1: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\ftnt}{\footnote}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Heat Conduction and Entropy Production in a One-Dimensional Hard-Particle Gas}
10:
11: \author{Peter Grassberger, Walter Nadler, and Lei Yang}
12:
13: \affiliation{John-von-Neumann Institute for Computing, Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
14: D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany}
15:
16: \date{\today}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We present large scale simulations for a one-dimensional chain of hard-point particles
20: with alternating masses. We correct several claims in the recent literature based on
21: much smaller simulations. Both for boundary conditions with two heat baths at different
22: temperatures at both ends and from heat current autocorrelations in equilibrium we
23: find heat conductivities $\kappa$ to diverge with the number $N$ of particles.
24: These depended very strongly on the mass ratios, and extrapolation to
25: $N\to\infty$ resp. $t\to\infty$ is difficult due to very large finite-size and
26: finite-time corrections. Nevertheless, our
27: data seem compatible with a universal power law $\kappa \sim N^\alpha$ with $\alpha
28: \approx 0.33$. This suggests a relation to the
29: Kardar-Parisi-Zhang model. We finally show that the hard-point gas with periodic
30: boundary conditions is not chaotic in the usual sense and discuss why the system,
31: when kept out of equilibrium, leads nevertheless to energy dissipation and entropy
32: production.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: Low-dimensional systems are special in many ways. Second order phase transitions
38: have anomalous exponents, chemical reactions do not follow the mass action
39: law \cite{oz78}, hydrodynamics breaks down due to divergent transport coefficients
40: caused by long time tails \cite{aw67}, and electrons
41: in disordered systems are localized \cite{a58}. A last item in this list
42: is the divergence of heat conductivity \cite{llp01} in $\le 2$ spatial dimensions.
43:
44: For ordered (periodic) harmonic systems it is well known that all transport
45: coefficients are infinite due to the ballistic propagation of modes. Thus one
46: needs either disorder or nonlinear effects in order to have finite conductivity
47: $\kappa$. For electric conductivity, disorder in 1-d leads to zero conduction.
48: The main difference between heat and (electronic) charge conduction is that there
49: is no background lattice in the former, i.e. translation invariance is not broken
50: even if the system is disordered.
51: Of course one can study the electronic contribution to heat conduction, but
52: experimentally one never can neglect the ionic contribution \cite{foot0}.
53: Thus one has always soft (Goldstone) modes in heat conduction.
54: These soft modes are not localized by disorder \cite{mi70}, and they are not
55: affected by nonlinearities. Thus they propagate essentially freely. In high
56: dimensions this has no dramatic consequences. But in low dimensions they become
57: important and lead to the above mentioned divergence. More precisely, one expects
58: a power divergence $\kappa \sim N^\alpha$ in $d=1$ and a logarithmic divergence
59: in $d=2$. Simulations and calculations using the Green-Kubo formula give
60: $\alpha \approx 0.35$ to 0.45 \cite{llp01}. It is not clear whether the slight
61: discrepancies found between different models are true or artifacts. Theoretically,
62: one would of course prefer a universal value.
63:
64: There are some exceptions to this general scenario. Apart from models
65: with external potentials and broken translation invariance, the best known 1-d
66: model with finite $\kappa$ is the rotor model of \cite{glpv00,gs00}. Here
67: very fast rotors effectively decouple from their less fast neighbours. Thus
68: very steep jumps of temperature are effectively stabilized and act as barriers
69: to energy transport.
70:
71: Another model which was recently claimed to have $\kappa$ finite \cite{ghn01}
72: is the 1-d hard point gas with alternating masses. The same gas with all
73: particles having the same mass is trivial (a collision between particles
74: is indistinguishable from the particles just passing through each other
75: undisturbed), and perturbations just propagate ballistically, leading thus to
76: infinite $\kappa$ (i.e., no temperature gradients can build up inside the gas).
77: To break this integrability, it is sufficient
78: to use alternating masses: every even-numbered particle has mass $m_1$, and
79: every odd has $m_2 = r m_1$ with $r>1$ \cite{ghn01,mm83,a93,acg97,h99,a01,a02}.
80:
81: The arguments given above for a divergence of $\kappa$ with $N$ hold also
82: for the hard point gas. It is obviously nonlinear, sound waves dissipate,
83: it is translation invariant, and there is no obvious special feature as in the
84: rotor model. Indeed, prior to \cite{ghn01},
85: heat conduction has been studied in this system by means of simulations in
86: \cite{h99,a01}. In these papers it was claimed that $\kappa$ diverges. But
87: the simulations of \cite{h99} had presumably low statistics (very few details
88: were given), while the simulations of \cite{a01} are obviously not yet in the
89: scaling regime ($N$ is too small) and are compatible with $\kappa\to const$
90: for $N\to\infty$. In any case, the exponent $\alpha$ suggested by the simulations
91: of \cite{a01} is $\le 0.22$, much smaller than for all other models.
92:
93: In view of this confusing situation, and suspecting that the simulations of
94: \cite{h99,a01,ghn01} were not done most efficiently, we decided to make
95: some longer simulations.
96:
97: We followed \cite{a01} in setting $m_1=1$ and using Maxwellian heat baths at
98: the ends with $T_1=2, T_2=8$ (i.e., after hitting the end, a particle is reflected
99: with a random velocity distributed according to $P(v) = \Theta(\pm v) mv/T \exp(
100: -mv^2/2T_{1,2})$. The heat baths sit at $x=0$ and $x=N$, i.e. the
101: density of the gas is 1. When an even particle with velocity $v_1$ collides
102: with an odd one with velocity $v_2$, their velocities after the collision are
103: \begin{equation}
104: v_1' = {(1-r)v_1 + 2rv_2\over (1+r)}\ ,\quad v_2' = {2v_1+(r-1)v_2\over (1+r)}\;.
105: \label{v-update}
106: \end{equation}
107: Between two
108: collisions, the particles propagate freely. Thus a fast simulation algorithm
109: is event-driven: For each particle $i$ we remember its velocity, the time $t_i$
110: of its last collision (initially, $t_i$ is put to zero), and the position
111: $x_i$ it had at that time. In addition,
112: we maintain a list of future collision times $\tau_i$ for each neighboring pair
113: $(i,i+1)$ (here the walls are treated formally as particles with
114: $v_0=v_{N+1}=0,\; x_0=0,\; x_{N+1}=N$). The system is evolved by searching
115: the smallest $\tau_i$, updating the triples $(t_i,x_i,v_i)$ and
116: $(t_{i+1},x_{i+1},v_{i+1})$, and calculating the new future collision
117: times $\tau_{i-1}$ and $\tau_{i+1}$ (the new $\tau_i$ is infinite). Since
118: the list $\{\tau_i\}$ is essentially
119: a priority queue \cite{s90}, we use for it the appropriate data structure of a
120: {\it heap} \cite{s90}. Using heaps,
121: searching for the next collision takes a CPU time $O(\ln N)$. In comparison,
122: a naive search would take $O(N)$. This allowed us to make much larger simulations
123: than in previous works. Our largest systems contained 16383 particles and were
124: followed for $> 10^{12}$ collisions. In spite of this, we had to
125: start with carefully tailored initial configurations to keep transients short.
126: When obtaining statistics one should not forget that measurements should {\it not}
127: be made after a fixed number of collisions, but at fixed intervals in real time.
128: The correctness of the results and the absence of transients were checked
129: by verifying that the energy density is constant, as proven in \cite{a01}.
130:
131: Before presenting results, let us discuss the expected dependence on the mass
132: ratio $r$. For $r\to 1$, equilibration becomes slow (it takes a long time until
133: a fast particle is slowed down to average speed), but perturbations propagate
134: ballistically. Thus a perturbation will be damped out slowly at first, but it
135: will have no long time tails and is damped exponentially. In the other extreme,
136: for $r\to\infty$ the light particles bounce
137: between pairs of heavy ones which are hardly perturbed. Thus, if a heavy
138: particle is perturbed, we have a situation very similar to the one for $r\to 1$.
139: If a light particle is perturbed, its energy is soon given to its two nearest
140: heavy neighbours, which then behave again as for $r\approx 1$. In contrast,
141: in the intermediate region $1\ll r \ll \infty$ we expect the perturbation
142: to spread non-ballistically for all times. It is in this regime that we expect the
143: fastest convergence to asymptotic behaviour, both with respect to time and to
144: $N$.
145:
146: \begin{figure}
147: %Fig 1
148: \psfig{file=fig1a.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
149: \psfig{file=fig1b.ps,width=5.4cm,angle=270}
150: \caption{(a): Log-log plot of $J/(T_2-T_1)$ versus $N$ for four values of $r$.
151: Statistical errors are always smaller than the data symbols. (b): Part of the
152: same data divided by $N^\alpha$ with $\alpha=0.32$, so the y-axis is much
153: expanded.}
154: \label{fig1.ps}
155: \vglue -4pt
156: \end{figure}
157:
158: In Fig.1a we show $\kappa$, defined as total energy flux $J = \sum_i m_i v_i^3/2$
159: divided by $\Delta T$, versus $N$, for four values of $r$. The value $r=1.22$ is
160: in the small-$r$ region and was studied most intensively in \cite{a01}. The value
161: $r=2.62$ is near the center of the intermediate regime, while $r=5$ is clearly
162: above it. Finally, $r=1.618 =(1+\sqrt{5})/2$ was chosen because it was used in
163: \cite{ghn01}, not because of its irrationality (problems with ergodicity related
164: to rational values of $r$ exist only for very small $N$ \cite{a93,acg97}).
165:
166: A power law would give a straight line with slope $\alpha$ in Fig.1a. None of the
167: four curves is really straight. For small $N$ the curve for $r=1.22$ agrees
168: perfectly with Fig.3 of \cite{a01} (which extends only to $N=1281$).
169: It shows the strongest curvature (in agreement with the above discussion), and
170: the small-$N$ data alone would suggest a cross-over to $\kappa = const$. But this
171: curvature stops for large $N$ and a closer look shows that the
172: slope {\it increases} for $N > 8000$. The same is true also for the other
173: curves: They all bend down for small $N$ but veer up for larger systems (Fig.1b).
174: This is most clearly seen for $r=1.618$ and 2.62. It is less clear for $r=5$, but
175: the most rational expectation is that also this curve will have the same slope for
176: $N\to\infty$. Our best estimate $\alpha = 0.32 {+0.03\atop -0.01}$ has
177: asymmetric errors because we do not know how much more the curves will bend
178: upwards for very large $N$.
179:
180: \begin{figure}
181: %Fig 2
182: \psfig{file=fig2.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
183: \caption{$T(x)-T_k(x)$ against $x/N$ for $r=1.22$, where $T_k(x) = [T_1^{2/3} -
184: (T_1^{2/3}-T_2^{2/3})x/N]^{2/3}$ is the temperature profile according to kinetic
185: theory. In order to reduce statistical fluctuations, we averaged in the curves
186: for $N\ge 1023$ over three successive values of $x$.}
187: \label{fig2.ps}
188: \vglue -3pt
189: \end{figure}
190:
191: \begin{figure}
192: %Fig 3
193: \psfig{file=fig3.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
194: \caption{$T(x)-T_k(x)$ against $x/N$ for $r=1.618$.}
195: \label{fig3.ps}
196: \vglue -3pt
197: \end{figure}
198:
199: The rescaled temperature profiles for $r=1.22$ are shown in Fig.2. To verify
200: the claim of \cite{a01} that $T(x)$ approaches the profile $T_k(x)$ predicted by
201: kinetic theory with an inverse power of $N$, i.e. $T(x)-T_k(x) \sim N^{-0.67}$,
202: we plot $T(x)-T_k(x)$ against $x/N$. For $N<2000$ we see indeed this
203: convergence in perfect agreement with \cite{a01}, but not for $N>2000$. Instead,
204: it seems that $T(x)-T_k(x)$ remains different from zero for $N\to\infty$.
205: The analogous results for $r=1.618$ are shown in Fig.3. In that case, the scaling
206: observed in \cite{a01} is confined to very small $N$, not shown in the figure.
207: The fact that $T(x)-T_k(x)$ remains finite for $N\to\infty$ is now obvious.
208: % Indeed, $T(x)-T_k(x)$ now seems to increase for $N>4000$ again.
209: In contrast to a conjecture
210: in \cite{ghn01}, the temperature profile also does not become linear for large $N$.
211: All results for $r=1.618$ are qualitatively also true for $r=2.62$ (not shown).
212:
213: These results are easily understood. For $r=1.22$
214: we are in the small-$r$ regime. This explains the slow convergence of $\alpha$
215: with $N$ and the weakness of long time tails, manifested in the agreement with
216: kinetic theory. Only at very large $N$ we do see the correct
217: asymptotics. For $r=1.618$ and 2.62 we are no longer in this regime, the long time
218: tails are stronger, and the disagreement with kinetic theory is more obvious.
219:
220: In addition to systems driven by thermostats at different temperatures, we also
221: studied systems in equilibrium with periodic boundary conditions. Here
222: the Green-Kubo formula allows $\kappa$ to be calculated from an integral
223: over the heat current autocorrelation $\langle J(t)J(0) \rangle$ \cite{llp01}.
224: In Fig.4 we show this, after suitable normalization and after multiplication by
225: a power of $t$ which makes it constant for large $N$ and $t$. We see strong
226: oscillations with periods $\propto N$ which reflect the dominance of (damped)
227: sound waves with a fixed velocity of sound (see also \cite{a02}).
228: They were mistaken for statistical
229: fluctuations in \cite{ghn01}, showing clearly that the simulations of \cite{ghn01}
230: have not reached the asymptotic regime in contrast to what the authors assumed.
231: Our data suggest that $\langle J(t)J(0) \rangle \sim t^{-0.66}$ for large $N$
232: with a cut-off at $t\propto N$,
233: giving $\alpha = 0.34$ in perfect agreement with our previous estimate.
234:
235: A 1-d hard particle gas should be described macroscopically by hydrodynamics,
236: i.e. by the Burgers resp. Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation \cite{kpz}. If
237: we assume that heat diffusion scales like diffusion in KPZ, we might expect
238: $\alpha = 1/3$ in agreement with our numerics. But we should warn that
239: {\it particle} spreading in the 1-d hard particle gas is {\it not}
240: superdiffusive (unpublished data; for $r=1$ see \cite{jepsen}),
241: so the relation with KPZ is not trivial.
242:
243: \begin{figure}
244: %Fig 4
245: \psfig{file=fig4.ps,width=6.0cm,angle=270}
246: \caption{Total heat current autocorrelation, $t^{0.66} N^{-1}$ $\langle J(t)J(0)
247: \rangle$ for $r=2.2$ and $T=2$. Total momentum is $P=0$.}
248: \label{fig4.ps}
249: \end{figure}
250:
251: Finally, we measured also the propagation of infinitesimal perturbations.
252: Similar simulations were also made in \cite{ghn01},
253: but there the perturbations were added to the ground state ($E=0$, all particles are
254: at rest). In contrast, we perturbed equilibrium states, i.e. we performed a
255: standard stability analysis as used e.g. to estimate Lyapunov exponents. Indeed, we
256: only followed the perturbation in velocity space, not in real space. More precisely,
257: after having run the system long enough to have eliminated transients, we chose
258: a tangent vector
259: \begin{equation}
260: (\delta v_i(0),\delta x_i(0)) = (\delta_{i,0},0) \label{tang}
261: \end{equation}
262: and iterated, together with the system itself, its linearized variational equations.
263: Notice that $\delta v_i(t)$ are independent of the positions perturbations
264: $\delta x_i(t)$ for nearly all times (whenever there is no collision), thus it is
265: possible and legitimate to solve the variational equations for velocities only.
266: After the evolution of the $\delta v_i(t)$ has been followed for a given time
267: $t_{\rm max}$, $\delta v_i(0)$ is again chosen as
268: $\delta_{i,0}$, and the integration is continued.
269:
270: \begin{figure}
271: %Fig 5
272: \psfig{file=fig5.ps,width=5.9cm,angle=270}
273: \caption{Effective diffusion coefficients for various values of $r$. Statistical
274: errors are smaller than the sizes of the symbols. Temperature is $T=2$, total
275: momentum is $P=0$.}
276: \label{fig5.ps}
277: \vglue -3pt
278: \end{figure}
279:
280: It is easy to prove that that the 1-d hard point gas is not chaotic in the usual
281: sense. Consider the weighted $L_2$ norm of the perturbation,
282: $||\delta v(t)||_2 = [\sum_{i=1}^N m_i (\delta v_i(t))^2]^{1/2}$.
283: Since the $\delta v_i(t)$ change during a scattering according to the same
284: Eq.(\ref{v-update}) as the velocities $v_i(t)$ themselves, energy conservation leads
285: to $||\delta v(t)||_2 \equiv 1$. Indeed the absence of chaos is quite obvious since
286: there is no local instability. It seems
287: to contradict a widespread folklore that dissipation and entropy production are
288: tightly related to chaos (which sometimes is true; e.g. \cite{gd99}, page 231) --
289: although it is also appreciated that this might not be always the case \cite{dc00}.
290:
291: One solution to this puzzle is the observation \cite{gs99}, going
292: back to work by Wolfram on cellular automata \cite{w84}, that the notion of chaos in
293: systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom is ambiguous and is not necessarily
294: related to any {\it local} instability. In a spatially extended system it makes
295: perfect sense to use a norm which, in contrast to the $L_2$ norm used above, puts
296: most weight on near-by regions and exponentially little weight on far-away regions.
297: With such a definition, the norm of a perturbation moving towards (away from) the
298: observer with constant velocity will increase (decrease) exponentially.
299: More generally, also perturbations spreading
300: diffusively will lead to an increase of the uncertainty about the local state for a
301: short-sighted observer. For the 1-d hard point gas this means that there is no need
302: for any local instability to generate dissipation, local thermal equilibrium, and
303: mixing. In a non-equilibrium case entropy {\it flow} is provided by the stochastic
304: thermostats at the ends, while (coarse-grained) entropy is {\it produced} by the
305: diffusive propagation of perturbations.
306:
307: Indeed, the situation is not quite as simple due to the divergence of $\kappa$ with
308: $N$ which suggests that perturbations propagate super-diffusively. For a more
309: direct proof, we show in Fig.5 their effective diffusion coefficient, i.e. the
310: average squared distances divided by $t$ (notice that $\sum m_i (\delta v_i(t))^2=1$),
311: \begin{equation}
312: D \equiv \langle X^2\rangle / t = t^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^N \;i^2 m_i (\delta v_i(t))^2\;.
313: \end{equation}
314: For diffusive spreading, this would be constant. Instead, it increases with $t$ for all
315: $r$. This increase does not follow a pure power law, but again deviations from a
316: power law are strongest for very small and very large $r$. For moderately large $t$
317: they would suggest a crossover to normal diffusion ($D=const$), but for all $r>1.6$
318: this is ruled out by the values at very large $t$. Again it is hard to estimate the
319: asymptotic behaviour precisely, because the curves bend upward for large $t$. If we
320: assume $D\sim t^\beta$, we obtain a precise lower bound $\beta > 0.36\pm 0.01$, but
321: only a poor upper bound which just excludes ballistic behaviour.
322:
323:
324: In summary, we have given compelling evidence that heat conduction in the 1-d hard
325: point gas shows the anomalous divergence with system size expected for any generic
326: 1-d system, in spite of strong finite-size and finite-time effects. This ``normal"
327: anomalous behaviour holds in spite of the fact that the system is not chaotic in
328: the usual sense, proving again that chaos in the form of local instabilities is
329: not needed for mixing behaviour and dissipation. Finally, we have discussed a possible
330: connection to KPZ scaling.
331:
332: We are indebted to Roberto Livi and Antonio Politi for very helpful correspondence.
333: W. N. is supported by the DFG, Sonderforschungsbereich 237.
334:
335:
336: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
337: \bibitem{oz78} A.A. Ovchinikov and Ya.B. Zeldovich, Chem. Phys. {\bf 28}, 214 (1978).
338: \bibitem{aw67} B.J. Alder and T.E. Wainwright, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 18}, 988 (1967).
339: \bibitem{a58} P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. {\bf 109}, 1492 (1958).
340: \bibitem{llp01} S. Lepri, R. Livi, and A. Politi, cond-mat/0112193 (2001)
341: \bibitem{foot0} Thus we do not consider the ding-a-ling
342: [J. Dawson, Phys. Fluids {\bf 5}, 445 (1962);
343: G. Casati {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
344: 52}, 1861 (1984)]
345: and similar models as proper models for heat conductivity.
346: \bibitem{mi70} H. Matsuda and K. Ishii, Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 45}, 56 (1970).
347: \bibitem{glpv00} C. Giardin{\'a}. R. Livi, A. Politi, and M. Vassalli, Phys. Rev. Lett.
348: {\bf 84}, 2144 (2000).
349: \bibitem{gs00} O.V. Gendelman and A.V. Savin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 2381 (2000).
350: \bibitem{ghn01} P.L. Garrido, P.I. Hurtado, and B. Nadrowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86},
351: 5486 (2001).
352: \bibitem{mm83} J. Masoliver and J. Marro, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 31}, 565 (1983).
353: \bibitem{a93} G.J. Ackland, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 47}, 3268 (1993).
354: \bibitem{acg97} R. Artuso, G. Casati, and I. Guarneri, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 55}, 6384 (1997).
355: \bibitem{h99} T. Hatano, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 59}, R1 (1999).
356: \bibitem{a01} A. Dhar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 3554 (2001).
357: \bibitem{a02} A. Dhar, cond-mat/0203077 (2002).
358: \bibitem{s90} R. Sedgewick, {\it Algorithms in C} (Addison-Wesley, Reading 1990).
359: \bibitem{kpz} M. Kardar, G. Parisi, and Y.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 889 (1986).
360: \bibitem{jepsen} D.W. Jepsen, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 6}, 405 (1965).
361: \bibitem{gd99} T. Gilbert and J.R. Dorfman, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 96}, 225 (1999).
362: \bibitem{dc00} C.P. Dettmann and E.G.D. Cohen, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 103}, 589 (2001).
363: \bibitem{gs99} P. Grassberger and T. Schreiber, Nature {\bf 401}, 875 (1999).
364: \bibitem{w84} S. Wolfram, Physica D {\bf 10}, 1 (1984).
365: \end{thebibliography}
366:
367: \end{document}
368: