In Foresti & Ricca (Reference Foresti and Ricca2020) (hereafter referred to as FR20) we derived a modified form of the Gross–Pitaevskii equation for a defect subject to twist. A mistake was introduced by the wrong use of the operator $\widetilde {\boldsymbol {\nabla }}=\boldsymbol {\nabla }-\mathrm {i}\boldsymbol {\nabla }\theta _{tw}$. By repeating the same calculations we can see that the mGPE (2.6) must be replaced by the following equation:
Note the extra terms that come from the broken symmetry of the theory under superposition of a local phase.
The Hamiltonian (3.1) then becomes
where ${{\boldsymbol {p}}} = -\mathrm {i}\boldsymbol{\nabla}$ is the momentum operator, and
is the twist potential. It can be directly verified that the above Hamiltonian is also non-Hermitian.
The energy expectation value $E_{tw}$ is given by the contribution of the unperturbed state $\psi _0$ and twist. Since the twist contribution is linear in $\psi _1$, it can be obtained from the expectation value of $V_{tw}$ and the kinetic part that depends on $\theta _{tw}$; thus, (3.5) must be replaced by
Upon application of the Madelung transform $\psi _{1} = \sqrt \rho \exp (\mathrm {i} \chi _{1})$, taking $\boldsymbol {\nabla }\theta _{tw}\boldsymbol {\cdot }\boldsymbol {\nabla }\rho = 0$ in the neighborhood of the defect, we have
As in FR20, the imaginary term above makes the Hamiltonian non-Hermitian, and the twisted state remains unstable. Following what is done in FR20 (§ 3), by the same procedure we obtain the correct dispersion relation
The instability criterion of § 3 remains unaltered.
Since injection of negative twist is given by a rotation of the twist phase opposite to the vortex orientation, if we replace $\theta _{tw}\rightarrow -\theta _{tw}$ we evidently have instability when $\nabla ^{2}\theta _{tw} < 0$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to A. Roitberg, who pointed out an error in the derivation of (2.6) of FR20.
Declaration of interests
The authors report no conflict of interest.