1: \documentstyle[aps,epsf,array]{revtex}
2: \def\eqnn#1{(\ref{#1})}
3: \def\plb{{ \sl Phys. Lett. }}
4: \def\npb#1{ {\sl Nucl. Phys.} {#1}}
5: \def\jsp{{\sl J. Stat. Phys.}}
6: \def\figno#1{Fig.~\ref{fig:#1}}
7: \def\cum#1{\langle\langle#1\rangle\rangle}
8: \def\comment#1{**** {\it #1} ****}
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{On the Violations of Local Equilibrium and Linear Response}
11: \author{Kenichiro Aoki\cite{ken-email}
12: and Dimitri Kusnezov\cite{dimitri-email} }
13: \address{$^a$Dept. of Physics, Keio University, {\it
14: 4---1---1} Hiyoshi, Kouhoku--ku, Yokohama 223--8521, Japan\\
15: $^b$Center for Theoretical Physics, Sloane Physics Lab, Yale
16: University, New Haven, CT\ 06520-8120} \date{\today }
17: \maketitle
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We study how local equilibrium, and linear response
20: predictions of transport
21: coefficients are violated as systems move far from equilibrium.
22: This is done by studying heat flow in classical lattice models
23: with and without bulk transport behavior, in 1--3 dimensions. We
24: see that linear response and local equilibrium assumptions
25: break down at the same rate. The equation of state is also
26: found to develop non-local corrections in the steady state. We
27: quantify the breakdown through the analysis of both
28: microscopic and macroscopic observables, which are found to
29: display non-trivial size dependence.
30: \end{abstract}
31: \vspace{3mm}
32: %\pacs{PACS numbers: 11.10.Wx; 66.70.+f; 05.60.Cd; 11.15.Kc.}
33: \pacs{PACS numbers: 05.45.-a; 05.60.Cd; 44.10.+i; 05.50.Ln}
34: In studies of non-equilibrium systems, local equilibrium is
35: an assumption which is essential to allowing
36: the use of statistical mechanics and equilibrium or
37: non--equilibrium thermodynamics\cite{degroot}.
38: Without local equilibrium, even the definition of temperature is
39: not unique\cite{non-eq-Temp}, and it becomes unclear how to define simple
40: transport processes. Local equilibrium is typically justified
41: through conditions
42: argued to be necessary or sufficient. This might involve
43: checking for Onsager reciprocity\cite{onsager}, enforcing upper limits on
44: local fluctuations of temperature (density,...)\cite{fluct},
45: verifying that the
46: equation of state holds locally\cite{eos}, and so
47: forth\cite{hk}. However, these conditions
48: and inequalities do not offer any quantitative guidance into how
49: local equilibrium breaks down. Further, linear response has not been
50: tested in conjunction with the breakdown of local equilibrium,
51: which is an important consideration if one questions whether or not
52: higher order corrections to Fourier's Law are consistent.
53: Previous studies have observed the breaking of local
54: equilibrium\cite{local-eq,dhar} as well as deviations from
55: linear response\cite{takesue,ak-long}. However few
56: such cases are known, and the
57: quantitative behavior of physical observables when
58: local equilibrium is broken has not been studied previously.
59: In \cite{dhar}, the breakdown of local equilibrium was observed in the
60: X--Y model and the Lorentz gas under thermal
61: gradients, which was attributed
62: to the infinite number of local conservation laws in
63: the dynamics. Our results for non--integrable models will show that
64: the integrability of the systems are not necessary for the
65: deviations from local equilibrium to occur.
66: In this letter we establish a quantitative guide to the {\sl rate} at
67: which concepts like local equilibrium and linear response
68: become violated in systems which are subject to thermal
69: gradients. We study lattice models in $d=1-3$ spatial dimensions,
70: including the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam $\beta$ model, which does not
71: have a bulk transport limit in $d=1$.
72: We also test how the equation of state is modified and its
73: relation to expectations from irreversible thermodynamics.
74:
75: How should physical observables behave away from local
76: equilibrium? A natural idea is that a
77: physical observable $\cal A$ will deviate from its value in local
78: equilibrium as we move further away from equilibrium. In our
79: case, a temperature gradient $\nabla T$ provides a natural
80: measure of how far we are from equilibrium. Since the intrinsic
81: physical properties should not depend on which side of the
82: box is at a higher temperature, the deviation $\delta {\cal A}$ from
83: its local equilibrium value is expected to behave as
84: \begin{equation}
85: \label{o-le}
86: \delta_{\cal A}\equiv
87: {\delta {\cal A}\over{\cal A}}=
88: C_{\cal A}\left(\nabla T\over T\right)^2
89: +C'_{\cal A}\left(\nabla T\over T\right)^4
90: +\ldots
91: \end{equation}
92: While seemingly natural, such an analytic expansion is not
93: trivial;
94: in sheared fluids, transport coefficients have been seen to
95: display non-analytic dependences on the shear rate, which have
96: not been entirely clarified\cite{shears}. The coefficients
97: $C_{\cal A},C'_{\cal A},\ldots$ are in principle dependent on
98: $T$ and $L$, the size of the lattice in the direction of the
99: gradient. If the relation is completely local, we expect that
100: they will be independent of $L$. We shall find that the
101: situation is more subtle.
102:
103: We study two systems which display {\it qualitatively different}
104: transport behavior. Their Hamiltonians are
105: \begin{equation} \label{ham}
106: H =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\bf r}\left[p_{\bf r}^2 +
107: \left(\nabla \phi_{\bf r}\right)^2 + V\right].
108: \end{equation}
109: where $V=\beta
110: (\nabla \phi_{\bf r})^4/2$ for the FPU$-\beta$ model and
111: $V=\phi_{\bf r}^4/2$ for the $\phi^4$ model. The
112: $\phi^4$ model has a well defined bulk limit for the thermal
113: conductivity in $d=1-3$\cite{ak-long} whereas the FPU model has $L$
114: {\it dependent} thermal conductivity in
115: $d=1$\cite{fpu-later,ak-fpu}.
116: We will use $\beta=1$ without loss of generality.
117: Here ${\bf r}$ runs over all
118: sites in the lattice ($x=1,...,L$, $y,z=1,...,N_\perp$),
119: and the lattice derivative has components
120: $\nabla_k\phi_{\bf r}\equiv \phi_{\bf r + e_k}-\phi_{\bf r}$
121: (${\bf e_k}$ is the unit lattice vector in the $k$-th
122: direction). For $d=2,3$ we take $N_\perp=3-20$ sites in the
123: transverse directions with periodic boundary conditions.
124: We thermostat the endpoints $L=0,N+1$ dynamically at
125: temperatures $T_1$ and $T_2$, as discussed
126: in \cite{ak-fpu,ak-long}.
127:
128: Once we determine $C_{\cal A}$ for an observable ${\cal A}$, it is
129: possible to compute its non-equilibrium spatial distribution
130: function. When $\kappa(T)$ behaves as a
131: power law in the temperature range of interest,
132: denoted $\kappa=cT^{-\gamma}$, the temperature profile is
133: $T(x)=T_1(1-(1-(T_2/T_1)^{1-\gamma})x/L)^{1/(1-\gamma)}$\cite{ak-long}.
134: Such a power law behavior for $\kappa(T)$ has been shown to hold for the
135: $\phi^4$ model in $d=1-3$ and also in most temperature regions
136: in the $d=1$ FPU $\beta$ model, including the region we work
137: with here \cite{ak-long,ak-fpu}.
138: The agreement for the predicted profile is shown in
139: \figno{profs}(a). Using Fourier's law ($J=-\kappa\nabla T$),
140: Eq.~\eqnn{o-le} and $T(x)$, we derive to leading order:
141: \begin{equation}
142: \label{o-le1}
143: {\delta {\cal A}\over{\cal A}}=
144: C_{\cal A}\left(J\over \kappa T\right)^2
145: =C_{\cal A}\left(\frac{1}{a+bx}\right)^2
146: \end{equation}
147: where $a=T_1^{1-\gamma}c/J$, $b=\gamma-1$, and $J$ is the heat
148: flow. So knowing $C_{\cal A}$, we can also predict the spatial
149: variation of the non-equilibrium observable ${\cal A}$. This
150: bring to light an interesting relation to coarse graining.
151: Coarse graining in $x$ over regions of
152: length $\ell$, with $L>\ell >\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is
153: the mean free path of the
154: excitations, will provide no significant improvement towards
155: recovering local equilibrium, since (up to the sign of $C_{\cal A}$), the
156: functional form of \eqnn{o-le1} is positive definite. (This will be
157: evident in \figno{profs}(b).)
158: \begin{figure}[htbp]
159: \begin{center}
160: \leavevmode \epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{f2.eps}
161: \caption{(a) Temperature profiles for the $\phi^4$ theory
162: and the FPU model and the corresponding normalized cumulants
163: (b), for $L=162$, with the boundary temperatures
164: $(0.1,1.0)$. Symbols ($\circ,\times$) are the analytic
165: predictions using
166: $T(x)$ in (a) and Eq.~\eqnn{o-le1} in (b). The different $\gamma$
167: between the two models in this temperature range causes a
168: different relative sign between $a$ and $b$ in Eq.~\eqnn{o-le1}
169: accounting for the different shapes in (b).}
170: \label{fig:profs}
171: \end{center}
172: \end{figure}
173:
174: One might also be inclined to expand \eqnn{o-le} in powers of
175: $(\nabla^n T)/T$.
176: However, in the region where the temperature
177: dependence of the thermal conductivity can be described by a
178: power law, $\kappa=cT^{-\gamma}$, one can show, using Fourier's
179: law, that $\nabla^n T/T= a_n\times\left( \nabla T/T\right)^n$,
180: where $a_n$ is a temperature independent constant. Strictly
181: speaking, Fourier's law holds only close to local equilibrium,
182: but as we shall see later, the deviations from it is of order
183: $(\nabla T/T)^2$ so that the difference is a higher order
184: correction in the expansion in $(\nabla T/T)$.
185:
186: \noindent\underline{Local Equilibrium:}
187: With the local temperature given by $T_k=\langle
188: p_k^2\rangle$, a natural measure for the deviations from
189: local equilibrium is the deviation of the momentum
190: distribution from the Maxwellian distribution. The cumulants
191: $\cum{p_k^4} = \langle p_k^4\rangle -
192: 3\langle p_k^2\rangle^2$,
193: $\cum{p_k^6} = \langle p_k^6\rangle -
194: 15 \langle p_k^4\rangle \langle p_k^2\rangle
195: + 30 \langle p_k^2\rangle ^3$, and so on,
196: normalized by the local
197: temperature, $\cum{p^n}/T^{n/2}$, provide a quantitative
198: measure on how far we are from local equilibrium. In local
199: equilibrium, $\cum{p^n}=0$ ($n>2$).
200: Consider first how systems typically behave under thermal
201: gradients. In \figno{profs}, the
202: local temperature and $\cum{p_x^4}/T_x^2$ are plotted against
203: the position in both $\phi^4$ and FPU systems.
204: When the
205: system is not too far from equilibrium, the temperature profile
206: can be understood by {\it locally} applying Fourier's law
207: $J=-\kappa(T) \nabla T$, where the heat flow $J$ is
208: constant
209: \cite{ak-long,ak-jumps,tprofs}. Since $\kappa$ depends on $T$,
210: $\nabla T$ will also depend on $T$ and
211: hence the temperature profile becomes curved for increasing
212: boundary temperature differences. We note that the
213: temperature profile for the $\phi^4$ theory is visibly more
214: curved under the same boundary conditions, even though the FPU
215: is further from local equilibrium (\figno{profs}(b)).
216:
217: In \figno{profs}(b), we see that the $\cum
218: {p_k^4}$ cumulants are non--zero inside the system, so that we
219: are no longer in local equilibrium.
220: Contrary to naive intuition, the steepest gradient
221: does {\it not } lead to the system being furthest from local
222: equilibrium. In fact, the converse is true --- the
223: system is furthest from equilibrium in the flattest
224: region.
225:
226: In \figno{cum}, we plot the deviations of the 4-th cumulant
227: of the momentum for the $\phi^4$ theory and FPU model against
228: $\nabla T/T$, which corresponds to taking ${\cal A}=\langle
229: p_x^4\rangle$ in \eqnn{o-le}.
230: We are interested
231: in the
232: physics away from the boundaries and we shall always measure the
233: physical quantities locally, well inside the system, although
234: boundary effects can be readily understood\cite{ak-fpu}.
235: We find that $\nabla T/T$
236: provides a good measure
237: of how far we are from equilibrium and in both models, the
238: cumulants behave as
239: \begin{equation}
240: \label{le-breaking}
241: \delta_{\scriptsize LE}=\frac{ \cum{p^4}}{3T^2}=
242: C_{LE} \left(\frac{\nabla T}{T}\right)^2,
243: \end{equation}
244: where $C_{LE}^\phi =1.1(8)L^{0.9(2)} \ (T=1)$ and
245: $C_{LE}^{FPU}=4.3(4)L^{0.99(2)} \ (T=8.8)$. Similar
246: investigations at different $T$ yields a weak $T$ dependence for
247: $C_{LE}$ which is difficult to establish. These results are
248: consistent with $d>1$ in both models at the same
249: temperatures. Using $C_{LE}^\phi$, $C_{LE}^{FPU}$, we can
250: predict the shape of $\cum{p^4}/T^2$: In \figno{profs}(b), the
251: non-equilibrium distribution (\eqnn{o-le1}; symbols) is compared
252: to simulation results (lines) agreeing nicely.
253:
254: Here, a relatively simple picture emerges: as we move away from
255: equilibrium by increasing the difference in the boundary
256: temperatures, each point in the interior deviates
257: from local equilibrium in a predictable manner, {\it without}
258: any threshold. Away from equilibrium, local equilibrium is an
259: approximation that is quite good for small gradients since the
260: deviations from it only vary as $(\nabla T)^2$.
261: Similar results hold for higher momentum cumulants.
262:
263: The $L$ dependence of $C_{\cal A}$ is quite intriguing.
264: Naive argument suggests that
265: since the gradients and the cumulants are local, the relation
266: between them would not depend on $L$, at least in the $\phi^4$
267: theory where there is a bulk limit. This turns out not to be
268: the case. In principle, it is possible that the effect we see
269: will disappear in the large $L$, bulk limit. However, this
270: seems implausible since we have excluded the region within the
271: mean free path from the boundaries in the above results, using
272: the properties of the model extracted in \cite{ak-long,ak-fpu}.
273:
274: \noindent\underline{Linear Response:}
275: Let us now investigate the validity of linear response theory.
276: This has been discussed previously as one of the criteria for
277: the breakdown of local equilibrium \cite{hk}, even though no
278: deviation was seen there.
279: A priori, it is not clear if the linear response law can be used
280: as a criterion for the breakdown of local equilibrium, rather
281: than as an indication of higher order equilibrium
282: corrections\cite{non-lin-response}. Such
283: an analysis assumes that even when linear response is
284: broken, local equilibrium holds sufficiently well so that
285: one can unambiguously define the temperature inside the system
286: (or that we adopt a particular definition for $T$). The linear
287: response prediction of the heat flow $J$ is obtained by
288: computing $\kappa$ from
289: applying Fourier's law locally. This is denoted as $J_{LR}$,
290: and agrees with direct measurements of $J$ in the near
291: equilibrium limit\cite{ak-long}.
292: \begin{figure}[htbp]
293: \begin{center}
294: \leavevmode\epsfxsize=8.3cm\epsfbox{f3.eps}
295: \caption{
296: $\cum{p^4}/T^2$ away from
297: equilibrium for the $\phi^4$ theory ($d=1,2,3,\ T=1$)
298: and the FPU model ($d=1,2$) for various lattice
299: sizes on an arbitrary scale.
300: The fits of the data to a behavior const.$\times (\nabla
301: T/T)^2$ are plotted for each lattice size.}
302: \label{fig:cum}
303: \end{center}
304: \end{figure}
305:
306: \begin{figure}[htbp]
307: \begin{center}
308: \leavevmode \epsfxsize=8.5cm\epsfbox{f4.eps}
309: \caption{The deviations from the linear response law as a
310: function of $\nabla T/T$ for the FPU model for $T=8.8$
311: (left) and the $\phi^4$ theory for $T=1$ (right) for
312: $d=1$. The dashes represent linear response and the solid
313: line show the quadratic deviations from it of the form
314: $\kappa \nabla T\left[1+ C_{LR}(\nabla T/T)^2\right]$.
315: }
316: \label{fig:fourier}
317: \end{center}
318: \end{figure}
319: When the temperature gradient is small, linear
320: response theory is applicable so that Fourier's law is
321: satisfied {\it globally}: $J_0=-\kappa(T)
322: (T_2-T_1)/L$\cite{ak-long,ak-fpu}. As the gradient increases,
323: curvature develops. When $\kappa\sim T^{-\gamma}$, we
324: can integrate Fourier's law to obtain the next leading order
325: correction due to curvature in $T(x)$:
326: \begin{equation}
327: \label{lr-breaking}
328: {J_{LR}-J_0\over J_0}= \frac{\gamma(\gamma+1)}{24}L^2
329: \left(\frac{\nabla T}{T}\right)^2+\cdots.
330: \end{equation}
331: This $L^2$ dependence simply indicates that Fourier's law is
332: satisfied {\it locally} rather than globally.
333: As the gradient increases even further, the energy that can be pumped
334: through the system becomes less than that predicted by
335: linear response theory {\it even when it is applied
336: locally}\cite{ak-long}. This is exactly the deviation we study
337: here in \figno{fourier}.
338: This is quite difficult to measure,
339: since unlike the cumulants, the theoretical value for the energy
340: flow $J_{LR}$ is not known and it needs to be obtained using linear
341: response locally, which carries an error in itself.
342: The relative deviation from the linear response result (as shown
343: in \figno{fourier}) can be reasonably well explained by
344: \begin{equation}
345: \label{linear-response}
346: \delta_{\scriptsize LR}= {J-J_{LR} \over J_{LR}} =
347: C_{LR}\left(\frac{\nabla T}{T}\right)^2,
348: \end{equation}
349: where $C_{LR}^\phi=-4(3) L ^{1.0(2)}\ (T=1)$ and
350: $C_{LR}^{FPU}=-6.6(8)L^{0.9(1)}\ (T=8.8)$. For large gradients,
351: Eq.~\eqnn{linear-response} will naively give rise to decreasing
352: current with increasing gradient. However, when the gradient is
353: this large, the higher order terms in $(\nabla T/T)$ becomes as
354: important. We do not know how the system behaves under such an
355: extremely large gradient, but it would be natural to expect that
356: the current will saturate.
357: The quadratic behavior in \eqnn{linear-response} is also seen
358: for both the $\phi^4$ theory and for the FPU~model in $d=1$ at
359: other temperatures and also for the models in $d>1$, even though
360: the extraction of $C_{LR}$ involves larger errors in those cases.
361:
362: Within error, we see that the violation of linear response and
363: local equilibrium are closely connected, occurring in the same manner:
364: \begin{equation}
365: \delta_{LE}\sim \delta_{LR}.
366: \end{equation}
367: Local equilibrium and linear response have no threshold, and
368: break down at the same rate.
369:
370: \noindent\underline{Equation of State:} The equation of state
371: for these models are simple in equilibrium since there is only
372: one independent variable, which can be taken to be $T$.
373: (In the FPU model in $d=1$,
374: there is also a possibly weak dependence on $L$ in $P_{eq}$;
375: unlike the $L$ dependence of $\kappa$, it is far less
376: discernible.) We denote it
377: $P(T)$ (or $E(T)$) where $P$ ($E$) is the pressure (energy
378: density). We can measure them through the stress tensor,
379: $P=P_{xx}={\cal T}^{11}$,
380: $E={\cal T}^{00}$\cite{ak-long}.
381: In \figno{t11}, where we plot the relative deviation of the pressure from its
382: equilibrium value, $(P-P_{eq})/P_{eq}$, against $\nabla T/T$. We
383: see that the equation of state develops new dependences of the form
384: \begin{equation}
385: \label{noneqP}
386: P(T,\nabla T,L) = P_{eq}(T)
387: \left[ 1+ C_P\left(\frac{\nabla T}{T}\right)^2\right]
388: \end{equation}
389: where $C_P^\phi=1.5(1.2)L^{0.9(2)} \ (T=1)$, $C_P^{\scriptstyle
390: FPU}=4.1(6)L^{0.30(4)}\ (T=8.8) $. The non-equilibrium
391: equation of state, $P(T,\nabla T,L)$ develops a non-trivial size
392: dependence in $C_P$, rendering it non-local. Similar analysis
393: for energy density yields the coefficients
394: $C_E^\phi=0.5(3)L^{0.9(2)} \ (T=1)$, $C_E^{\scriptstyle
395: FPU}=1.7(7)L^{0.3(1)}\ (T=8.8)$.
396: The quadratic behavior as in \eqnn{noneqP} is seen also in both
397: models at different $T$ for $d=1-3$ but we do not have enough
398: statistics to unambiguously extract $C_{P,E}$ in those cases.
399: While Extended Irreversible Thermodynamics (EIT) predicts the
400: quadratic dependence in \eqnn{noneqP} for particle gases and
401: liquids, precise identification of the non-equilibrium
402: definitions of the physical quantities between the two theories
403: is necessary before quantitative comparisons can be made.
404: EIT predicts a local behavior for $\delta P$
405: in contrast to our observations.
406: \begin{figure}[htbp]
407: \begin{center}
408: \leavevmode \epsfxsize=8cm\epsfbox{f1.eps}
409: \caption{Pressure $P$ as a function of
410: $\nabla T/T$, away from equilibrium for $\phi^4$ (top, $T=1$) and
411: FPU (bottom, $T=8.8$). The
412: fits of the data to a behavior const.$\times (\nabla
413: T/T)^2$ are plotted for each lattice size. $P$ is
414: seen to increase away equilibrium in both
415: models. (Vertical axis scaled as indicated.)}
416: \label{fig:t11}
417: \end{center}
418: \end{figure}
419:
420: We have quantified the violations of local equilibrium and linear
421: response in $\phi^4$ theory and the FPU $\beta$ model in $d=1-3$
422: dimensions, and observed that they break down at the same rate,
423: with similar order of magnitude. Both are found to vary with the
424: thermal gradient as $(\nabla T/T)^2$, and there is no threshold
425: for the violations, appearing immediately as one moves away from
426: global equilibrium. Other physical quantities such as the
427: pressure and the energy density were also found to behave in a
428: similar manner. We found that using the coefficients
429: $C_{\cal A}$, we can predict the spatial dependence of
430: non-equilibrium distributions of observables. As a consequence,
431: coarse graining does not modify our conclusions.
432:
433: Since the definition of $T$ is no longer unique when local
434: equilibrium is broken, a question arises as to
435: how the choice of non-equilibrium definition for
436: $T$ affects the results.
437: Expressions for non-equilibrium deviations of $J,P,E$ as in
438: Eqs.~\eqnn{linear-response},\eqnn{noneqP} will in general be
439: affected covariantly; in particular, for a generic redefinition
440: $T=T'+ \nu\left(\nabla T/T\right)^2$, $C'_{\cal A}=C_{\cal
441: A}+\nu(dA/dT)$. The local equilibrium violations seen in
442: $\cum{p^n}/T^{n/2}$ as in Eq.~\eqnn{le-breaking} are {\it
443: invariant} under such redefinitions, up to the order we
444: consider. The physics, of course, is invariant under any
445: redefinition in temperature.
446: We find that the momentum cumulants provide the most natural and
447: also the most clear criterion for the violation of local
448: equilibrium.
449:
450: Certainly more questions remain: Importantly, we do not have an
451: analytic understanding of how the coefficients
452: $C_{LE},C_{LR},C_{P},C_{E}$ are
453: related to the parameters of the theories, including their $L$
454: dependence.
455: Another question to consider is how other physical quantities
456: behave away from local equilibrium.
457: It would be interesting to further explore the
458: consequences of non-locality in the equation of state, as well
459: as use such models as a testing ground for non-equilibrium
460: thermodynamics, since there is good control on the
461: non-equilibrium steady state.
462: \begin{references}
463: \bibitem[a]{ken-email} E--mail: {\tt ken@phys-h.keio.ac.jp}
464: \bibitem[b]{dimitri-email} E--mail: {\tt dimitri@mirage.physics.yale.edu}
465: \bibitem{degroot} See, {\it e.g.},
466: S.R.~de Groot, P. Mazur, {\sl ``Non-equilibrium
467: Thermodynamics''}, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1962); D. Jou,
468: G. Lebon, J. Casas-Vazques,
469: {\sl ``Extended Irreversible Thermodynamics''} (Springer, Berlin, 1996).
470: \bibitem{non-eq-Temp} J. Casas-Vazquez, D.Jou, {\sl
471: Phys. Rev. }{\bf E49} (1994) 1040 and references therein;
472: J. Keizer, {\sl ``Statistical Thermodynamics of Nonequilibrium
473: Processes''} (Springer, New York, 1987).
474: \bibitem{onsager} R. M. Valesco, L.S. Garcia-Colin, {\sl
475: J. Noneq. Thermo.} {\bf 18} (1993) 157.
476: \bibitem{fluct} A.~Tenenbaum, G. Ciccotti, R. Gallico, {\sl
477: Phys. Rev. }{\bf A25} (1982) 2778.
478: \bibitem{eos} G. Ciccotti, A. Tenenbaum, {\sl J. Stat. Phys.}
479: {\bf 23} (1980) 767; C. Trozzi, G. Ciccotti, {\sl Phys. Rev.}
480: {\bf A29} (1984) 916.
481: \bibitem{hk} B. Hafskjold, S.K. Ratkje, \jsp{\bf 78} (1995) 463
482: \bibitem{local-eq}
483: W. Loose, G. Ciccotti, {\sl Phys. Rev. }{\bf A45} (1992) 3859;
484: M. Mareschal, E.~Kestemont, F.~Baras, E.~Clementi, G.~Nicolis,
485: {\sl Phys. Rev. }{\bf A35} (1987) 3883;
486: A.~Tenenbaum, {\sl Phys. Rev. }{\bf A28} (1983) 3132.
487: \bibitem{dhar} A. Dhar, D. Dhar, \prl{\bf 82} (1999) 480
488: \bibitem{takesue} S. Takesue, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf 64}
489: (1990) 252
490: \bibitem{ak-long} K. Aoki, D. Kusnezov, \plb{\bf B477} (2000) 348;
491: {\tt hep-ph/0002160}
492: \bibitem{shears} G. Marcelli, B.D.Todd, R. Sadus, {\sl
493: Phys. Rev. }{\bf E63} (2001) 021204; J.P.Ryckaert, A.Bellemans, G.Ciccotti,
494: G.V.Paolini, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf 60} (1988) 128;
495: S. Rastogi, N. Wagner, S. Lustig, {\sl J. Chem. Phys.}{\bf 104} (1996) 9234;
496: D.Evans, H.J.M.Hanley,{\sl Phys. Lett. }{\bf 80A} (1980) 175.
497: \bibitem{fpu-later}
498: H. Kaburaki, M. Machida,{\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf A181} (1993) 85,
499: S. Lepri, R. Livi, A. Politi, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.
500: }{\bf 78} (1997) 1896; {\sl Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 43} (1998) 271,
501: A. Maeda, T. Munakata, \prd{\bf E52} (1995) 234.
502: \bibitem{ak-fpu} K. Aoki, D. Kusnezov, {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.
503: } (2001) in press.
504: \bibitem{ak-jumps}
505: K. Aoki, D. Kusnezov, \plb{\bf A265} (2000) 250
506: \bibitem{tprofs} C.S. Kim, J.W. Dufty, {\sl Phys. Rev. }{\bf
507: A40} (1989) 6723;
508: N.~Nishiguchi, Y.~Kawada, T.~Sakuma, {\sl
509: J. Phys. Cond. Matt. }{\bf 4} (1992) 10227;
510: \bibitem{non-lin-response}
511: R.E.Nettleton, {\sl Phys. Rev. }{\bf E54} (1996) 2147.
512: \end{references}
513: \end{document}
514: