1: \documentclass[runningheads]{svmult}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \usepackage{makeidx}   % allows index generation

4: \usepackage{graphicx}  % standard LaTeX graphics tool

5:                        % for including eps-figure files

6: \usepackage{subeqnar}  % subnumbers individual equations

7:                        % within an array

8: \usepackage{multicol}  % used for the two-column index

9: %\usepackage{cropmark} % cropmarks for pages without

10:                        % pagenumbers - only needed when manuscript

11:                        % is printed from paper and not from data

12: \usepackage{physprbb}  % modified textarea for proceedings,

13:                        % lecture notes, and the like.

14: \makeindex             % used for the subject index

15:                        % please use the style sprmidx.sty with

16:                        % your makeindex program

17: 

18: %%upright Greek letters (example below: upright "mu")

19: %%\newcommand{\greeksym}[1]{{\usefont{U}{psy}{m}{n}#1}}

20: %%\newcommand{\umu}{\mbox{\greeksym{m}}}

21: %%\newcommand{\udelta}{\mbox{\greeksym{d}}}

22: %%\newcommand{\uDelta}{\mbox{\greeksym{D}}}

23: %%\newcommand{\uPi}{\mbox{\greeksym{P}}}

24: %%{\tiny} {\scriptsize} {\footnotesize} {\small} {\normalsize}

25: %%{\large} {\Large} {\LARGE}

26: %\oddsidemargin=-.8cm

27: 

28: 

29: % FIGURES

30: \def\chevrons{\epsfig{figure=instab.ps,height=13truecm}}%,width=3truecm}}

31: \def\schock{\epsfig{figure=schock.ps,height=6truecm}}

32: \def\density{\epsfig{figure=density.ps,height=6truecm}}

33: \def\spirale{\epsfig{figure=spirale.ps,height=7truecm}}

34: \def\chevronsburgers{\epsfig{figure=chevronsburgers.ps,height=12truecm}}

35: \def\herisson{\epsfig{figure=herisson.ps,height=8truecm}}

36: \def\excitationparametrique{\epsfig{figure=excitationparametrique.ps,height=8truecm}}

37: \def\excitationparametriquebis{\epsfig{figure=excitationparametriquebis.ps,height=5truecm}}

38: 

39: 

40: \begin{document}

41: \title*{The Hamiltonian Mean Field Model:

42: from Dynamics to Statistical Mechanics and back}

43: 

44: %\toctitle{The Hamiltonian Mean Field Model: from Dynamics to

45: %  Statistical Mechanics and back}

46: 

47: \titlerunning{The Hamiltonian Mean Field Model}

48: 

49: \author{Thierry Dauxois\inst{1}

50: \and Vito Latora\inst{2} \and Andrea Rapisarda\inst{2} \and

51: Stefano Ruffo\inst{1,3}

52:  \and Alessandro Torcini\inst{3,4}}

53: 

54: \authorrunning{T. Dauxois et al.}

55: % if there are more than two authors,

56: % please abbreviate author list for running head

57: \institute{Laboratoire de Physique, UMR CNRS 5672, ENS Lyon, 46,

58:   all{\'e}e d'Italie, F-69007 Lyon, France \and Dipartimento di Fisica,

59:   Universit{\'a} di Catania, and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,

60:   Sezione di Catania, Corso Italia 57, I-95129 Catania, Italy \and

61:   Dipartimento di Energetica "S. Stecco", Universit{\`a} di Firenze, via

62:   S. Marta, 3, INFM and INFN, I-50139 Firenze, Italy \and

63:   UMR-CNRS 6171,  Universit{\'e} d'Aix-Marseille III -

64:   Av. Esc. Normandie-Niemen, F-13397 Marseille Cedex 20, France.}

65: 

66: 

67: 

68: \maketitle              % typesets the title of the contribution

69: 

70: \begin{abstract}

71: The thermodynamics and the dynamics of particle systems with

72: infinite-range coupling display several unusual and

73: new features with respect to systems with short-range

74: interactions. The Hamiltonian Mean Field (HMF) model

75: represents a paradigmatic example of this class of systems.

76: The present study addresses both attractive and repulsive

77: interactions, with a particular emphasis on the description

78: of clustering phenomena from a thermodynamical as well as

79: from a dynamical point of view. The observed

80: clustering transition can be first or

81: second order, in the usual thermodynamical sense. In the former

82: case, ensemble inequivalence naturally arises close to the

83: transition, i.e. canonical and microcanonical ensembles give

84: different results. In particular, in the microcanonical ensemble

85: negative specific heat regimes and temperature jumps are

86: observed. 

87: Moreover, having access to dynamics one can study non-equilibrium

88: processes. Among them, the most striking is

89: the emergence of coherent structures in the repulsive model,

90: whose formation and dynamics can be studied either by using the tools of

91: statistical mechanics or as a manifestation of the

92: solutions of an associated Vlasov equation. 

93: The chaotic character of the HMF model has been also analyzed in terms

94: of its Lyapunov spectrum.

95: \end{abstract}

96: 

97: 

98: \section{Introduction}

99: Long-range interactions appear in the domains of

100: gravity~\cite{paddyhmf,chavanishmf} and of plasma physics~\cite{elskenshmf} and

101: make the statistical treatment extremely complex.  Additional features

102: are present in such systems at short distances: the

103: gravitational potential is singular at the origin and screening

104: phenomena mask the Coulomb singularity in a plasma. This justifies the

105: introduction of simplified toy models that retain only the long-range

106: properties of the force, allowing a detailed description of the

107: statistical and dynamical behaviors associated to this feature. 

108: In this context a special role is

109: played by mean-field models, i.e. models where all particles interact

110: with the same strength. This constitutes a dramatic reduction of

111: complexity, since in such models the spatial coordinates have no role,

112: since each particle is equivalent.  However, there are several

113: preliminary indications that behaviors found in mean-field models

114: extend to cases where the two-body potential decays at large distances

115: with a power smaller than space dimension~\cite{tamahmf,BMRhmf,campa}.

116: 

117: 

118: The

119: Blume-Emery-Griffiths (BEG) mean-field model is discussed in

120: this book~\cite{BMRhmf} and represents an excellent benchmark to discuss

121: relations between canonical and microcanonical ensembles.  Indeed,

122: this model is exactly solvable in both ensembles and is, at the same

123: time, sufficiently rich to display such interesting features as

124: negative specific heat and temperature jumps in the microcanonical

125: ensemble. Since these effects cannot be present in the canonical

126: ensemble, this rigorously proves ensemble inequivalence. However, the

127: BEG model has no dynamics and only the thermodynamical behavior can be

128: investigated. Moreover, it is a spin model where variables take discrete

129: values. It would therefore be amenable to introduce a model that

130: displays all these interesting thermodynamical effects, but for which

131: one would also dispose of an Hamiltonian dynamics with continuous

132: variables, whose equilibrium states could be studied both in the

133: canonical and in the microcanonical ensemble. Having access to

134: dynamics, one could moreover study non equilibrium features and

135: aspects of the microscopic behavior like sensitivity to initial

136: conditions, expressed by the Lyapunov spectrum~\cite{Ruelleeckman}.

137: Such a model has been introduced in Ref.~\cite{Antoni} and has been

138: called the Hamiltonian Mean Field (HMF) model. In the simpler version,

139: it represents a system of particles moving on a circle, all coupled by

140: an equal strength attractive or repulsive cosine interaction.  An

141: extension of it to the case in which particles move on a 2D torus has

142: been introduced in Ref.~\cite{at} and it has been quite recently

143: realized that all such models are particular cases of a more general

144: Hamiltonian~\cite{art}. 

145: 

146: The HMF model, that we introduce in Section 2,

147: is exactly solvable in the canonical ensemble by a

148: Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. The solution in the

149: microcanonical ensemble can be obtained only under certain hypotheses

150: that we will discuss in Section 3, but detailed information on the

151: behavior in the microcanonical ensemble can be obtained by direct

152: molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. The model has first and second

153: order phase transitions and tricritical points. Its rich phase diagram

154: allows to test the presence of ensemble inequivalence

155: \index{ensemble inequivalence} near canonical first order phase transitions and,

156: indeed, we find negative specific heat and temperature jumps in the

157: microcanonical ensemble. Having access to dynamics, one can study

158: metastability of out-of-equilibrium states. This is done in Section 4,

159: where we analyze the emergence of a coherent structure in the

160: repulsive HMF at low energy.  Similar features are also discussed in

161: another chapter of this book~\cite{tsallisrap} for the attractive case

162: near the second order phase transition.  Section 5 is devoted to the

163: study of the spectrum of Lyapunov exponents.  The maximal exponent has

164: a peak near the phase transition~\cite{at,lat1hmf,celiahmf} and vanishes

165: when increasing the number of particles with a universal scaling law

166: in the whole high energy disordered phase.  In a low energy range the

167: Lyapunov spectrum has a thermodynamic limit distribution similar to

168: the one observed for systems with short-range

169: interaction~\cite{livipolruffo}.

170: 

171: 

172: \section{The HMF models}

173: 

174: A generic two-body potential in a two dimensional square box of

175: side $2\pi$ with periodic boundary conditions, a 2D torus, can be Fourier

176: expanded as

177: \begin{equation}

178: \label{fourierexpan}

179: V(x,y)=\sum_{{\bf k}=(k_x,k_y)} \exp \left( i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf r}

180: \right) V(k_x,k_y)\quad.

181: \end{equation}

182: A sufficiently rich family of potential functions is obtained if,

183: we restrict to the first two momentum shells $|k|=1$ and

184: $|k|=\sqrt{2}$, we require that the potential is only invariant

185: under discrete rotations by all multiples of $\pi/4$, and we assume

186: that the Fourier coefficients on each shell are the same.

187: This amounts to perform a truncation in the Fourier expansion

188: of the potential (\ref{fourierexpan}), as done in studies of

189: spherically symmetric gravitational systems in another chapter

190: of this book~\cite{grossdh}.

191: We get

192: \begin{equation}

193: \label{limitexpansion}

194: V(x,y)=a+b\cos x +b\cos y +c\cos x\cos y\;.

195: \end{equation}

196: As the constant $a$ is arbitrary and scaling $b$ is equivalent to

197: scale the energy, $c$ remains the only free parameter.  We consider

198: $N$ particles interacting through the two-body potential $V(x,y)$ and

199: we adopt the Kac prescription~\cite{Kachmf}\index{Kac prescription}

200: \index{extensivity} to scale the equal strength coupling among the

201: particles by their number $N$.  This scaling allows to perform safely

202: the thermodynamic limit\index{thermodynamic limit}, since both the

203: kinetic and the potential energy increase proportional to

204: $N$\footnote{Kac prescription is, however, unphysical and it would be

205:   important to find a viable alternative.}.  By appropriately

206: redefining the constants $a=2\varepsilon+A,b=-\varepsilon,c=-A$ in formula

207: (\ref{limitexpansion}) and using Kac prescription one gets the

208: following potential energy

209: \begin{eqnarray}

210: \label{eqHA}

211: V_A &=& \frac{1}{2N} \sum^{N}_{i,j=1}

212: \varepsilon \left( 1- \cos ( x_i-x_j ) \right)

213: +\varepsilon \left( 1-\cos ( y_i-y_j ) \right) \nonumber \\

214: && \hskip 2truecm+A \left( 1 - \cos ( x_i-x_j ) \cos ( y_i-y_j ) \right) ~,

215: \end{eqnarray}

216: with $(x_{i},y_{i})\in ]-\pi, \pi ] \times ]-\pi, \pi ]$ representing the coordinates

217: of $i$-th particle and $(p_{x,i},p_{y,i}) \) its conjugated momentum.

218: The Hamiltonian of the HMF model is now the sum of this potential

219: energy with the kinetic energy

220: \begin{equation}

221: \label{kinetic}

222: K= \sum _{i=1}^{N}\left(\frac{p_{x,i}^{2}+p_{y,i}^{2}}{2}\right)~.

223: \end{equation}

224: We get

225: \begin{equation}

226: \label{hamHMF}

227: H_{HMF}=K+V_A~.

228: \end{equation}

229: In the following, we will consider model (\ref{hamHMF}) for

230: $A=0$ and both $\varepsilon$ positive (attractive case) and

231: negative (repulsive case). The $A\neq0$ case will always have

232: $A>0$ and $\varepsilon=1$.

233: 

234: \section{Equilibrium Thermodynamics}

235: 

236: In this section, we discuss the equilibrium thermodynamical

237: results for model~(\ref{eqHA}) in the canonical and

238: microcanonical ensembles. Canonical results will be obtained

239: analytically while, for the microcanonical ones, we will mostly rely on

240: molecular dynamics (MD) simulations.

241: 

242: \subsection{Canonical Ensemble for $A=0$}\index{canonical!ensemble}

243: 

244: \label{Aeq0}

245:  For pedagogical reasons, we will initially limit our

246: analysis to the case $A=0$, for which the model reduces to two

247: identical {\em uncoupled} systems: one describing the evolution of

248: the $\{ x_i,p_{x,i} \}$ variables and the other $\{y_i,p_{y,i} \}$. 

249: Therefore let us rewrite the Hamiltonian

250: associated to one of these two sets of variables, named

251: $\theta_i$ in the following. We obtain

252: \begin{equation}

253: H_0 = \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{p_i^2}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon}{2N}

254: \sum_{i,j=1}^N [1-\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j)] = K_0 + V_0

255: \label{model0}

256: \end{equation}

257: where $\theta_i \in [-\pi;\pi[$ and $p_i$ are the corresponding

258: momenta. This model can be seen as representing particles moving

259: on the unit circle, or as classical $XY$-rotors with infinite

260: range couplings. For $\varepsilon>0$, particles attract each other

261: and rotors tend to align (ferromagnetic case), while for

262: $\varepsilon<0$, particles repel each other and spins tend to

263: anti-align (antiferromagnetic case). At short distances, we can

264: either think that particles cross each other or that they collide

265: elastically since they have the same mass.

266: 

267: The physical meaning of this model is even clearer if one

268: introduces the mean field vector

269: \begin{equation}

270: {\bf M} = M {\rm e}^{i \phi} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N {\bf m}_i

271: \label{m0}

272: \end{equation}

273: where ${\bf m}_i =(\cos \theta_i, \sin \theta_i)$. $M$ and $\phi$

274: represent the modulus and the phase of the order parameter, which

275: specifies the degree of clustering in the particle interpretation,

276: while it is the {\em magnetization} for the $XY$ rotors. Employing

277: this quantity, the potential energy can be rewritten as a sum of

278: single particle potentials $v_i$

279: \begin{equation}

280: V_0 = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^N v_i  \qquad {\rm with} \qquad v_i =

281: 1- M \cos(\theta_i -\phi) \quad . \label{v0}

282: \end{equation}

283: It should be noticed that the motion of each particle is coupled to all 

284: the others, since the mean-field

285: variables $M$ and $\phi$ are determined at each time $t$ by the

286: instantaneous positions of all particles.

287: 

288: The equilibrium results in the canonical ensemble can be obtained from

289: the evaluation of the partition function

290: \index{canonical!partition function}

291: \begin{equation}

292: Z = \int d^N p_i d^N \theta_i \exp{(-\beta H)}

293: \label{z0}

294: \end{equation}

295: where $\beta = 1/(k_B T)$, with $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant and

296: $T$ the temperature. The integration domain is extended

297: to the whole phase space. Integrating over momenta, one gets:

298: \begin{equation}

299: Z = \left( \frac{2 \pi}{\beta} \right)^{N/2} \int_{-\pi}^\pi d^N

300: \theta_i \exp{\left[\frac{-\beta \varepsilon N}{2} (1-{\bf

301: M}^2)\right]}\quad. \label{zz0}

302: \end{equation}

303: In order to evaluate this integral,  we use the two dimensional

304: Gaussian identity

305: \begin{equation}

306: \exp{\left[\frac{\mu}{2} \bf x^2\right]}=

307: \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty  \int_{-\infty}^\infty

308: d{\bf y} \exp{[-{\bf y}^2+\sqrt{2 \mu} {\bf x}

309: \cdot {\bf y}]}

310: \label{gau}

311: \end{equation}

312: where ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf y}$ are two-dimensional vectors and

313: $\mu$ is positive. We can therefore rewrite Eq.~(\ref{zz0}) as

314: \begin{equation}

315: Z = \left( \frac{2 \pi}{\beta} \right)^{N/2}

316: \exp{\left[\frac{-\beta \varepsilon N}{2}\right]} J

317: \end{equation}

318: with

319: \begin{equation}

320: J= \frac{1}{\pi}

321: \int_{-\pi}^\pi d^N \theta_i

322: \int_{-\infty}^\infty  \int_{-\infty}^\infty

323: d{\bf y} \exp{[-{\bf y}^2+\sqrt{2 \mu} {\bf M}

324: \cdot {\bf y}]}

325: \label{j0}

326: \end{equation}

327: and $\mu = \beta \varepsilon N$. We use now definition~(\ref{m0}) and

328: exchange the order of the integrals in (\ref{j0}), factorizing the

329: integration over the coordinates of the particles. Introducing

330: the rescaled variable $ {\bf y} \to {\bf y} \sqrt{N/2\beta

331: \varepsilon}$, one ends up with the following expression for $J$

332: \begin{equation}

333: J= \frac{N}{2 \pi \beta \varepsilon} \int_{-\infty}^\infty

334: \int_{-\infty}^\infty d{\bf y} \exp{\left[-N \left( \frac{y^2}{2

335: \beta \varepsilon} -\ln\left(2\pi I_0(y)\right) \right) \right] }

336: \label{j1}

337: \end{equation}

338: where $I_n$ is the modified Bessel function of order $n$ and $y$

339: is the modulus of ${\bf y}$. Finally, integral~(\ref{j1}) can be

340: evaluated by employing the saddle point technique in the

341: mean-field limit (i.e. for $N \to \infty$). In this limit, the

342: Helmholtz free energy

343:  per particle $f$ reads as :

344: \begin{equation}

345: \beta f=-\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{\ln Z}{N}=

346: -\frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{2 \pi}{\beta}\right) +\frac{\varepsilon

347: \beta }{2} +\max_y\left(\frac{y^2}{2\beta\varepsilon}-\ln(2\pi

348: I_0(y))\right)\quad. \label{freehmf}

349: \end{equation}

350: The maximum condition leads to the consistency equation

351: \begin{equation}

352: \frac{y}{\beta \varepsilon}=\frac{I_1(y)}{I_0(y)}\quad.

353: \label{cons}

354: \end{equation}

355: For $\varepsilon<0$, there is a unique solution $\bar y=0$, which

356: means that the order parameter remains zero and there is no phase

357: transition (see Figs.~\ref{fe_anti}c,d). The particles are all the

358: time homogeneously distributed on the circle and the rotors have

359: zero magnetization. On the contrary, in the ferromagnetic case

360: ($\varepsilon>0$), the solution  $\bar y=0$ is unstable for

361: $\beta \geq \beta_c = 2$. At $\beta=\beta_c$, two stable symmetric 

362: solutions appear through a pitchfork bifurcation and a discontinuity 

363: in the second derivative of the free energy is present, indicating a 

364: second order phase transition\index{phase!transition}.

365: 

366: 

367: \begin{figure}[ht]

368: \begin{center}

369: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{cc.eps}

370: \end{center}

371: \caption[]{Temperature and magnetization as a function of the

372: energy per particle $U$ for $A=0$ and $|\varepsilon|=1$ in the

373: ferromagnetic (a),(b) and in the antiferromagnetic case (c),(d).

374: Symbols refer to MD data for $N=10^2$ and $10^3$, while the solid

375: lines refer to the canonical prediction obtained analytically in

376: the mean-field limit. The vertical dashed line indicates the

377: critical energy in the ferromagnetic model, located at $U_c=0.75$,

378: $\beta_c=2$. The inset of panel

379: (d) shows the rescaled magnetization $M\times \sqrt{N}$.}

380: \label{fe_anti}

381: \end{figure}

382: 

383: 

384: These results are confirmed by an analysis of the order

385: parameter\footnote{This is obtained by adding to the Hamiltonian

386: an external field and taking the derivative of the free energy

387: with respect to this field, evaluated at zero field.}

388: \begin{equation}

389: M= \frac{I_1(\bar y)}{I_0(\bar y)} \quad. \label{mag0}

390: \end{equation}

391: For $\varepsilon >0$, the magnetization $M$ vanishes continuously

392: at $\beta_c$ (see Fig.~\ref{fe_anti}a,b), while it is always 

393: identical to zero in the

394: antiferromagnetic case (see Fig.~\ref{fe_anti}c,d). Since $M$

395: measures the degree of clustering of the particles, we have for

396: $\varepsilon >0$ a transition from a clustered phase when

397: $\beta>\beta_c$ to a homogeneous phase when $\beta<\beta_c$. We

398: can obtain also the energy per particle

399: \begin{equation}

400: U= \frac{\partial(\beta f)}{\partial \beta}=

401: \frac{1}{2\beta}+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\left(1-M^2\right)

402: \label{u0}

403: \end{equation}

404: which is reported for $|\varepsilon|=1$ in Fig. \ref{fe_anti}.

405: Panels (c) and (d) of Fig.~\ref{fe_anti} are limited to the range $U>0$

406: because in the antiferromagnetic model a non-homogeneous state, a

407: {\em bicluster}, can be generated for smaller energies. The

408: emergence of this state modifies all thermodynamical and dynamical

409: features as will be discussed in section~\ref{bicluster}.

410: 

411: 

412: The dynamics of each particle obeys the following

413: pendulum equation of motion

414: \begin{equation}

415: \ddot \theta_i= -M \sin(\theta_i-\phi) \quad , \label{pend}

416: \end{equation}

417: where $M$ and $\phi$ have a non trivial time dependence, related

418: to the motion of all the other particles in the system.

419: Equation~(\ref{pend}) has been very successfully used to describe

420: several features of particle motion, like for instance trapping

421: and untrapping mechanisms~\cite{Antoni}. There are also numerical

422: indications~\cite{Antoni} and preliminary theoretical

423: speculations~\cite{priv} that taking the mean-field limit before

424: the infinite time limit, the time-dependence would disappear and

425: the modulus and the phase of the magnetization become constant.

426: This implies, as we will discuss in Section 5, that chaotic

427: motion would disappear.

428: The inversion of these two limits is also discussed in the

429: contribution by Tsallis et al~\cite{tsallisrap}.

430: 

431: \subsection{Canonical ensemble for $A\neq0$}\index{canonical!ensemble}

432: 

433: As soon as $A > 0$, the evolution along the two spatial directions

434: is no more decoupled and the system cannot be described in terms

435: of a single order parameter. Throughout all this section

436: $\epsilon=1$. A complete description of the phase

437: diagram of the system requires now the introduction of two

438: distinct order parameters:

439: \begin{equation}

440: {\bf M}_z= \left(\frac{\sum_i \cos z_i}{N},\frac{\sum_i \sin z_i}{N}\right)=M_z

441: \exp{(i \phi_z)} \label{mz}

442: \end{equation}

443: where $z_i=x_i$ or $y_i$ and;

444: \begin{equation}

445: {\bf P}_{x \pm y}= \left(\frac{\sum_i \cos (x_i \pm y_i)}{N},

446: \frac{\sum_i \sin (x_i \pm y_i)}{N}\right)=P_z

447: \exp{(i \psi_z)}\quad. \label{pz}

448: \end{equation}

449: It can be shown that on average $M_x \simeq M_y \simeq M$ 

450: and $P_{x+y} \simeq P_{x-y} \simeq P$: therefore, we

451: are left with only two order parameters.

452: 

453: Following the approach of section~\ref{Aeq0}, the canonical

454: equilibrium properties can be derived analytically in the

455: mean-field limit~\cite{at}. We obtain

456: \begin{equation}

457: \beta f=\frac{M^2+P^2}{\beta} -\ln

458: \left[\frac{G(M,P;A)}{\beta} \right]

459: \label{free2d}

460: \end{equation}

461: with

462: \begin{equation}

463: G= \int_0^{2\pi} ds \enskip I_0\left(M+\sqrt{2A} P \cos s\right)

464: \exp{(M\cos s)} \label{g2d}

465: \end{equation}

466: where $s$ is an integration variable.

467: 

468: The energy per particle  reads as

469: \begin{equation}

470: U = \frac{1}{\beta}+\frac{2+A-2 M^2-A P^2}{2}=K+V_A \quad .

471: \label{u2d}

472: \end{equation}

473: Depending on the value of the coupling constant $A$, the 

474: single particle potential defined through

475: $V_A = \frac{1}{2} \sum_i v_i$  changes its shape,

476: inducing the different clustering phenomena described below. 

477: For small values of $A$, $v_i$ exhibits a single minimum

478: per cell $(x,y)\in ([-\pi,\pi],[-\pi,\pi])$ (see Fig.~\ref{egg}a

479: for $A=1$), while for larger values of $A$ four minima can

480: coexist in a single cell (see Fig.~\ref{egg}b for $A=4$).

481: In the former case only one clustered equilibrium state can

482: exist at low temperatures, while in the latter case,

483: when all the four minima have the same depth a phase with

484: two clusters can emerge, as described in the following.

485: 

486: 

487: \begin{figure}[ht]

488: \begin{center}

489: 

490: 

491: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{contourpot2d.ps}

492: \end{center}

493: \caption[]{Single particle potential $v_i(x,y)$ for $A=1,\varepsilon=1$ (a) and

494: $A=4,\varepsilon=1$(b).} 

495: \label{egg}

496: \end{figure}

497: 

498: Since the system is ruled by two different order parameters $M$

499: and $P$,  the phase diagram is more complicated than in the $A=0$

500: case and we observe two distinct clustered phases. In the very low

501: temperature regime, the system is in the clustered phase $

502: CP_{1}$: the particles have all the same location in a single

503: point-like cluster and $M\approx P \approx 1 $. In the very large

504: temperature range, the system is in a homogeneous phase ($HP$)

505: with particles uniformly distributed, $M\approx P=O(1/\sqrt{N})$.

506: For $A > A_2 \sim 3.5$, an intermediate two-clusters phase $CP_{2}

507: $ appears. In this phase, due to the symmetric location of the two

508: clusters in a cell, $M \sim O(1/\sqrt{N})$ while $P \sim O(1)$ \cite{art}.

509: We can gain good insights on the transitions by considering the

510: line $T_M$ (resp. $T_P$) where $M$ (resp. $P$) vanishes and  the

511: phase $CP_1$ (resp. $CP_2$) looses its stability (see Fig.

512: \ref{pda} for more details).

513: 

514: \begin{figure}[ht]

515: \begin{center}

516: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,angle=270]{figcri.eps}

517: \end{center}

518: \caption[]{Canonical phase diagram of model~(\ref{eqHA}) reporting the

519: transition temperatures versus the coupling parameter $A$. The

520: solid (resp. dashed) lines indicate the $T_M$ (resp. $T_P$) lines.

521: The dots the points where the nature of the transitions change. \protect\(

522: A_{1}\protect \), \protect\( A_{2}\protect \) and \protect\(

523: A_{3}\protect \) are the threshold coupling constants that

524: determine the transition scenario \protect\( I\to IV\protect \). }

525: \label{pda}

526: \end{figure}

527: 

528: 

529: We can therefore identify the following four different scenarios

530: depending on the value of $A$.

531: 

532: \textbf{(I)} When $ 0 \leq A \leq A_1 = 2/5$, one observes a continuous

533: transition from the phase $CP_1$ to $HP$.  The critical line is

534: located at $T_M=1/2$ ($U_M=3/2+A$) and a canonical tricritical point,

535: located at $A_1=2/5$, separates the 1st order from the second order phase

536: transition\index{phase!transition} regions\footnote{

537: The tricritical point has been identified by finding first the

538: value of ${\bar P}(M,A,\beta)$ that minimizes $f(M,P;A,\beta)$ and then 

539: substituting the solution $\bar P$ in $f$. This reduces $f$ to a

540: function of $M$ only. Now, the standard

541: procedure described also for the BEG model \cite{BMRhmf} can be applied.

542: This consists in finding the value of $\beta$ and $A$ where both

543: the $M^2$ and the $M^4$ coefficient of the development of the free

544: energy in powers of $M$ vanishes

545: }

546: 

547: \textbf{(II)} When \( A_{1}<A<A_{2}\approx 3.5 \), the transition

548: between \( CP_{1} \) and \( HP \) is first order with a finite

549: energy jump (latent heat). Inside this range of values of $A$ one

550: also finds microcanonical discontinuous transitions (temperature

551: jumps) as we will see in Section 3.2.

552: 

553: \textbf{(III)} When \(A_{2}<A<A_{3}\approx 5.7 \), the third phase

554: begins to play a role and two successive transitions are observed:

555: first $CP_1$ disappears at $T_M$ via a first order transition that

556: gives rise to $CP_2$; then this two-clusters phase gives rise to the

557: $HP$ phase via a continuous transition. The critical line

558: associated to this transition is $T_P =A/4$ ($U_P =3A/4+1$).

559: 

560: \textbf{(IV)}  When \( A>A_{3}\),   the transition connecting the

561: two clustered phases, $CP_1$ and $CP_2$, becomes second order.

562: 

563: 

564: \subsection{Microcanonical Ensemble}\index{microcanonical!ensemble}

565: \label{microens}

566: 

567: As we have anticipated, our microcanonical results have been mostly

568: obtained via MD simulations, since we cannot estimate easily the

569: microcanonical entropy $S$ analytically for the HMF model\footnote{It

570:   would be possible using large deviation

571:   technique~\cite{barrethesis}.}. However, we show below how far we

572: can get, starting from the knowledge of the canonical free energy,

573: using Legendre transform or inverse Laplace transform techniques.  The

574: following derivation is indeed valid in general, it does not refer to

575: any specific microscopic model.

576: 

577: The relation that links the partition function $Z(\beta,N)$ to

578: the microcanonical phase-space density at energy $E=U \cdot N$

579: \begin{equation}

580: \omega(E,N) = \int d^N p_i d^N \theta_i \; \delta(E-H)

581: \label{w0}

582: \end{equation}

583: is given by

584: \begin{equation}

585: Z(\beta,N)=\int_0^\infty dE \;\omega(E,N) \; {\rm e}^{-\beta E}~,

586: \label{z0_w}

587: \end{equation}

588: where the lower limit of the integral ($E=0$) corresponds

589: to the energy of the ground state of the model.

590: Expression (\ref{z0_w}) can be readily rewritten as

591: \begin{equation}

592: Z(\beta,N)=N \int_0^\infty dU

593: \exp{\left[N(-\beta U + \frac{1}{N} \ln(\omega(E,N))

594: \right]}~,

595: \label{z0_w2}

596: \end{equation}

597: which is evaluated by employing the saddle-point technique in the

598: mean-field limit. Employing the definition of entropy per particle

599: in the thermodynamic limit\index{thermodynamic limit}

600: \begin{equation}

601: S(U)=\lim_{N\to \infty} \left[\frac{1}{N} \ln \omega(U,N)

602: \right]\quad, \label{e0}

603: \end{equation}

604: one can obtain the Legendre transform

605: that relates the free energy to the entropy:

606: \begin{equation}

607: -\beta F(\beta) = \max_U[-\beta U +S(U)] \qquad {\rm with} \qquad

608: \beta=\frac{\partial S}{\partial U} \label{f0_e0}\quad.

609: \end{equation}

610: Since a direct analytical  evaluation of the entropy of the HMF model in the

611: microcanonical ensemble is not possible, we are rather interested

612: in obtaining the entropy from the free energy. This can be done

613: only if the entropy $S$ is  a concave function of the energy.

614: Then, one can invert (\ref{f0_e0}), getting

615: \begin{equation}

616: S(U)=\min_{\beta>0} [\beta(U - F(\beta))] \qquad {\rm with} \qquad

617: U=\frac{\partial (\beta F)}{\partial \beta} \quad . \label{e0_f0}

618: \end{equation}

619: However, the assumption that $S$ is concave is not true for systems

620: with long range interactions near a canonical first order

621: transition, where a "convex intruder"\index{convex intruder} of $S$

622: appears~\cite{BMRhmf,grossdh}, which gives rise to a negative specific

623: heat\index{negative!specific heat} regime in the microcanonical

624: ensemble\footnote{A convex intruder is present also for short range

625: interactions in {\em finite} systems, but the entropy regains its

626: concave character in the thermodynamic limit~\cite{grossdh}.}.  

627: For such cases, we have to rely on MD simulations or microcanonical 

628: Monte-Carlo simulations~\cite{grossbook}.

629: 

630: An alternative approach to the calculation of the entropy consists in

631: expressing the Dirac $\delta$ function in Eq.~(\ref{w0})

632: by a Laplace transform. One obtains

633: \begin{equation}\label{invLapla}

634: \omega(E,N) =\frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{-i\infty}^{+i\infty} d\beta\;

635: e^{\beta E}\; Z(\beta)

636: \end{equation}

637: where one notices that $\beta$ is imaginary. As the partition function can

638: be estimated for our model, we would just have to analytically

639: continue to complex values of~$\beta$. By performing a rotation to the

640: real axis of the integration contour, one could then evaluate $\omega$ by

641: saddle point techniques.  However, this rotation requires the

642: assumption that no singularity is present out of the real axis: this

643: is not in general guaranteed. It has been checked numerically for

644: the $A=0$ model~\cite{barrethesis}, allowing to obtain then an explicit

645: expression for $\omega$ and confirming ensemble equivalence for

646: this case.

647: 

648: However, when $A> A_1$, a first order canonical transition occurs,

649: which implies the presence of a convex intruder and makes the

650: evaluation of $S(U)$ through Eq.~\ref{e0_f0} impossible

651: \index{ensemble inequivalence}.  For these cases, a canonical 

652: description is unable

653: to capture all the features associated with the phase transition. For

654: the microcanonical entropy, we have to rely here on MD simulations.

655: 

656: The MD simulations have been performed adopting  extremely

657: accurate symplectic integration schemes~\cite{mac}, with

658: relative energy conservations during the runs of order $\sim

659: 10^{-6}$. It is important to mention  that the CPU time required

660: by our integration schemes, due to the mean-field nature of the

661: model, increases linearly with the number of  particles.

662: 

663: 

664: Whenever we observe canonically continuous transitions (i.e. for

665: $A \leq A_1$), the MD results coincide with those obtained

666: analytically in the canonical ensemble, as shown in

667: Fig.~\ref{fe_anti} for $A=0$. The curve $T(U)$ is thus well

668: reproduced from MD data, apart from finite $N$ effects. It has

669: been however observed that starting from  "water-bags" initial

670: conditions metastable states can occur in the proximity of the

671: transition~\cite{tsallisrap}.

672: 

673: 

674: \begin{figure}[ht]

675: \begin{center}

676: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,angle=270]{UvT.eps}

677: \end{center}

678: \caption[]{Temperature-energy relation in the coexistence region

679: for A=1 (a) and A=4 (b). Lines indicate canonical analytical

680: results, while circles correspond to microcanonical MD

681: simulations. Solid thick lines are equilibrium results, solid thin

682: lines metastable states and dashed thin lines unstable states. The

683:  dash-dotted  line is the Maxwell construction. Figure (a)

684: refers to a first order transition from $CP_1$ to $HP$, (b) to

685: discontinuous transition connecting the two clustered phases. In

686: (b) the second order transition from $CP_2$ to $HP$ associated to

687: the vanishing of $P$ is also shown. The MD results refer to model

688: (\ref{eqHA}) with $N=5000$ averaged over a time $t=10^6$.} \label{UvT}

689: \end{figure}

690: 

691: When $A > A_1$, discrepancies between the results obtained in the two

692: ensembles are observable in Fig.~\ref{UvT}. For example, MD

693: results in the case $A=1$, reported in Fig.~\ref{UvT}(a), differ

694: clearly from canonical ones around the transition, exhibiting a regime

695: characterized by a negative specific heat\index{negative!specific heat}. 

696: This feature is common to many models with

697: long-range~\cite{thir,compa} or power-law decaying

698: interactions~\cite{tamahmf} as well as to finite systems with

699: short-range forces~\cite{grossbook}. However, only recently a

700: characterization of all possible microcanonical transitions associated

701: to canonically first order ones has been initiated~\cite{BMRhmf,art}.

702: 

703: For $A$ slightly above $A_1$, the transition is microcanonically

704: continuous, i.e. there is no discontinuity in the $T-U$ relation

705: (this regime presumably extends up to $A\sim1.2$). Before the

706: transition, one observes a negative specific heat regime (see

707: Fig.~\ref{UvT}a). In addition, as already observed for the

708: Blume-Emery-Griffiths model~\cite{BMRhmf},  microcanonically {\em

709: discontinuous} transitions can be observed in the "convex

710: intruder" region. This means that, at the transition energy, {\em

711: temperature jumps} exist in the thermodynamic limit. A complete

712: physical understanding  of this phenomenon, which has also been

713: found in gravitational systems~\cite{chavanishmf}, has not been

714: reached. For $A> 1.2$, i.e.  above the "microcanonical tricritical

715: point", our model displays temperature jumps. This situations is

716: shown in Fig. \ref{mdis} for $A=2$.

717: 

718: \begin{figure}[ht]

719: \begin{center}

720: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{crit.eps}

721: \end{center}

722: \caption[]{Evolution of the temperature $T$ versus the energy $U$

723: in the case $A=2$. The symbols refer to MD results obtained by

724: successively cooling or warming a certain initial configuration.

725: Each simulation has been performed at constant total

726: energy and refers to a system of $N=4,000$ particles

727: integrated for a time $t=10^6$. The solid lines are computed

728: in the canonical ensemble and include also unstable and metastable

729: cases. The solid vertical line

730: indicating the transition energy has been estimated via

731: a Maxwell construction performed in the microcanonical ensemble

732: (for details see \protect\cite{BMRhmf}).}

733: \label{mdis}

734: \end{figure}

735: 

736: 

737: For $A>A_2$, we have again a continuous transition connecting the

738: two clustered phases $CP_1$ and $CP_2$. This is the first angular

739: point in the $T-U$ relation at $U\sim3.65$ in Fig.~\ref{UvT}(b).

740: The second angular point at $U\sim 4$ is the continuous

741: transition, connecting $CP_2$ to $HP$. The transition at lower

742: energy associated to the vanishing of $M$ is continuous in the

743: microcanonical ensemble with a negative specific heat, while

744: discontinuous in the canonical ensemble;

745: the dash-dotted line indicates the transition temperature in

746: the canonical ensemble,

747: derived using the Maxwell construction). The second transition

748: associated to the vanishing of $P$ is continuous in both

749: ensembles.

750: 

751: 

752: 

753: \section{Dynamical Properties I: Out-of-equilibrium states}

754: \index{non!equilibrium phenomena}

755: 

756: \subsection{Metastable states}\index{metastability}

757: Around the critical energy, relaxation to equilibrium depends in a

758: very sensitive way on the initial conditions adopted. When one starts

759: with out-of-equilibrium initial conditions in the ferromagnetic case,

760: one finds quasi-stationary (i.e. long lived) nonequilibrium

761: states\index{coherent!structures}. An example is represented by the

762: so-called ``water bag'' initial condition: all the particles are clustered

763: in a single point and the momenta are distributed according to a flat

764: distribution of finite width centered around zero.  These states have

765: a lifetime which increases with the number of particles~$N$, and are

766: therefore stationary in the continuum limit. In correspondence of

767: these metastable states, anomalous diffusion and L{\'e}vy walks

768: \cite{levyhmf}, long living correlations in $\mu-$space \cite{lat0} and

769: zero Lyapunov exponents \cite{lat0a} have been found.  In addition,

770: these states are far from the equilibrium caloric curve around the

771: critical energy, showing a region of negative specific heat and a

772: continuation of the high temperature phase (linear $T$ vs $U$

773: relation) into the low temperature one. It is very intriguing that

774: these out-of-equilibrium quasi-stationary states indicate a caloric

775: curve very similar to the one found in the region where one gets a

776: canonical first order phase transitions, but a continuous

777: microcanonical one, as discussed in section~\ref{microens}. In the

778: latter case, however, the corresponding states are stationary also at

779: finite $N$. The coexistence of different states in the continuum limit

780: near the critical region is a purely microcanonical effect, and arises

781: after the inversion of the $t \to \infty$ limit with the $N \to \infty$ one

782: \cite{lat0,lat0a,tsallisrap}.

783: 

784: Similarly, the antiferromagnetic HMF ($A=0$, $\varepsilon =-1$), 

785: where the particles interact through {\em repulsive} forces presents

786: unexpected dynamical properties in the

787: out-of-equili\-brium thermodynamics. On the first sight, the

788: thermodynamics of this model seems to be less interesting since no phase

789: transition occurs as discussed above. However, thermodynamical

790: predictions are again in some cases in complete disagreement with

791: dynamical results leading in particular to a striking localization

792: of energy. This aspect, as we will show below, is of course,

793: again, closely related to the long-range character of the

794: interaction and to the fact that such a dynamics is chaotic and

795: self-consistent. We mean by this that all particles give a contribution to the field

796: acting on each of them. One calls this phenomenon, 

797: {\em self-consistent chaos}~\cite{Diego}. In addition to the toy model that we

798: consider here, we do think that similar emergence of

799: structures, but even more importantly, similar dynamical

800: stabilization of out-equilibrium states could be encountered in

801: other long-range systems, as we briefly describe at the end of this

802: section.

803: 

804: 

805: \subsection{The dynamical emergence of the bicluster in the antiferromagnetic case}

806: \label{bicluster}

807: 

808: In the antiferromagnetic case, Eq.~(\ref{model0}) with $\varepsilon =-1$, the

809: intriguing properties appear in the region of very small energies. To

810: be more specific, if an initial state with particles evenly

811: distributed on the circle (i.e.  close to the ground state predicted

812: by microcanonical or canonical thermodynamics) and with vanishingly

813: small momenta is prepared, this initial condition can lead to the

814: formation of unstable states. This process, discovered by chance, is

815: now characterized in full

816: detail~\cite{Antoni,barreepjB,drh,firpoleyvraz}.

817: 

818: As shown by Fig.~\ref{instab}, the density of particles is initially

819: homogeneous. However a localization of particles do appear at a given

820: time, in two different points, symmetrically located with respect to

821: the center of the circle. This localized state, that we call

822: {\it bicluster}\index{coherent!structures}, is however unstable (as shown

823: again by Fig.~\ref{instab}), since both clusters are giving rise to

824: two smaller localized groups of particles: this is the reason for the

825: appearance of the first {\em chevron}. However, also this state is

826: unstable, so that the first chevron disappears to give rise again to a

827: localization of energy in two points. This state enhances the

828: formation of a chevron with a smaller width and this phenomenon

829: repeats until the width of the chevron is so small that one does not

830: distinguish anymore its destabilization.

831: Asymptotically one gets a density distribution displaying two sharp

832: peaks located at distance $\pi$ on the circle, a

833: dynamically stable bicluster.

834: 

835: \begin{figure}[ht]

836: \begin{center}

837: \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{instab.ps}

838: \end{center}

839: \vskip-1truecm

840:  \caption[]{Short-time evolution of the particle density

841: in grey scale: the darker the grey, the higher the density.

842: Starting from an initial condition with all the particles evenly

843: distributed on the circle, one observes a very rapid concentration

844: of particles, followed by the quasi periodic appearance of

845: {\em chevrons}, that shrink as time increases.} \label{instab}

846: \end{figure}

847: 

848: 

849: As we have shown in Ref.~\cite{barreepjB}, the emergence of the

850: bicluster is the signature of shock waves present in the

851: associated hydrodynamical equations. Indeed, we found a strikingly

852: good description of the dynamics of the particles by a non linear

853: analysis of the associated Vlasov equation, which is mathematically

854: justified~\cite{BraunHepp} in the infinite $N$ limit. 

855: The physical explanation of this problem can

856: be summarized as follows. Once the Hamiltonian has been mapped to

857: the Vlasov equation, it is possible to introduce a density $\rho(\theta,t)$ and a

858: velocity field $v(\theta,t)$. Neglecting the dispersion in

859: momentum and relying on usual non linear dynamics hierarchy of

860: time-scales, one ends up with dynamical equations at different 

861: orders in a multiscale analysis. The

862: first order corresponds to the linear dynamics and defines the

863: plasma frequency of order one. However, a second timescale appears

864: that is related to the previous one by the relationship

865: $\tau=\sqrt{U}\, t$, where $U$ is the energy per particle. When one

866: considers initial conditions with a very small energy density,

867: the two time scales are very different and  clearly

868: distinguishable by considering particle trajectories: a typical trajectory

869: corresponds indeed to a very fast motion with a very small

870: amplitude, superimposed to a slow motion with a large amplitude.

871: 

872: This suggests to average over the fast oscillations and leads to the

873: spatially forced Burgers equation

874: \begin{eqnarray}

875: \label{burgers} \frac{\partial u}{\partial \tau} +u\frac{\partial

876: u} {\partial \theta} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\sin 2\theta \qquad ,

877: \end{eqnarray}

878: once the average velocity $u(\theta,\tau)=\langle

879: v(\theta,t,\tau)\rangle_t$ is introduced. Due to the absence of dissipative

880: or diffusive terms,  Equation~(\ref{burgers}) supports shock

881: waves and these can be related to the emergence of the bicluster.

882: By applying the methods of characteristics to solve

883: Equation~(\ref{burgers}), one obtains

884: \begin{eqnarray}

885: \frac{d^2\theta}{d\tau^2} + \frac{1}{2} \sin 2\theta & = & 0\;.

886: \label{burgerslag}

887: \end{eqnarray}

888: which is a pendulum-like equation.

889: 

890: Fig.~\ref{schock} shows the trajectories, derived from

891: Eq.~(\ref{burgerslag}), for particles that are initially evenly 

892: distributed on the circle. One clearly sees that two shock waves appear and

893: lead to an increase of the number of particles around two

894: particular sites, which depend on the initial conditions: this two

895: sites correspond to the nucleation sites of the bicluster. Because

896: of the absence of a diffusive term, the shock wave starts a spiral

897: motion that explains the destabilization of the first bicluster

898: and also the existence of the two arms per cluster, i.e. the

899: chevron.

900: 

901: \begin{figure}[ht]

902: \begin{center}

903: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{doubleshoc.ps}

904: \end{center}

905:  \caption[]{Five successive snapshots of the velocity

906:    profiles $u(\theta,t)$ are shown including the initial state when all

907:    particles are uniformly

908:    distributed in space with a small velocity dispersion.}

909:  \label{schock}

910: \end{figure}

911: 

912: This dynamical analysis allows an even more precise description,

913: since the methods of characteristics show that the

914: trajectories correspond to the motion of particles in the

915: double well periodic potential $V(\theta,\tau)=-(\cos 2\theta)/4$. This

916: potential is of mean field origin, since it represents the effect

917: of all interacting particles. Therefore, the particles

918: will have an oscillatory motion in one of the two wells.

919: One understands thus that particles starting close to

920: the minimum will collapse at the same time, whereas a particle

921: starting farther will have a larger oscillation period. This is

922: what is shown in Fig.~\ref{chevronsburgers} where

923: trajectories are presented for different starting positions. One

924: sees that the period of recurrence of the chevrons corresponds to

925: half the period of oscillations of the particles close to the minimum;

926: this fact is a direct consequence of the isochronism of the

927: approximate harmonic potential close to the minimum. The

928: description could even go one step further by computing the

929: caustics, corresponding to the envelops of the characteristics.

930: They are shown in Fig.~\ref{chevronsburgers} and testify the

931: striking agreement between this description and the real

932: trajectories: the chevrons of Fig.~\ref{instab} correspond to the

933: caustics.

934: 

935: \begin{figure}[ht]

936: \begin{center}

937: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{chevronsburgers.ps}

938: \end{center}

939: \caption[]{Superposition of the caustics (thick full lines) over the 

940: characteristics (dotted lines) of

941: particles that are initially evenly distributed 

942: between $-\pi/2$ and $\pi/2$.}

943: \label{chevronsburgers}

944: \end{figure}

945: 

946: 

947: \subsection{Thermodynamical predictions versus dynamical stabilization}

948: \label{thermo}

949: 

950: If the above description is shown to be particularly accurate, it

951: does not explain why this state is thermodynamically preferred

952: over others. Indeed,

953: as shown before, thermodynamics predicts that the only

954: equilibrium state is homogeneous. This result has

955: been discussed in Section 3.1, where we have proved

956: that magnetization is zero at all energies for the antiferromagnetic

957: model and this has been also confirmed by Monte Carlo

958: simulations~\cite{drh}. However, since MD simulations

959: are performed at constant energy, it is important to derive

960: analytically the most probable state in the microcanonical

961: ensemble. Since this  model does not present ensemble inequivalence,

962: we can obtain the microcanonical results by employing the inverse 

963: Laplace transform (\ref{invLapla}) of the canonical partition function.

964: The microcanonical solution confirms that the maximal entropy state is 

965: homogeneous on the circle. 

966: It is therefore essential to see why the

967: bicluster state, predicted to be thermodynamically unstable is 

968: instead {\it dynamically stable}.

969: 

970: The underlying reason rely on the existence of the two very

971: different timesca\-les and the idea is again to average over the

972: very fast one. Instead of using the classical asymptotic expansion

973: on the equation of motions, it is much more appropriate to develop

974: an adiabatic approximation which leads to an effective Hamiltonian

975: that describes very well the long time dynamics. Doing statistical mechanics 

976: of this averaged problem, one predicts the presence of the bicluter.

977: 

978: The theory that we have developed relies on an application

979: of adiabatic theory, which in the case of the

980: HMF model is rather elaborate and needs lengthy

981: calculations~\cite{barreepjB} that we will not present here. 

982: An alternative, but less powerful, method to derive similar

983: results has been used in Ref.~\cite{firpoleyvraz}. 

984: On the contrary, we would like to present a qualitative explanations

985: of this phenomenon, using a nice (but even too simple !) analogy.

986: 

987: This stabilization of unstable states can be described using the

988: analogy with the inverted pendulum, where the vertical unstable

989: equilibrium position can be made stable by the application of

990: a small oscillating force. One considers a rigid rod

991: free to rotate in a vertical plane and whose point-of-support is

992: vibrated vertically as shown by

993: Fig.~\ref{excitationparametrique}a. If the support oscillates

994: vertically above a certain frequency, one discovers the remarkable

995: property that the vertical position with the center of mass above

996: its support point is {\em stable}

997: (Fig.~\ref{excitationparametrique}b). This problem, discussed

998: initially by Kapitza~\cite{Kapitaza}, has strong similarities with

999: the present problem and allows a very simplified presentation of

1000: the averaging technique we have used.

1001: \begin{figure}[ht]

1002: \begin{center}

1003: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{excitationparametrique.ps}

1004: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{excitationparametriquebis.ps}

1005: \end{center}

1006: \vskip-1truecm

1007:  \caption[]{Schematic picture of the inverted pendulum.} \label{excitationparametrique}

1008: \end{figure}

1009: 

1010: The equation of motion of the vibrating pendulum is

1011: \begin{equation}\label{eqpendukuminverted}

1012:   \frac{d^2 \theta}{dt^2}+\left(\frac{\omega_0^2}{\omega^2}-a\cos t\right)\sin

1013:   \theta=0~,

1014: \end{equation}

1015: where $\omega_0$ is the proper linear frequency of the pendulum, $\omega$ the

1016: driving frequency of the support and  $a$ the amplitude of

1017: excitation. Introducing a small parameter

1018: $\varepsilon=\omega_0/\omega$, one sees

1019: that~(\ref{eqpendukuminverted}) derives from the Lagrangian

1020: \begin{equation}\label{Lagrangianpendulum}

1021:   {\cal L}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d \theta}{d t}\right)^2+\left(\varepsilon^2-a\cos

1022:   t\right)\cos\theta\quad.

1023: \end{equation}

1024: Here the two frequencies $\omega$ and $\omega_0$ define two

1025: different time scales, in close analogy with the HMF model. Using

1026: the small parameter to renormalize the amplitude of the excitation as

1027: $A=a/\varepsilon$, and choosing the ansatz

1028: $\theta=\theta_0(\tau)+\varepsilon\,\theta_1(t,\varepsilon)$ where

1029: $\tau=\varepsilon t $, the Lagrangian equations for the function

1030: $\theta_1$, leads to the solution $\theta_1=-A\cos

1031: t\sin\theta_0(\tau)$. This result not only simplifies the above

1032: ansatz, but more importantly suggest to average the Lagrangian on

1033: the fast variable $t$ to obtain an effective Lagrangian $ {\cal

1034: L}_{eff}=\langle {\cal

1035: L}\rangle_t=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\theta_0}{d\tau}\right)^2+V_{eff}$~,

1036: where the averaged potential is found to be

1037: \begin{equation}\label{poteff}

1038: V_{eff}=-\cos\theta_0-\frac{A^2}{8}\cos2\theta_0+\mbox{Cste}\quad.

1039: \end{equation}

1040: It is now straightforward to show that the inverted position would

1041: be stable if $A^2>2$, i.e. if $a\omega>\sqrt{2}\omega_0$. As the

1042: excitation amplitude $a$ is usually small, this condition

1043: emphasizes that the two time scales should be clearly different,

1044: for the inverted position to be stable.

1045: 

1046: The procedure for the HMF model is analogous, but of

1047: course it implies a series of tedious calculations.

1048: Since we would like to limit here to a pedagogical presentation,

1049: we will skip such details that can be found in

1050: Ref.~\cite{barreepjB}.

1051: It is however important to emphasize

1052: that the potential energy in the HMF model is self-consistently

1053: determined and depend on the position of all particles. The magic

1054: and the beauty is that, even if this is the potential energy of

1055: $N$ particles, it is possible to compute the statistical mechanics

1056: of the new effective Hamiltonian, derived directly from the

1057: effective Lagrangian via the Legendre transform. The main result

1058: is that the out-of-equilibrium state, (i.e. the bicluster

1059: shown in Fig.~\ref{instab}) corresponds to a statistical

1060: equilibrium of the effective mean-field dynamics.

1061: No external drive is present in this case, as for the inverted pendulum, but

1062: the time dependence of the mean field plays the role of the

1063: external drive.

1064: 

1065: The HMF model represents presumably the simplest $N$-body

1066: system where out-of-equilibrium dynamically stabilized states

1067: can be observed and explained in detail.

1068: However, we believe that several systems with long range interactions

1069: should exhibit behaviours similar to the ones we have observed here.

1070: Moreover, this model represents a paradigmatic example for

1071: other systems exhibiting nonlinear interactions of rapid oscillations and

1072: a slower global motion. One of this is the piston problem~\cite{piston}:

1073: averaging techniques have been applied to the fast motion of gas particles in a

1074: piston which itself has a slow motion~\cite{sinairusse}. Examples

1075: can also be found in applied physics as for instance

1076: wave-particles interaction in plasma physics~\cite{plasma}, or the

1077: interaction of fast inertia gravity waves with the vortical motion

1078: for the rotating Shallow Water model~\cite{embidmajda}.

1079: 

1080: 

1081: \section{Dynamical Properties II: Lyapunov exponents}

1082: 

1083: In this section, we discuss the chaotic features of the microscopic

1084: dynamics of the HMF model. We mainly concentrate on the $A=0$ case,

1085: presenting in details the behavior of the Lyapunov exponents and the

1086: Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy both for ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic

1087: interactions. We also briefly discuss some peculiar mechanisms of chaos in the $A

1088: \neq 0$ case. The original motivation for the study of the chaotic

1089: properties of the HMF was to investigate the relation between phase

1090: transitions, which are macroscopic phenomena, and microscopic

1091: dynamics (see Ref.~\cite{laporeport} for a review) with the purpose 

1092: of finding dynamical

1093: signatures of phase transitions\index{phase!transition}

1094: \cite{cmd}. Moreover, we wanted to check the scaling properties with

1095: the number of particles of the Lyapunov spectrum~\cite{livipolruffo} in 

1096: the presence of long-range interactions.

1097: 

1098: 

1099: \subsection{The $A=0$ case}

1100: 

1101: In the $A=0$ case (see formulae (\ref{model0})-(\ref{pend})), the Hamiltonian 

1102: equations of motion are

1103: \begin{eqnarray}

1104: \dot \theta_i&=&p_i\\

1105:  \dot p_i  &=&-M \sin\left(\theta_i - \phi\right)\quad.\label{eqmoto}

1106: \end{eqnarray}

1107: The Largest Lyapunov Exponent (LLE) is defined as the limit

1108: \begin{equation}

1109: {\lambda_1}   = \lim_{t\to \infty}  {1\over t} \ln { d(t)\over

1110: d(0) }

1111: \end{equation}

1112: where $d(t) =  \sqrt{ \sum_{i=1}^N  (\delta \theta_i)^2  + (\delta

1113: p_i)^2 } $ is the Euclidean norm of the infinitesimal disturbance

1114: at time $t$.  Therefore, in order to obtain the time evolution of

1115: $d(t)$, one has to integrate also the linearized equations of

1116: motion along the reference orbit

1117: \begin{equation}

1118: \label{lin1} {d\over dt} \delta \theta_i  =   \delta p_i ~~~~,~~~~

1119: {d\over dt} \delta p_i ~= -\sum_j {{\partial^2V}\over {\partial

1120: \theta_i \partial \theta_j} } \delta q_j~~,

1121: \end{equation}

1122: \noindent where the diagonal and off-diagonal terms of the Hessian are

1123: \begin{eqnarray}

1124: \label{diag} {\partial^2V\over{\partial \theta_i^2}} &=&M

1125: \cos(\theta_i-\Phi) - \frac{1}{N}\\

1126:  \label{der2}

1127: {{\partial^2V}\over {\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j} } &=&

1128: -{1\over{N}}\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)\quad,    ~~~i \neq j ~~.

1129: \end{eqnarray}

1130: To calculate the largest Lyapunov exponent we have used the

1131: standard method by Benettin et al~\cite{ben}. In Fig.~(\ref{llehmf}),

1132: we report the results obtained for four different sizes of the

1133: system (ranging from $N=100$ to $N=20,000$).

1134: 

1135: In panel (a), we plot the largest Lyapunov exponent as a function

1136: of U. As expected, $\lambda_1$ vanishes in the limit of very small

1137: and very large energies, where the system is quasi-integrable.

1138: Indeed, the Hamiltonian reduces to weakly coupled harmonic

1139: oscillators in the former case or to free rotators in the latter.

1140: For $U < 0.2$, $\lambda_1$ is small and has no $N$-dependence.

1141: Then it changes abruptly and a region of ``strong chaos'' begins.

1142: It was observed~\cite{Antoni} that between $U=0.2$ and $U=0.3$, a

1143: different dynamical regime sets in and particles start to

1144: evaporate from the main cluster, in analogy with what was

1145: reported in other models~\cite{cmd,nayak}. In the region of strong

1146: chaoticity, we observe a pronounced peak already for

1147: $N=100$~\cite{yama}. The peak persists and becomes broader for

1148: $N=20,000$. The location of the peak is slightly below the

1149: critical energy and depends weakly on~$N$.

1150: %

1151: \begin{figure}[ht]

1152: \begin{center}

1153: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{lle_f.eps}

1154: \end{center}

1155: \caption[] {Largest Lyapunov exponent LLE and kinetic energy

1156: fluctuations $\Sigma= \sigma_K / \sqrt{N}$ as a function of U

1157: in the $A=0$ ferromagnetic case for different N sizes. The theoretical curve

1158: is shown as a full line, see text.}

1159: \label{llehmf}

1160: \end{figure}

1161: 

1162: In panel (b), we report the standard deviation of the kinetic

1163: energy per particle $\Sigma$ computed from

1164: \begin{equation}

1165: \Sigma= \frac{\sigma_{K}}{\sqrt{N}}=

1166: {{\sqrt  {\langle K^2\rangle -\langle K\rangle^2}} \over \sqrt{N}}\quad, \label{snum}

1167: \end{equation}

1168: where $\langle \bullet\rangle $ indicates the time average. The

1169: theoretical prediction for $\Sigma$, which is also reported

1170: in Fig.\ref{llehmf}, is~\cite{firpo,lat2hmf}

1171: \begin{equation}

1172: \Sigma= {T\over \sqrt{2}} \sqrt{  1 -{ \left[1-2 M \left({ dM\over

1173: dT }\right)  \right]}^{-1} }\quad, \label{steo}

1174: \end{equation}

1175: where $M(T)$ is computed in the canonical ensemble. Finite size 

1176: effects are also

1177: present for the kinetic energy fluctuations, especially for

1178: $U>U_c$, but in general there is a good agreement with the

1179: theoretical formula, although the experimental points in

1180: Fig.~\ref{llehmf}b lies systematically below it. The figure 

1181: emphasizes that the

1182: behavior of the Lyapunov exponent is strikingly correlated with

1183: $\Sigma$: in correspondence to the peak in the LLE, we observe

1184: also a sharp maximum of the kinetic energy fluctuations. The

1185: relation between the chaotic properties and the thermodynamics of

1186: the system, namely the presence of a critical point, can be made even more

1187: quantitative. An analytical formula, relating (in the $A=0$ model)

1188: the LLE to the second order phase transition undergone by the

1189: system, has been obtained~\cite{firpo} by means of the

1190: geometrical approach developed in Refs.~\cite{lapo1,laporeport}.

1191: Using a reformulation of Hamiltonian dynamics in the language of

1192: Riemannian geometry, they  have found a general analytical

1193: expression for the LLE of a Hamiltonian many-body system in terms

1194: of two quantities: the average $\Omega_0$ and the variance

1195: $\sigma_{\Omega}$ of the Ricci curvature $ \kappa_R = \Delta V/N =

1196: 1/N~ \sum_{i=1}^N {\partial^2V\over{\partial q_i^2}} $, where $V$

1197: is the potential energy and $q_i$ are the coordinates of the

1198: system. Since in the particular case of the HMF model, we have

1199:   \begin{equation}

1200: {1\over N} \sum_{i=1}^N  {\partial^2V\over{\partial \theta_i^2}}

1201:          =  M^2 -{1\over N}     = {2K\over N} + 1 - 2U - {1\over N} ~~,

1202: \end{equation}

1203:  the two quantities

1204: $\Omega_0$ and $\sigma_{\Omega}$ can be expressed in terms of

1205: average values and  fluctuations either of $M^2$ or of the kinetic

1206: energy $K$

1207: \begin{eqnarray}

1208: \label{omegazerohmf} \Omega_0          &=&  \langle M^2\rangle -

1209: \frac{1}{N}

1210:                    =     \frac{2}{N}\langle K\rangle  +   (1-2U)  -\frac{1}{N}

1211: \nonumber\\

1212: \sigma^2_{\Omega} &=&           N  {\sigma^2_{M^2}}

1213:                    =     \frac{4}{N} {\sigma^2_{K}~~.}

1214: \end{eqnarray}

1215: The formula obtained by Firpo~\cite{firpo} relates

1216: the LLE, a characteristic   dynamical quantity, to thermodynamical quantities

1217: like  $\langle M^2\rangle $ and ${\sigma_{M^2}}$,

1218: or $\langle K\rangle $   and     ${\sigma_{K}}$, which

1219: characterize the macroscopic  phase transition.

1220: For moderately small values of $U$, an approximation of the formula

1221: gives

1222: \begin{equation}

1223: \label{formulaprl}

1224: \lambda

1225: %\approx 2 \frac{1}{M} \frac{\sigma_{K}}{\sqrt{N}}

1226: %= 2 \frac{1}{M} \Sigma

1227: \propto \frac{\sigma_{K}}{\sqrt{N}}=\Sigma~~.

1228: \end{equation}

1229: This is in agreement with the proportionality between LLE and

1230: fluctuations of the kinetic energy found numerically in

1231: Fig.~(\ref{llehmf}). This implies also a connection between the LLE

1232: and the specific heat, another quantity which is directly related

1233: to the kinetic energy fluctuation. In fact the specific heat can

1234: be obtained from $\Sigma$ by means of the Lebowitz-Percus-Verlet

1235: formula~\cite{lpv}

1236: \begin{equation}

1237: C_V = { 1\over 2} \left[ 1- 2 \left({ \Sigma \over T} \right)^2

1238: \right] ^{ -1} \quad. \label{cv1}

1239: \end{equation}

1240: In Fig.~\ref{cvhmf}, we report the numerical results for 

1241: the specific heat as a function of $U$ for a system made of $N=500$

1242: particles, and we compare them with the theoretical estimate.

1243: 

1244: 

1245: \begin{figure}[ht]

1246: \begin{center}

1247: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{cv.eps}

1248: \end{center}

1249: \vskip 0.25truecm

1250: \caption[]{Specific heat as a function of U

1251: in the $A=0$ ferromagnetic case.

1252: The numerical simulation at equilibrium for a system

1253: with $N=500$ is compared with the

1254: expected theoretical result (\protect\ref{cv1}).}

1255: \label{cvhmf}

1256: \end{figure}

1257: %

1258: 

1259: In the HMF model and for a rather moderate size of the systems, it is

1260: possible to calculate not only the LLE but all the Lyapunov exponents,

1261: and from them the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy.

1262: We give first a succinct definition of the spectrum

1263: of Lyapunov exponents (for more details see~\cite{Ruelleeckman}).

1264: Once the 2N-dimensional tangent vector

1265: ${\bf z}=(\delta\theta_1,\cdots,\delta\theta_N,\delta p_1,\cdots,\delta p_N)$

1266: is defined, with its dynamics given by Eqs.~(\ref{lin1}), one can formally

1267: integrate the motion in tangent space up to time $t$, since the

1268: equations are linear,

1269: \begin{equation}

1270: {\bf z}(t)=J^t{\bf z}(0)~,

1271: \label{jey}

1272: \end{equation}

1273: where $J^t$ is a $2N\times2N$ matrix that depends on time

1274: through the orbit $\theta_i(t),p_i(t)$.

1275: The first $k$ exponents of the spectrum $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_k$,

1276: which are ordered from the maximal to the minimal, are then given by

1277: \begin{equation}

1278: (\lambda_1 + \dots + \lambda_k) =

1279: \lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{1}{2t}

1280: \ln  \mbox{Tr} J_k^t (J_k^t)^*  \quad,

1281: \label{Lyapk}

1282: \end{equation}

1283: where $J_k^t$ is the matrix ($(J_k^t)^*$ its transpose) 

1284: induced by $J^t$ that acts

1285: on the exterior product of $k$ vectors in the tangent space ${\bf

1286: z}_1 \land \dots \land {\bf z}_k$. The spectrum

1287: extends up to $k=2N$ and in our Hamiltonian system obeys

1288: the pairing rule

1289: \begin{equation}

1290: \lambda_i = - \lambda_{2N + 1 - i} \quad \mbox{for} \quad 1 \leq i \leq 2N~.

1291: \label{Pairing}

1292: \end{equation}

1293: 

1294: The numerical evaluation of the spectrum of the Lyapunov exponents

1295: is a heavy computational task, in particular for the necessity to

1296: perform Gram-Schmidt orthonormalizations of the Lyapunov

1297: eigenvectors in order to maintain them mutually orthogonal during

1298: the time evolution.  We have been able to compute the complete

1299: Lyapunov spectrum for system sizes up to $N=100$. In

1300: Fig.~\ref{spettro_f}, we report the positive part of the spectrum

1301: for different system sizes and an energy $U=0.1$ inside the weakly

1302: chaotic region. The negative part of the spectrum is symmetric due

1303: to the pairing rule (\ref{Pairing}). The limit distribution

1304: $\lambda(x)$, suggested for short range interactions,

1305: \begin{equation}

1306: \lambda(x) = \lim_{N \to \infty} \lambda_{xN}(N)~,

1307: \label{Distr}

1308: \end{equation}

1309: that is obtained by plotting $\lambda_i$ vs. $i/N$ and letting

1310: $N$ going to infinity, is found also here for the

1311: $N$ values that we have been able to explore.

1312: At higher energies, this scaling is not valid and a size-dependence

1313: is present~\cite{lat2hmf}.

1314: %

1315: \begin{figure}[ht]

1316: \begin{center}

1317: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{spettro_f.eps}

1318: \end{center}

1319: \caption[]{Scaling of the positive part of the spectrum of Lyapunov

1320: exponents in the A=0 ferromagnetic case for $U=0.1$.}

1321: \label{spettro_f}

1322: \end{figure}

1323: %

1324: 

1325: The Kolmogorov-Sinai (K-S) entropy is, according to Pesin's

1326: formula~\cite{Ruelleeckman}, the sum of the positive Lyapunov

1327: exponents. In Fig.~\ref{sks_f}, we plot the entropy density

1328: $S_{KS}/N$ as a function of $U$ for different systems sizes.

1329: 

1330: \begin{figure}[ht]

1331: \begin{center}

1332: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{sks_f.eps}

1333: \end{center}

1334: \caption[]{$S_{KS}/N$ as a function of $U$

1335: in the $A=0$ ferromagnetic case.Numerical calculations for different

1336: systems sizes ranging from $N=10$ to $N=100$ are shown. The dashed

1337: line indicates the critical energy.}

1338: \label{sks_f}

1339: \end{figure}

1340: 

1341: As for the LLE, $S_{KS}/N$ shows a peak near the critical energy,

1342: a fast convergence to a limiting value as $N$ increases in the small

1343: energy limit, and a slow convergence to zero

1344: for $U \geq U_c$.

1345: A comparison of the ferromagnetic and

1346: antiferromagnetic cases is reported in Fig.~\ref{lle_fa}.

1347: %

1348: \begin{figure}[ht]

1349: \begin{center}

1350: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{lle_fa.eps}

1351: \end{center}

1352: \vskip0.5truecm

1353: \caption[]{LLE and $S_{KS}/N$ as a function of $U$

1354: in the $A=0$ ferromagnetic and

1355: antiferromagnetic cases for N=100.}

1356: \label{lle_fa}

1357: \end{figure}

1358: %

1359: Here, for N=100, we plot as a function of $U$ the LLE and the

1360: Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy per particle $S_{KS}/N$. In both the ferromagnetic

1361: and antiferromagnetic cases, the system is integrable in the limits of

1362: small and large energies. The main difference between the

1363: ferromagnetic and the antiferromagnetic model appears at intermediate

1364: energies. In fact, although both cases are chaotic (LLE and $S_{KS}/N$

1365: are positive), in the ferromagnetic system one observes a well defined

1366: peak just below the critical energy, because the dynamics feels the

1367: presence of the phase transition\index{phase!transition}. On the other

1368: hand, a smoother curve is observed in the antiferromagnetic case.

1369: %

1370: \begin{figure}[hb]

1371: \begin{center}

1372: \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{lle_low_f.eps}

1373: \end{center}

1374: \vskip0.5truecm

1375: \caption[]{Scaling properties of the LLE at  low energies in the

1376: $A=0$ ferromagnetic case. No N-dependence is observed for $U<0.2$.

1377: The dashed line indicates a power-law $U^{1/2}$.}

1378: \label{lle_low_f}

1379: \end{figure}

1380: %

1381: In the low energy regime, it is possible to work out~\cite{lat1hmf} a

1382: simple estimate $\lambda_1 \propto \sqrt{U}$, which is fully

1383: confirmed for the ferromagnetic case in Fig.~\ref{lle_low_f} for

1384: different system sizes in the range $N=100, 20000$. The same

1385: scaling law is also valid in the antiferromagnetic

1386: case~\cite{latoraprogtherophys} and for the $A=1$~\cite{at} HMF

1387: model.

1388: 

1389: At variance with the $N$-independent behavior observed at small

1390: energy, strong finite size effects are present above the critical

1391: energy in the ferromagnetic case and for all energies for the

1392: antiferromagnetic case. In Fig.~\ref{lle_high_fa}(a), we show that

1393: the LLE is positive and $N$-independent below the transition (see

1394: the values $U=0.4, 0.5$), while it goes to zero with  $N$ above.

1395: We also report in the same figure a calculation of the LLE using a

1396: random distribution of particle positions $\theta_i$ on the circle

1397: in Eq.~(\ref{lin1}) for the tangent vector. The agreement between

1398: the deterministic estimate and this random matrix calculation is

1399: very good. The LLE scales as $N^{-{1\over3}}$, as indicated by the

1400: fit reported in the figure. This agreement can be explained by means

1401: of an analytical result obtained for the LLE of product of random

1402: matrices~\cite{pari}. If the elements of the symplectic random

1403: matrix have zero mean, the LLE scales with the power $2/3$ of the

1404: perturbation. In our case, the latter condition is satisfied and

1405: the perturbation is the magnetization $M$. Since $M$ scales as

1406: $N^{-{1\over 2}}$, we get the right scaling of $\lambda_1$ with

1407: $N$. This proves that the system is integrable for $U \geq U_c $

1408: as $N \to \infty$. This result is also confirmed by the analytical

1409: calculations of Ref.~\cite{firpo} and, more recently, of 

1410: Ref.~\cite{Vallejos}.

1411: %

1412: \begin{figure}[ht]

1413: \begin{center}

1414: \includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{lle_high_fa.eps}

1415: \end{center}

1416: \vskip1truecm

1417: \caption{Scaling of the LLE vs $N$  for the $A=0$ ferromagnetic and

1418: antiferromagnetic cases at various energies, see text. A power-law

1419: decreasing as $N^{-1/3}$ of the LLE is observed for overcritical energies

1420: in the ferromagnetic case and for all energies in the antiferromagnetic one.

1421: See text for further details.}

1422: \label{lle_high_fa}

1423: \end{figure}

1424: %

1425: 

1426: In the antiferromagnetic case, the LLE goes to zero with 

1427: system size as $N^{-{1\over 3}}$ for all values of $U$.

1428: 

1429: Interesting scaling laws have also been found for the

1430: Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy in the ferromagnetic case: at small

1431: energies $S_{KS}/N \propto U^{3/4}$ with no size dependence,  and

1432: $S_{KS}/N \propto N^{-1/5}$ for overcritical energy densities. The

1433: latter behavior has been found also in other

1434: models~\cite{tsuchia}. Concluding this section we would like to

1435: stress that the finite value of chaotic measures close to the

1436: critical point is strongly related to kinetic energy fluctuations and can

1437: be considered as a {\em microscopic dynamical indication} of the

1438: macroscopic equilibrium phase transition. This connection has been

1439: found also in other models and seems to be quite

1440: general~\cite{laporeport,cmd,lapo3,barrehmf}

1441: 

1442: The behavior of the HMF model as a function of the range

1443: of the interaction~\cite{celiahmf,tamahmf,campa} and the dynamical

1444: features before equilibration \cite{lat0,lat0a} is discussed in a

1445: separate chapter of this volume in connection to Tsallis

1446: nonextensive thermodynamics \cite{tsallisrap}.

1447: 

1448: 

1449: \subsection{Mechanisms of chaos in the $A\neq 0$ case}

1450: 

1451: For $A=0$, the origin of chaos is related to the non time-dependence 

1452: of Eq.~(\ref{pend}), since it is obvious that if the

1453: phase $\phi$ and the magnetization $M$ would become constant the

1454: dynamics of the system will reduce to that of an integrable

1455: system. There are indeed preliminary indications~\cite{priv} that in the

1456: mean-field limit $N \to \infty$, $M$ and $\phi$ will become

1457: constant and $\lambda \to 0$ . It should be noticed that this is

1458: true if the mean-field limit is taken before the limit $t \to

1459: \infty$ in the definition of the maximal Lyapunov exponent, and

1460: numerical indications were reported in Ref.~\cite{lat0a}. When $A

1461: > 0$ we expect a quite different situation: indeed, even

1462: assuming that in the mean-field limit $M$ and $P$ and their

1463: respective phases will become constant, the dynamics will

1464: eventually take place in a $4$-dimensional phase space and chaos

1465: can in principle be observed.

1466: 

1467: As already shown in~\cite{at}, for $A=1$ and $\varepsilon=1$, two

1468: different mechanisms of chaos are present in the system for $U <

1469: U_c$ : one acting on the particles trapped in the potential and

1470: another one felt by the particles moving in proximity of the

1471: separatrix. This second mechanism is well known and is related to

1472: the presence of a chaotic layer situated around the separatrix.

1473: The origin of the first mechanism is less clear, but presumably

1474: related to the erratic motion of the minimum of the potential

1475: well, i.e. to the time-dependent character of the equations ruling

1476: the dynamics of the single particle. Indications in this direction

1477: can be found by performing the following numerical experiment. Let

1478: us prepare a system with $N=200$ and $U=0.87$ (the critical energy

1479: is in this case $U_c \sim 2$) with a Maxwellian velocity

1480: distribution and with all particles in a single

1481: cluster.

1482: 

1483: For an integration time $ t < 2 \times 10^6$, the Lyapunov

1484: exponent has a value $\lambda \simeq 0.13$. But when at time $t

1485: \sim 2 \times 10^6$, one particle escapes from the cluster, its

1486: value almost doubles (see Fig.~\ref{lyap}). The escaping of the

1487: particle from the cluster is associated to a decrease of the

1488: magnetization $M$ and of the kinetic energy~$K$. This last effect

1489: is related to the negative specific heat regime: the potential

1490: energy $V_A$ is minimal when all the particles are trapped, if one

1491: escapes then $V_A$ increases and due to the energy conservation

1492: $K$ decreases. As a matter of fact, we can identify a ``strong''

1493: chaos felt from the particles approaching the separatrix and a

1494: ``weak'' chaos associated to the orbits trapped in the potential

1495: well. We believe that the latter mechanism of chaotization should

1496: disappear (in analogy with the $A=0$ case) when the mean-field

1497: limit is taken before the $t \to \infty$ limit. Therefore we

1498: expect that for $N \to \infty$ the only source of chaotic

1499: behaviour should be related to the chaotic sea located around the

1500: separatrix. As already noticed in Ref.~\cite{at}, the degree of

1501: chaotization of a given system depends strongly on the initial

1502: condition (in particular in the mean-field limit). In the latter

1503: limit, for initial condition prepared in a clustered

1504: configuration, we expect that $\lambda =0$, until one particle will

1505: escape from the cluster.

1506: 

1507: \begin{figure}[ht]

1508: \begin{center}

1509: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{f13n.eps}

1510: \end{center}

1511: \caption[]{Time evolution of the Largest Lyapunov Exponent (LLE)

1512: $\lambda_1$, of the magnetization $M$, and of the kinetic

1513: energy $K$ are shown for a clustered initial condition

1514: for the model with $A=1$ and $\varepsilon=1$ at $U=0.87$ and with $N=200$.

1515: }

1516: \label{lyap}

1517: \end{figure}

1518: 

1519: 

1520: \section{Conclusions}

1521: 

1522: We have discussed the dynamical properties of the Hamiltonian Mean

1523: Field model in connection to ita thermodynamics.  This apparently

1524: simple class of models has revealed a very rich and interesting

1525: variety of behaviours. Inequivalence of ensembles, negative specific

1526: heat, metastable dynamical states and chaotic dynamics are only some

1527: among them. During the past years these models have been of great

1528: help in understanding the connection between dynamics and

1529: thermodynamics when long-range interactions are present.  Such

1530: kind of investigation is of extreme importance for self-gravitating

1531: systems and plasmas, but also for phase transitions in finite systems,

1532: such as atomic clusters or nuclei, and for the foundation of

1533: statistical mechanics.  Several progresses have been done during these

1534: years.  This contribution, although not exhaustive, is an

1535: effort to summarize some of the main results achieved so far.  

1536: We believe that the problems which are still not understood 

1537: will be hopefully clarified in the near future within a general 

1538: theoretical framework. We list three important open questions that

1539: we believe can be reasonably addresses: the exact solution of the 

1540: model in the microcanonical ensemble; the full characterization 

1541: of the out-of-equilibrium states close to phase transitions; the 

1542: clarification of the scaling laws of the maximal Lyapunov exponent 

1543: and of the Lyapunov spectrum; the study of the single-particle 

1544: diffusive motion~\cite{levyhmf} in the various non-equilibrium 

1545: and equilibrium regimes.

1546: 

1547: 

1548: 

1549: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1550: We would like to warmly thank our collaborators Mickael Antoni, Julien

1551: Barr{\'e}, Freddy Bouchet, Marie-Christine Firpo, Fran{\c c}ois Leyvraz and

1552: Constantino Tsallis for fruitful interactions. One of us (A.T.)  would

1553: also thank Prof. Ing. P. Miraglino for giving him the opportunity to

1554: complete this paper.  This work has been partially supported by the EU

1555: contract No. HPRN-CT-1999-00163 (LOCNET network), the French

1556: Minist{\`e}re de la Recherche grant ACI jeune chercheur-2001 N$^\circ$

1557: 21-311.  This work is also part of the contract COFIN00 on {\it Chaos

1558: and localization in classical and quantum mechanics}.

1559: 

1560: 

1561: 

1562: \begin{thebibliography}{8.}

1563: \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}

1564: 

1565: \bibitem{paddyhmf} T. Padhmanaban, \emph{Statistical Mechanics of

1566:     gravitating systems  in static and cosmological

1567:     backgrounds}, in ``Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Systems with

1568:   Long Range Interactions'', T. Dauxois, S. Ruffo, E. Arimondo, M.

1569:   Wilkens Eds.,  Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 602, Springer (2002),

1570:   (in this volume)

1571: 

1572: \bibitem{chavanishmf} P.-H. Chavanis, \emph{Statistical mechanics of

1573:     two-dimensional vortices and stellar systems},

1574:   in ``Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Systems with Long Range

1575:   Interactions'', T. Dauxois, S. Ruffo, E. Arimondo, M. Wilkens Eds.,

1576:   Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 602, Springer (2002), (in this volume)

1577: 

1578:   

1579: \bibitem{elskenshmf} Elskens, \emph{Kinetic theory for plasmas and

1580:     wave-particle hamiltonian dynamics}, in ``Dynamics and

1581:   Thermodynamics of Systems with Long Range Interactions'', T.

1582:   Dauxois, S. Ruffo, E. Arimondo, M. Wilkens Eds.,  Lecture Notes in

1583:   Physics Vol. 602, Springer (2002), (in this volume)

1584: 

1585: 

1586: \bibitem{tamahmf} F. Tamarit and C. Anteneodo,

1587: Physical Review Letters \textbf{84}, 208 (2000)

1588: 

1589: \bibitem{BMRhmf} J. Barr{\'e}, D. Mukamel, S. Ruffo, \emph{Ensemble

1590:     inequivalence in mean-field models of magnetism}, in ``Dynamics

1591:   and Thermodynamics of Systems with Long Range Interactions'', T.

1592:   Dauxois, S. Ruffo, E. Arimondo, M. Wilkens Eds.,  Lecture Notes in

1593:   Physics Vol. 602, Springer (2002), (in this volume)

1594: 

1595: 

1596: \bibitem{campa}

1597: A. Campa,   A.  Giansanti, D. Moroni, Physical Review E

1598: \textbf{62}, 303 (2000) and Chaos Solitons and Fractals

1599: \textbf{13}, 407 (2002)

1600: 

1601: \bibitem{Ruelleeckman}

1602: J.-P. Eckmann, D. Ruelle, Review of Modern Physics \textbf{57},

1603: 615 (1985)

1604: 

1605: \bibitem{Antoni} S. Ruffo, in {\it Transport and Plasma Physics}, edited by

1606: S. Benkadda, Y. Elskens and F. Doveil (World Scientific, Singapore,

1607: 1994), pp. 114-119; M. Antoni, S. Ruffo, Physical Review E \textbf{52},

1608: 2361 (1995)

1609: 

1610: \bibitem{at} M. Antoni and A. Torcini, Physical Review E \textbf{57},

1611: R6233 (1998); A. Torcini and M. Antoni, Physical Review E

1612: \textbf{59}, 2746 (1999)

1613:   

1614: \bibitem{art} M. Antoni, S. Ruffo, A. Torcini, {\it First and second

1615: order phase transitions for a system with infinite-range

1616: attractive interaction}, Physical Review E, to appear (2002),

1617: [cond-mat/0206369]

1618: 

1619: 

1620: \bibitem{tsallisrap} C. Tsallis, A. Rapisarda, V. Latora and F.

1621:   Baldovin \emph{Nonextensivity: from low-dimensional maps to

1622:     Hamiltonian systems}, in ``Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Systems

1623:   with Long Range Interactions'', T.  Dauxois, S. Ruffo, E. Arimondo,

1624:   M. Wilkens Eds., Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 602, Springer (2002),

1625:   (in this volume)

1626: 

1627: \bibitem{lat1hmf} V. Latora, A. Rapisarda  and S. Ruffo,

1628: Physical Review Letters  \textbf{80}, 692  (1998)

1629: 

1630: \bibitem{celiahmf}  C. Anteneodo and C. Tsallis,

1631: Physical Review  Letters \textbf{80}, 5313 (1998)

1632: 

1633: \bibitem{livipolruffo}

1634: R. Livi, A. Politi, S. Ruffo, Journal of Physics A \textbf{19},

1635: 2033 (1986)

1636: 

1637: \bibitem{grossdh} D.H. Gross, \emph{Thermo-Statistics or Topology of

1638:     the Microcanonical Entropy Surface}, in ``Dynamics and

1639:   Thermodynamics of Systems with Long Range Interactions'', T.

1640:   Dauxois, S. Ruffo, E. Arimondo, M. Wilkens Eds.,  Lecture Notes in

1641:   Physics Vol. 602, Springer (2002), (in this volume)

1642: 

1643: 

1644: \bibitem{Kachmf}

1645: M. Kac, G. Uhlenbeck and P.C. Hemmer, Journal Mathematical Physics

1646: (N.Y.) {\bf 4}, 216 (1963); {\bf 4}, 229 (1963); {\bf 5}, 60

1647: (1964)

1648: 

1649: \bibitem{priv} S. Tanase-Nicola and J. Kurchan, Private Communication (2002)

1650: 

1651: \bibitem{barrethesis}

1652: J. Barr{\'e}, PhD Thesis, ENS Lyon, unpublished (2002)

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{grossbook} D.H.E. Gross, {\it Microcanonical thermodynamics,

1655: Phase transitions in ``small'' systems} (World Scientific,

1656: Singapore, 2000)

1657: 

1658: 

1659: \bibitem{mac}

1660: H. Yoshida, {Physics Letters A} \textbf{150}, 262 (1990); R. I.

1661: McLachlan and P. Atela, Nonlinearity {\bf 5}, 541 (1992)

1662: 

1663: \bibitem{thir} P. Hertel and W. Thirring,

1664: {Annals of Physics} \textbf{63}, 520 (1971)

1665: 

1666: \bibitem{compa}

1667: A. Compagner, C. Bruin, A. Roelse, {Physical Review} A

1668: \textbf{39}, 5989 (1989); H.A. Posch, H. Narnhofer, W. Thirring,

1669: Physical Review A {\bf 42}, 1880 (1990)

1670: 

1671: \bibitem{levyhmf}

1672: V. Latora, A. Rapisarda  and S. Ruffo,

1673: Physical Review Letters   \textbf{83}, 2104  (1999)

1674: 

1675: \bibitem{lat0} V. Latora,  A. Rapisarda  and C. Tsallis, Physical Review E

1676: \textbf{64}, 056124-1  (2001)

1677: 

1678: \bibitem{lat0a} V. Latora,  A. Rapisarda  and C. Tsallis, Physica A

1679: \textbf{305}, 129  (2002)

1680: 

1681: \bibitem{Diego} D. Del Castillo-Negrete, \emph{Dynamics and

1682:     self-consistent chaos in a mean field Hamiltonian model}, in

1683:   ``Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Systems with Long Range

1684:   Interactions'', T.  Dauxois, S. Ruffo, E. Arimondo, M. Wilkens Eds.,

1685:   Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 602, Springer (2002), (in this volume)

1686: 

1687: 

1688: \bibitem{barreepjB}

1689: J. Barr{\'e}, F. Bouchet, T. Dauxois, S.~Ruffo, \emph{Birth and

1690: long-time stabilization of out-of-equilibrium coherent

1691: structures}, submitted to European Physical Journal B (2002) and

1692: Physical Review Letters, to appear (2002)

1693: 

1694: \bibitem{drh} T. Dauxois, P.~Holdsworth, S.~Ruffo,

1695: European Physical Journal B \textbf{16}, 659 (2000)

1696: 

1697: \bibitem{firpoleyvraz} M.C. Firpo, F. Leyvraz and S. Ruffo, 

1698: Journal of Physics A, \textbf {35}, 4413 (2002)

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{BraunHepp} W. Braun, K. Hepp, Communications in Mathematical

1701: Physics \textbf{56}, 101 (1977)

1702: 

1703: \bibitem{Kapitaza}

1704: P. L. Kapitza, in \emph{Collected Papers of P. L. Kapitza}, edited

1705: by D. Ter Harr (Pergamon, London, 1965), pp 714, 726

1706: 

1707: \bibitem{piston} J. L. Lebowitz, J. Piasecki, Ya. Sinai "Scaling

1708: dynamics of a massive piston in an ideal gas" , in Hard ball

1709: systems and the Lorentz gas, 217-227, Encycl. Math. Sci., 101,

1710: Springer, Berlin (2000)

1711: 

1712: \bibitem{sinairusse} Ya. Sinai, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics

1713:   (in Russian), {\bf 121}, 110 (1999)

1714: 

1715: \bibitem{plasma} M. Antoni, Y. Elskens, D. F.  Escande, Physics of

1716: Plasmas {\bf 5}, 841 (1998); M-C. Firpo, \emph{Etude dynamique et 

1717: statistique de l'interaction onde-particule}, PhD Thesis, Universit{\'e} 

1718: de Marseille (1999)

1719: 

1720: \bibitem{embidmajda} P. F. Embid, A. J. Majda, Communications in Partial

1721: Differential  Equations {\bf 21}, 619 (1996)

1722: 

1723: \bibitem{laporeport}

1724: L. Casetti,  M. Pettini,  E.G.D. Cohen, Physics Reports \textbf{337},

1725: 237 (2000)

1726: 

1727: \bibitem{cmd}

1728: A. Bonasera, V. Latora and A. Rapisarda, {Physical Review Letters}

1729: \textbf{75}, 3434 (1995)

1730: 

1731: \bibitem{ben}

1732: G. Benettin, L. Galgani and J.M. Strelcyn, {Physical Review} A

1733: \textbf{14}, 2338 (1976)

1734: 

1735: \bibitem{nayak}

1736: S.K. Nayak, R.Ramaswamy and C. Chakravarty, Physical Review E

1737: \textbf{51}, 3376 (1995); V. Mehra, R. Ramaswamy, {Physical

1738: Review} E \textbf{56}, 2508 (1997)

1739: 

1740: \bibitem{yama}

1741: Y.Y. Yamaguchi, {Progress of Theoretical  Physics} \textbf{95},

1742: 717 (1996)

1743: 

1744: \bibitem{firpo}

1745: M-C. Firpo, {Physical Review E} \textbf{57}, 6599 (1998)

1746: 

1747: \bibitem{lat2hmf} V. Latora, A. Rapisarda  and S. Ruffo,

1748:  Physica D  \textbf{131}, 38  (1999); Physica  A \textbf{280}, 81 (2000)

1749: 

1750: \bibitem{lapo1}

1751: L. Casetti, C. Clementi and M. Pettini, {Physical Review} E {\bf

1752: 54}, 5969 (1996); L. Caiani, L. Casetti, C. Clementi and M.

1753: Pettini, {Physical Review Letters} {\bf 79}, 4361, (1997)

1754: 

1755: \bibitem{lpv}

1756: J.L. Lebowitz, J.K. Percus and L. Verlet, Physical  Review  A

1757: \textbf{153}, 250  (1967)

1758: 

1759: \bibitem{latoraprogtherophys} V. Latora, A. Rapisarda, S. Ruffo,

1760: Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement \textbf{139}, 204

1761: (2000)

1762: 

1763: 

1764: \bibitem{pari}

1765: G. Parisi and A. Vulpiani, Journal of  Physics A \textbf{19}, L425

1766: (1986)

1767: 

1768: \bibitem{tsuchia}

1769: T. Tsuchiya and N. Gouda, Physical  Review E \textbf{61}, 948

1770: (2000)

1771: 

1772: \bibitem{lapo3}

1773: L. Caiani, L. Casetti, C. Clementi, G. Pettini, M. Pettini and R.

1774: Gatto, {Physical Review E} \textbf{57}, 3886 (1998)

1775: 

1776: 

1777: \bibitem{barrehmf}

1778: J. Barr{\'e} and T. Dauxois,  Europhysics  Letters  \textbf{55},

1779: 164 (2001)

1780: 

1781: \bibitem{Vallejos} C. Anteneodo and R. Vallejos, 

1782: Physical  Review E \textbf{65}, 016210 (2002)

1783: 

1784: 

1785: \end{thebibliography}

1786: 

1787: \end{document}

1788: