1: \documentstyle[epsf,aps]{revtex}

2: \def\npb{{ \sl Nucl. Phys. }}

3: \def\prl{{ \sl Phys. Rev. Lett. }}

4: \def\plb{{ \sl Phys. Lett. }}

5: \def\cum#1{\langle\langle#1\rangle\rangle}

6: \def\nl{\hfil\break}

7: \def\half{{1\over2}}

8: \def\c#1{{\cal{#1}}}

9: \def\bfr#1{{#1}_{\bf r}}

10: \def\eqnn#1{(\ref{#1})}

11: \def\figno#1{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1}}

12: \def\ave#1{\left\langle#1\right\rangle}

13: \draft

14: \begin{document}

15: \title{

16:   Violations of local equilibrium and linear response\\

17:   in classical lattice theories}

18: \author{  

19:   Kenichiro Aoki\footnote{E--mail: {\tt ken@phys-h.keio.ac.jp}}

20:   \ and \ \ Dimitri Kusnezov\footnote{E--mail: {\tt

21:       dimitri@nst.physics.yale.edu}}}

22: \address{

23:   $^*$\it Dept. of

24:   Physics, Keio University, \\

25:   {\it 4---1---1} Hiyoshi, Kouhoku--ku,

26:   Yokohama 223--8521, Japan\\

27:   $^\dagger$\it Center for Theoretical Physics,

28:   Sloane Physics Lab, Yale University, \\

29:   New Haven, CT\ 06520-8120, U.S.A.

30: }

31: \maketitle

32: \begin{abstract}

33:   We study the dynamics of $\phi^4$ theory and the FPU $\beta$

34:   model under thermal gradients, from first principles.  We

35:   analyze quantitatively how local equilibrium and linear

36:   response are violated, paying special care to how we find

37:   observables that unambiguously display these violations.

38:   Relations between these quantities to equations of state are

39:   also examined.  Further, we discuss how we can approach

40:   similar dynamical problems in continuum quantum field theory.

41:   We analyze how close we are to obtaining the continuum

42:   results. 

43: \end{abstract}

44: \section{Introduction}

45: \label{sec:intro}

46: Non-equilibrium dynamics appears in almost all areas of physics,

47: from physics of the early universe, heavy ion collisions to

48: transport in matter.  In many of these situations, we would like

49: to find out how physical quantities behave in various quantum

50: field theories under non-equilibrium conditions.  In an ideal

51: world, we would like to analyze their dynamics from first

52: principles, with no approximations.  Let us first discuss what

53: this entails: We would use no dynamical assumptions, the

54: computations will be fully non-perturbative, transport

55: properties will not be restricted only to linear response and the 

56: non-equilibrium properties of the system arise dynamically if

57: some non-equilibrium conditions are imposed at the

58: boundaries. These are some of the requirements that need to be

59: satisfied. 

60: 

61: In practice, this is too ambitious. Usually, we resort to

62: computations of the Green--Kubo formulas for the transport

63: coefficients or use the Boltzmann equation, which is truncated

64: from the full BBGKY hierarchy.  The equations are solved

65: essentially in equilibrium so that the region of validity of the

66: results are unclear, not to mention that the results can not be

67: applied to situations far from equilibrium.  Even then, further

68: approximations need to be made.  For instance, the transport

69: coefficients of $\phi^4$ theory to {\it leading order} in the

70: coupling was completed only recently \cite{hosoya,jy}. The

71: reason for this is clear; the computations are quite involved

72: and results can not be obtained in closed form, except for its

73: asymptotic behaviors.

74: 

75: In this work, we study the non-equilibrium dynamics of two types

76: of theories, $\phi^4$ theory and the FPU $\beta$ model, in

77: $D=1,2,3$ spatial dimensions.  We shall work with  {\it

78:   classical} theories on the lattice and from {\it first

79:   principles}. In particular, we shall make {\it no } dynamical

80: assumptions and our computations will be fully non-perturbative.

81: While the $\phi^4$ theory has a bulk limit, the FPU $\beta$

82: model does not, and the temperature dependence of the transport

83: coefficients qualitatively differs.  It hardly needs to be

84: mentioned, but the $\phi^4$ theory is a classic prototypical

85: field theory and the FPU $\beta$ model is another classic model

86: which has been studied widely. These distinct theories in

87: various dimensions should allow us to gauge how applicable the

88: results are to more general theories. Putting these systems

89: under weak and strong thermal gradients, we shall study how we

90: can measure deviations from local equilibrium and analyze its

91: behavior quantitatively.  We also examine the validity of the

92: linear response law and analyze its violations quantitatively.

93: Further, we study the relations of these violations to the

94: thermodynamic properties of the systems, such as the equations

95: of state.  We then discuss how to extend these results to

96: quantum field theories.

97: 

98: The main reason we can analyze the systems from first principles

99: is because we are working with classical systems on a finite

100: lattice (of varying sizes).  In the classical theory, the

101: problem essentially reduces to computing the solutions to the

102: equations of motion for the degrees of freedom of the system. We

103: can perform this task without any approximations such as

104: perturbation theory by numerically integrating the equations of

105: motion.  While the behavior of a classical system is different

106: from that of a quantum system, the latter often reduces to the

107: former under certain conditions, such as for high

108: temperatures\cite{thermal-texts}.  Also, the classical theory

109: can play a major role in obtaining the results in the full

110: quantum theory, as can be seen from the results in the

111: electroweak theory at finite temperatures \cite{ew}.

112: Furthermore, we believe that one should understand the behavior

113: of classical systems first, before we can hope to understand the

114: full quantum theory. We work with lattice theories which we can

115: think of as a real lattice as in solids. We can also think of

116: the lattice as a discrete approximation of the continuum theory,

117: which is quite natural and corresponds to a theory with a

118: cutoff. Of course, it hardly needs to be mentioned that the

119: behavior of classical lattice systems is of interest on its own

120: right!

121: \section{The systems}

122: \label{sec:systems}

123: The Hamiltonians of the models we study are 

124: \begin{equation}

125:   \label{ham}

126:   H=\bfr\sum\left[ \half\bfr\pi^2+\half{(\nabla\phi\bfr)^2}+

127:   V(\bfr\phi)\right],\qquad

128:   V_{\phi^4}(\bfr\phi)={\bfr\phi^4\over4},\quad

129:   V_{FPU}(\bfr\phi)={(\nabla\phi\bfr)^4\over4}

130: \end{equation}

131: in $1$---$3$ spatial dimensions. The sum is taken over all

132: lattice points $\bf r$ and $\nabla \bfr\phi$ is the lattice

133: gradient.

134: As should be clear, the $\phi^4$ theory can be thought of as a

135: discretized version of the standard continuum $\phi^4$ theory.

136: The mass has been set to zero for simplicity here, although we

137: have also studied cases where the mass is non-zero.

138: 

139: In this work, we are interested in the steady state properties

140: of the systems under thermal gradients.  As such, we apply

141: thermostats at the boundaries $x=0,L$ and impose periodic

142: boundary conditions for the other directions for $D=2,3$.  It is

143: important to note that the thermostats are applied only at the

144: ends so that in the interior, $0<x<L$, the degrees of freedom

145: are {\it solely } those of the $\phi^4$ theory or the FPU model.

146: The thermostats we use are generalized variants of the

147: thermostats of Nos\'e and Hoover\cite{nh,bk}.  Explicit forms of

148: equations of motion including the thermostat degrees of freedom

149: can be found in \cite{ak-plb,ak-long}.  The thermostats are

150: deterministic, rather than stochastic, and the thermostats

151: effectively impose thermal distributions at the thermostatted

152: sites when time averaged.  A physical observable, $\cal O$, such

153: as correlation functions or currents, is computed by sampling

154: them along the classical trajectory of the whole system in the

155: phase space and taking its time average, $\ave{\cal O}$.  We

156: studied lattice sizes in the $x$ direction up to $L=10000$ for

157: $D=1$ and up to $L=2000$ and transverse lattice sizes of

158: $L_\perp=3\sim20$ when $D=2,3$.

159: 

160: Since we will be interested in thermal transport, we shall need

161: an expression for the energy flow, 

162: \begin{equation}

163:   \label{t01}

164:   \c T^{0x}_{\phi^4}=

165:   -\bfr\pi\nabla_x\bfr\phi,\qquad

166:   \c T^{0x}_{FPU}=

167:     -\left(\bfr\pi\nabla_x\bfr\phi

168:       \right)\left[1+(\nabla\phi\bfr)^2\right]

169: \end{equation}

170: which satisfies the usual continuity equation.

171: \section{Near equilibrium behavior}

172: \label{sec:neareq}

173: When the two end point temperatures, are equal, $T_1=T_2$, the

174: interior of the system thermalizes at the same temperature.  This

175: can be explicitly confirmed by checking that the momentum

176: distribution is Maxwellian.  The local temperature is defined by

177: $T({\bf r})=\ave{\pi_{\bf r}^2}$, which is called the ideal gas

178: temperature.  This is well defined and is a robust local

179: measure, since the Hamiltonians in \eqnn{ham} are quadratic in

180: $\pi_{\bf r}$ and $\pi_{\bf r}$ interact with the neighboring

181: sites only indirectly through $\phi_{\bf r}$.

182: 

183: \begin{figure}[htbp]

184:   \begin{center}

185:     \leavevmode

186:     \epsfysize=5.3cm\epsfbox{prof-linear.eps}\hspace{1cm}

187:     \epsfysize=5.3cm\epsfbox{prof-curved.eps}

188:     \caption{(Left) A linear temperature profile (solid) and its

189:       linear fit (dashes) in the FPU model for

190:       $L=260$, $(T_1,T_2)=(0.9,1.1)$, $D=1$.  (Right) Curved

191:       profiles (solid) in $\phi^4$ theory with the linear response

192:       predictions (dashes) for $L=160$,

193:       $(T_1,T_2)=(0.1,0.8),(0.1,10)$, $D=1$.  We see that the

194:       linear response prediction is applicable for the smaller

195:       gradient case, but not for the other.}

196:     \label{fig:profs}

197:   \end{center}

198: \end{figure}

199: When we make the two boundary temperatures slightly different,

200: we recover a straight temperature profile which can be well

201: described by the Fourier's law,

202: \begin{equation}

203:   \label{fourier}

204:   \ave{{\c T}^{0x}}=-\kappa(T)\nabla_x T

205: \end{equation}

206: as can be seen in \figno{profs} (left).\footnote{While it will

207:   not be discussed here, in general, temperature jumps will

208:   arise at the boundaries which can be understood\cite{ak-pla}.}

209: By choosing various small temperature differences around the

210: same central temperature, we directly extract the thermal

211: conductivity $\kappa$ for a given temperature in each system at

212: each lattice size from measurements of the energy flow and the

213: temperature gradient, using \eqnn{fourier}.  In the $\phi^4$

214: theory, we find a bulk limit exists for $\kappa$, namely the

215: limit $\kappa\ (L\rightarrow\infty)$

216: exists\cite{ak-plb,ak-long}.  In the FPU model, the bulk limit

217: does {\it not } exist\cite{fpu-later,ak-fpu}. The results can be

218: summarized for the $\phi^4$ theory as (see \figno{tc}~(left))

219: \begin{equation}

220:   \label{tc-phi}

221:   \kappa(T)={A\over T^\gamma},\hspace{3cm}

222:   \matrix{ & A & \gamma\cr

223:     D=1& 2.8(1) & 1.32(2)\cr

224:     D=2&5.2(4)&1.42(6)\cr

225:     D=3&8.9(5)&1.75(5)\cr}

226: \end{equation}

227: For the FPU model, the behavior is more complicated as can be

228: seen in \figno{tc}~(right); $\kappa$ depends on L and $T$

229: dependence is no longer a simple power.  The $L$ dependence is

230: compatible with a simple power law and the asymptotic behavior

231: \begin{equation}

232:   \label{tc-fpu} 

233:   \kappa \simeq\cases{  1.2 L^\delta T^{-1}&   $(T\alt 0.1)$\cr

234:     2 L^\delta T^{1/4}&$ (T\agt 50)$\cr},\qquad

235:   \delta=0.37(3).

236: \end{equation}

237: can be understood from scaling arguments\cite{ak-fpu}.

238: \begin{figure}[htbp]

239:   \begin{center}

240:     \leavevmode

241:     \epsfysize=5.3cm\epsfbox{tc-phi.eps}\hspace{1cm}

242:     \epsfysize=5.3cm\epsfbox{tc-fpu.eps}

243:     \caption{(Left) Temperature dependence of $\kappa$ for the $\phi^4$

244:       theory in $D=1\ (\bigtriangleup)$ $D=2\ (\Box)$, and $D=3\ 

245:       (\circ)$ with the power laws of \eqnn{tc-phi} in

246:       dashes. The Green--Kubo results for $D=1$ are also shown

247:       ($\bigtriangledown$).  (Right) Behavior of $\kappa$ for

248:       the $D=1$ FPU model for $L=16\ (\Box)$, $L=128\ (\circ)$

249:       and $L=512\ (\bigtriangleup)$.  The asymptotic behaviors of

250:       $1/T$ (dots) and $T^{1/4}$ (dashes) are also

251:       plotted. The $\phi^4$ theory has a bulk limit, whereas the

252:       FPU model does not.}

253:     \label{fig:tc}

254:   \end{center}

255: \end{figure}

256: 

257: We can also compute the thermal conductivity {\it independently}

258: of the Fourier's law~\eqnn{fourier}

259: through the integral of the autocorrelation of the energy

260: current using the Green--Kubo formula. The results agree with the

261: direct computation from Fourier's law.  For $D=1$ $\phi^4$

262: theory, the Green--Kubo results are shown in \figno{tc}~(left)

263: along with those from direct computations\cite{ak-pla}.  We note in passing

264: that the applicability of the Green--Kubo formalism is regarded

265: as being most subtle for lower dimensional systems due to the

266: existence of persistent correlations\cite{tails}.

267: 

268: As we make the temperature gradients larger, the temperature

269: profiles become visibly non-linear, as in

270: \figno{profs}~(right). This does { not} necessarily

271: signal the breakdown of linear response.\footnote{By ``linear

272:   response'', we refer strictly to the validity of

273:   \eqnn{fourier}. In particular, we do not presume

274:   that the existence of a bulk limit.}%

275: Since $\kappa$ depends on the temperature ({\it cf.}

276: \figno{tc}), as the temperature changes, so does the gradient,

277: and it can do so within the same system\cite{profs}. This

278: reasoning leads to the following formula for the temperature

279: profile by applying the linear response law~\eqnn{fourier} {\it

280:   locally}\cite{ak-plb}.

281: \begin{equation}

282:   \label{tprof}

283:   T(x)=T_1\left[1-{x\over L}+ \left(T_2\over T_1

284:     \right)^{1-\gamma}

285:       {x\over L}\right]^{1\over1-\gamma}  

286: \end{equation}

287: Here, we assumed that the temperature dependence of the thermal

288: conductivity can be described by $\kappa(T)=AT^{-\gamma}$, which

289: is true for the $\phi^4$ theory and for most temperature regions in

290: the FPU model.  It should be noted that the profile has the

291: scaling behavior that it depends on $x$ only through $x/L$.

292: This formula for the profile works quite well when the we are

293: not too far from equilibrium. For example in \figno{profs}

294: (right), the theoretical curve~\eqnn{tprof} along with the

295: profile is presented and we see that it provides an excellent

296: description of the curved temperature profile for not so large

297: gradients. We shall turn to the question of quantifying how far

298: we are from equilibrium and how good the description is, in the

299: next section.

300: \section{Breakdown of local equilibrium and linear response}

301: \label{sec:breakdown}

302: When the system moves further away from equilibrium, the

303: formula~\eqnn{tprof} is no longer adequate to describe the

304: temperature profile, as in \figno{profs}~(right).  One reaction

305: might be to employ some kind of `non-linear' response theory.

306: However, we would first like to understand the overall behavior

307: of the system quantitatively and judge whether such a

308: description is valid.  To this end, we would like to also assess

309: if local equilibrium is satisfied so that for instance, the

310: temperature is well defined.  For this, we need an explicit

311: measure of how well the local equilibrium holds, which we find

312: in the cumulants of $\bfr\pi$. Since the Hamiltonian of the

313: system~\eqnn{ham} is quadratic in $\bfr\pi$, the thermal

314: distribution should be Maxwellian {\it if} local equilibrium

315: holds.  The cumulants provide an unambiguous local measure of

316: local equilibrium breakdown.  We shall also need a local measure

317: of how ``far'' we are from equilibrium and for this, we use

318: $\nabla_xT/T$. We note that it is natural to use the rescaled

319: gradient here. This is quite evident in \figno{profs}~(right);

320: the linear response prediction is less applicable in the small

321: $T$ region, wherein $\nabla_x T$ is smaller but $\nabla_x T/T$

322: is larger.

323: 

324: Before proceeding further, we would like to discuss the general

325: picture: We find that a physical observable, $\c A$, generically

326: deviates from its local equilibrium value in a manner

327: \begin{equation}

328:   \label{o-le}

329:   \delta_{\cal A}\equiv

330:   {\delta {\cal A}\over{\cal A}}=

331:   C_{\cal A}\left(\nabla_x T\over T\right)^2

332:   +C'_{\cal A}\left(\nabla_x T\over T\right)^4

333:   +\ldots

334: \end{equation}

335: While this seems quite natural since the intrinsic behavior

336: should not depend on the direction of the gradient, it has not

337: been established analytically. Furthermore, the behavior of the

338: coefficients is more subtle than what one would expect, as we

339: shall see below.

340: 

341: Let us analyze first the violations of local equilibrium and 

342: linear response. For deviations from local equilibrium, we use

343: the observable, $\cum{\pi^4}/T^2$ where the fourth cumulant is

344: $\cum{\pi^4}\equiv\left\langle\pi^4\right\rangle -

345: 3\left\langle\pi^2\right\rangle^2 $.  Likewise, for linear

346: response, we use the observable $(\c T^{0x}-\kappa\nabla_x

347: T)/\kappa\nabla_x T$. We show some of the results in

348: \figno{violations}.  These computations need to be performed

349: with care since we are looking at differences.

350: 

351: {}From these analyses, we extract the coefficients $C_{LE},C_{LR}$

352: in \eqnn{o-le} for local equilibrium and linear response,

353: respectively.  $C_{LE},C_{LR}$ can in general depend on $T$ and

354: $L$. We have computed these coefficients at various $T$ and $L$

355: for both the $\phi^4$ theory and the FPU model in various

356: dimensions. While we do not have yet a global picture of how

357: these coefficients behave, a few comments are in order.  For the

358: $\phi^4$ theory, which has a bulk limit, we would naively expect

359: that these coefficients will be independent of $L$. However,

360: this turns out to be {\it not} the case.  For instance, at

361: $T=1$, $C_{LE}=aL$ with $a=3,2,4$ for $D=1,2,3$.  There is thus

362: a strong dependence on the size of the system, so that a simple

363: local understanding of \eqnn{o-le} does not seem possible. In

364: general, both for the $\phi^4$ theory and for the FPU model in

365: $D=1,2,3$ and for various $L$, we find that

366: $\delta_{LE}\sim\delta_{LR}$.  This means, in particular, that a

367: simple non-linear response theory is not applicable to these

368: systems since the breakdown of local equilibrium also needs to

369: be considered simultaneously. We note that a priori, it could

370: have been such that $\delta_{LE}$ was much smaller that

371: $\delta_{LR}$, in which case a non-linear response theory would

372: have seemed quite appropriate. Generically, we find the

373: dependence of $C_{LE},C_{LR}$ on $L$ to be close to linear, and the

374: temperature dependence to be weak, which supports the rescaled

375: gradient $\nabla_x T/T$ as a natural measure of how far we are

376: from equilibrium.  We have further computed the deviations in

377: the equations of state for pressure and local energy density

378: from local equilibrium relations.  We find that the deviations

379: can again be understood using the description in \eqnn{o-le}.

380: \begin{figure}[htbp]

381:   \begin{center}

382:     \leavevmode

383:     \epsfysize=5.3cm\epsfbox{cum.eps}\hspace{1cm}

384:     \epsfysize=5.3cm\epsfbox{lr.eps}

385:     \vspace{0.2cm}

386:     \caption{Violations of local equilibrium and linear

387:       response. (Left) $\delta_{LE}$  for FPU model in $D=1$

388:       with $L=16,\ T=8.8\ (\Box),\ T=88\ (\circ)$,  $L=64,\

389:       T=8.8\ (\bigtriangleup),\ T=88\ (\bigtriangledown)$

390:       together with the quadratic behavior (dashes). $L$

391:       dependence is obvious but $T$ dependence is weak.

392:       (Right) $\delta_{LR}$ in $\phi^4$ theory, $D=1$ at $T=1$

393:       for $L=40\ (\circ)$ and $L=80\ (\Box)$ along with the

394:       quadratic behavior (dashes). $L$ dependent

395:       behavior is evident.}

396:     \label{fig:violations}

397:   \end{center}

398: \end{figure}

399: \section{Towards quantum field theory in non-equilibrium}

400: \label{sec:qft}

401: As we have seen in the previous sections, in  classical

402: lattice systems, we can ask practically any question regarding

403: the physics behavior of non-equilibrium systems and obtain an

404: answer, at least under steady state conditions.  We are not

405: restricted to weak coupling, nor do we have to assume linear

406: response theory and we can be arbitrarily far from equilibrium.

407: Clearly, we want to extend this situation to quantum field

408: theories.

409: Ideally, we would like to solve quantum dynamics in a similar

410: fashion, leading to the solution of quantum field theory in

411: non-equilibrium, in the continuum limit. This is, of course, too

412: ambitious at this point; even for moderately large systems (say

413: $\sim100$ degrees of freedom), it is computationally prohibitive

414: to carry out such a program. Our goal here will be more modest;

415: we would first like to apply the results of the classical theory

416: to quantum field theory and find out how they fit in. We shall

417: see that even this task is quite non-trivial.  Typically,

418: classical results are applicable to quantum theories in some

419: region or in some limit \cite{thermal-texts,ew}. At first sight,

420: the prospect seems quite promising for the lattice $\phi^4$

421: theory; amongst other features, the theory has a bulk limit with

422: the behavior appearing already for system sizes of order hundred

423: or less for moderate temperatures and the temperature profile

424: \eqnn{tprof} has a smooth continuum limit.

425: 

426: However, in practice, we immediately encounter an obvious

427: problem: when one tries to take the naive continuum limit by

428: taking the lattice spacing to zero, quantities such as the

429: energy density, thermal conductivity diverge.  They diverge for

430: the trivial reason that the system will have an infinite number

431: of oscillators in the unit volume.This is the

432: ``Rayleigh--Jeans'' problem, known from the early days of the

433: 20th century which afflicts all classical theories in the

434: continuum. While it might seem that this will make it impossible

435: to obtain finite results in any classical continuum theory at

436: finite temperatures, it has been demonstrated that one can

437: obtain finite results for physical observables in the classical

438: continuum theory that matches with the quantum results in the

439: appropriate region\cite{ew,aarts}.  This is done by renormalizing

440: the theory classically using the appropriate matching

441: conditions.

442: 

443: Next point to be resolved before we can start applying our

444: results to quantum field theory is the continuum limit. How far

445: are we from the continuum limit and how do we know?  While we do

446: not have a definitive answer to this difficult question, we can

447: study the physical mass in lattice units, $m_{ph}a$, which

448: effectively measures how big our lattice mesh is in physical

449: units.  (The lattice size, $a$, has been set to one here.)  To

450: avoid lattice artifacts, we would like this quantity to be

451: small. The physical mass can be measured from the correlation

452: function as

453: \begin{equation}

454:   \label{physmass}

455:   \Big\langle\phi(0)\,\sum_{{\bf r}_\perp}\phi(x,{\bf

456:   r}_\perp)\Big\rangle \sim e^{-m_{ph}|x|}

457: \end{equation}

458: where $\bf r_\perp$ denotes the coordinates transverse to

459: $x$. In \figno{physmass} (left), we study the correlation

460: function averaged in the transverse direction. We see that the

461: correlation function indeed does decay exponentially, which

462: allows us to extract the physical mass.  We find, as in

463: \figno{physmass} (right), that the physical mass has a

464: temperature dependence which we find to be

465: \begin{equation}

466:   \label{physmass-behavior}

467:   m_{ph}= 

468: \cases{ 0.97(2) T^{0.30(1)}& $D=1$ \cr

469:       0.69(5) T^{0.44(3)}& $D=3$ \cr}

470: \end{equation}

471: To put things in perspective, in lattice QCD, the state of the

472: art simulations are typically run with $m_{ph}a=0.1\sim0.5$. So,

473: for $T\lesssim1$, we should be able to overcome lattice

474: artifacts.

475: \begin{figure}[htbp]

476:   \begin{center}

477:     \leavevmode

478:     \epsfysize=5.3cm\epsfbox{mass-decay3.eps}\hspace{1cm}

479:     \epsfysize=5.3cm\epsfbox{mass-decay-T.eps}

480:     \vspace{0.2cm}

481:     \caption{(Left) The behavior of the correlation function in

482:       \eqnn{physmass} (solid) and its exponential behavior

483:       (dashes) for the $\phi^4$ theory.  The lattice size is

484:       $23\times10\times10$ at $T=0.1$ in this example. (Right)

485:       The behavior of $m_{ph}$ with respect to $T$ for $D=1\ 

486:       (\Box)$,$D=3\ (\circ)$. The power behavior (solid)

487:       describes the results quite well.}

488:     \label{fig:physmass}

489:   \end{center}

490: \end{figure}

491: 

492: One more aspect needs to be addressed: In the continuum limit,

493: when the lattice no longer exists and the theory becomes

494: relativistic, we have to decide relative to what reference frame

495: we have transport in the bulk.  Here, a natural situation is

496: provided if we consider a system with more conserved charges.

497: For instance, it is quite straightforward to extend our analysis

498: to a complex scalar field theory with U$(1)$ symmetry. In this

499: case, we can address energy transport in the system with no net

500: charge flow, which would allow us to extract the thermal

501: conductivity in the usual sense. Since our methods can be used

502: in practically any classical lattice system, we should be able

503: to address the problem of relativistic transport, with 

504: judicious choice of models.

505: 

506: While more work is definitely needed to apply our results to the 

507: appropriate regimes of quantum field theory, none of the

508: obstacles seems insurmountable.  The lattice artifacts should

509: be reasonably small for $T\lesssim1$, the divergences of the

510: classical continuum theory can be overcome and the relativistic

511: limit is quite compatible.

512: \section{Discussions}

513: \label{sec:disc}

514: In summary, we have been able to obtain the physical behavior of

515: $\phi^4$ theory and the FPU $\beta$ model under thermal

516: gradients, near and far from equilibrium. Close to equilibrium,

517: we see that linear response theory works well and local

518: equilibrium description is applicable.  As we move away from

519: equilibrium, linear response breaks down, but so does local

520: equilibrium.  We have measured {\it quantitatively} how much

521: they deviate from equilibrium values and they are rather similar

522: in all the systems we studied. The deviation of these quantities

523: from the equilibrium behavior is quadratic in the thermal

524: gradient, as in \eqnn{o-le}.  This behavior is rather generic in

525: the systems we studied, but no analytic explanation of this

526: behavior is known. It is interesting to note that in the

527: non-linear dependence of the viscosity on the shear rate, it was

528: initially argued analytically and further found numerically that

529: the behavior is {\it not } quadratic but rather has a

530: non-analytic behavior with a power of $3/2$\cite{shear1}.

531: Research in this area is still in progress and the question

532: whether the dependence is analytic still seems quite open

533: \cite{shear2}.

534: 

535: We have further discussed how to apply our results to quantum

536: field theory. Obviously, our results do not incorporate

537: essentially quantum behavior so that they can be applied only to

538: certain regimes in the quantum theory. Even though the task is

539: non-trivial, we found that the program is quite feasible.

540: 

541: Much more needs to be done: While we can answer practically any

542: question thrown at us regarding the steady state behavior of

543: classical lattice systems under thermal gradients, the results

544: by themselves lack analytic understanding. We have tried to fill

545: in the missing links by analyzing these results, but we feel

546: that a deeper understanding of the phenomena and their relation

547: to the intrinsic non-equilibrium dynamics is highly

548: desirable. For instance, as we mentioned above, even the

549: quadratic behavior of the deviations from equilibrium is

550: something that has not been established analytically in any

551: model.  While this behavior might be intuitive and

552: understandable, the fact that we have the breakdown of local

553: behavior in these deviations is quite subtle and needs to be

554: explained.  In applying the classical results to the quantum

555: theory, we still need to complete the program. Furthermore, if

556: one wanted to perform even moderately large scale {\it quantum}

557: simulations from first principles, how to approach it is still

558: unclear.  Also, even in classical systems, we have not dealt

559: with transient phenomena, which is an interesting and important

560: avenue of study.  We analyzed the steady state physics as a

561: first step, but many non-equilibrium phenomena, such as the

562: theory of the early universe or heavy ion collisions, are

563: intrinsically time dependent.  We feel that there is still much

564: more interesting physics to be uncovered in the area of

565: non-equilibrium systems, even classically.

566: \par\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements: }We would like to thank

567: Gert Aarts, Jan Smit and Larry Yaffe for stimulating discussions

568: regarding the material in the last section.

569: \begin{thebibliography}{}

570: \bibitem{hosoya}

571:   Yu. S. Gangnus, A.V. Prozorkevich, S.A. Smolyanski\v i

572:   {\sl JETP Lett.} {\bf 28} (1978) 347;

573:   A. Hosoya, M. Sakagami, M. Takao, {\sl Ann. Phys. (NY) }

574:   {\bf 154} (1984) 229.

575: \bibitem{jy} S. Jeon, {\sl Phys. Rev. }{\bf D52} (1995) 3591;

576:   S. Jeon, L. Yaffe, {\sl Phys. Rev. }{\bf D53} (1996) 5799.

577: \bibitem{thermal-texts}See, for instance, M.~Le~Bellac, {\it

578:   Thermal Field Theory}, Cambridge University Press (1996)

579: \bibitem{ew} D.Yu.~Grigoriev, V.A.~Rubakov, \npb{\bf B299} (1988).

580:        67; K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, M. Shaposhnikov,

581:       \npb{\bf B458} (1996) 90, {\bf B466} (1996) 189, and references

582:        therein.

583: \bibitem{nh}  S.~Nos\'{e}, J.~Chem.~Phys. {\bf 81}, 511

584:   (1984); {\sl Mol.~Phys.} {\bf 52} (1984)

585:     255 ; W.~G.~Hoover, {\sl Phys.~Rev. }{\bf A 31} (1985) 1695 .

586: \bibitem{bk} D. Kusnezov,  A. Bulgac, W. Bauer,

587:   {\sl Ann. Phys. }{\bf 204} (1990) 155; D. Kusnezov, {\sl Phys. Lett.}

588:   {\bf 166A} 315 (1992).

589: \bibitem{ak-plb}  K. Aoki, D. Kusnezov, \plb{\bf B477} (2000) 348.

590: \bibitem{ak-long} K. Aoki, D. Kusnezov,   {\tt hep-ph/0002160}.

591: \bibitem{ak-pla} K. Aoki, D. Kusnezov, \plb{\bf A265} (2000)  250.

592: \bibitem{fpu-later}

593:  H. Kaburaki, M. Machida,{\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf A181} (1993) 85; 

594:  S. Lepri, R. Livi, A. Politi, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.

595:     }{\bf 78} (1997) 1896; {\sl Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 43} (1998) 271.

596: \bibitem{ak-fpu}K. Aoki, D. Kusnezov, \prl{\bf 86} (2001) 4029---4033.

597: \bibitem{tails}

598:   J.R. Dorfman, E.G.D. Cohen, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf 25 } (1970) 1257;

599:   M.H.~Ernst,   E.H.~Hauge, J.M.J~van~Leeuwen, {\sl Phys. Rev.

600:     Lett. }{\bf 25} (1970) 1254, {\sl Phys. Rev. }{\bf A} (1971)

601:   2055;

602:   Y.~ Pomeau, P. R\'esibois, {\sl Phys. Rep. }{\bf  19}

603:   (1975) 63.

604: \bibitem{profs} C.S. Kim, J.W. Dufty, {\sl Phys. Rev. }{\bf

605:     A40} (1989) 6723;

606:   N.~Nishiguchi, Y.~Kawada, T.~Sakuma, {\sl

607:   J. Phys. Cond. Matt. }{\bf 4} (1992) 10227;

608: 

609: \bibitem{aarts}  G. Aarts, J. Smit, {\sl Phys. Lett. }{\bf393B} (1997) 393;

610:   {\sl Nucl. Phys.}{\bf B511} (1998) 451.

611: 

612: \bibitem{shear1}

613:   K. Kawasaki and J. D. Gunton, Phys. Rev. A 8, 2048 (1973);

614:   D.Evans, H.J.M.Hanley,{\sl Phys. Lett. }{\bf   80A} (1980) 175. 

615: 

616: \bibitem{shear2}    

617: J.P.Ryckaert, A.Bellemans, G.Ciccotti,

618:   G.V.Paolini, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf 60} (1988) 128;

619: S. Rastogi, N. Wagner, S. Lustig, {\sl J. Chem. Phys.}{\bf 104} (1996) 9234;

620: G. Marcelli, B.D.Todd, R. Sadus, {\sl

621:   Phys. Rev. }{\bf E63} (2001) 021204.

622: 

623: \end{thebibliography}

624: 

625: 

626: \end{document}

627: 

628: \end{article}