format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We wish to formulate manifestly covariant equations for the motion of a continuum on a fundamental level, and to demonstrate their use in an interesting problem. In attempting to reach a consistent theory one meets a few difficulties:

The general motion of a continuum may include accelerations, making the use of standard special relativistic dynamics problematic. The usual procedure for dealing with an accelerating particle, would be to go from one inertial frame to the next, as the particle accelerates, always keeping it instantaneously in an inertial frame . In the case of a continuum however, this procedure is impossible, for each of the infinitesimal volume elements accelerates, in general, at different rates and directions, and so only one specific portion of the volume can be kept at rest at any particular time. Secondly the above procedure may not be manifestly covariant, as an accelerating particle momentarily at rest in some frame, is obviously not equivalent to an identical particle moving at constant speed. The accelerating particle, for instance, will be radiating if it is charged. Our claim is that keeping a particle momentarily at rest can, at best, yield an approximation to the real motion, but is by no means a consistent covariant treatment of the system.

Another severe difficulty in writing down relativistic equations of hydrodynamics lies in the relativistic property of simultaneity. In order to define an extended body in mathematical terms, a certain configuration of the body is chosen arbitrarily and is referred to as the reference configuration. In the nonrelativistic theory, each particle, or infinitesimal volume element of the body, can then be labeled throughout the evolution by its position in that reference configuration. The difficulty in constructing a relativistic theory of hydrodynamics lies in the fact that each inertial system will have its own notion of time and simultaneity, and they will not be able to agree on any set of particles to be considered as existing simultaneously at any given time $`t`$. It therefore becomes impossible to define a consistent reference configuration.

In 1941 Stueckelberg  postulated that events (not particles) are to be considered as the fundamental dynamical objects of the theory of motion. The dynamics of an event is governed by 8 independent parameters consisting of the space-time coordinates222Here and throughout this work we use the usual convention where Lattin indices $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$ take the values 1, 2, 3, related to Euclidean space, whereas Greek indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ take the values 0, 1, 2, 3 and correspond to the four dimensions of Minkowski space-time $`x^\mu =(ct,𝐫)`$ and energy momenta $`p^\mu =(E/c,𝐩)`$ associated with each event, and parameterized by an invariant time. Based on this, Horwitz and Piron in 1973 proposed that there exists a universal time $`\tau `$, by means of which dynamical interactions are correlated . This universal time may be identified with the Robertson-Walker time of the expansion of the universe, the time read on a freely falling ideal clock. The evolution of a system of $`N`$ events through $`\tau `$ is generated by an invariant function $`K`$ on this $`8N`$ dimensional phase space, by means of the covariant Hamilton equations :

$$\frac{dx_i^\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{K}{p_{i\mu }},\frac{dp_i^\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{K}{x_{i\mu }},$$
(1)
The collection of events along each world line corresponds to a particle, and hence the evolution of the state of the $`N`$-event system describes,a posteriori, the history in space and time of an $`N`$-particle system. In the case of a free particle, for instance, we choose for the Hamiltonian:

$$K=\frac{p_\mu p^\mu }{2M},$$
(2)
where $`M`$ is a positive parameter, which is a given intrinsic property of an event, having the dimension of mass and emerging as the Galilean target mass in the nonrelativistic limit $`c\mathrm{}`$. This results in

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{p^\mu }{M}},{\displaystyle \frac{dp^\mu }{d\tau }}=0,`$ (3)
so that we have for the physical velocity (we take $`c=1`$ in what follows unless otherwise specified),

$$𝐯=\frac{d𝐱}{dt}=\frac{𝐩}{E}$$
(4)
in total agreement with the usual Einstein kinematics. As $`(E,𝐩)`$ are each taken to be independent variables of the motion, the particles are not necessarily on mass shell, and the particle mass squared: $`m^2=E^2p^2`$, is not contrained to be constant (except for a free particle), but is rather to be determined as a solution of the dynamical equations. Note that (we use the metric $`+++`$)

$$\frac{dx_\mu }{d\tau }\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{ds^2}{d\tau ^2}=\frac{m^2}{M^2}$$
(5)
and is unity only for the “mass-shell” value $`m^2=M^2`$, Hence $`\tau `$ corresponds to the proper time of an ideal free clock on its mass shell. On mass shell, the time obeys the relation:

$$\frac{dt}{d\tau }=\frac{E}{M}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}},$$
(6)
so that $`dt`$ is precisely the time interval measured in the laboratory between two signals emitted by a source, traveling with velocity $`v`$, with interval $`d\tau `$, according to the Lorenz transformation. If the emitter is not on shell there is a factor $`m/M`$. The red shift imposed by general relativity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\sqrt{\frac{1}{g_{00}}}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ is another example of the effect of dynamics, in this case, the acceleration due to gravity (contained in $`g_{00}`$), on the observed time interval. The observed time interval is therefore influenced by forces  that may move the energy momentum off shell.

This theory has since been applied to fundamental questions such as the Newton-Wigner position operator and the Landau-Peierls relation , and to dynamical problems such as two body bound states  and scattering and electromagnetic interactions in classical mechanics , quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory .

In order to formulate equations of motion for continuous media, we therefore turn to the above mentioned procedure of Stueckelberg, Horwitz and Piron , and all following discussions will be conducted in the framework of this theory. As a consequence of the existence of a universal time which parameterizes all systems, it becomes possible to define a certain configuration of events in space-time $`X^\mu `$, at some definite initial universal time $`\tau _0=0`$, and then follow the evolution of the system through $`\tau `$. The universality of $`\tau `$ eliminates any ambiguity as to the identification of events and their distribution in space-time. Labeling the various events by their initial configuration $`X^\mu `$, one can thus express their respective positions at any later time $`\tau `$:

$$x^\mu =x^\mu (X^\nu ,\tau ).$$
(7)
The velocity and acceleration of an event labeled $`X^\mu `$ at time $`\tau `$ is thus:

$`V^\mu (X^\nu ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu (X^\nu ,\tau )}{d\tau }}`$ (8)
$`A^\mu (X^\nu ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dV^\mu (X^\nu ,\tau )}{d\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{d^2x^\mu (X^\nu ,\tau )}{d\tau ^2}}`$ (9)
The Eulerian velocity field describes the velocities of events passing a certain point in space-time, as a function of the universal time:

$$v^\mu (x^\gamma ,\tau )=V^\mu (X^\nu (x^\gamma ,\tau ),\tau )$$
(10)
We now wish to express the acceleration in terms of the Eulerian velocity field:

$`A^\mu (X^\nu ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dV^\mu (X^\nu ,\tau )}{d\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{dv^\mu (x^\gamma (X^\nu ,\tau ),\tau )}{d\tau }}`$ (11)
$`a^\mu (x^\gamma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`A^\mu (X^\nu (x^\gamma ,\tau ),\tau )`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^\mu }{\tau }}+{\displaystyle \frac{x^\nu }{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{v^\mu }{x^\nu }}={\displaystyle \frac{v^\mu }{\tau }}+v^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{v^\mu }{x^\nu }}.`$
In space-time, due to mass-energy equivalence, there is no a priori conservation of mass of individual particles; rather we shall be dealing with a “conservation of events”. Let $`n(x^\mu ,\tau )`$, be the density of events (this quantity is a scalar since the four volume element is invariant) at the space-time point $`x^\mu `$ at time $`\tau `$ multiplied by $`M`$, the intrinsic, given mass dimension property attributed to each event. Consider now a small volume of fluid. The flux of events through a closed surface enclosing the volume must cause a decrease in the density of events within the volume. It is in place to stress at this point that the surface mentioned is a three dimensional surface, the direction of which is defined by a four vector normal to that surface in four dimensional space-time. Hence, for example, we define $`dS^0`$ as a volume of three dimensional space, its direction being the time direction. Likewise, the volume over which the integration is carried out is obviously the four dimensional space-time. The flux of events past an infinitesimal surface $`dS^\mu `$ is: $`\epsilon (v)nv^\mu dS_\mu `$, where $`\epsilon (v)=\pm 1`$ depending as to whether $`v^\mu `$ is space-like ($`+1`$) or time-like ($`1`$). The reason for introducing this additional sign is that for $`v^\mu `$ and $`dS^\mu `$ both pointing out of the bounded volume, in a time-like direction, the vector product $`v^\mu dS_\mu `$ is negative whereas the flux of events must be positive . Therefore:

$$\frac{}{\tau }_Vn𝑑V=_S\epsilon (v)nv^\mu 𝑑S_\mu $$
(13)
or, using the four-dimensional Gauss law,

$$_V\frac{nv^\mu }{x^\mu }𝑑V=_S\epsilon (v)nv_\mu 𝑑S^\mu ,$$
(14)
we have,

$$_V\frac{n}{\tau }𝑑V=_V\frac{nv^\mu }{x^\mu }𝑑V$$
(15)
and so taking the volume to be infinitely small:

$$\frac{n}{\tau }+\frac{nv^\mu }{x^\mu }=0,$$
(16)
which is the equation of continuity for the flow field. Note that in the case where the density of events $`n`$ is constant, the above equation reduces to:

$$_\mu v^\mu =0.$$
(17)
In a continuum we focus on an infinitesimal volume element and describe the forces acting on it. In general one talks about two kinds of forces:

1. Forces which are proportional to the density of mass, charge or number of events, within the volume. The force will therefore be $`nb^\mu `$, where $`n`$ is the density of events.
2. Surface contact forces, which are exerted by the continuum of events surrounding the volume under consideration, and are transferred through its surface. The number of events neighboring a small portion of the surface, $`dS`$, in a locally homogenous fluid, are obviously proportional to its size, hence we can assume the force to be proportional to the surface it is acting upon. In mathematical terms we assert that the force $`df`$ on an element of surface $`dS`$ tends to zero as $`dS`$ tends to zero, but that the ratio $`df/dS`$ tends to a definite limit. This assumption enables us to define a stress four tensor, the components of which describe the force in the $`\mu `$ direction, exerted on a surface in the $`\nu `$ direction:

$$\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{df^\mu }{dS_\nu }.$$
(18)
The surface force on an elementary volume unit, in the $`\mu `$ direction is therefore (by the usual argument):

$$nf^\mu =\frac{\sigma ^{\mu \nu }}{x^\nu }$$
(19)

Summing up the forces acting on an infinitesimal volume element and equating to the density of acceleration within the volume, we get the equations of motion:

$$\frac{\sigma ^{\mu \nu }}{x^\nu }+nb^\mu =n\left(\frac{v^\mu }{\tau }+v^\nu \frac{v^\mu }{x^\nu }\right)$$
(20)
By introducing a manifestly covariant Boltzmann equation, Horwitz, Shashoua and Schieve  were able to write down equations for conserved quantities in a statistical mechanical framework. It is interesting to note that the equations of continuity and motion derived above from a hydrodynamical point of view are equivalent to those presented by these authors for the conservation of some constant quantity and for the conservation of momentum respectively.

In order to make these equations of motion operational it is necessary to formulate constitutive equations for the fluid. These will define the way by which the stress forces acting at a certain point in the fluid $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$, are governed by its physical state (and/or history). These laws however are determined by physical properties of the material; we shall make some simplifying assumptions about the nature of the fluid, comparable to those which lead to the Navier-Stokes equations in the non-relativistic case.

In the following work we shall formulate a potential theory for inviscid, irrotational, incompressible fluids. Then, relaxing the constraints, we shall allow the fluid to become linearly compressible, an assumption which will lead to acoustic modes within the flow. Finally we shall introduce equations for the motion of viscous flow.

## 2 Standard relativistic limit

In the current section we shall show how Eq. (16) and (20) transform into the standard relativistic equations of hydrodynamics, which in turn give the nonrelativistic limit by taking $`c\mathrm{}`$. We begin with a few preliminary remarks which will assist us in what follows. Note the following connection between the relativistic force term $`f^\mu `$ and its nonrelativistic counterpart $`𝐟^i`$:

$`f^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`M{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x^\mu }{d\tau ^2}}=M{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{dx^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^0}{d\tau }}\right)`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`M\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dx^0}{d\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{dx^0}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{dx^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x^0}{d\tau ^2}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`M\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{dx^0}{d\tau }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x^\mu }{dx^{02}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{dx^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x^0}{d\tau ^2}}\right]`$
Taking the space components we can write

$$f^i=\left(\frac{v^0}{c}\right)^2𝐟^i+𝐯^if^0,$$
(22)
A rearrangement of terms gives the physically measureable force $`𝐟^i`$ in terms of the relativistic force,

$$𝐟^i=\left(\frac{c}{v^0}\right)^2(f^i𝐯^if^0).$$
(23)
Another useful expression which connects derivatives of the velocity field $`v^\mu `$ with its nonrelativistic physically observable counterpart $`𝐯^i=cv^i/v^0`$, will be used later and can be proved as follows (we denote by $`_s`$ a derivative with respect to any variable):

$$_sv^i=_s(\frac{v^0𝐯^i}{c})=\frac{v^0}{c}_s𝐯^i+\frac{𝐯^i}{c}_sv^0.$$
(24)
We remind ourselves too, that $`v^0=dx^0/d\tau =E/M`$, and that in the nonrelativistic (on-shell) limit $`v^0=c/\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}c(1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{v^2}{c^2})`$.

To put our equations into correspondence with standard results, we must note that any interaction with an apparatus or some macroscopical object corresponds to an interaction with a worldline, an integration over $`\tau `$ is therefore necessary. In performing this procedure to obtain the on shell limit, we assume that correlations in $`\tau `$ survive only over a short interval, thus a term of the form: $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}a(\tau )b(\tau )𝑑\tau `$ can be factored to obtain $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }T^2}a(\tau )𝑑\tau b(\tau ^{})𝑑\tau ^{}=ab`$ in a $`\tau `$ averaged sense. . 333 If both $`a(\tau )`$ and $`b(\tau )`$ have support only arround the zero mode then    $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}}{\displaystyle a(\tau )b(\tau )𝑑\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }T}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{a}(s)\stackrel{~}{b}(s)𝑑s}`$  (25)    $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }T^2}}\stackrel{~}{a}(0)\stackrel{~}{b}(0)`$     $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }T^2}}{\displaystyle a(\tau )𝑑\tau b(\tau ^{})𝑑\tau ^{}}`$

Applying this procedure to equations (16) and (20) causes the $`\tau `$ derivative terms in both equations to drop due to the assumption that both $`n`$ and $`v^\alpha `$ vanish pointwise as $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. From Eq. (16) we then get:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`_0(nv^0)+_i(nv^i)`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(nv^0)+(𝐯nv^0)`$
$`=`$ $`v^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}+(n𝐯)\right)+n\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+𝐯\right)v^0`$ (27)
where all quantities are from now to be understood as being $`\tau `$ averaged.

Written in the form (26), Eq. (16) can be interpreted as expressing the conservation of energy density (or the continuity of energy flow), whereas the second form (27) states that the conservation of mass is to be corrected by a relativistic term. This can be seen by noting that the first bracketed term in (27), is just the regular nonrelativistic equation of continuity which gives the change in time of the mass of a small volume of three dimensional space. In nonrelativistic hydrodynamics this term should obviously be zero, for the mass is conserved. This however is not the case for a relativistic fluid, as an increase in the energy also has to be taken into account in the conservation law. This is precisely the meaning of the second term. It expresses the change of energy of the small volume of fluid moving with the particle. This change of energy causes a corresponding non vanishing change of mass which must balance it out in such a way that the total be zero. It should be noticed that the derivatives of $`v^0`$ which appear in the second term of (27) are in the standard relativistic limit, of the order $`1/c`$, and so are small compared to the first term. Therefore when taking the nonrelativistic limit this second term can be neglected, and one is left with the standard equation for the conservation of mass:

$$\frac{n}{t}+(n𝐯)=0.$$
(28)
We shall now treat the space and time components of Eq. (20) separately. We consider a fluid free of any external forces and therefore take $`b=0`$. For the sake of simplicity of notation we assume here that $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=pg^{\mu \nu }`$. A physical justification for this simplification will be forthcoming in the next section, but the generality of our following discussion is not based on or restricted by it. Taking the time component we have:

$`^0p`$ $`=`$ $`nv^\mu _\mu v^0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}nv^0\left(𝐯+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right)v^0,`$
or,

$$\frac{p}{t}=nv^0\left(𝐯+\frac{}{t}\right)v^0$$
(29)
This gives the time change of energy moving with the fluid. Inserting the standard relativistic limit for $`v^0`$, and neglecting terms of order $`1/c^2`$ we are left with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}p`$ $`=`$ $`n\left(𝐯+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`\left(𝐯+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}nv^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2\left(𝐯+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right)n`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}nv^2)+(𝐯{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}nv^2),`$
where we made use in the third line of the equation of continuity (28). Eq (30) is evidently an equation for the change in nonrelativistic kinetic energy. The first term on the right hand side can be interpreted as the change of kinetic energy within a small volume of space whereas the second term is the flux of energy leaving that volume.

Turning to the space components, and using relation (24) we get:

$`^ip`$ $`=`$ $`nv^\mu _\mu v^i`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{c}}(v^0v^\mu _\mu 𝐯^i+𝐯^iv^\mu _\mu v^0).`$
Inserting Eq. (29) and rearranging terms yields

$$\left(\frac{c}{v^0}\right)^2\left(p+\frac{𝐯}{c^2}\frac{p}{t}\right)=n\left(\frac{}{t}+𝐯\right)𝐯.$$
(32)
By remembering relation (22) one can notice at once that the left hand side of Eq. (32) is simply the physical force acting on an infinitesimal volume of fluid, whereas the right hand side gives the rate of change of the physical velocity moving with the fluid. In fact it can clearly be seen that in the nonrelativistic limit $`c\mathrm{},v^0/c1,`$ Eq. (32) simply becomes the non-relativistic Euler’s equation of hydrodynamics. It is worth noting too, that if we accept a correspondance between the density of events $`n`$ and the sum of the internal energy and pressure $`w=\epsilon +p`$ (also called the heat function), then Eq. (32) is precisely equivalent to the relativistic hydrodynamics equation derived by Weinberg  and Landau  in the forceless events framework of standard relativity for which $`(v^0/c)^2=\gamma ^2`$.

## 3 Potential Theory for Relativistic Hydrodynamics

Under certain circumstances some problems in fluid dynamics can be solved in an approximation in which viscous forces are neglected, and the fluid is assumed to be incapable of sustaining shear forces. If the fluid is assumed also to be spatially and temporally isotropic, we can write down the stress tensor as follows:

$$\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=pg^{\mu \nu }=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill p& \hfill \mathrm{when}& \hfill \mu =\nu =0\\ \hfill p& \hfill \mathrm{when}& \hfill \mu =\nu 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill \mathrm{when}& \hfill \mu \nu \end{array}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}p& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& p& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& p& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& p\end{array}\right),$$
(33)
where $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric tensor for flat Minkowski space and $`p`$ is a Lorentz scalar. The interpretation of the stress tensor components in this form, is as follows: The three space-space components relate to the force exerted within the fluid per unit surface per unit time, whereas the time-time component describes the forces acting in the time direction per unit volume of the fluid (essentially mass-changing forces).

Substituting Eq. (33) into the equations of motion,

$$_\mu \sigma ^{\mu \nu }+nb^\nu =n(\frac{}{\tau }+v^\mu _\mu )v^\nu ,$$
(34)
this leads to

$$^\nu p+nb^\nu =n(\frac{}{\tau }+v^\mu _\mu )v^\nu .$$
(35)
Eq. (35) may be written in different form by introducing two new variables. We define $`\mathrm{\Psi }=^n\frac{1}{n^{}}\frac{p(n^{})}{n^{}}𝑑n^{}`$, so that $`\frac{1}{n}^\mu p=^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$. Note that for incompressible fluid $`n`$ is constant and we have simply $`\mathrm{\Psi }=p/n`$. Assuming too that the body force can be derived from a potential function $`b^\nu =^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ , we can write:

$$^\nu (\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Omega })=(\frac{}{\tau }+v^\mu _\mu )v^\nu ,$$
(36)
An important kinematic result which shall be used later, is known as the Circulation Theorem. Consider a closed circuit $`C`$ linking a continuous line of fluid events. In general the space-time configuration of the loop $`C`$ depends on $`\tau `$. We denote this symbolically by $`C_\tau `$. The kinematic Theorem to be proven is :

$$\frac{}{\tau }_{C_\tau }v_\mu 𝑑x^\mu =_{C_\tau }a_\mu 𝑑x^\mu ,$$
(37)
where $`a^\mu `$ is the space-time acceleration field of the fluid. The proof can be obtained by transformation to the material coordinates $`X^\mu `$ as follows:

$$_{C_\tau }v_\mu 𝑑x^\mu =_{C_0}V_\nu \frac{dx^\nu }{dX^\mu }𝑑X^\mu .$$
(38)
So then:

$$\frac{}{\tau }_{C_\tau }v_\mu 𝑑x^\mu =_{C_0}V_\nu \frac{}{\tau }\left(\frac{dx^\nu }{dX^\mu }\right)𝑑X^\mu +_{C_0}\frac{V_\nu }{\tau }\frac{dx^\nu }{dX^\mu }𝑑X^\mu .$$
(39)
The first integral on the right hand side of Eq. (39), can be shown to vanish:

$`{\displaystyle _{C_0}}V_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dx^\nu }{dX^\mu }}\right)𝑑X^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_0}}V_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{dV^\nu }{dX^\mu }}\right)𝑑X^\mu `$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{C_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d(V_\nu V^\nu )}{dX^\mu }}𝑑X^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[V_\nu V^\nu \right]_{X_2}^{X_1}=0,`$
since the path is closed. The second can be transformed back to the spatial coordinates:

$$_{C_0}\frac{V_\nu }{\tau }\frac{dx^\nu }{dX^\mu }𝑑X^\mu =_{C_0}A_\nu \frac{dx^\nu }{dX^\mu }𝑑X^\mu =_{C_\tau }a_\mu 𝑑x^\mu ,$$
(41)
proving the theorem.

Substituting for $`a^\mu `$ in Eq. (37), from the equation of motion (36) gives:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _{C_\tau }}v_\mu 𝑑x^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{C_\tau }}_\mu (\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Omega })dx^\mu `$ (42)
$`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Omega }\right]_{X_2}^{X_1}=0.`$
where it has been assumed in the last step that the functions are single valued. This leads generally to:

$$_{C_\tau }v_\mu 𝑑x^\mu =\mathrm{Const}$$
(43)
If the motion of the fluid was generated from rest, so that for some initial time the circulation was zero, we get:

$$_{C_\tau }v_\mu 𝑑x^\mu =0,$$
(44)
for all times. A necessary and sufficient condition, for Eq. (44), with continuous $`v^\mu `$, is that $`v^\mu `$ be expressible as a gradient of a potential function. We write

$$v^\mu =^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(45)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined as the velocity potential. It has been shown above (Eq. (17) that for an incompressible fluid

$$_\mu v^\mu =0,$$
(46)
so combining the two, we find that the velocity potential, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, satisfies the d’Alembert equation:

$$_\mu ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(47)
providing an enormous simplification in the theory of inviscid irrotational flow. Using the four dimensional Stokes theorem  we can convert the line integral in Eq. (44) into a spatial integral:

$$_{C_\tau }v_\mu 𝑑x^\mu =_S(_\mu v_\nu _\nu v_\mu )𝑑S^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(48)
If this is to be true for arbitrary surface $`S`$, the integrand must vanish, giving

$$(_\mu v_\nu _\nu v_\mu )=0.$$
(49)
Using this we can evaluate the following expression:

$$v^\mu _\mu v^\nu =v^\mu ^\nu v_\mu =\frac{1}{2}^\nu (v_\mu v^\mu ).$$
(50)
Inserting Eq. (50) into the equations of motion (36), and rearranging terms, we obtain:

$$^\nu \left(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{1}{2}(v_\mu v^\mu )\right)=\frac{}{\tau }v^\nu .$$
(51)
Inserting Eq (45), into (51) and rearranging terms, leads to further simplification:

$$^\nu \left(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{1}{2}(v_\mu v^\mu )\frac{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=0,$$
(52)
which means that:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{1}{2}(v_\mu v^\mu )\frac{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Phi }=f(\tau ),$$
(53)
where $`f(\tau )`$ is some arbitrary function of $`\tau `$. This can be considered a relativistic equivalent to the Bernoulli equations444By this we mean solely that this equation fulfills, the same function in the logical procedure as does the Bernoulli equation in the nonrelativistic counterpart..

We return now to Eq. (47) and assert that under the assumptions made, our problem reduces to solution of the d’Alembert equation, given specific boundary conditions. These require that the component of the velocity field normal to the boundary vanish everywhere on its surface. Thus the motion of the fluid will be governed solely by the space-time geometry of the problem. The solution can then be inserted back into the equations of motion (53), determining the distribution of forces and stresses within the fluid.

The general solution to the d’Alembert equation (47), can be written as an integral over all possible plane waves:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=d^4kA(k^\mu )\mathrm{exp}(ik_\mu x^\mu ),$$
(54)
where $`k^\mu `$ is restricted to the shell

$$k_\mu k^\mu =0,$$
(55)
and the $`A(k^\mu )`$ which determine the shape of the wave packet are to be determined by boundary and initial conditions.

It must be noted though, that there also always exists another trivial solution, because any solution to the Laplace equation with an additional linear time term, will also satisfy the d’Alembert equation. The space part, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$, by definition, vanishes under the Laplacian, while the time component being linear, vanishes when differentiated twice. This trivial solution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{NR}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}+u_0x^0,$$
(56)
gives rise to a physical velocity field:

$$𝐯^i=\frac{v_{NR}^i}{v_{NR}^0}=\frac{1}{u^0}^i\mathrm{\Phi }_{}$$
(57)
which is clearly to be interpreted as the nonrelativistic flow of an incompressible fluid. The total solution then should be written as a linear combination

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{TOT}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{NR}+\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(58)
As for the physical motion of the fluid we now have:

$$𝐯^i=\frac{v_{NR}^i+v^i}{v_{NR}^0+v^0}$$
(59)
If we assume, as is reasonable for low energies, that the nonrelativistic part of the flow is far greater than the relativistic correction, $`v_{NR}^\mu v^\mu `$, then an expansion in a Taylor series gives:

$`𝐯^i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{NR}^i+v^i}{u^0}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{v^0}{u^0}}\right)`$ (60)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{NR}^i}{u^0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^i}{u^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_{NR}^iv^0}{(u^0)^2}}.`$
The first term is just the nonrelativistic, $`t`$ independent flow of Eq. (57), whereas the other two are of a smaller order and describe time dependent wave-like fluctuations. It seems, then, that the covariant form for the potential flow gives rise to a physical velocity which can be divided into two parts $`𝐯𝐯_{NR}+𝐯_R`$, an underlying nonrelativistic velocity field and an additional relativistic correction with a wave-like nature, due to disturbances in the background flow. These disturbances can be envisioned as ripples riding above the usual nonrelativistic flow, at a speed which will be shown to be the speed of light.

The velocity of the disturbances can be calculated in various ways. Writing $`k^\mu =kn^\mu `$ in Eq. (54), and picking out a specific direction $`n^\mu `$, we can perform the integration over the magnitude $`k`$, getting:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=f(n_\mu x^\mu ).$$
(61)
But from relation (55), $`n_\mu n^\mu =0`$, so the phase velocity $`v_f`$, of the wave front is:

$$v_f=\left|\frac{n^0}{n_i}\right|=1$$
(62)
If the solution given above (54), describes a wave packet, the group velocity of this packet can be determined through the stationary phase method. The highest contribution to the integral will come from those $`k`$’s for which the phase is stationary:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dk^i}}\left(k_\mu x^\mu \right)=0`$
$`x^i{\displaystyle \frac{dk^0}{dk^i}}x^0=0,`$
so, denoting by $`v_g`$, the group velocity of the wave packet, we get

$$v_g=\left|\frac{\delta x^i}{\delta x^0}\right|=\left|\frac{dk^0}{dk^i}\right|=1,$$
(64)
where in the last step we used relation (55).

It is in point to stress that it is not the fluid which flows with the speed of light, rather it is the disturbances propagating in the flow field which travel with the above calculated group and phase velocities.

In previous work on the subject, there has been much debate as to the actual definition of incompressibility of relativistic fluids. The most straight forward definition in the framework of standard relativity, would be to demand that an element of the fluid shall retain the same proper volume throughout its motion, or in other words that the expansion of an elementary world-tube of liquid shall be zero. The difficulty lies in the fact that this definition yields infinite sound wave velocities. This would violate the most basic assumptions of standard relativity which forbids any material particle or information to be propagated at a speed higher than light. A disturbance such as a sound wave does carry energy, momentum and information and should therefore not break the light speed barrier. For this precise reason Synge  introduced two more alternate definitions, the second of which actually defines an incompressible fluid as such that sound waves propagate within it at light velocity.

In comparison, the equations we have written down and the simple assertion that incompressibility is to be defined on events in four dimensional space-time, lead smoothly and naturally to light speed sound waves in agreement with Synge’s criterion. Moreover it can be seen that as $`c\mathrm{}`$, the sound waves speed, tends to infinity too, as would be expected of an incommpresible fluid in the nonrelativistic limit.

## 4 Compressible fluid, Acoustic approximation

We wish to widen the scope of our study to encompass the behavior of a compressible fluid, and we shall show that this additional freedom introduces acoustic modes with sound velocities other than that of light.

We begin by assuming that the density and pressure vary only slightly from some constant values.

$$n=n_0+n^{},p=p_0+p^{}.$$
(65)
Generally the pressure is a function of the density so one can expand the pressure in a Taylor series:

$$p(n)=p(n_0)+n^{}\frac{p(n_0)}{n}=p(n_0)+u^2n^{}$$
(66)
where higher derivatives in $`n`$ have been neglected and we have in the last stage denoted the constant $`u^2=\frac{dp(n_0)}{dn}`$. Comparing equations (65) and (66) we get a linear relationship between the variations of density and pressure,

$$p^{}=u^2n^{}.$$
(67)
We wish also to assume the three space components of the velocity field to be, in some sense, small. The time component on the other hand must by definition be of the order of $`c`$ and can therefore not be considered small. This reasoning leads us to divide the velocity field too into two parts,

$$v^\mu =v_0^\mu +v^\mu ,$$
(68)
where $`v_0^\mu =(v_0,0,0,0)`$ is a constant555It is sufficient if $`v_0`$ varies only slowly in spacetime relative to $`v^\mu `$; this possibility will be discussed later on., pure, time-like vector and $`v^\mu `$ is a small perturbation the nature of which we wish to determine. It has been shown earlier that the motion of the fluid, neglecting unimportant body forces, is governed by the following two equations:

$`^\mu p=n\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^\mu }{\tau }}+v^\nu _\nu v^\mu \right)`$ (69)
$`n_\mu v^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{n}{\tau }}+v^\mu _\mu n`$ (70)
We assume firstly, that all changes in $`\tau `$ in equations (69) and (70), are negligably small compared with the spacetime changes, and we can therefore omit the $`\tau `$ derivatives from both equations. This can be explained too on grounds of integrating the above equations over $`\tau `$ and asserting that all physical quantities vanish as $`\tau \pm \mathrm{}`$ or by taking the zero component of the frequencies in $`\tau `$. All three arguments are essentially equivalent and are based on the fact that any apparatus in the laboratory is not capable of resolving fast changes in $`\tau `$, but can rather only measure averages over large periods of the universal time. The resulting equations

$`^\mu p=nv^\nu _\nu v^\mu ,`$ (71)
$`n_\mu v^\mu =v^\mu _\mu n,`$ (72)
can now be linearized by inserting relations (65) and (68) and keeping only terms of the first order ($`n^{}`$, $`p^{}`$ and $`v_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ being of the first order). Higher order terms are neglected and so in this approximation the two equations reduce to

$`u^2^\mu n^{}=n_0v_0^\nu _\nu v^\mu ,`$ (73)
$`n_0_\mu v^\mu =v_0^\mu _\mu n^{},`$ (74)
where by remembering relation (67), we have eliminated $`p^{}`$ from equation (71). The importance of the background vector $`v_0^\mu `$, now becomes apparent. It ensures that the velocity field remains time-like and that the large time-like component does not get neglected in the linearization process.

By taking space derivatives of Eq. (73) it can be shown that

$$v_0^\sigma _\sigma (^\mu v_\nu _\nu v^\mu )=0,$$
(75)
implying that if the flow was initially irrotational everywhere, then it will remain so throughout the entire evolution and that the velocity field can be derived from a potential:

$$v^\mu =^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(76)
Multiplying Eq. (73) by $`v_{0\mu }`$ one obtains

$$u^2v_0^\mu _\mu n^{}=n_0v_{0\mu }v_0^\nu _\nu v^\mu ,$$
(77)
where we have interchanged the raising and lowering of the indices on the left hand side. The equations can now be solved for gradients of $`v^\mu `$ by inserting Eq. (74) into (77):

$$u^2_\mu v^\mu =v_0^\nu v_{0\nu }_\nu v^\mu .$$
(78)
Using relation (76) to replace the velocity field by the derivative of its potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and rearranging terms, we get

$$\left(_\mu \frac{v_0^\nu v_{0\mu }}{u^2}_\nu \right)^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(79)
which can alternately be written as

$$\left(g_\mu ^\nu U_\mu ^\nu \right)_\nu ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(80)
or

$$T_\mu ^\nu _\nu ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(81)
where we denote the tensor $`U_\mu ^\nu =\frac{1}{u^2}v_0^\nu v_{0\mu }`$ and $`T_\mu ^\nu =g_\mu ^\nu U_\mu ^\nu `$.

Before resuming with an interpretation of the result (80), we wish to express the variation in density of events $`n^{}`$, in terms of the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Inserting relation (76) into Eq. (73) and rearranging terms we get

$$^\mu \left(n^{}\frac{n_0}{u^2}v_0^\nu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)=0,$$
(82)
implying that the term in parenthesis is constant. By definition though, any constant part of $`n^{}`$ is to be included in $`n_0`$, so the additive constant must be identically zero and we are left with the following relationship

$$n^{}=\frac{n_0}{u^2}v_0^\nu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(83)
We now return to Eq. (80), and assume for simplicity that the background fluid is stationary i.e. $`v_0^\mu =(v_0,0,0,0)`$ is pure time-like and constant. We then get

$$\left[_\mu ^\mu +\left(\frac{v_0^2}{u^2}\right)_0^0\right]\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(84)
or, on separating time and space derivatives,

$$\left[^2\left(1+\frac{v_0^2}{u^2}\right)\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2}{t^2}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(85)
This is a wave equation for which the modified sound velocity is

$$\omega =\frac{cu}{\sqrt{u^2+v^{02}}},$$
(86)
and we can investigate the various limits as follows. When we take the fluid to its noncompressible limit, or mathematically $`u\mathrm{}`$, we get for the sound velocity $`\omega c`$. This agrees with our conclusions of the previous section, namely that a noncompressible fluid gives rise to light speed sound waves.

On the other hand if we take the fluid to be ‘sufficiently’ compressible, or in other words $`uv_0`$, the velocity becomes linear in $`u`$, $`\omega \frac{c}{v_0}u`$. This is feasible for in the nonrelativistic limit when $`v_0c`$, we then get the usual nonrelativistic result for compressible flow namely, $`\omega u`$. These results are summarized in figure 1.

## 5 Viscous fluids

Until now we have dealt solely with “ideal fluids” which do not sustain shear stresses during motion. The justification for our previous equations was that for many materials the shear stresses occurring during motion are small compared with the pressure. In practice though, all liquids and gases are in fact able to sustain shear forces, and we now wish to take these into account in a consistent covariant manner. In order to obtain equations describing the motion of a viscous fluid, we have to include some additional terms in the constitutive equations of the fluid. We therefore write the stress tensor $`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ in the form

$$\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=pg^{\mu \nu }+\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }.$$
(87)
The second term is the extra stress tensor or viscosity stress tensor resulting from frictional forces between different layers of fluid. We can, with some restrictive assumptions, establish a general form for the tensor $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$. If we assume that our fluid does not “remember” its past history or initial configuration but rather that its motion is governed solely by the immediately preceding state, then $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$, must depend only on the velocity field of the fluid. Processes of internal friction occur in a fluid only when different fluid particles move with different velocities, so that there is a relative motion between various parts of the fluid. On the other hand if the distances between adjacent parts of the fluid are kept constant during the motion and assuming that forces between events are a function of the distance separating them $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu `$, then there will be no friction. In other words a frictional dissipation could arise only in those regions of the fluid continuum undergoing distortion, excluding places at which the fluid moves uniformly as a rigid body. Hence $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$ must depend on derivatives of the velocity field rather than the velocity field itself. When the velocity gradients are small we can, to some approximation, suppose $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$ to be a linear function of the derivatives $`^\mu v^\nu `$ omitting higher orders of powers and derivatives. There can be no terms independent of $`^\mu v^\nu `$, since $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$ must vanish for constant $`v^\mu `$.

A rigid rotation of the fluid in space time must also be excluded from affecting the viscous force, and we shall show that this implies that only the symmetric combination of derivatives $`^\mu v^\nu +^\nu v^\mu `$, can be contained in $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$. We must note here that by rigid rotation in spacetime, we mean the group of transformations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }`$, which keep the covariant distance $`dx_\mu dx^\mu `$ constant. This is precisely the group of pure Lorentz transformations, which fulfill the requirement

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^\nu =g_\gamma ^\mu .$$
(88)
We can show quite generally that for an infinitesimal transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu =g_\nu ^\mu +\epsilon _\nu ^\mu `$, the infinitesimal displacement tensor $`\epsilon _\nu ^\mu `$, must be antisymmetric, as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`(g_\nu ^\mu +\epsilon _\nu ^\mu )(g_\gamma ^\nu +\epsilon _\gamma ^\nu )`$ (89)
$`=`$ $`g_\nu ^\mu g_\gamma ^\nu +\epsilon _\nu ^\mu g_\gamma ^\nu +g_\nu ^\mu \epsilon _\gamma ^\nu +O(\epsilon ^2)`$
$``$ $`g_\gamma ^\mu +(\epsilon _\gamma ^\mu +\epsilon _\gamma ^\mu ),`$
where in the third line we have neglected terms of second order in $`\epsilon `$. Comparison of Eq. (89) with (88) yields

$$\epsilon _\gamma ^\mu =\epsilon _\gamma ^\mu ,$$
(90)
proving the antisymmetry of $`\epsilon _\gamma ^\mu `$.

Consider now a small region in the flow around a point $`x_c^\mu `$, at which the fluid can locally be considered to be rotating rigidly (figure 2). Our claim is that at $`x_c^\mu `$ there are no frictional forces within the fluid and therefore the the viscosity stress tensor must vanish at that point. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^\mu `$ represent the angular velocity of the fluid rotating in the $`\mu \nu `$ plane. The velocity field round $`x_c^\mu `$ will then by definition be

$$v^\mu =\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^\mu x^\nu ,$$
(91)
where $`x^\nu `$ here and in the following discussion is the displacement from the center of rotation $`x_c^\mu `$. Now consider a fluid particle at some place $`x^\mu `$ being rotated by an infinitesimal amount to a new position $`x^\mu `$. There are two relations connecting $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$:

$`x^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu x^\nu ,`$ (92)
$`x^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`x^\nu +\delta \tau v^\nu ,`$ (93)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu =g_\nu ^\mu +\epsilon _\nu ^\mu ,$$
(94)
is an infinitesimal Lorenz transformation. Inserting Eq. (91) into (93), and comparing with Eq. (92) results in

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu =g_\nu ^\mu +\delta \tau \mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^\mu $$
(95)
Using relation (94) we can get a form for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^\mu `$ in terms of $`\epsilon _\nu ^\mu `$

$$\delta \tau \mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^\mu =\epsilon _\nu ^\mu ,$$
(96)
proving that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^\mu `$ too, is antisymmetric. Taking derivatives of relation (91) while considering the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ^\mu `$ is antisymmetric shows that the combination $`^\mu v^\nu +^\nu v^\mu `$ vanishes for a rigidly rotating fluid whereas the antisymmetric combination $`^\mu v^\nu ^\nu v^\mu `$, does not. As the viscosity stress tensor $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$ must vanish for rigidly rotating motion, we deduce that it must contain just the symmetric combination of derivatives.

The most general tensor of rank two satisfying all the above conditions is

$$\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }=a(^\mu v^\nu +^\nu v^\mu )+bg^{\mu \nu }_\gamma v^\gamma ,$$
(97)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are independent of the velocity. It is convenient, however, to replace $`a`$ and $`b`$ by other constants and write the equation in another form which lends itself more readily to interpretation

$$\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }=\eta (^\mu v^\nu +^\nu v^\mu \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\gamma v^\gamma )+\zeta g^{\mu \nu }_\gamma v^\gamma .$$
(98)
We shall call the constants $`\eta `$ and $`\zeta `$ the shear viscosity and bulk viscosity respectively. The terminology derives from considering the two following basic flows (see figure 3):

1. For a “pure” shear flow $`v^\mu =u(n_\gamma ^{}x^\gamma )n^\mu `$, where $`n^\mu `$ and $`n^\mu `$ are mutually orthogonal unit vectors so that the direction of the velocity gradient $`n^\mu `$ is perpendicular to the direction $`n^\mu `$ of the velocity, it can be shown that only the first term in $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$ survives, leaving $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }=u\eta (n^\mu n^\nu +n^\mu n^\nu )`$. So the coefficient $`\eta `$ alone governs the resistance of the fluid to shear distortions.
2. For a “pure” radial flow $`v^\mu =(u/4)x^\mu `$ in which the material expands in a radial direction, the the first term in Eq. (98) vanishes leaving $`\widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }=u\zeta g^{\mu \nu }`$, which shows that $`\zeta `$ is proportional to the resistance of the fluid to expansion of bulk. This can be understood also by noticing that the expression in parentheses in Eq. (98) has the property of vanishing on contraction with respect to $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$.

The equations of motion can now be obtained by adding the expressions $`_\nu \widehat{\sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$ to the left hand side of the nonviscous flow equation (69). Thus we have

$$^\mu p+_\nu \left\{\eta \left(^\mu v^\nu +^\nu v^\mu \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\gamma v^\gamma \right)+\zeta g^{\mu \nu }_\gamma v^\gamma \right\}=n\left(\frac{v^\mu }{\tau }+v^\nu _\nu v^\mu \right).$$
(99)
This is the most general form of the equations of motion of a viscous fluid. If we assume, however, that the viscosity coefficients do not change noticeably throughout the fluid, then they may be regarded as constant and can therefore be taken outside the gradient operators. We then have

$$^\mu p+\eta _\nu ^\nu v^\mu +\left(\zeta +\frac{1}{2}\eta \right)^\mu _\nu v^\nu =n\left(\frac{v^\mu }{\tau }+v^\nu _\nu v^\mu \right).$$
(100)
Further simplification can be obtained by assuming the bulk viscosity $`\zeta `$ small compared to the shear viscosity $`\eta `$.

If the fluid is incompressible then $`_\nu v^\nu =0`$ and the third term on the left hand side of Eq. (100) vanishes giving

$$^\mu p+\eta _\nu ^\nu v^\mu =n\left(\frac{v^\mu }{\tau }+v^\nu _\nu v^\mu \right).$$
(101)
On solving a specific dynamical problem one must also write down the boundary conditions for the equations of motion of a viscous fluid. We assume that there are friction forces acting between the boundary surface and the fluid such that the layer of fluid immediately adjacent to the boundary is brought to complete rest. Accordingly, the boundary conditions on the equations of motion require that the fluid velocity should vanish at fixed solid surfaces:

$$v^\mu =0.$$
(102)
We emphasize that for a viscous fluid both the normal and tangential velocity components must vanish, in contradistinction to ideal fluids for which it is required only that the normal component vanish. In a general case with boundaries moving in $`\tau `$, the velocity of the fluid at the boundary should be equal to the velocity of the moving surface.

## 6 Conclusions

We have studied a continuum flow of events in space-time parameterized by $`\tau `$, the invariant, universal, historical time. In the process of evolution, as $`\tau `$ changes uniformly, the events move in space-time, generating a dense continuum of world lines which constitute a physical flow of particles. The velocity field is in general a function of both space-time and $`\tau `$ and is governed by equations of motion and continuity. The solution of the equations for the velocity field provides, in principal, a solution to the physical problem, but is in general rather complicated.

We considered an inviscid fluid and derived an analogue of the Bernoulli equation. In the special case of irrotational flow we proved that the velocity field can be derived by a potential. If in addition, the fluid is incompressible, it has been shown that the potential must obey the d’Alembert equation, and thus the problem is reduced to solving the d’Alembert equation with specific boundary conditions. The solutions consist of a background flow (The nonrelativistic solution) over which wave like ripples propagate with group and phase velocities equal to that of light. This is to be compared with Synge , who actually defines noncompressibility in such a way as to achieve this result.

Relaxing the constraints and allowing the fluid to become linearly compressible one can derive a wave equation, from which the sound velocity can again be computed. For a stationary background flow, it has been demonstrated that the sound velocity, attains its correct values for the incompressible and nonrelativistic limits. It is in principal possible, under some restrictions, to compute the sound velocities also for a non stationary and non uniform background flow. Precise computations and predictions in this direction are yet to be studied.

Finally viscosity was introduced and the use of some general arguments of symmetry and isotropy enabled the formulation of equations for the motion of a viscous fluid. Only introductory comments were made about this topic and the equations derived are yet to be applied to specific problems.

It must be emphasized that the velocity and density (and any other) fields that we mention, describe quantities related to the flow of events at a particular time $`\tau `$. In order to derive a physically observable quantity related to particles, an averaging must be performed over $`\tau `$. The method we use is that of integrating over $`\tau `$ with the density of events as a weight function. An exact transcription from event properties to world-line, or particle, properties, however, is not always possible due to nonlinearities of these quantities. Alternatively the observed quantities can be extracted from the zero frequency (in $`\tau `$) components of the fields.

$`\omega `$ as a function of the inverse compressibility $`u`$, and energy $`v_0`$ respectively.

Infinitesimal rotation of fluid.

Two basic distortions: left: Radial flow. right Shear flow.


text:
# Integer quantum Hall transition in the presence of a long-range-correlated quenched disorder

## I Introduction

The critical behavior of electron wave functions in the vicinity of the integer quantum Hall (QH) transition is now well understood. That is, the localization length diverges as $`\epsilon ^\nu `$, where $`\epsilon `$ is the deviation from the critical energy. The most accurate value of the exponent $`\nu `$ extracted from numerical simulations is $`\nu =2.35\pm 0.03`$. On the experimental side, the study of the critical behavior of the resistance in the transition region at strong magnetic field $`B`$ has a long history which can be conventionally divided into three periods.

#### (a)

The first experimental works  reported a narrowing of the transition peak with temperature $`T`$, as $`T^\kappa `$ with $`\kappa 0.4`$. The spread in the actual value of $`\kappa 1/\nu `$ measured in different experiments was attributed to the difference in the type of disorder in the samples of Refs.  and . Another experimental method to explore the critical behavior was employed in Refs.  and , where $`\kappa `$ was deduced from the sample size dependence of the width, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$, of the transition region. The value of $`\kappa `$ obtained by this technique appeared to be consistent with temperature measurements of Ref. , in the sense that $`\kappa `$ was found to be sample dependent. On the other hand, it was argued in Ref.  that the lack of universality in Refs.  has its origin in the long-ranged character of the disorder in GaAs-based heterostructures studied in these works. This is because for a smooth disorder the energy interval within which the electron transport is dominated by localization effects is relatively narrow. The measurements in Refs.  and  suggesting the universality of $`\kappa `$ were carried out on InxGa1-xAs/InP heterostructures in which disorder is believed to be short-ranged. Despite the disagreement about universality of the exponent $`\kappa `$, the fact that the narrowing of the plateau transition occurs as $`T^\kappa `$ was not questioned in Refs. .

#### (b)

The absence of scaling was reported first for the QH-insulator transition  and then for the plateau-plateau transition. In the latter paper the conclusion about the absence of scaling was drawn from the analysis of the frequency dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ in GaAs/AlyGa1-yAs heterostructures (in contrast to the similar analysis in Ref. ). That is, the authors of Refs.  and  concluded, that the width of the transition region saturates as $`T0`$. A possible explanation of this behavior  is based on the scenario of tunneling between electron puddles with a size larger than the dephasing length. The microscopic origin of these puddles was attributed to sample inhomogeneities.

#### (c)

Very recent experimental results  on scaling of plateau-insulator as well as plateau-plateau QH transitions carried out on the same InxGa1-xAs/InP sample as in Ref.  suggested that the narrowing of the transition width with temperature follows a power-law dependence $`\mathrm{\Delta }BT^\kappa `$ with $`\kappa 0.4`$. Even when the authors of Ref.  analyzed their data using the procedure of Ref. , i.e., by plotting the logarithm of the longitudinal resistance versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$, they obtained straight lines with slopes proportional to $`T^\kappa ^{}`$ with $`\kappa ^{}0.55`$. They attributed the difference between $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa ^{}`$ to the marginal dependence of the critical resistance on $`T`$. It was also speculated in Ref.  that this dependence most likely results from macroscopic inhomogeneities in the sample. In the latest papers  the frequency dependence of the QH transition width was studied. The results did not support the saturation of the width, but rather confirmed the scaling hypothesis.

Summarizing, it is now conclusively established that insulator-plateau and plateau-plateau transitions exhibit the same critical behavior. It is also recognized that macroscopic inhomogeneities can either mask the scaling or alter the value of $`\kappa `$.

On the theoretical side, in all previous considerations inhomogeneities were incorporated into the theory through a spatial variation of the local resistivity. In other words, all existing theories are either ”homogeneous quantum coherent” or ”inhomogeneous incoherent”. Meanwhile, there is another scenario which has never been explored. Close to the transition the quantum localization length $`\xi `$ becomes sufficiently large. Then the long-ranged disorder can affect the character of the divergence of $`\xi `$. At this point we recall the classical limit, in which the long-ranged disorder does affect the value of the critical exponent in the percolation problem. Obviously, when the disorder is long-ranged but has a finite correlation radius, one should not expect any changes in the critical behavior. The principle finding of Refs.  and  is that the critical exponent can change when the correlator of the disorder $`V(𝐫)V(𝐫^{})`$ falls off with distance as a power law, i.e., $`|𝐫𝐫^{}|^\alpha `$, (quenched disorder). According to Refs.  and  the critical exponent of the classical percolation $`\nu =4/3`$ crosses over to $`\nu =2/\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <3/2`$, i.e., when the decay of the correlator is slow enough. In the present paper we study the effects of quenched disorder on quantum percolation. The latter is known to describe the localization-delocalization transition for a two-dimensional (2D) electron in a strong magnetic field. As a model of quantum percolation we employ the Chalker-Coddington (CC) model  which is one of the main ”tools” for the quantitative study of the QH transition. The CC model is a strong magnetic field (chiral) limit of a general network model, first introduced by Shapiro  and later utilized for the study of localization-delocalization transitions within different universality classes. In addition to describing the QH transition, the CC model applies to a much broader class of critical phenomena since the correspondence between the CC model and thermodynamic, field-theory and Dirac-fermions models  was demonstrated.

In order to study the role of the quenched disorder on the localization-delocalization transition we treat the CC model within the real-space renormalization group (RG) approach. First, in Sec. II we check the accuracy of the RG approach, and show that it provides a remarkably accurate description of the QH transition. In Sec. III we extend the RG approach to incorporate the quenched disorder. Concluding remarks are presented in Sec. IV.

## II Test of the RG approach to the CC model

### A Description of the RG approach

As mentioned in Sec. I, the CC model is a chiral limit of the general network model. However, it was originally derived from a microscopic picture of electron motion in a strong magnetic field and a smooth potential. Within this picture, the links can be identified with semiclassical trajectories of the guiding centers of the cyclotron orbit, while the nodes correspond to the saddle points (SP’s) at which different trajectories come closer than the Larmour radius. For simplicity, the nodes were placed on a square lattice. We will use an equivalent, but slightly different graphical representation of the CC network shown in Fig. 1. In this representation the centers of the trajectories of the guiding centers are placed on a square lattice and play the role of nodes, whereas the SP’s should be identified with links.

We now apply a real-space RG approach  to the CC network. The RG approach is based on the assumption that a certain part of the network containing several SP’s, the RG unit, represents the entire network. This unit is then replaced through the RG transformation by a single super-SP with an $`S`$ matrix determined by the $`S`$ matrices of the constituting SP’s. The network of super-SP’s is then treated in the same way as the original network. Successive repetition of the RG transformation yields the information about the $`S`$ matrix of very large samples, since, after each RG step, the effective sample size grows by a certain factor determined by the geometry of the original RG unit. Obviously, a single RG unit is a rather crude approximation of the network. Therefore, prior to applying the RG approach to the study of the quantum Hall transition in the presence of quenched disorder, we first check the accuracy of this approach for the conventional, uncorrelated case, where the comparison with the results of direct numerical simulations is possible.

The RG unit we use is extracted from a CC network on a regular 2D square lattice as shown in Fig. 1. A super-SP consists of five original SP’s by analogy to the RG unit employed for the 2D bond percolation problem. As in any RG scheme, the unit shown in Fig. 1 leaves out a number of bonds of the original lattice. Nevertheless, it is well known that the application of this scheme to the classical case yields very accurate results.

Between the SP’s an electron travels along equipotential lines, and accumulates a certain Aharonov-Bohm phase. Different phases are uncorrelated, which reflects the randomness of the original potential landscape. Each SP can be described by two equations relating the wave-function amplitudes in incoming and outgoing channels. This results in a system of ten linear equations, the solution of which yields the following expression for the transmission coefficient of the super-SP (Ref. ):

\[

$$t^{}=\left|\frac{t_1t_5(r_2r_3r_4e^{ı\mathrm{\Phi }_2}1)+t_2t_4e^{ı(\mathrm{\Phi }_3+\mathrm{\Phi }_4)}(r_1r_3r_5e^{ı\mathrm{\Phi }_1}1)+t_3(t_2t_5e^{ı\mathrm{\Phi }_3}+t_1t_4e^{ı\mathrm{\Phi }_4})}{(r_3r_2r_4e^{ı\mathrm{\Phi }_2})(r_3r_1r_5e^{ı\mathrm{\Phi }_1})+(t_3t_4t_5e^{ı\mathrm{\Phi }_4})(t_3t_1t_2e^{ı\mathrm{\Phi }_3})}\right|.$$
(1)
\] Here $`t_i`$ and $`r_i=(1t_i^2)^{1/2}`$ are, respectively, the transmission and reflection coefficients of the constituting SP’s; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ are the phases accumulated along the closed loops (see Fig. 1). Equation (1) is the RG transformation, which allows one to generate (after averaging over $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$) the distribution $`P(t^{})`$ of the transmission coefficients of super-SP’s using the distribution $`P(t)`$ of the transmission coefficients of the original SP’s. Since the transmission coefficients of the original SP’s depend on the electron energy $`\epsilon `$, the fact that delocalization occurs at $`\epsilon =0`$ implies that a certain distribution, $`P_\text{c}(t)`$ — with $`P_\mathrm{c}(t^2)`$ being symmetric with respect to $`t^2=\frac{1}{2}`$ — is the fixed point (FP) of the RG transformation Eq. (1). The distribution $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ of the dimensionless conductance $`G`$ can be obtained from the relation $`G=t^2`$, so that $`P_\text{c}(G)P_\text{c}(t)/2t`$.

### B Critical exponent within the RG approach

Since the dimensionless SP height $`z_i`$ and the transmission coefficient $`t_i`$ at $`\epsilon =0`$ are related as $`t_i=(e^{z_i}+1)^{1/2}`$, transformation (1) determines the height of a super-SP through the heights of the five constituting SP’s. Correspondingly, the distribution $`P(G)`$ determines the distribution $`Q(z)`$ of the SP heights via $`Q(z)=P(G)(dG/dz)=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{cosh}^2(z/2)P\left[(e^z+1)^1\right]`$. In fact, $`Q(z)`$ is not a characteristic of the actual SP’s, but rather, as we will see below, represents a convenient parametrization of the conductance distribution.

The language of the SP heights provides a natural way to extract the critical exponent $`\nu `$. Suppose that the RG procedure starts with an initial distribution, $`Q_0(z)=Q_c(zz_0)`$, that is shifted from the critical distribution, $`Q_c(z)`$, by a small $`z_0\epsilon `$. Since $`z_01`$, the first RG step would yield $`Q_c(z\tau z_0)`$ with some number $`\tau `$ independent of $`z_0`$. After $`n`$ steps the center of the distribution will be shifted by $`z_{\mathrm{max},n}=\tau ^nz_0`$, while the sample size will be magnified by $`2^n`$. At the $`n`$th step corresponding to $`z_{\mathrm{max},n}1`$ a typical SP is no longer transmittable. Then the localization length $`\xi `$ should be identified with $`2^nz_0^\nu \epsilon ^\nu `$, with $`\nu =\mathrm{ln}2/\mathrm{ln}\tau `$. When the RG procedure is carried out numerically, one should check that $`z_0`$ is small enough so that $`z_{\mathrm{max},n}z_0`$ for large enough $`n`$. Consequently, the working formula for the critical exponent can be presented as

$$\nu =\frac{\mathrm{ln}2^n}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z_{\mathrm{max},n}}{z_0}\right)}$$
(2)
which should be independent of $`n`$ for large $`n`$.

### C Numerical results

In order to find the FP conductance distribution $`P_\text{c}(G)`$, we start from a certain initial distribution of transmission coefficients, $`P_0(t)`$ (see below). The distribution is discretized in at least $`1000`$ bins, such that the bin width is typically $`0.001`$ for the interval $`t[0,1]`$. From $`P_0(t)`$, we obtain $`t_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$, and substitute them into the RG transformation \[Eq. (1)\]. The phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},4`$ are chosen randomly from the interval $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j[0,2\pi ]`$. In this way we calculate at least $`10^7`$ super-transmission coefficients $`t^{}`$. The obtained histogram $`P_1(t^{})`$ is then smoothed using a Savitzky-Golay filter  in order to decrease statistical fluctuations. At the next step we repeat the procedure using $`P_1`$ as an initial distribution. We assume that the iteration process has converged when the mean-square deviation $`𝑑t[P_n(t)P_{n1}(t)]^2`$ of the distribution $`P_n`$ and its predecessor $`P_{n1}`$ deviate by less than $`10^4`$.

We are now able to study samples with short-ranged disorder. The actual initial distributions, $`P_0(t)`$, were chosen in such a way that corresponding conductance distributions, $`P_0(G)`$, were either uniform or parabolic, or identical to the FP distribution found semianalytically in Ref. . All these distributions are symmetric with respect to $`G=0.5`$. We find that, regardless of the choice of the initial distribution, after $`5`$$`10`$ steps the RG procedure converges to the same FP distribution which remains unchanged for another $`4`$$`6`$ RG steps. Small deviations from symmetry about $`G=0.5`$ finally accumulate due to numerical instabilities in the RG procedure, so that typically after $`15`$$`20`$ iterations the distribution becomes unstable and flows towards one of the classical FP’s $`P(G)=\delta (G)`$ or $`P(G)=\delta (G1)`$. We note that the FP distribution can be stabilized by forcing $`P_n(G)`$ to be symmetric with respect to $`G=0.5`$ in the course of the RG procedure.

Figure 2 illustrates the RG evolution of $`P(G)`$ and $`Q(z)`$. In order to reduce statistical fluctuations we average the FP distributions obtained from different $`P_0(G)`$’s. The FP distribution $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ exhibits a flat minimum around $`G=0.5`$, and sharp peaks close to $`G=0`$ and $`G=1`$. It is symmetric with respect to $`G0.5`$ with $`G=0.498\pm 0.004`$, where the error is the standard error of the mean of the obtained FP distribution. The FP distribution $`Q_c(z)`$ is close to Gaussian.

We now turn to the critical exponent $`\nu `$. As a result of the general instability of the FP distribution, an initial shift of $`Q_c(z)`$ by a value $`z_0`$ results in the further drift of the maximum position, $`z_{\mathrm{max},n}`$, away from $`z=0`$ after each RG step. As expected, $`z_{\mathrm{max},n}`$ depends linearly on $`z_0`$. This dependence is shown in Fig. 3 (inset) for different $`n`$ from $`1`$ to $`8`$. The critical exponent is then calculated from the slope according to Eq. (2). Figure 3 illustrates how the critical exponent converges with $`n`$ to the value $`2.39\pm 0.01`$. The error corresponds to a confidence interval of $`95\%`$ as obtained from the fit to a linear behavior.

Due to the high accuracy of our calculation of $`P_\text{c}(G)`$, we were able to reliably determine many central moments $`(GG)^m`$ of the FP distribution $`P_\text{c}(G)`$. These moments are plotted in Fig. 4.

### D Comparison with previous simulations

By dividing the CC network into units, the RG approach completely disregards the interference of the wave-function amplitudes between different units at each RG step. For this reason it is not clear to what extent this approach captures the main features and reproduces the quantitative predictions at the QH transition. Therefore, a comparison of the RG results with the results of direct simulations of the CC model is crucial. These direct simulations are usually carried out by employing either the quasi-1D version  or the 2D version  of the transfer-matrix method. The results of application of the version of Ref.  to the CC model are reported in Refs.  and . In Refs.  the version of Ref.  was utilized. For the critical exponent the values $`\nu =2.5\pm 0.5`$ (Ref. ) and later $`\nu =2.4\pm 0.2`$ (Ref. ) were obtained. Note that our result is in excellent agreement with these values, and is also consistent with the most precise $`\nu =2.35\pm 0.03`$. This already indicates a remarkable accuracy of the RG approach. In Refs.  the critical distribution $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ of the conductance was studied. $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ was found to be broad, which is in accordance with Fig. 2. However, a more detailed comparison is impossible, since the results of the simulations  do not obey the electron-hole symmetry condition $`P_\text{c}(G)=P_\text{c}(1G)`$. On the other hand, within the RG approach, the latter condition is satisfied automatically. Nevertheless, we can compare the moments of $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ to those calculated in Refs.  and . They are presented in Fig. 4. In Ref.  only the standard deviation $`\left(G^2G^2\right)^{1/2}0.3`$ was computed. Our result is $`0.316`$. In Ref.  the moments were fitted by two analytical functions, which are also shown in Fig. 4. They agree with our calculations up to the sixth moment. Here we point out that the moments obtained in Ref.  can hardly be distinguished from the moments of a uniform distribution. This reflects the fact that $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ is practically flat except for the peaks close to $`G=0`$ and $`G=1`$.

In Refs.  and  $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ was studied by methods which are not based on the CC model. Both works reported a broad distribution $`P_\text{c}(G)`$. In Ref.  $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ was found to be almost flat. The major difference between Ref.  and Fig. 2 is the behavior of $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ near the points $`G=0`$ and $`1`$. That is, $`P(G)`$ drops in Ref.  to zero at the ends, while Fig. 2 exhibits maxima. In Ref.  the behavior of $`P_\text{c}(G)`$ is qualitatively similar to Fig. 2, with maxima at $`G=0`$ and $`1`$. However, the statistics in Ref.  are rather poor, which again rules out the possibility of a more detailed comparison with our results.

Finally, we point out that our results agree completely with Refs.  where a similar RG treatment of the CC model was carried out. Our numerical data have a higher resolution, and show significantly less statistical noise. This is because we took advantage of faster computation by using the analytical solution of the RG \[Eq. (1)\]. Also, note that, in Refs.  and  the critical exponent $`\nu `$ was calculated using a procedure different from that described in Sec. II B. Nevertheless, the values of $`\nu `$ determined by both methods are close. We emphasize that a systematic improvement of the RG procedure, i.e., by inclusion of more than five SP’s into the basic RG unit as reported in Refs. , leads to similar results. The critical distribution of the conductance was also studied experimentally  in mesoscopic QH samples. Although an almost uniform conductance distribution consistent with theoretical predictions was found in Ref. , further detailed analysis of the mesoscopic pattern  has revealed the crucial role of the charging effects, which were neglected in all theoretical studies.

We conclude that the test of the RG approach against other simulations proves that this approach provides a very accurate quantitative description of the QH transition. It can now be used to study the influence of long-ranged correlations.

## III Macroscopic inhomogeneities

### A General considerations

A natural way to incorporate a quenched disorder into the CC model is to ascribe a certain random shift, $`z_Q`$, to each SP height, and to assume that the shifts at different SP positions, $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫^{}`$, are correlated as

$$z_Q(𝐫)z_Q(𝐫^{})|𝐫𝐫^{}|^\alpha ,$$
(3)
with $`\alpha >0`$. After this, the conventional transfer-matrix methods of Refs.  and  could be employed for numerically precise determination of $`G`$, the distribution $`P_\text{c}(G)`$, its moments, and most importantly, the critical exponent, $`\nu `$. However, the transfer-matrix approach for a 2D sample is usually limited to fairly small sizes (e.g., up to $`128`$ in Ref. ) due to the numerical complexity of the calculation. Therefore, the spatial decay of the power-law correlation by, say, more than an order in magnitude is hard to investigate for small $`\alpha `$. In principle the quasi-1D transfer-matrix method  can easily handle such decays at least in the longitudinal direction, where typically a few million lattice sites are considered iteratively. A major drawback, however, is the numerical generation of power-law correlated randomness since no iterative algorithm is known. This necessitates the complete storage of different samples of correlated SP height landscapes, and the advantage of the iterative transfer-matrix approach is lost. Furthermore, in order to deduce the critical exponent, one needs to perform finite-size scaling  with transverse sizes that should also be large enough to capture the main effect of the power-law disorder in the transverse direction. Consequently, even for a single transfer-matrix sample, the memory requirements add up to gigabytes.

On the other hand, the RG approach is perfectly suited to study the role of the quenched disorder. First, after each step of the RG procedure, the effective system size doubles. At the same time, the magnitude of the smooth potential, corresponding to the spatial scale $`r`$, falls off with $`r`$ as $`r^{\alpha /2}`$. As a result, the modification of the RG procedure due to the presence of the quenched disorder reduces to a rescaling of the disorder magnitude by a constant factor $`2^{\alpha /2}`$ at each RG step. Second, the RG approach operates with the conductance distribution, $`P_n(G)`$, which carries information about all the realizations of the quenched disorder within a sample of a size $`2^n`$. This is in contrast to the transfer-matrix approach, within which a small increase of the system size requires the averaging over the quenched disorder realizations to be conducted again.

In order to find out whether or not the critical behavior is affected by the quenched disorder, the following argument was put forward in Ref. . In the absence of the quenched disorder, the correlation length, $`\xi _0`$, for a given energy $`z_Q`$ in the vicinity of the transition is proportional to $`z_Q^\nu `$. Now consider a sample with an area $`A=\xi _0^2`$. The variance of the quenched disorder within the sample is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{A^2}_Ad^2rz_Q(𝐫)_Ad^2r^{}z_Q(𝐫^{})\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{1}{A^2}_Ad^2r_Ad^2r^{}z_Q(𝐫)z_Q(𝐫^{})\hfill \\ & \hfill & \xi _0^2_0^{\xi _0}𝑑rr^{1\alpha },\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where the last relation follows from Eq. (3).

The critical behavior remains unaffected by the quenched disorder if the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2/z_Q^20`$ as $`z_Q0`$ is met. Using Eq. (4), the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2/z_Q^2`$ can be presented as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}{z_Q^2}\{\begin{array}{cc}z_Q^{2\nu 2},\hfill & \alpha >2,\hfill \\ z_Q^{2\nu 2}\mathrm{ln}(z_Q^\nu ),\hfill & \alpha =2,\hfill \\ z_Q^{\alpha \nu 2},\hfill & \alpha <2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
We thus conclude that quenched disorder is irrelevant when

$$\begin{array}{cc}\nu >1,\hfill & \text{for }\alpha 2,\hfill \\ \alpha \nu >2,\hfill & \text{for }\alpha <2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The first condition corresponds to the original Harris criterion  for uncorrelated disorder, while the second condition is the extended Harris criterion. It yields the critical value of the exponent $`\alpha `$, i.e., $`\alpha _c=2/\nu `$.

The above consideration suggests the following algorithm. For the homogeneous case all SP’s constituting the new super-SP are assumed to be identical, which means that the distribution, of heights, $`Q_n(z)`$, for all of them is the same. For the correlated case these SP’s are no longer identical, but rather their heights are randomly shifted by the long-ranged potential. In order to incorporate this potential into the RG scheme, $`Q_n(z_i)`$ should be replaced by $`Q_n(z_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(n)})`$ for each SP, $`i`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(n)}`$ is the random shift. Then the power-law correlation of the quenched disorder enters into the RG procedure through the distribution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(n)}`$. That is, for each $`n`$ the distribution is Gaussian with the width $`\beta (2^n)^{\alpha /2}`$. For large enough $`n`$ the critical behavior should not depend on the magnitude $`\beta `$, but on the power, $`\alpha `$, only.

### B Numerical results

Here we report the results of the application of the algorithm outlined in the previous section. First, we find that for all values of $`\alpha >0`$ in correlator (3) the FP distribution is identical to the uncorrelated case within the accuracy of our calculation. In particular, $`G=0.498`$ is unchanged. However, the convergence to the FP is numerically less stable than for uncorrelated disorder due to the correlation-induced broadening of $`Q_n(z)`$ during each iteration step. In order to compute the critical exponent $`\nu (\alpha )`$ we start the RG procedure from $`Q_0(zz_0)`$, as in the uncorrelated case, but, in addition, we incorporate the random shifts caused by the quenched disorder in generating the distribution of $`z`$ at each RG step. The results shown in Fig. 5 illustrate that for increasing long-ranged character of the correlation (decreasing $`\alpha `$) the convergence to a limiting value of $`\nu `$ slows down drastically. Even after eight RG steps (i.e., a magnification of the system size by a factor of $`256`$), the value of $`\nu `$ with long-ranged correlations still differs appreciably from $`\nu =2.39`$ obtained for the uncorrelated case. The RG procedure becomes unstable after eight iterations, i.e., $`z_{\text{max},9}`$ can no longer be obtained reliably from $`Q_9(z)`$. Unfortunately, for small $`\alpha `$ the convergence is too slow to yield the limiting value of $`\nu `$ after eight steps only. For this reason, we are, strictly speaking, unable to unambiguously answer the question whether sufficiently long-ranged correlations result in an $`\alpha `$-dependent critical exponent $`\nu (\alpha )`$, or the value of $`\nu `$ eventually approaches the uncorrelated value of $`2.39`$. Nevertheless, the results in Fig. 5 indicate that the effective critical exponent exhibits a sensitivity to the long-ranged correlations even after a large magnification by $`256\times 256`$. Therefore, in realistic samples of finite sizes, macroscopic inhomogeneities are able to affect the results of scaling studies. Note further that as shown in the inset of Fig. 5 there is no simple scaling of $`\nu `$ values when plotted as function of an renormalized system size $`2^{\alpha n/2}`$. We emphasize that $`\nu (\alpha )`$ obtained after eight RG steps always exceeds the uncorrelated value. Thus, our results indicate that macroscopic inhomogeneities must lead to smaller values of $`\kappa 1/\nu `$. Experimentally, the value of $`\kappa `$ smaller than $`0.42`$ was reported in a number of early (see, e.g., Ref.  and references therein) as well as recent  works. This fact was accounted for by different reasons (such as temperature dependence of the phase breaking time, incomplete spin resolution, valley degeneracy in Si-based metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors, and inhomogeneity of the carrier concentration in GaAs-based structures with a wide spacer). Briefly, the spread of the $`\kappa `$ values was attributed to the fact that the temperatures were not low enough to assess the truly critical regime. The possibility of having $`\kappa <0.4`$ due to the correlation-induced dependence of the effective $`\nu `$ on the phase-breaking length or, ultimately, on the sample size, as in Fig. 5, was never considered.

Figure 6 shows the values of $`\nu `$ obtained after the eighth RG step as a function of the correlation exponent $`\alpha `$ for different dimensionless strengths $`\beta `$ of the quenched disorder. It is seen that in the domain of $`\alpha `$, where the values of $`\nu `$ differ noticeably from $`\nu =2.39`$, their dependence on $`\beta `$ is strong. According to the extended Harris criterion, $`\nu (\alpha )`$ is expected to exhibit a cusp at the $`\beta `$-independent value $`\alpha =\alpha _c=2/2.390.84`$. From our results in Fig. 6, two basic observations can be made. For a small enough magnitude of the long-range disorder, we see a smooth enhancement of $`\nu (\alpha )`$ with decreasing $`\alpha `$ without a cusp. Although such a behavior is due to the relatively small number of RG steps, the data might be relevant for realistic samples which have a finite size and a finite phase-breaking length governed by temperature. At the largest $`\beta =4`$, the cusp eventually shows up but the numerics becomes progressively ambiguous, forbidding us from going to even larger $`\beta `$. The origin for this strong $`\beta `$ dependence of our results is a profound difference between the classical and quantum percolation problems. This difference is discussed in the Sec. IV.

## IV Discussion

### A Classical case

In the classical limit, the motion of an a electron in a strong magnetic field and a smooth potential reduces to the drift of the Larmour circle along the equipotential lines. Correspondingly, the description of the delocalization transition reduces to the classical percolation problem. As mentioned above, for classical percolation the quenched disorder is expected to cause a crossover in the exponent $`\nu _c`$, describing the size of a critical equipotential from $`\nu _c=4/3`$ to $`\nu _c=2/\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <3/2`$. This prediction was made on the basis of Eq. (4). It was later tested by numerical simulations which utilized the Fourier filtering method to generate a long-range-correlated random potential. The exponent $`\nu _c(\alpha )`$ was studied using the same classical real-space RG method  that we utilized above. The values of $`\nu _c`$ inferred for $`\alpha >1`$ were consistently lower than $`2/\alpha `$. For example, $`\nu _c=5`$ was found for $`\alpha =0.4`$, whereas $`\nu _c=3.4\pm 0.3`$ was observed.

The classical version of the delocalization transition is instructive, since it allows one to trace how the critical equipotentials grow in size upon approaching the percolation threshold, and how the quenched disorder affects this growth. Roughly speaking, in the absence of long-ranged correlations, the growth of the equipotential size is due to the attachment of smaller equipotentials to the critical ones. As a result, the shape of a critical equipotential is dendritelike. As the threshold is approached, different critical equipotentials become connected through the narrow “arms” of the dendrite. Long-ranged correlations change this scenario drastically. As could be expected intuitively, and as follows from the simulations, critical equipotentials become more compact due to correlations. In fact, for $`\alpha <0.25`$, the “arms” play no role, i.e., the morphology of a critical equipotential becomes identical to its “backbone”. As a result, the formation of the infinite equipotential at the threshold occurs through a sequence of “broad” merges of compact critical equipotentials. The correlation-induced enhancement of $`\nu _c`$ indicates that due to these merges the size of the critical equipotential in the close vicinity of the threshold grows faster than in the uncorrelated case. Since our simulations also demonstrate the enhancement of the critical exponent due to the correlations, the main result of the present paper can be formulated as follows: quenched disorder affects classical and quantum percolation in a similar fashion.

### B Quantum case

Here we note that there is a crucial distinction between the classical case and the quantum regime of the electron motion considered in the present paper. Indeed, within the classical picture, correlated disorder implies that the motion of the guiding centers of the Larmour orbits in two neighboring regions is completely identical. In our study, we have incorporated the correlation of heights of the saddle points into the RG scheme. At the same time we have assumed that the Aharonov-Bohm phases acquired by an electron upon traversing the neighboring loops are completely uncorrelated. This assumption implies that, in addition to the long-ranged potential, a certain short-ranged disorder causing a spread in the perimeters of neighboring loops of the order of the magnetic length is present in the sample. The consequence of this short-range disorder is the sensitivity of our results to the value of $`\beta `$ which parametrizes the magnitude of the correlated potential. The presence of this short-range disorder affecting exclusively the Aharonov-Bohm phases significantly complicates the observation of a cusp in the $`\nu (\alpha )`$ dependence at $`\alpha 0.84`$, as might be expected from the extended Harris criterion.

Let us elaborate on these complications. A general form of the correlator for long-range disorder is

$$V(𝐫)V(𝐫^{})=V_0^2F\left(\frac{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}{l}\right)$$
(7)
where $`l`$ is the microscopic length; $`F(0)=1`$, $`F(x)x^\alpha `$ for $`x1`$. Now suppose that the correlator contains an additional short-range term $`W_0^2G(|𝐫𝐫^{}|/l)`$, with $`G(0)=1`$ and $`G(x)`$ falling off much more rapidly than $`F(x)`$ for $`x1`$. The extended Harris criterion implies that this term will not change $`\nu (\alpha )`$ in an infinite sample. It is obvious, however, that in order to “erase the memory” of short-range disorder, many more RG iterations have to be performed or, equivalently, much larger system sizes should be analyzed. Moreover, the larger the ratio $`W_0/V_0`$, the more challenging the numerics becomes. At this point, we emphasize that in quantum percolation the short-range term emulated by the randomness in the phases has a huge magnitude. Indeed, if we choose in the first RG step all five SP’s to be identical with power transmission coefficients equal to $`0.5`$, then due to the phases, the width of the $`Q(z)`$ distributions after the first step is already $`\pm 2.5`$. This translates into an enormously wide spread in the transmission coefficients of effective SP’s ranging from $`0.075`$ to $`0.92`$. In order to suppress this intrinsic “quantum white noise”, one either has to perform more RG steps or to increase the magnitude of $`V_0`$ (parameter $`\beta `$ in the notation of Sec. III). Both strategies are limited by numerical instabilities. In particular, a larger $`\beta `$ leads to more weight in the tails of the $`Q(z)`$ distribution in which the uncertainty is maximal. In other words, at large $`\beta `$ the role of rare realizations is drastically emphasized.

In fact, if we had to draw a quantitative conclusion on the basis of the accuracy we have achieved, we would base it on the curve in Fig. 6 corresponding to the maximal value $`\beta =4`$. Actually, for this $`\beta `$, the agreement with the extended Harris criterion is fairly good. In particular, for $`\alpha =0.5`$, we find $`\nu 3`$, whereas $`2/\alpha =4`$.

We also want to point out that the limited number (eight) of RG steps permitted by the numerics nevertheless allows us to trace the evolution of the wave functions from microscopic scales (of the order of the magnetic length) to macroscopic scales (of the order of $`5\mu \mathrm{m}`$) which are comparable to the sizes of the samples used in the experimental studies of scaling (see e.g., Refs.  and ) and much larger than the samples used for the studies of mesoscopic fluctuations.

### C Concluding remarks

It was argued for a long time that the enhanced value of the critical exponent $`\nu `$ extracted from the narrowing of the transition region with temperature has its origin in the long-ranged disorder present in GaAs-based samples. To our knowledge, the present work is the first attempt to quantify this argument. We indeed find that the random potential with a power-law correlator leads to the values of $`\nu `$ exceeding $`\nu 2.35`$, which is firmly established for short-ranged disorder. Another qualitative conclusion of our study is that the spatial scale at which the exponent $`\nu `$ assumes its “infinite-sample” value is much larger in the presence of the quenched disorder than in the uncorrelated case. In fact this scale can be of the order of microns. This conclusion can also have serious experimental implications. That is, even if the sample size is much larger than this characteristic scale, this scale can still exceed the phase-breaking length, which would mask the true critical behavior at the QH transition.

Our numerical results demonstrate that when the critical exponent depends weakly on the sample size (large $`n`$ in Fig. 5), the “saturated” value of $`\nu `$ depends crucially on the “strength” $`\beta `$ of the quenched disorder. Thus it is important to relate this strength to the observable quantities. We can roughly estimate $`\beta `$ assuming that themicroscopic spatial scale (lattice constant) is the magnetic length, $`l`$, while the microscopic energy scale (the SP height) is the width of the Landau level. We denote by $`\gamma `$ a typical fluctuation of the filling factor within a region with size $`L`$. Then the estimate for $`\beta `$ is $`\beta \gamma \left(L/l\right)^{\alpha /2}`$. Naturally, for a given $`\gamma `$, the larger values of $`\alpha `$ correspond to the “stronger” quenched disorder parameter $`\beta `$.

Note, finally, that throughout this paper we have considered the localization of a single electron. The role of electron-electron interactions in the scaling of the integer QH effect was recently addressed in Refs.  and .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank F. Evers, F. Hohls, R. Klesse, G. Landwehr, A. Mirlin, and A. Zee for stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the NSF-DAAD collaborative research Grant No. INT-0003710. P.C., R.A.R., and M.S. also gratefully acknowledge the support of DFG within the Schwerpunktprogramm “Quanten-Hall-Systeme” and SFB 393.