum (k = 2q) and encounters the inter-particle interaction.
Consequently, q is restricted to have its lower bound (q
o
= /d) corresponding to its zero point
energy (
o
= h
2
q
2
o
/2m = h
2
/8md
2
) where d = is inter-particle distance. As shown in [14],
such a state of a particle does not have momentum as a good quantum number, although its
magnitude q can be determined from particle energy. Evidently, the plane wave representation
of a particle with a possibility that its energy/momentum can have any value between 0 and
is not consistent with LT realities of LHe-4. Since NCMT [11] uses MO representation which
takes care of the unavoidable wave superposition, it is consistent with the said realities.
2.3: p = 0 condensate as the origin of superuidity:
Existence of p = 0 condensate in He-II as a source of its superuidity has been one of the
basic premises of CMT. However, its existence has not been established unequivocally by any
experiment (including neutron inelastic scattering and quantum evaporation of
4
He atoms from
He-II [17, 18]). Although, the BEC in trapped dilute gases, at the time of its discovery in 1995
[19], was believed to be true representative of p = 0 condensate, however, it was later found
to have signicant inuence of inter-particle interaction and be similar to the state of He-II.
This is corroborated by the fact that the said BEC exhibits all properties that are observed for
He-II. More over, the well known fact, that no particle trapped in a potential has zero p even in
its ground state, implies that the said BEC has no particle in p = 0 state, the question of it to
be the true representative of p = 0 condensate does not arise. In addition a simple theoretical
analysis concludes that the presumed existence of p = 0 condensate in the superuid phase of
any SIB violates the laws of nature [14]. This establishes the fallacy of the presumption of p = 0
condensate. On the other hand NCMT [11] has no such problem because it does not assume
any form of condensate as the origin of the superuidity of He-II. In stead it concludes the
condensation of particles as (q, -q) bound pairs in the ground state of the system characterized
by q = q
o
= /d and K = 0 from the solutions of the Schr odinger equation and their analysis.
5
3. CMT and composite condensate (CC) [10]
3.1 CC and superuidity
Although, no experiment renders unequivocal proof of the existence of p = 0 condensate,
conventional theorists have been persisting that He-II, on an average, has n
p
(0) = 0.09 at
T = 0 as reported in [10]. Since this amount of p = 0 condensate and superuid density

s
(T = 0)/ = 1.00 have huge dierence of 91%, these theorists seem to have recently modied
their belief about the origin of superuidity of He-II; accordingly, the origin lies with the
existence of a composite condensate (p = 0 condensate (9%) + other condensates such as two
body condensate, three body condensate, etc. (91%). The two components are also named as
conventional condensate (p = 0 condensate) + non-conventional condensate (condensates other
than p = 0 condensate). Evidently, even these theorists now agree that their initial belief in
p = 0 condensate as a sole factor responsible for superuidity of He-II was incorrect and major
contribution to superuidity lies with non-conventional condensate. However, for the reasons
registered in [11, 14, 20], we emphasize that they would nally agree to our conclusion [20] that
p = 0 condensate does not exist in the superuid phase of a SIB and it is the pair condensation
[11] which is totally responsible for superuidity.
3.2 CC and CMT lack self consistency at T = 0
Following what has been said by Vilchynskyy et al [10], the CMT based on CC has self
consistency only at T = 0; there is no such theory for non-zero T states of He II. Evidently,
it is clear that we need a theory which explains properties of He-II at non-zero T because,
whatever experimental results we have, none has been really measured at T = 0. Evidently,
the recent review [10] makes it unequivocally clear that CMT based on the presumed existence
of CC does not render a viable theory of superuidity.
4. CMT and unexplained Properties listed in [10]
4.1 Landau criterion for critical velocity:
Landaus Nobel prize winning phenomenological theory (also known as two uid theory)
[4] of a superuid SIB has been highly successful to account for dierent properties of He-II at
quantitative level. To this eect Landau [4] also concluded that He-II, owing at a velocity,
v
f
> v
c
(= critical velocity), given by,
v
c
=
E(Q)
hQ
, (4)
is expected to lose superuidity. Here E(Q) is the energy of a thermal excitation at wave vector
Q. When this relation is used with experimentally obtained E(Q) of He-II, it is found that loss
of superuidity should be observed for v
f
> v
c
(= 60m/sec). However, the fact that He-II loses
superuidity at a v
c
6m/sec (<<60m/sec) not only indicates the failure of Landau criterion
but also asks for its alternative. In this context, as stated by Vilchynskyy et al [10], CMT oers
no answer.
6
Interestingly, NCMT [11] nds that Landau criterion failed because the stability of super-
uid state of a SIB depends on its collective biding E
g
(T) between all bosons, given by,
E
g
(T) =
Nh
2
8md
2
d(T) d(T

)
d
, (5)
where d(T) represents inter-particle distance at T T

. When E
g
(T) energy is supplied in
terms of its ow energy at a given T, He-II loses its stability and transforms into normal state
(He-I). Equating E
g
(T) with ow energy Nmv
2
f
/2 for v
f
= v
c
, we have
v
c
(T) =

[2E
g
(T)
m
(6)
This relation has been used in [21] to nd v
c
(T) for He-II at dierent T; it is observed to change
smoothly from v
c
(2.1K) = 3.467m/sec to v
c
(0.2K) = 6.574m/sec which have close agreement
with experiments. It may be noted that critical current for which a superconductor loses
superconductivity is also determined by using similar relation. Since CMT does not conclude
any such relation, conventional theorists depend on Landaus criterion [4] and it became a point
of concern for them when this criterion did not work. Apparently, while Landau [4] found right
relation for the ow velocity, -sucient to produce thermal excitations at a given Q, he missed
the real reason of stability of He-II against its ow.
4.2 Origin of the roton minimum
As reported by Vilchynskyy et al [10], though, the recent calculations based on Monte Carlo
method or correlated basis function clubbed with modern inter-atomic potentials for
4
He atoms
have good agreement with experimental E(Q), an ab initio computation of E(Q) which agrees
with experimental E(Q) for He-II remains a problem even today and, in addition, the physical
reason behind the appearance of the roton minimum in E(Q) still remains unclear. In this
context we note that Vilchynskyy et al [10] missed our work [22] which concludes
E(Q) =
h
2
Q
2
4mS(Q)
. (7)
by using MO representation for a particle clubbed with Feynmans approach [23] which rendered
E(Q) = ( h
2
Q
2
)/2mS(Q) (with S(Q) = structure factor) when Feynman used plane wave
representation. It may be noted that Eqn.(7) is derived by using rst principles and it agrees
very closely with experiments. Following NCMT [11] each atom in He-II represents a particle
trapped in a cavity of neighbouring atoms and this particle is expected to have other quantum
states of higher q (or related higher energy) to which it can be excited. Naturally at Q = 2/d
for which excitation wave length < d, the energy and momentum of the excitation is carried
by a single particle. This implies that all excitations for Q 2/d are single particle excitations
and the excitation at Q 2/d, obviously, has minimum energy. With the same argument,
excitations at Q < 2/d ( > d) are expected to be collective excitations such as phonons
and this agrees with experimental observation. Evidently, our NCMT [11] clearly reveals that
roton corresponds to rst excited state of
4
He atom (trapped in a cavity of size d) dressed with
phonons; this point has been discussed at desired length in [24]. We hope that it satises the
concern of all conventional theorists (including Vilchynskyy et al [10]).
7
4.3 Anomalous nature of phonon velocities at low Q :
As stated in [10], the anomalous nature of experimental E(Q) [i.e., nonlinear dependence
of phonon velocities on Q] at small Q has been a puzzle in the framework of CMT. While this
observation indicates that low Q and high Q phonons in He-II have an interaction leading to
their mutual transformation from high E(Q) phonons to low E(Q) phonons and vice versa,
CMT nds no clue to its origin.
However, NCMT nds that thermal excitations in He-II can be identied as collective
motions in a chain of interacting
4
He atoms with nearest neighbour distance d, since He-II is a
homogeneous uid having orderly arrangement of wave packets which represent its constituent
atoms [25]. Since each wave packet (WP) tends to become as large in size (/2 = /q) as
possible in order to retain least possible zero-point energy/momentum, each particle pushes
its neighbours away from it by exerting zero-point force f
o
against inter-particle attraction f
a
.
Consequently, each pair of two neighbouring
4
He atoms in the said chain experience a kind
of mutual repulsion for which the chain diers from the standard 1-D chain which is analysed
as the simplest example of ordered structure for its phonon dispersion [26]. The standard
chain is assumed to have two characteristic parameters; (i) the nearest neighbour distance
d and force constant C which remain independent of the Q of a phonon. However, for the
persisting repulsion among neighbouring
4
He atoms, the chain of
4
He atoms in He-II fails to
keep d (and hence C) independent of Q. When the energy of atoms under the inuence of a
phonon excitation increases, d tends to decrease and C tends to increase with increasing Q.
Consequently, the energy dispersion for the chain of
4
He atoms in He-II is given by
E(Q) = 2 h

C(Q)
m
sin

Qd(Q)
2

(8)
We note that Eqn.(8) explains the anomalous nature of phonons at low Q in very good agree-
ment with experiments [21, 22, 25].
5. CMT and unexplained properties, not listed in [10]
5.1 Logarithmic singularity
LHe-4 exhibits a logarithmic singularity in specic heat and related properties at T

. Un-
ravelling of the origin of this singularity remained a challenging problem, as stated by Feynman
[23] who, obviously, understood that CMT has no solution for it.
Jain [25] used NCMT for the rst time to demonstrate its potential to reveal the said
singularity. Accordingly, its origin is related to a small decrease in energy of LHe-4 with
transition which takes LHe-4 from its state of disorder in phase () space [dened by >
2, with = phase dierence between two particles] at T T

to a state of order [dened

by = 2n at T < T

] and leads to what is known as symmetry breaking. One may nd

that theoretical singularity [25],
C
p
(J/mole.K) = 5.71 ln || 10.35 = Aln || + B with || =
|T T

|
T

(9)
agrees closely with experiments which nd A = 5.355 and B = 7.7 for T > T

and A = 5.1
and B = 15.52 for T < T

. A detailed analysis of the singularity which also nds very good

agreement of the values of B with experiments is available in [21, 27].
8
5.2 : Negative thermal expansion around T

LHe-4, on its cooling, exhibits volume expansion around T

and it is clear that CMT nds

no basis. However, NCMT unravels its origin; it is noted that every
4
He atom after assuming
its ground state exerts its zero-point force f
o
in order to occupy as much volume as possible
by displacing its neighbouring
4
He atoms away from its position. f
o
acts against a force f
a
which originates from
4
He-
4
He attraction and tries to restore atoms at their positions; however,
in equilibrium state of f
o
and f
a
, the system has a small but non-zero expansion on cooling.
Evidently, the negative thermal expansion coecient of LHe-4 around T

is a consequence of an
inter-play between f
o
and f
a
and this is corroborated by similar observations: (i) An electron
in LHe-4 occupies a self created cavity of diameter D( 10d) by ushing out about 500
4
He
atoms from the volume of the said cavity [28]; this indicates how f
o
acts in case of a single
quantum particle trying to occupy its ground state, and (ii)
3
He atoms in LHe-3 (a system of
interacting fermions (SIF)) exerts their f
o
and forces the liquid to have thermal expansion on
cooling below 0.6K [29]; this is another example of a macroscopic system where quantum
particles falling into their ground state force the system to have a small volume expansion on
cooling.
5.3 Relation for T

Even though CMT oers no basis to conclude any relation for T

, conventional theorists
do not consider this as its serious weakness. To this eect, it is commonly argued that the
temperature of the onset of BEC in a SNIB [12],
T
BEC
=
h
2
2mk
B

N
2.61V

2/3

2.11h
2
8mk
B
d
2
, (10)
for the parameters of LHe-4 is found to fall at 3.13K which does not dier signicantly
T

= 2.17K. However, our NCMT nds that the onset of BEC in a SIB is expected to occur at
a T close to T
o

o
= h
2
/8md
2
where
o
represents the ground state energy of a particle in a
SIB. In what follows [11], we nd that the onset of superuidity in a SIB should occur at
T

= T
o
+
T
BEC
4
= 1.53T
o

1.53h
2
8mk
B
d
2
(11)
For the parameters of LHe-4, this relation concludes that T

2.2K which agrees exactly with

experiments.
5.4 : Wilks question on quantum circulation
Arguing on the basis of the well known fact that a state function (1, 2, 3, 4, ...N) of any
bosonic system follows a symmetry, (1, 2, 3, 4, ...N) = +(2, 1, 3, 4, ...N) for the exchange of
two bosons, Feynman [7(d), 23] showed that (the circulation of the velocity eld) should
be quantized and it should be given by = n(h/m) with n = 1, 2, 3, ... However, Wilks
[29] has rightly pointed out that this argument does not explain the fact that He-I to which
Feynmans argument applies equally well, does not exhibit quantized vortices. Wilks question
has never been answered by conventional theorists. However, NCMT oers an answer based on
the dierence between He-I and He-II in relation to the positions of atoms in space; in He-I
9
they have a disorder dened by > 2 and in He-II, they have an order dened by = 2n
(n = 1, 2, 3, ... ...). In what follows the condition of constant phase dierence between two
particle persists only in He-II where phase positions of particles remain xed with time.
5.5 Superuidity of quasi-two and quasi-one dimensional systems
When p = 0 condensate is believed to be the origin of superuidity as per the presumption of
the CMT, quasi-one and quasi-two dimensional systems are not expected to exhibit superuidity
because p = 0 condensate is not expected to exist in such systems. However, since such
systems are observed to exhibit superuidity, it is clear that p = 0 condensate has no link with
superuidity.
However, NCMT [11] has no such problem because its condition for superuidity is the for-
mation of a close packed arrangement of the wave packets (CPA-WP) [11, 24] of its constituent
particles which comes into existence when nearly all particles in the system occupy their ground
state with /2 = /q = d. Since particles in any system (independent of its dimensionality)
can satisfy this condition, NCMT agrees closely with experiments.
5.6 : Coherence
Motion of
4
He atoms in He-II can be expected to have coherence if they maintain constant
dierence in their phase positions. This is possible only if particles cease to have relative
motions since these motions lead to inter-particle collisions leading to sudden change in their
phase positions. Obviously, if we follow CMT,
4
He atoms have relative motions in He-II which
are evident from their momentum distribution ( 9% atoms having p = 0 and 91% having
widely dierent values of non-zero p [10]). Naturally, these 91% atoms are not expected to have
coherence in their motions. Since this expectation does not agree with experiments, CMT does
not have desired potential to explain the coherence of particle motion in He-II. If at all 9%
atoms of p = 0 condensate are emphasised to maintain coherence, it is not clear how this group
remains isolated from remaining 91% atoms and exhibit coherence. On the other hand, since
NCMT clearly concludes that
4
He atoms have xed relative positions ( = 2n) in space
[11], one should have no diculty in understanding the observation of the said coherence.
5.7 : Ferroelectric domains
As revealed by CMT,
4
He atoms both in He-I and He-II have random motions with random
distribution of positions and momenta. They, obviously, have mutual collisions which can
not allow their electric dipoles and/or magnetic dipoles to have their orientation in a specic
directions. This inference is corroborated by the fact that no normal liquid has ever been
found to have ferroelectic or ferromagnetic order. This means that He-II is not expected to
have ferroelectric order in the framework of CMT. However, this does not agree with the
recent experimental study [32] which concludes that roton excitation in He-II exhibits linear
Stark eect indicating ferroelectric order of the electric dipoles of
4
He atoms in He-II. This
experiment provides unequivocal proof of the fact that atomic arrangement in He-II does not
allow
4
He atoms to have mutual collisions and this agrees with an important conclusion of
NCMT. Interestingly, He-II is not the only superuid state which has this kind of arrangement.
Electrons in superconducting phase have to have similar arrangement if we plan to understand
the experimentally observed coexistence of ferroelectricity and superconductivity, as explained
10
in [33], and the same should be true [33] with
3
He atoms in superuid
3
He which exhibits three
dierent magnetic orders under dierent physical conditions [34].
6. Concluding Remarks
It appears [10] that the main mission of CMT over the last seven decades has been to obtain
a condensate which can be linked quantitatively with experimental value of superuid density

s
(T) dened by Landaus two uid theory [4] because this phenomenology had demonstrated
desired potential to explain dierent properties of He-II. However, as concluded in [10], CMT
has not been able to achieve this mission.
On the other hand, the formulation of NCMT [11] does not start with any presumption
of the existence/ non-existence of any condensate. In stead, it uses the solutions of Nboson
Schrodinger equation to identify the true nature of the condensate. Accordingly, He-II has
a condensate of only (q, -q) bound pairs of
4
He atoms in its ground state characterised by
q = q
o
= /d and K = 0 [11] and its density matches closely with experimental
s
(T) (pl. see
Fig. 2 Ref.[11]).
It is evident [10] that even the researchers working on the problem agree that p = 0 conden-
sate alone is not sucient to account for the 100% superuid density at T = 0. Consequently,
over the last several years, conventional theorists have been woking out a theory with a presump-
topn that the origin of superuidity lies with the existence of composite condensate. However,
in this context too, they nd that the proposal does not have self consistency at non-zero Ts
[10]. While Vilchynskyy et al [10] identify only a few important aspects of He-II (Section 4)
for which CMT has no explanation, we add to their list many more important aspects of He-II
(Section 5) which remain unexplained in the framework of CMT. To make this study more
meaningful, we also demonstrate how NCMT explains each of these aspects.
Identifying the diculties of CMT in achieving its mission, we note that: (i) CMT does not
use physically correct equivalence for innitely strong HC potential V
HC
(r
ij
) (Section 2.1) and
(ii) its basic premises, viz., the plane wave representation of a particle, single particle basis,
and the existence of p = 0 condensate as the origin of superuidity (Section 2.2 and 2.3), are
not consistent with the physical realities of a SIB at LTs [14] and the laws of nature [20]. In
addition the said diculties of conventional approach also result from the initial belief/ndings
of prominent physicists and mathematicians as listed below.
(i) Belief that a many body problem can not be solved by using rst quantization because it
involves separation of 3N degrees of freedom which becomes innitely large for a macroscopic
system like LHe-4; this, obviously, forced researchers to use second quantization clubbed with
SPB and plane wave representation of each particle in He-II. However, NCMT demonstrates
that rst quantization can be used in association with MO representation of a particle which
denes a kind of PPB.
(ii) Initial theoretical ndings which not only supported Londons proposal that He-II con-
tains p = 0 condensate as the origin of superuidity but also guided them to ignore Landaus
suggestion [4] that He-II is more like a solid than a normal liquid and it can not have p = 0
condensate because He-II is a system of strongly interacting bosons, while Einstein concluded
p = 0 condensate for a system of non-interacting bosons. However, now it is unequivocally
11
clear that the basic premises (SPB and presumption of p = 0 condensate) used in CMT are
inconsistent with the laws of nature and LT realities of He-II [14, 20].
Finally, it is clear that NCMT of a many body system has been developed successfully by
using rst quantization and this became possible by concluding MO as a means to represent
a single particle in a manner a plane wave is used in second quantization. Unlike plane wave
repesentation, MO representation has no problem of inconsistency with LT realities of a SIB
and energy divergence resulting from innitely strong HC repulsion because the expectation
value of the touch potential (equivalent of HC repulsion Eqn.2(b)) has zero value for each pair
of HC particles [11].
Acknowledgment : The author is thankful to Dr. Samrat Dey for his careful reading of the
manuscript and useful observations.
12
References
[1] P. L. Kapitza, Nature 141, 74 (1938).
[2] J. F. Allen and A. D. Misener, Nature 141, 75 (1938).
[3] (a) F. London, Nature 141, 643 (1938).
(b) F. London, Superuids. Macroscopic Theory of Superuid Helium (Wiley, New York,
1954), Vol. 2.
[4] (a) L. D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 11, 592 (1941). [Sov. Phys. JETP 5, 71 (1941)].
(b) L. D. Landau, J. Phys. (Moscow) 11, 91 (1947).
[5] (a) L. Tisza, Nature 141, 913 (1938).
(b) L. Tisza, Compt. Rend. 207, 1035 (1938).
[6] (a) N. N. Bogoliubov, Sov. Phys. JETP 11, 23 (1947).
(b) N. N. Bogoliubov, Bull. Moscow State Univ. 7, 43 (1947).
(c) N. N. Bogoliubov, Izv. Akad. Nauk USSR 11, 77 (1947).
(d) N. N. Bogoliubov, Lectures on Quantum Statistics, Vol. 1: Quantum Statistics (Gordon
and Breach Science Publishers, New York, London, Paris, 1970).
(e) N. N. Bogoliubov, JETP 18, 622 (1948).
[7] (a) R.P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 91 (1953), 1291-1301.
(b) R.P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 91 (1953), 1301-1308.
(c) R.P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 94 (1954), 262-277.
(d) R.P. Feynman, Applications of Quantum Mechanics to Liq- uid Helium, Progress in Low
Temperature Physics (C.J. Gorter, editor). 1 (1954),17-53, North-Holland, Amsterdam,
Chapter II.
[8] (a) O. Penrose. On the quantum mechanics of helium II. Philos. Mag., 42, 1373, (1951).
(b) O. Penrose and L. Onsager. Bose-Einstein condensation and liquid helium. Phys.Rev.,
104, 576-584, (1956).
[9] C.N. Yang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34 ((1962), 694-704.
[10] S. I. Vilchynskyy, A. I. Yakimenko, K. O. Isaieva, and A. V. Chumachenko, The nature of
superuidity and Bose-Einstein condensation : From liquid
4
He to dilute ultracold atomic
gases, Low Temp. Phys. 39, 724 (2013)
[11] Y. S. Jain, Amer. J. Cond. Matt. Phys. 2, 32-52 (2012).
[12] R. K. Pathria, Statistical Mechanics, Pergamon Press Oxford (1976).
[13] J. O. Andersen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 599-639 (2004).
13
[14] Y. S. Jain, http://www.scribd.com/doc/110441679/ Intrinsic Problems Superuid Theo-
ries
[15] Y. S. Jain, Cent. Euro J. Phys. 2, 709-719 (2004); a small typographic error in this paper
is corrected in its version placed in the archive (arxiv.org/quant-ph/0603233).
[16] The superposition of two plane waves u
p

i
(b

i
) and u
p

i
(b

i
), respectively, representing the
pre- and post-collision states of a single (ith) particle can be written as
p

i
,p

i
(b

i
, b

i
) =
[u
p

i
(b

i
)u
p

i
(b

i
) u
p

i
(b

i
)u
p

i
(b

i
)]. This renders Eqn.(4) by dening relative momentum,
k = 2q = p

i
p

i
, and relative position r = b

i
b

i
of ith particle in two states and
K = p

i
+p

i
, and R = (b

i
+b

i
)/2, respectively, representing the momentum and position
of the CM of ith particle in the two states.
[17] P.E. Sokol in Bose Einstein Condensation, A. Grin, D.W. Snoke and A. Stringari (eds.),
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1996), pp 51-85.
[18] Wyatt, A.F.G.,Evidence for a Bose Einstein condensate in liquid
4
He from quantum evap-
oration, Nature, 391, 56-59(1998).
[19] (a) M.H. Anderson, J.R. Ensher, M.R. Mattews, C.E. Wieman, and E.A. Cornell, Science
269, 198-201 (1995).
(b) K.B. Davis, M.-O. Mewes, M.R. Andrews, M.J. Van Druten, D.S. Durfee, D.M.W.
Kurn, W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969-3972 (1995).
[20] Y.S. Jain, Int. J. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 101-107 (2012).
[21] (a) S. Chutia, A study of Certain Properties of Superuid Helium-4 Using Macro-Orbital
Theory, Ph.D. Dissertation, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong (India),(2007),
(b) Y.S. Jain and S. Chutia (unpublished work).
[22] Y.S. Jain, A Study of Elementary Excitations of Liquid He- lium-4 Using Macro-Orbital
Microscopic Theory, ar- Xiv:Cond-mat/0609418v1 (2006).
[23] R.P. Feynman, Statistical Mechanics, (Benjamin, 1976), p. 284
[24] Y.S. Jain, L. Chhangte, S. Chutia and S. Dey, Current Science, 101 (2011), 769-775.[Note:
This paper also lists some other experimental observations which support the absence of
p = 0 condensate and support CPA-WP of 4He-atoms in He-II].
[25] Y.S. Jain, Macro-orbitals and microscopic theory of a system of interacting
bosons,arXiv:cond-mat/0606571.
[26] C. Kittel, Introduction to solid state physics, 8-th Edition, Wiley, Delhi, (2005) Chapter
4.
[27] Simanta C. and Y.S. Jain, Logarithmic Singularities of Specic Heat and Related Proper-
ties of Liquid
4
He Near Point, www.arXiv:cond-mat/0612279v1.
14
[28] (a) M. Rosenblit and J. Jortner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995), 4079-4082;
(b) M. Farnik, U. Henne, B. Samelin, and J.P. Toennies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998),
3892-3895.
(c) H. Marris and S. Balibar, Phys. To-day 53 (2000), 29-34.
[29] J. Wilks, The properties of Liquid and Solid Helium. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1967).
[30] R. Toda, M. Hieda, T. Matsushita, N. Wada, J. Taniguchi, H. Ikegami, S. Inagaki, Y.
Fukushima, phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 255301 (2007).
[31] M.W. Toft and J.G.M. Armitage, J. Low Temp. Phys. 52, 343 (1983)
[32] A. Rybalko, S.P. Rubets, E. Rudavskii, V. Tikhiy, S. Tarapov, R. Golovashchenko, and V.
Derkach, Resonance absorption of microwaves in He II: Evidence for roton emission. Phys.
Rev., 2007, B76. 140503R.
[33] (a) Y. S. Jain, On the origin of de Heer eect and the accuracy of microscopic theories of
superconductivity, http://www.scribd.com/doc/146390067/
(b) Y.S. Jain, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236869920
[34] (a) A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 1227 (1972).
(b) C. Enss and S. Hunklinger, Low Temperature Physics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, (2005),
Chapters 3 and 4.
15