format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

RUNHETC-2002-7

Fermion Schwinger’s function for the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model

Benjamin Doyon1 and Sergei Lukyanov1,2

1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University

Piscataway, NJ 08855-0849, USA

2L.D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics

Kosygina 2, Moscow, Russia

Abstract

We study the Euclidean two-point function of Fermi fields in the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model on the whole distance (energy) scale. We perform perturbative and renormalization group analyses to obtain the short-distance asymptotics, and numerically evaluate the long-distance behavior by using the form factor expansion. Our results illustrate the use of bosonization and conformal perturbation theory in the renormalization group analysis of a fermionic theory, and numerically confirm the validity of the form factor expansion in the case of the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model.

May, 02

1. Introduction

Correlation functions in 2D integrable models have attracted much attention from experts in Quantum Field Theory (QFT). The possibility of their exploration on the whole length (energy) scale is of great importance. It gives a rare opportunity to probe non-perturbatively general principles of QFT. There is also a pragmatic reason for this interest. The past two decades have witnessed experimental work to identify and study quasi one-dimensional systems (for a review, see \[1,,2\]). There were collective efforts of many physicists to apply integrable QFT to describe such physical systems . For this purpose, a non-perturbative treatment of the correlation functions in integrable models seems to be valuable. It is worth noting that in recent years, angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy has matured into a powerful experimental method for probing the electronic Green’s functions in quasi one-dimensional systems . Hence two-point fermion correlators in integrable theories deserve special consideration.

In this paper we are studying Schwinger’s function (Green’s function in the Euclidean region)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma ^{}(0)$$

in the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model, which is described by the Euclidean action1 The definition of the coupling constant $`g`$ is not conventional, but convenient for our purposes.

$$𝒜=d^2x\left\{\underset{\sigma =,}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma \gamma ^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma +\frac{\pi g}{8}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Psi }\right)^2\right\}.$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$ is a doublet of Dirac Fermi fields, and the Pauli matrices $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=(\tau ^1,\tau ^2,\tau ^3)`$ act on the “colour” indices $`\sigma =,`$. The QFT (1.1) possesses a variety of interesting properties . For instance, it is an asymptotically free theory (for $`g>0`$) with unbroken chiral symmetry, and its mass scale $`M`$ appears through dimensional transmutation. The model belongs to the very special class of field theories which admit an infinite number of conservation laws preventing particle production in scattering processes. The Hamiltonian of (1.1) was diagonalized by the Bethe Ansatz techniques in \[6,,7\].

Also, it is a popular model for the interacting one-dimensional electron gas; as is known \[8,,9,,10,,11,,12\], (1.1) describes the scaling limit of the half-filled Hubbard chain,

$$𝐇_{Hub}=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\underset{\sigma =,}{}\left(c_{j,\sigma }^{}c_{j+1,\sigma }+c_{j+1,\sigma }^{}c_{j,\sigma }\right)+U\left(c_{j,}^{}c_{j,}\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(c_{j,}^{}c_{j,}\frac{1}{2}\right)\right\}.$$

where $`\{c_{j,\sigma }^{},c_{j^{},\sigma ^{}}\}=\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\delta _{jj^{}}.`$ More precisely, if one sends the coupling constant $`U+0`$, the correlation length

$$R_c=\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{U}}e^{\frac{2\pi }{U}}$$

diverges and the correlation functions in the Hubbard chain at large lattice separations assume certain scaling forms. In particular, if $`|jj^{}|1`$, the equal-time fermion correlator can be written as

$$c_{j^{},\sigma ^{}}c_{j,\sigma }^{}\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}(j^{}j)\right)}{\pi (j^{}j)}F(|j^{}j|/R_c).$$

The scaling function $`F`$ here is directly related to the field-theoretic correlation function:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma (0)=\frac{\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }}{2\pi }\frac{\gamma _\mu x^\mu }{|x|^2}F(M|x|).$$

Our analysis of the fermion correlator is based, on the one hand, on recently proposed expressions for the form factors of soliton-creating operators (or topologically charged fields) in the sine-Gordon model 2 Without taking normalization into consideration, some of such form factors were considered previously in Refs. \[14,,15\], and on the other hand, on a conformal perturbative analysis of two-point correlation functions involving such fields. The form factor expressions can be used to obtain the long-distance behavior of these two-point functions, whereas Conformal Perturbation Theory (CPT) gives their short-distance expansion . The interest in some of these topological fields stems from their rôle in fermionic theories. For instance, it is well-known that the sine-Gordon model is equivalent to the massive Thirring model . The components of the Thirring fermion field are then associated with soliton-creating operators of topological charge $`\pm 1`$ and Lorenz spin $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$, and correlators of these operators in the sine-Gordon model are related to fermion correlators in the massive Thirring model . More interestingly, the sine-Gordon theory is closely related to a model which is an integrable deformation of (1.1) . This “deformed” (or anisotropic) $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model exhibits the so-called spin-charge separation, which is translated by its representation in terms of two bosonic theories, one for the charge part, one for the spin part. The spin part of the fermion field corresponds to soliton-creating operators of topological charge $`\pm 1`$ and Lorenz spin $`\pm \frac{1}{4}`$ in the sine-Gordon model, and its charge part is related to similar operators in a free massless bosonic theory.

Although form factor expansions and CPT are very effective tools for the study of, respectively, the long-distance and the short-distance asymptotics of Schwinger’s functions \[16,,19,,20\], one usually gets into trouble when trying to compare both predictions in a region where they are expected to be accurate enough. Indeed, in general, one has the freedom of choosing the overall multiplicative normalization in the CPT expansion as well as in the form factor expansion, and there is no systematic way of relating both normalizations. For the case of the soliton-creating operators, the constant relating both normalizations was conjectured in . It allows one to make unambiguous numerical predictions on the correlation functions of soliton-creating fields on the whole distance scale using the combined CPT and form factor data. We performed this calculation for the case of the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring fermion.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall some standard results concerning the anisotropic $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model and its relation to the sine-Gordon theory. In Section 3, the short-distance behavior of correlators of the soliton-creating operators is examined by means of CPT. Here we also perform a Renormalization Group (RG) resummation of the perturbative expansion in the vicinity of the Kosterlitz-Thouless point which corresponds to the $`SU(2)`$ limit of the fermion theory. In Section 4, the perturbative calculation is adapted to the momentum space fermion Schwinger’s function; we give the two-point function in the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model to third order in the running coupling. This particular result was recently obtained by standard perturbation theory in the modified Minimal Subtraction ($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) scheme  (calculations in  concern, in fact, fermion correlators in a general non-abelian Thirring model). We then compare the result of Ref.  with ours and explicitly relate our RG scheme to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme. In Section 5, the long-distance behavior of the fermion correlator in the anisotropic $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model is analyzed by means of the form factors given in . In Section 6, we examine properties of the fermion spectral density in the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model. The outcome of our calculations is discussed in Section 7, where we numerically compare the short-distance behavior of the scaling function $`F`$ (1.1), (1.1) (from the RG analysis) with its long-distance behavior (from its form factor expansion).

Finally, we note that this work has an essential overlap with Ref. , where (1.1) was considered as a model of one-dimensional Mott insulators.

2. Bosonization of the anisotropic $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model

The $`SU(2)`$-invariant Thirring model admits an integrable generalization such that the underlying $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is explicitly broken down to $`U(1)Z_2`$:

$$𝒜_{DTM}=d^2x\left\{\underset{\sigma =,}{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma \gamma _\mu ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma +\frac{\pi g_{}}{8}J_\mu ^3J_\mu ^3+\frac{\pi g_{}}{8}\left(J_\mu ^1J_\mu ^1+J_\mu ^2J_\mu ^2\right)\right\},$$

where

$$J_\mu ^A=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \tau ^A\mathrm{\Psi }$$

are vector currents. The model (2.1) is renormalizable, and its coupling constants $`g_{},g_{}`$ should be understood as “running” ones. In particular, in the RG-invariant domain $`g_{}|g_{}|`$, all RG trajectories originate from the line $`g_{}=0`$ of UV stable fixed points, and (2.1) indeed defines a quantum field theory3 The Hamiltonians corresponding to opposite choices of the sign of $`g_{}`$ are unitary equivalent, so the sign of this coupling does not affect the physical observables.. Hence, in this domain (which is the only one that we discuss here), each RG trajectory is uniquely characterized by the limiting value

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}g_{}(\mathrm{})$$

of the running coupling $`g_{}(\mathrm{})`$ at extremely short distances ($`\mathrm{}`$ stands for the length scale), i.e. the theory (2.1) depends only on the dimensionless parameter $`\rho `$, besides the mass scale $`M`$ appearing through dimensional transmutation.

As is well known (see e.g. \[3,,5\]), the model (2.1) can be bosonized in terms of the sine-Gordon field $`\phi (x)`$,

$$𝒜_{sG}=d^2x\left\{\frac{1}{16\pi }(_\nu \phi )^22\mu \mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )\right\},$$

with the coupling constant $`\beta `$ in (2.1) related to $`\rho `$ (2.1) by

$$\beta ^2=\frac{1}{1+\rho },$$

and a free massless boson. Then the mass scale $`M`$ is identified with the mass of the sine-Gordon solitons, which is related to the parameter $`\mu `$ by

$$\mu =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{1+\rho })}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\rho }{1+\rho })}\left[M\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\rho })}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2\rho })}\right]^{\frac{2\rho }{1+\rho }}.$$

The precise operator relations between (2.1) and (2.1) can be found in . In particular, for the two-point fermion correlator, the bosonization implies that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma ^{}(0)=\frac{\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }}{2\pi }\frac{\gamma _\mu x^\mu }{|x|^{\frac{3}{2}}}F_{1/4}^{(1)}(r),$$

where we use the notation $`F_\omega ^{(n)}(n=1,\omega =1/4)`$ for the real function which depends only on the distance $`r=|x|`$ (and implicitly on the the mass scale $`M`$ and the parameter $`\rho `$), and which, in essence, coincides with the Euclidean correlator of nonlocal topologically charged fields in the model (2.1):

$$𝒪_{\omega \beta }^n(x)𝒪_{\omega \beta }^n(0)=\left(e^{i\pi }\frac{\overline{\mathrm{z}}}{\mathrm{z}}\right)^{\omega n}F_\omega ^{(n)}(r),$$

where $`\mathrm{z}=\mathrm{x}^1+i\mathrm{x}^2`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{z}}=\mathrm{x}^1i\mathrm{x}^2`$. Again we refer the reader to the paper  for the precise definition of the field $`𝒪_a^n(a=\omega \beta )`$. Here we note that it carries an integer topological charge $`n`$, a scale dimension

$$d=\frac{2\omega ^2}{1+\rho }+\frac{n^2}{8}(1+\rho ),$$

and a Lorentz spin $`\omega n`$.

3. Short-distance expansion

3.1. Conformal perturbation theory

We now turn to the analysis of the short-distance behavior of the correlator (2.1). In general, one can examine this behavior via the operator product expansion, for instance:

$$F_\omega ^{(n)}(r)=C_𝐈(r)+C_{\mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )}(r)\mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )+\mathrm{}.$$

The structure functions ($`C_𝐈(r)`$, $`C_{\mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )}(r)`$, etc.) admit power series expansions in $`\mu ^2`$, which can be obtained by using the standard rules of CPT, whereas the vacuum expectation values of the associated operators are in general non-analytical at $`\mu =0`$. In the perturbative treatment, we regard the sine-Gordon model (2.1) as a Gaussian conformal field theory

$$𝒜_{Gauss}=d^2x\frac{1}{16\pi }(_\nu \phi )^2$$

perturbed by the relevant operator $`\mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )`$. Notice that in the limit $`\mu 0`$, the nonlocal topologically charged fields $`𝒪_a^n`$ can be expressed in terms of the right and left moving parts of a free massless field $`\phi =\phi _R(\mathrm{z})\phi _L(\overline{\mathrm{z}})`$ governed by the action (3.1):

$$𝒪_a^n|_{\mu 0}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_a^n=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(a\frac{n}{4\beta }\right)\phi _R(\mathrm{z})i\left(a+\frac{n}{4\beta }\right)\phi _L(\overline{\mathrm{z}})\right\}.$$

CPT gives the structure function $`C_𝐈`$ (3.1) in the form

$$\left(e^{i\pi }\frac{\overline{\mathrm{z}}}{\mathrm{z}}\right)^{\omega n}C_𝐈(r)=\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{\omega \beta }^n(x)\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_{\omega \beta }^n(0)\mathrm{exp}\left(2\mu ^{}d^2y\mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )\right)_{Gauss},$$

where $`\mathrm{}_{Gauss}`$ is the expectation value in the Gaussian theory $`𝒜_{Gauss}`$ and the exponential is understood as a perturbative series in $`\mu `$. In the perturbative series, the integrals will have power law IR divergences which should be thrown away . Such a regularization prescription is indicated by the prime near the integral symbol. In the absence of logarithmic divergences, throwing away the divergences is equivalent to treating the integrals as analytical continuations in the field dimensions . Considering only the part of $`F_\omega ^{(n)}`$ perturbative in $`\mu `$, it is a simple matter to obtain

$$F_\omega ^{(n)}(r)=r^{2d}\left\{1+J_n(2\omega \beta ^2,2\beta ^2)\mu ^2r^{44\beta ^2}+O(r^{88\beta ^2},r^2)\right\},$$

where $`d`$ is given by (2.1) and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_n(a,c)=& ^{}d^2xd^2yx^{a+\frac{n}{2}}\overline{x}^{a\frac{n}{2}}(1x)^{a\frac{n}{2}}(1\overline{x})^{a+\frac{n}{2}}\times \hfill \\ & y^{a\frac{n}{2}}\overline{y}^{a+\frac{n}{2}}(1y)^{a+\frac{n}{2}}(1\overline{y})^{a\frac{n}{2}}|xy|^{2c}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Two comments are in order here. First, the next omitted term in the short distance expansion (3.1) comes from either the next term in the perturbative series for $`C_𝐈`$ $`\left(O(r^{88\beta ^2})\right)`$ or from the leading contribution of $`\mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )`$ $`\left(O(r^2)\right)`$ in (3.1). Therefore, the $`\mu ^2`$ term written in (3.1) is a leading correction to the scale invariant part of the correlation function for $`\frac{1}{2}<\beta ^2<1`$ only. Second, in writing (3.1) we specify the overall multiplicative normalization of the nonlocal topologically charged field $`𝒪_{\omega \beta }^n`$ by the condition

$$F_\omega ^{(n)}(r)r^{2d}\mathrm{as}r0.$$

The integral (3.1) can be calculated using, for instance, techniques illustrated in . The result can be expressed in terms of two generalized hypergeometric functions at unity:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& A(q,c)={}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(c,c1,1q;cq,2;1)\hfill \\ & B(q,c)={}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(q,q+1,c+2;c+q+2,c+q+3;1).\hfill \end{array}$$

With $`q=a+n/2`$ and $`\overline{q}=an/2`$, we found:

$$J_n(a,c)=J^{(1)}+J^{(2)}+J^{(3)}+J^{(4)},$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J^{(1)}=& q\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\overline{q})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+c+q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+c+\overline{q})\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1c)\times \hfill \\ & \left(\mathrm{cos}(\pi (q\overline{q}))\mathrm{cos}(\pi c)\mathrm{cos}(\pi (q+\overline{q}+c))\right)A(q,c)A(\overline{q},c),\hfill \\ \hfill J^{(2)}=& \frac{\pi ^2q\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\overline{q})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+c+q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1c\overline{q})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{q})\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+c+\overline{q})}A(q,c)B(\overline{q},c),\hfill \\ \hfill J^{(3)}=& \frac{\pi ^2\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+c+\overline{q})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1cq)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{q})\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+c+q)}B(q,c)A(\overline{q},c),\hfill \\ \hfill J^{(4)}=& \frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1+q)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(2+c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1c\overline{q})\mathrm{\Gamma }(2c\overline{q})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\overline{q})\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+c+q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+c+q)}B(q,c)B(\overline{q},c).\hfill \end{array}$$

Notice that for $`n=0`$, the integral (3.1) was calculated previously in the work  (see also Ref. ).

3.2. Renormalization group resummation

Here we discuss the short-distance expansion of the correlator (2.1) for $`\beta ^2`$ sufficiently close to unity. For this purpose, it is convenient to use the notation

$$ϵ=1\beta ^21.$$

Our previous CPT analysis suggests the following expansion for the structure function $`C_𝐈`$:

$$C_𝐈(r)=r^{2d}\left\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_k\left(\mu r^{2ϵ}\right)^{2k}\right\},$$

where the coefficients $`c_k`$ are given by certain $`4k`$-fold Coulomb-type integrals. Evidently, this expansion cannot be directly applied in the limit $`ϵ0`$, where the perturbation $`\mathrm{cos}(\beta \phi )`$ of the Gaussian action (3.1) becomes marginal. However, being expressed as a function of the scaling distance $`Mr`$, the structure function $`C_𝐈(r)`$ should admit the following form:

$$C_𝐈(r)=Z_{n,\omega }C_𝐈^{(ren)}(Mr),$$

where the $`r`$-independent renormalization constant $`Z_{n,\omega }`$ absorbs all divergences at $`ϵ=0`$ and renders the renormalized structure function $`C_𝐈^{(ren)}`$ finite in this limit. The divergences of the renormalization constant $`Z_{n,\omega }`$ should be directly related to the singularities of $`C_𝐈^{(ren)}`$ at $`Mr=0`$; they point out that the power law asymptotic behavior (3.1) is modified by logarithmic corrections at $`ϵ=0`$.

In order to explore the short-distance behavior for $`ϵ1`$, it is convenient to return to the fermion description. Being essentially the corresponding structure function in the renormalizable QFT (2.1), $`C_𝐈(r)`$ obeys the Callan-Symanzik equation. Therefore it can be written in the form:

$$C_𝐈(r)=r^{2d}\mathrm{exp}\left\{2_0^r\frac{dr}{r}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_gd\right)\right\}.$$

Here the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ is supposed to have a regular power series expansion in terms of the running coupling constants $`g_,=g_,(r)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_g=\underset{l,k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma _{lk}g_{}^lg_{}^{2k}.$$

Notice that only even powers of the coupling $`g_{}`$ appear in this expansion (see footnote $`\mathrm{\#}3`$). In writing (3.1), we use the normalization condition (3.1), and take into account that the UV limiting value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ coincides with the scale dimension (2.1),

$$\underset{r0}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_g=d.$$

We have also assumed that there is no resonance mixing of the operator $`𝒪_{\omega \beta }^n`$ with other fields, so it is renormalized as a singlet. One can easily check that this is indeed the case for the operators with $`|\omega |<\frac{1}{2}+\frac{|n|}{4}`$.

Condition (3.1) already encloses an important restriction on the series (3.1). Indeed, using Eqs. (2.1) and (2.1) along with the condition that the line of UV stable fixed points corresponds to $`g_{}=0,`$ one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_g=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}(g_{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(g_{})g_{}^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(g_{})g_{}^4+O(g_{}^6),$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}(g_{})=\frac{2\omega ^2}{1+\frac{g_{}}{2}}+\frac{n^2}{8}\left(1+\frac{g_{}}{2}\right).$$

The values of the other coefficients $`\gamma _{l,k1}`$ appearing in (3.1) essentially depend on the choice of a renormalization scheme, i.e on the precise specification of the running coupling constants. The latter obey the RG equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill r\frac{dg_{}}{dr}=\frac{g_{}^2}{f_{}(g_{},g_{})}& \\ \hfill r\frac{dg_{}}{dr}=\frac{g_{}g_{}}{f_{}(g_{},g_{})}.& \end{array}$$

Perturbatively, $`f_{}(g_{},g_{})`$ and $`f_{}(g_{},g_{})`$ admit loop expansions as power series in $`g_{}`$ and $`g_{}`$. In this work, we will use the scheme introduced by Al.B. Zamolodchickov \[23,,27\]. He showed that under a suitable diffeomorphism in $`g_{}`$ and $`g_{}`$, the functions $`f_{}`$ and $`f_{}`$ can be chosen to be equal to each other, and furthermore, to be equal to

$$f_{}=f_{}=1+\frac{g_{}}{2}.$$

With this choice for the $`\beta `$-function, the RG equations (3.1) can be integrated. To do this, we note that this system of differential equations has a first integral, the numerical value of which is determined through the condition (2.1),

$$g_{}^2g_{}^2=(2\rho )^2.$$

Using (3.1), (3.1) and (2.1), equations (3.1) are solved as

$$g_{}=2\rho \frac{1+q}{1q},g_{}=\rho \frac{4\sqrt{q}}{1q},$$

where

$$q\left(\frac{1q}{\rho }\right)^{2ϵ}=(r\mathrm{\Lambda })^{4ϵ}.$$

The normalization scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is another integration constant of the system (3.1). It is of the order of the physical mass scale and supposed to have a regular loop expansion,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=M\mathrm{exp}\left(\tau _0+\tau _1\rho +\tau _2\rho ^2+\mathrm{}\right).$$

It should be noted that the even coefficients $`\tau _0,\tau _2,\mathrm{}`$ are essentially ambiguous and can be chosen at will. A variation of these coefficients corresponds to a smooth redefinition of the coupling constants which does not affect the $`\beta `$-function. By contrast, the odd constants $`\tau _{2k+1}`$ are unambiguous and precisely specified once the form of the RG equations is fixed. It is possible to show \[23,,27\] that the odd constants vanish in the Zamolodchikov’s scheme:

$$\tau _{2k+1}=0(k=0,1\mathrm{}).$$

Once the coefficients $`\tau _{2k}`$ in (3.1) are chosen, the running coupling constants are completely specified, and all coefficients in the power series expansion (3.1) are determined unambiguously. They can be explicitly calculated by comparing the CPT result (3.1) with the form (3.1). From (3.1),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_g=\frac{1}{2}r_r\mathrm{log}\left(C_𝐈\right)$$

and, as it follows from the general CPT expansion (3.1) and the definition (3.1) of $`q`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ can be expanded in powers of $`q`$. Explicitly, using the CPT result (3.1),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_g=d2ϵ\left(\frac{\sqrt{\rho }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{4ϵ}\mu ^2J_n(2\omega (1ϵ),2ϵ2)q+O(q^2).$$

Moreover, the coefficients in this expansion are power series in $`\rho `$. For example, using Eqs. (2.1) and (3.1), it is easy to show that

$$\frac{\pi \mu }{ϵ}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\rho }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{2ϵ}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\overline{\tau }_0\rho +\left(2\overline{\tau }_0\frac{1}{2}\right)\rho ^2\left(2\tau _2+2\overline{\tau }_0\frac{2}{3}\zeta (3)\frac{1}{2}\right)\rho ^3+O(\rho ^4)\right\}.$$

Here and after, we set for convenience

$$e^{\tau _0}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{8}}e^{\gamma _E+\overline{\tau }_0},$$

where $`\gamma _E=0.5772\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler constant. The integral $`J_n(2\omega (1ϵ),2ϵ2)`$ appearing in (3.1) can also be expanded in powers of $`\rho `$, using $`ϵ=\rho /(1+\rho )`$. In Appendix A, we quote the first few terms in the expansion of $`J_n(a,c)`$ (3.1) around $`c=2`$, which are obtained through the use of (3.1). From this expansion, it is easy to obtain the expansion of $`J_n(2\omega (1ϵ),2ϵ2)`$ in powers $`\rho `$. Then, one can compare the CPT expansion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ in $`q`$ and $`\rho `$ (3.1) with the corresponding expansion (3.1) coming from the RG analysis (where of course one should expand $`g_{}`$ and $`g_{}^2`$ in $`q`$ and $`\rho `$ from (3.1)). This determines the coefficients $`\gamma _{l,1}`$ for $`l=0,1,2`$. If we want an expression valid to order $`g^4`$, we need one more coefficient: $`\gamma _{0,2}`$. In principle, it can be obtained from the expansion in $`\rho `$ of the coefficients $`c_2`$ in the series (3.1). In Section 5, we describe a way to find $`\gamma _{0,2}`$ without the cumbersome calculation beyond the lowest CPT order.

In order to simplify the form of the structure function (3.1), it is convenient, instead of using the coefficients $`\gamma _{l,k}`$, to parametrize the first few terms of the power series expansions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1,2)}(g_{})`$ (3.1) as:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(g_{})=\frac{1}{1+\frac{g_{}}{2}}\left\{\frac{n^2}{32}\frac{u_1}{2}+v_1g_{}+\left(v_2\frac{3u_2}{2}\right)g_{}^2+O(g_{}^3)\right\},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(g_{})=\frac{v_2}{2}+O(g_{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

The explicit values of the coefficients $`u_1`$, $`u_2`$, $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ in (3.1) are given in Appendix B.

Let us substitute (3.1) and (3.1) into Eq. (3.1). The RG flow equations (3.1) allow one to evaluate the integral and to write the structure function in the form (3.1) with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C_𝐈^{(ren)}=& (Mr)^{4\omega ^2n^2(1+\rho ^2)/4}\left(g_{}^2\right)^{\omega ^2n^2(1\rho ^2)/16}\times \hfill \\ & e^{u_1g_{}u_2g_{}^3}\left(1+g_{}^2(v_1+v_2g_{})+O(g^4)\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$Z_{n,\omega }=M^{2d}\left(2^{\rho +1}\sqrt{\rho }e^{\tau _0\rho +\tau _2\rho ^3+\mathrm{}}\right)^{n^2/22d}e^{2\rho u_1+(2\rho )^3u_2+\mathrm{}}.$$

Notice that the transformation

$$Z_{n,\omega }e^{w_0+w_1(2\rho )^2+w_2(2\rho )^4+\mathrm{}}Z_{n,\omega },$$

where the series contains only even powers of $`\rho `$ with arbitrary coefficients $`w_k`$, accompanied by the transformation

$$C_𝐈^{(ren)}e^{w_0w_1(g_{}^2g_{}^2)w_2(g_{}^2g_{}^2)^2+\mathrm{}}C_𝐈^{(ren)}$$

does not affect the structure function $`C_𝐈`$ (3.1) due to relation (3.1).

Our prime interest in this work is the correlation function (2.1). For $`n=1`$ and $`\omega =\frac{1}{4}`$, the relations obtained above lead to the following perturbative expansion for the two-point fermion correlator in the anisotropic $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}(x)& \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma (0)=\frac{Z_\mathrm{\Psi }\delta _{\sigma ^{}\sigma }}{2\pi }\frac{\gamma _\mu x^\mu }{|x|^{2+\frac{\rho ^2}{4}}}\left(g_{}^2\right)^{\frac{\rho ^2}{16}}\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{3}{16}g_{}\frac{\overline{\tau }_0}{32}g_{}^3\}\times \hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{3}{16}\left(\overline{\tau }_0\frac{1}{4}\right)g_{}^2\frac{3}{16}\left(\overline{\tau }_0^2\frac{1}{6}\overline{\tau }_0\frac{1}{16}\right)g_{}g_{}^2+O(g^4)\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$Z_\mathrm{\Psi }=(4\rho )^{\frac{\rho ^2}{8(1+\rho )}}\left(M\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\right)^{\frac{\rho ^3}{4(1+\rho )}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{3\rho }{8}\frac{\gamma _E}{4}\rho ^3+O(\rho ^4)\right\}.$$

In Eq. (3.1), we use the notation $`\overline{\tau }_0`$ defined by (3.1).

We now set $`\rho =0`$ and $`g_{}=g_{}=g`$ in (3.1) to obtain the perturbative expansion of the scaling function $`F`$ (1.1) for the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model,

$$F^{(pert)}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{3}{16}g+\frac{3}{16}\left(\overline{\tau }_0\frac{1}{4}\right)g^2\frac{3}{16}\left(\overline{\tau }_0^2\frac{1}{16}\right)g^3+O(g^4)\right\}.$$

Here the running coupling constant $`g`$ solves the equation

$$g^1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(g)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}e^{\gamma _E+\overline{\tau }_0}Mr\right),$$

which is the limit $`\rho =0`$ of Eqs. (3.1) and (3.1).

Let us stress here that, if the perturbation series could be summed, then the function $`F`$ should not depend on the auxiliary parameter $`\overline{\tau }_0`$:

$$\frac{F}{\overline{\tau }_0}=0.$$

This is, however, not true if we truncate the series (3.1) at some order $`N`$ (for instance, if one leaves only the terms explicitly written in (3.1)). In this case,

$$\frac{}{\overline{\tau }_0}F_N^{(pert)}=O\left(g^{N+1}\right),$$

where the truncated series is denoted by $`F_N^{(pert)}`$. In fitting numerical data with (3.1), we may treat $`\overline{\tau }_0`$ as an optimization parameter, allowing us to minimize or at least develop a feeling for the effects of the remainder of the series. Similar ideas have been discussed for QCD in Ref. .

It may be worth mentioning that Eq.(3.1), along with explicit values of the coefficients quoted in Appendix B, allows one to immediately determine the short-distance expansion of some other conventional correlators in the (anisotropic) $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model. For example, since the sine-Gordon field $`\phi `$ (2.1) itself can be defined by the relation

$$\phi =i\frac{}{a}𝒪_a^n|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n=0}{a=0}},$$

and the spin current $`J_\mu ^3`$ (2.1) is bosonized as

$$J_\mu ^3=\frac{\beta }{2\pi }_\mu \phi ,$$

we can use (3.1) to obtain the short-distance expansion of the current-current correlator. For the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model (1.1) one has,

$$J_\mu ^A(x)J_\nu ^B(0)=\frac{\delta ^{AB}}{\pi ^2|x|^2}\left\{\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{2x_\mu x_\nu }{|x|^2}\right)I_1+\delta _{\mu \nu }I_2\right\},$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}& I_1=1\frac{g}{2}+\left(\overline{\tau }_0+\frac{1}{4}\right)\frac{g^2}{2}\overline{\tau }_0(\overline{\tau }_0+1)\frac{g^3}{2}+\left(\frac{\overline{\tau }_0^3}{2}+\overline{\tau }_0^2+\frac{\overline{\tau }_0}{4}\frac{13}{128}\frac{7}{16}\zeta (3)\right)g^4+O(g^5),\hfill \\ & I_2=\frac{g^2}{4}\left\{12\overline{\tau }_0g+\overline{\tau }_0(3\overline{\tau }_0+1)g^2\left(4\overline{\tau }_0^3+\frac{7}{2}\overline{\tau }_0^2+\frac{\overline{\tau }_0}{2}\frac{13}{16}\frac{7}{2}\zeta (3)\right)g^3+O(g^4)\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$

and the running coupling constant $`g`$ is the same as in (3.1).

4. Perturbative expansion of the momentum-space correlation function

4.1. Large-momentum asymptotics

Perturbative calculations of fermion Green’s functions in renormalizable 2D models with four-fermion interaction are widely covered in the literature. The results in this domain are usually expressed in momentum space. Hence it seems appropriate at this point to adapt the calculation of the previous section to the momentum-space fermion correlator, giving a large-momentum expansion.

The RG analysis performed in the previous section can be applied in essentially the same way to the Fourier transform of the fermion correlator (2.1):

$$d^2xe^{ipx}\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (x)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma ^{}(0)=i\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\frac{\gamma ^\mu p_\mu }{p^2}\stackrel{~}{F}(p^2).$$

Here and after we use the notation $`p^2=p^\mu p_\mu `$. From the result of CPT, (3.1), one immediately obtains the large momentum expansion of this Fourier transform:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=Q(d_\mathrm{\Psi })(p^2)^{d_\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{2}}\left\{1+\frac{Q(d_\mathrm{\Psi }2ϵ)}{Q(d_\mathrm{\Psi })}J_1(\beta ^2/2,2\beta ^2)\mu ^2(p^2)^{2ϵ}+O((p^2)^{4ϵ},p^2)\right\},$$

where

$$Q(a)=2^{12a}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}a)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+a)},$$

and

$$d_\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\rho ^2}{4(1+\rho )}$$

is the scale dimension of the fermion field. The factor $`Q(d_\mathrm{\Psi }2ϵ)/Q(d_\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is essentially the only source of differences between the RG treatments in coordinate space and in momentum space. The RG analysis in momentum space goes as in the previous section. The perturbative part in $`\mu `$ of $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ obeys the Callan-Symanzik equation, so it can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{(pert)}=Q(d_\mathrm{\Psi })(p^2)^{d_\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{p^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_gd_\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\right\},$$

where the function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g`$ admits a power series expansion in terms of the momentum-space running coupling constants $`g_,=g_,(p^2)`$ depending on the Lorentz invariant $`p^2`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g=\underset{l,k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{l,k}g_{}^lg_{}^{2k}.$$

Notice that, with some abuse of notations, we use here the same symbols $`g_,`$ for the momentum-space running couplings as we used for the coordinate-space running couplings. In order to fix the coefficients in (4.1), we have to choose a renormalization scheme. Substituting $`r`$ by $`1/\sqrt{p^2}`$ in (3.1) defines Zamolodchikov’s scheme in momentum space. It is a simple matter to repeat the steps of the previous section in order to determine the first few coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{l,1}`$ in (4.1). Just compare the logarithmic derivatives of the expressions (4.1) and (4.1); the only difference is that the factor $`Q(d_\mathrm{\Psi }2ϵ)/Q(d_\mathrm{\Psi })`$ in (4.1) will have to be expanded in $`\rho `$, giving non-trivial contributions. As for the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{l,2}`$, one would in principle need the next order in CPT. However, again as in the previous section, it is possible to determine $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{0,2}`$ without this calculation, as described in the next section. From these coefficients, and from the form of the RG flow equation, one can evaluate the integral in (4.1) and obtain the asymptotic behavior of the two-point function in the Euclidean region at $`p^2+\mathrm{}`$. We quote here the result in the case of the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model,

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{(pert)}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{3}{16}g+\frac{3}{16}\left(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0\frac{1}{4}\right)g^2\frac{3}{16}\left(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0^2\frac{1}{16}\right)g^3+O(g^4)\right\}.$$

Here

$$g^1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(g)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{2\pi }Me^{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0}/\sqrt{p^2}\right),$$

and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0`$ is an arbitrary parameter which can be chosen at will. Notice the strong similarity between (4.1) and (3.1).

We also quote here the corresponding function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g`$ (4.1) in the case $`g_{}=g_{}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{32}g^2\frac{3}{16}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0g^3+\frac{3}{32}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0^2+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0\frac{3}{16}\right)g^4+O(g^5).$$

4.2. Comparison with the four-loop conventional perturbation calculations

In , the anomalous dimension for the fermion field in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme was found to fourth order for a general non-abelian Thirring model (see also  and references therein for a discussion of various aspects of dimensional regularization in the non-abelian Thirring model and for results to lower order). In contrast, we have calculated, in coordinate space, the two-point functions of more general operators, including the fermion fields, in the particular case of the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model (and an anisotropic deformation of it), and we have sketched the equivalent calculation in momentum space for the fermion fields. We would now like to compare Eq.(4.1) with the $`SU(2)`$ case of the Ali-Gracey result . In order to perform the comparison, we need to find the relation between our running coupling constant $`g`$ and theirs, which will be denoted $`g_{AG}=\lambda `$ 4 Notice that in , the coupling constant $`g_{AG}`$ is assumed to be negative, so $`\lambda >0`$, which agrees with the sign of our coupling constant $`g`$., and then find the relation between our function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g`$ (4.1) and their anomalous dimension, which we will denote $`\gamma _\lambda `$.

The coupling $`\lambda `$ corresponds to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme; the associated $`\beta `$-function was found in  to fourth order:

$$2p^2\frac{d\lambda }{dp^2}=\beta _\lambda =\frac{\lambda ^2}{\pi }+\frac{\lambda ^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{83}{128\pi ^3}\lambda ^4+O(\lambda ^5).$$

By comparison, in the scheme that we use, the $`\beta `$-function (3.1), (3.1) is

$$2p^2\frac{dg}{dp^2}=\beta _g=\frac{g^2}{1+g/2}=g^2+\frac{g^3}{2}\frac{g^4}{4}+O(g^5).$$

The difference in the factor multiplying the square of the coupling in these two expressions results only from a different normalization of the coupling in the action (see Eq.(1.1)). The relation between the couplings $`g`$ and $`\lambda `$ that corresponds to these different $`\beta `$-functions is

$$\frac{\lambda }{\pi }=g\tau g^2+\left(\tau ^2+\frac{\tau }{2}+\frac{51}{128}\right)g^3+O(g^4).$$

Here $`\tau `$ is some numerical factor which cannot be determined by comparing the $`\beta `$-functions: its variation modifies the choice of the normalization scale and doesn’t affect the $`\beta `$-beta functions. The normalization scale for the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme is defined by imposing the following condition on the subleading asymptotics of the solution of the RG flow equation (4.1):

$$\frac{\lambda }{\pi }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{p^2}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\right)}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{p^2}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})}{\mathrm{ln}^2(\sqrt{p^2}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})}+O\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{p^2}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})}{\mathrm{ln}^3(\sqrt{p^2}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})}\right).$$

(This implies that the term $`O\left(1/\mathrm{ln}^2(\sqrt{p^2}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})\right)`$ does not appear in the expansion of $`\lambda `$.) From (4.1), (4.1) and (4.1), we find that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=\sqrt{2\pi }Me^{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0\tau }.$$

In , the perturbative part of the function $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ (4.1) was calculated up to the overall multiplicative normalization to third order in $`\lambda `$. The result can be written in the following form

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{(pert)}\frac{1}{h_\lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}^{p^2}\frac{ds}{s}\gamma _\lambda \right\},$$

where the function $`h_\lambda `$ and the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _\lambda `$ were given in  to fourth order in $`\lambda `$ for the Thirring model with a general non-abelian symmetry. In the particular case of the $`SU(2)`$-symmetry, they specialize to

$$h_\lambda =1+\frac{15}{128\pi ^2}\lambda ^2\frac{11}{512\pi ^3}\lambda ^3+\frac{3(80\zeta (3)511)}{32768\pi ^4}\lambda ^4+O(\lambda ^5),$$

and

$$\gamma _\lambda =\frac{3}{16\pi ^2}\lambda ^2+\frac{15}{64\pi ^3}\lambda ^3+\frac{3}{1024\pi ^4}\lambda ^4+O(\lambda ^5).$$

Comparing (4.1) in the case $`\rho =0`$ with the above expressions, one has the following relation:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_g=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\gamma _\lambda }{2}\frac{\beta _\lambda }{2}\frac{d}{d\lambda }\mathrm{log}(h_\lambda ).$$

Using Eqs. (4.1)-(4.1), one can check that our result (4.1) agrees with (4.1), provided that

$$\tau =\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0.$$

Notice that the relation between the normalization scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ and $`M`$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=\sqrt{2\pi }M,$$

which is a consequence of (4.1) and (4.1), was previously found in Ref. .

5. Long-distance behavior

Here we concentrate on the long-distance behavior of Schwinger’s function (2.1) for $`n=1`$ and $`\omega =1/4`$. Let us recall that for $`\frac{1}{2}<\beta ^21`$, there are only solitons and antisolitons in the spectrum of the sine-Gordon model. We will denote them by $`A_{}`$ and $`A_+`$ respectively. The conservation of the topological charge,

$$\frac{\beta }{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mathrm{x}_\mathrm{x}\phi ,$$

implies that the non-vanishing form factors of the operator $`𝒪_{\beta /4}^{+1}`$ are of the form

$$vac𝒪_{\beta /4}^{+1}(0)A_{}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_{}(\theta _{N+1})A_+(\theta _1^{})\mathrm{}A_+(\theta _N^{}),$$

where $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _j^{}`$ denote rapidities of solitons and antisolitons respectively. Up to an overall normalization, all these form factors can be written down in closed form, as certain $`N`$-fold integrals \[30,,31,,14\]. The spectral decomposition for the correlation function (2.1) then gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}& F_{1/4}^{(1)}(r)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }e^{Mr\mathrm{cosh}(\theta )}|vac𝒪_{\beta /4}^{+1}(0)A_{}(\theta )|^2+\frac{1}{3!}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\theta _1d\theta _2d\theta _3}{(2\pi )^3}\times \hfill \\ & e^{Mr_{k=1}^3\mathrm{cosh}(\theta _k)}\underset{\sigma _1+\sigma _2+\sigma _3=1}{}|vac𝒪_{\beta /4}^{+1}(0)A_{\sigma _1}(\theta _1)A_{\sigma _2}(\theta _2)A_{\sigma _3}(\theta _3)|^2+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$

where the dots stand for the five-particle and higher contributions, which are of the order of $`e^{5Mr}`$. The long-distance asymptotic behavior of the correlation function is dominated by the contribution of the one-particle states,

$$vac𝒪_{\beta /4}^{+1}(0)A_{}(\theta )=\sqrt{𝐙_1(\beta /4)}e^{\frac{1}{4}(\theta +\frac{i\pi }{2})},$$

and has an especially simple form,

$$F_{1/4}^{(1)}(r)=𝐙_1(\beta /4)\left\{\frac{e^{Mr}}{\sqrt{2\pi Mr}}+O(e^{3Mr})\right\}.$$

Here we use the notation $`𝐙_n(a)(a=\omega \beta )`$ from work  for the field-strength renormalization which controls the long-distance asymptotics of the correlation function (2.1). Let us stress here that the overall multiplicative normalization of the field $`𝒪_{\beta /4}^1`$ was already fixed by the condition (3.1), hence the constant $`𝐙_1(\beta /4)`$ is totally unambiguous. In , the following explicit formula for $`𝐙_n(\omega \beta )`$ was proposed:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝐙_n(\omega \beta )=\left(\frac{𝒞_2}{2𝒞_1^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}\left(\frac{𝒞_2}{16\rho }\right)^{\frac{n^2}{4}}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\pi }M\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{2\rho })}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{1}{2\rho })}\right]^{2d}\times \hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(4\omega t)e^{(1+\rho )nt}1}{2\mathrm{sinh}(t)\mathrm{sinh}\left((1+\rho )t\right)\mathrm{cosh}(t\rho )}+\frac{n}{2\mathrm{sinh}(t)}2de^{2t}\right\}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

In this formula, $`d`$ is the scale dimension (2.1) and the constants $`𝒞_1,𝒞_2`$ read

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝒞_1=\frac{2^{\frac{5}{12}}e^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})}{\sqrt{\pi }A_G^3}\mathrm{exp}\left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\frac{t\rho }{2})e^t}{2\mathrm{cosh}^2(t\rho )\mathrm{sinh}(t)}\right\},\hfill \\ & 𝒞_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^4(\frac{1}{4})}{4\pi ^3}\mathrm{exp}\left\{2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\frac{t\rho }{2})e^t}{\mathrm{cosh}(t\rho )\mathrm{sinh}(t)}\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`A_G=1.282427\mathrm{}`$ is the Glaisher constant.

We do not write down explicitly the general formula for the three-particle contribution in (5.1) because it is a rather mechanical substitution of relations presented in . (For $`\beta ^2=1`$ the corresponding formulas can be found in Appendix C.) Here we make the following observation concerning the $`\beta ^21`$ limit. The examination of (5.1) based on explicit formulas for the form factors shows that the function $`\left[𝐙_1(\beta /4)\right]^1F_{1/4}^{(1)}`$ admits an asymptotic power series expansion in terms of the variable $`\rho ^2`$. In other words, all divergences at $`\rho ^20`$ of $`F_{1/4}^{(1)}`$, considered as a function of the variables $`\rho ^2`$ and $`Mr`$, are absorbed by the normalization constant $`𝐙_1(\beta /4)`$. Using Eq. (5.1), one can check that the constant $`𝐙_1(\beta /4)`$ admits exactly the same type of singular behavior at $`\rho ^2=0`$ as the constant $`Z_{n,\omega }`$ (3.1) for $`n=1,\omega =1/4`$, and also that

$$\frac{𝐙_1(\beta /4)}{Z_{1,1/4}}=2^{\frac{1}{3}}\sqrt{\pi }e^{\frac{1}{4}}A_G^3\mathrm{exp}\left(w_1\rho ^2+O(\rho ^3)\right).$$

The explicit form of the coefficient $`w_1`$ is not essential here. What is important is that the linear term in $`\rho `$ does not appear in the expansion (5.1). This observation can be immediately generalized and checked for any $`n`$ and $`\omega `$. Furthermore, we expect that

$$\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{𝐙_n(\omega \beta )}{Z_{n,\omega }}\right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}w_k\rho ^{2k}+O(\rho ^{\mathrm{}}),$$

where $`𝐙_n(\omega \beta )`$ is the normalization constant (5.1). In other words, by means of the transformation (3.1) with properly chosen coefficients $`w_k`$, the constant $`Z_{n,\omega }`$ in (3.1) can be set to be equal (in a sense of formal power series) to $`𝐙_n(\omega \beta )`$. At the moment, we do not have a rigorous proof of (5.1). But it leads to some interesting prediction to be checked. As was already mentioned, the calculations performed in the leading CPT order determine only the combination $`v_23u_2/2`$, but do not fix the individual values of the coefficients $`u_2`$ and $`v_2`$ in the series (3.1). Accepting (5.1), one can immediately find the values of the coefficients $`u_2`$ (see Appendix B). In the case $`n=1,\omega =\frac{1}{4}`$, it allows one to extend the perturbative expansion (3.1), as well as the equivalent expansion (4.1), to order $`g^3`$. As was discussed in Section 4, Eq. (4.1) is in a complete agreement with the result of four-loop perturbative calculations from . This in fact shows that the $`\rho ^3`$-term really is absent in the series (5.1).

6. Spectral density

The spectral density is an important quantity related to the two-point function and its analytical structure in momentum space. It is often what is measured in actual condensed matter experiments \[4,,22\], and it allows one to completely reconstruct the two-point function. In this section, we discuss the properties of the spectral density in the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model.

The spectral decomposition of the fermion Green’s function yields the following form for the function $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ (4.1):

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(p^2)=1_{M^2}^+\mathrm{}𝑑s\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}(s)}{p^2+s}.$$

The notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}`$ for the spectral density reminds us that $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$, considered as a function of one complex variable $`p^2`$, has a branch cut in the Minkowski region $`p^2<0`$ starting at $`p^2=M^2`$, and that the spectral density can be recovered from the discontinuity along this cut:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}(s)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left(\stackrel{~}{F}(e^{i\pi }s)\stackrel{~}{F}(e^{i\pi }s)\right).$$

The easiest way to obtain the large $`s`$ asymptotics of the spectral density is to use the expansion (4.1) along with knowledge of the analytical properties of the coupling constant $`g`$ (4.1) as a function of the complex variable $`p^2`$. Notice that $`g`$ can be expressed in terms of the principal branch of the product log (or Lambert) function, which gives the solution for $`W`$ in $`We^W=z`$ (see e.g. ):

$$g=2W^1\left(\frac{p^2e^{2\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0}}{\pi M^2}\right).$$

The principal branch of the $`W`$-function analytically maps the complex $`z`$-plane minus the branch cut $`z]\mathrm{},e^1]`$ to the part of the complex $`W`$-plane enclosing the real axis and delimited by the curve $`\mathrm{}eW=\mathrm{}mW\mathrm{cot}(\mathrm{}mW)`$ for $`\pi <\mathrm{}mW<\pi `$. The analyticity implies that the power series

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(i\varphi z\frac{d}{dz}\right)^nW(z)|_{z=s}$$

converges for real positive $`s>e^1`$ and $`|\varphi |\pi `$ and coincides with $`W(e^{i\varphi }s)`$. Similar considerations are, of course, valid for the coupling constant $`g`$ (6.1). In particular, for sufficiently large $`s`$,

$$g(e^{\pm i\pi }s)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\pm i\pi p^2\frac{d}{dp^2}\right)^ng(p^2)|_{p^2=s}.$$

This then gives us, with (4.1) and the RG flow equation (4.1), the asymptotic expansion of the spectral density for large $`s`$. It can be written in the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}(s)=\frac{g^2}{2}\left\{1\frac{g}{2}\frac{\pi ^21}{4}g^2+O(g^3)\right\}\frac{\stackrel{~}{F}^{(pert)}}{g}|_{p^2=s}.$$

Here the function $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{(pert)}`$ is given by (4.1) and $`g`$ is defined by the equation (4.1).

Now let us consider the threshold behavior of the spectral density. According to the analyses of the previous section, the long-distance asymptotic behavior of the scaling function $`F`$ (1.1) is described by the expansion

$$F=F^{(1)}+F^{(3)}+O(e^{5Mr}),$$

where

$$F^{(1)}=Ce^{Mr},$$

with the constant

$$C=2^{\frac{5}{6}}e^{\frac{1}{4}}A_G^3=0.921862\mathrm{}.$$

The function $`F^{(3)}`$ in (6.1) gives the three-particle contribution to the correlation function. Using the definitions (1.1), (4.1) and the above relation, one can obtain:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(p^2)=C\left\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+p^2/M^2}}\right\}+\mathrm{}.$$

Here the dots stand for contributions of the massive multiparticle intermediate states. The last relation implies that the spectral density (6.1) can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}(s)=\frac{C}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(sM^2)}{\sqrt{s/M^21}}+\mathrm{\Theta }(s9M^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}^{(3)}(s),$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(s)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\mathrm{for}s0\hfill & \\ 0\mathrm{for}s<0\hfill & \end{array},$$

and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}^{(3)}`$ is some function which contributes to the spectral density only above the threshold $`s=9M^2`$.

7. Numerics

In Table 1 we present results of numerical evaluation of the function $`F`$ (1.1) as a function of the scaling distance $`Mr(r=|x|)`$. To estimate the short-distance behavior, we use the perturbative expansion (3.1). As was already mentioned, the parameter $`\overline{\tau }_0`$ allows one to have control over the accuracy of the truncated series, so we calculate (3.1) for two different values of $`\overline{\tau }_0:0.25`$ and $`+0.25`$. To determine the long-distance behavior of the function $`F`$, we use the formula (6.1), where the three-particle contribution $`F^{(3)}`$ was obtained by means of Eq. (5.1) along with formulas for the three-particle form factors quoted in  (see Appendix C). It is interesting to see that the sum of the one- and three-particle contributions to $`F`$ is very near to unity at $`r=0`$ (to within 1%), which indicates that this three-particle computation of the correlation function is in fact accurate to about 1% for all distance scales (more accurate, of course, for larger $`r`$). Also, note that the crossover between the long- and short-distance asymptotics appears to be at the scaling distances $`Mr0.0010.01`$, where both asymptotics coincide to within about $`0.1\%`$.

$`Mr`$  $`F^{(1)}`$ $`F^{(3)}`$ $`F^{(1)}+F^{(3)}`$ $`F^{(pert)}`$ $`(\overline{\tau }_0=0.25)`$ $`F^{(pert)}`$ $`(\overline{\tau }_0=0.25)`$  0 .921862 .068 .990 1.00000 1.00000  .00001 .921853 .0553 .9771 .980129 .980130  .00005 .921816 .0522 .9740 .976311 .976314  .0001 .921770 .0504 .9722 .974192 .974196  .0002 .921678 .0483 .9700 .971674 .971678  .001 .920941 .0415 .9624 .963508 .963520  .002 .920020 .0375 .9575 .958435 .958454  .01 .912689 .0252 .9379 .939386 .939460  .025 .899101 .0168 .9159 .919294 .919494  .05 .876902 .0106 .8875 .894050 .894547  .075 .855251 .00738 .86263 .871796 .872717  .1 .834135 .00541 .83955 .850520 .852013  .15 .793454 .00317 .79662 .808380 .811548  .2 .754757 .00200 .75676 .765139 .770842  .25 .717947 .00131 .71926 .719980 .729252  .3 .682932 .000889 .683822 .672640 .686654  .35 .649625 .000617 .650243 .623153 .643171  .4 .617942 .000436 .618379 .571774 .599063  .45 .587805 .000313 .588118 .518942 .554677  .5 .559137 .000227 .559365 .465257 .510405

Table 1. The scaling function $`F`$ (1.1), (1.1). The first columns give the results of the long-distance expansion which includes contributions of the one-, three- and one$`+`$three-particle states. The data in the last two columns correspond to the perturbative expansion (3.1) for the two different values of the auxiliary parameter $`\overline{\tau }_0`$.

Acknowledgments

S.L. is grateful to F. Essler and A. Tsvelik for their helpful collaboration during the early stages of this work. We have also extremely benefited from discussions with A. Zamolodchikov and Al. Zamolodchikov.

This research is supported in part by DOE grant $`\mathrm{\#}`$DE-FG02-96ER10919. B.D. is supported in part by a NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship.

Appendix A.

In this appendix, we give the first few terms in the expansion of $`J_n(a,c)`$ (3.1) around $`c=2`$. The coefficients in this expansion involve standard functions of $`a`$, which could then easily be used to obtain an expansion of $`J_n(\frac{2\omega }{1+\rho },\frac{2}{1+\rho })`$ in powers of $`\rho `$, as is needed in (3.1). To simplify the result, we will use the parameter

$$b=c+2.$$

We find the following expansions in $`b`$ of the functions $`A(q,b2),B(q,b2)`$ (3.1) involved in (3.1):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& A(q,b2)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2bq)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+bq)}\left\{1+b^2\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{6}+\frac{\psi (1q)+\gamma _E}{q}\right)+O(b^3)\right\},\hfill \\ & B(q,b2)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(q+b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2b)}\left\{1+\frac{b}{2q}+\frac{b^2}{2q^2}\left(q^2\psi ^{}(q)1\right)+\frac{b^3}{4q}\left(q\psi ^{\prime \prime }(q)+2\psi ^{}(q)\right)+O(b^4)\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_n(a,b2)=& \frac{\pi ^2}{2}\frac{4a^2n^2+2nb}{b^2(1b)^2}\mathrm{exp}\{G_n(a)b+\hfill \\ & (\frac{G_n^{\prime \prime }(a)}{12}2\frac{aG_n^{}(a)+G_n(a)}{n^24a^2}+\frac{10}{3}\zeta (3))b^3+O(b^4)\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$G_n(a)=\psi (a+n/2)+\psi (a+n/2)+2\gamma _E,$$

and $`G_n^{}(a)=\frac{d}{da}G_n(a),G_n^{\prime \prime }(a)=\frac{d^2}{da^2}G_n(a).`$

Appendix B.

In this appendix, we write down explicit expressions for the coefficients $`u_1`$, $`u_2`$, $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ taking part in the expansion (3.1), (3.1) of the the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$.

On the one hand, from the assumption (5.1), the coefficients of odd powers of $`\rho `$ in the exponential factor of $`Z_{n,\omega }`$ (3.1) are completely fixed by the conjectured constant $`𝐙_n(\omega \beta )`$ (5.1). This fixes $`u_1,u_2`$ uniquely, giving

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill u_1=& \left(\omega ^2\frac{n^2}{16}\right)\left(T_n(2\omega )\frac{3}{2}\right)+\frac{n(n2)}{16},\hfill \\ \hfill u_2=& \frac{1}{12}\left(\omega ^2\frac{n^2}{16}\right)\left(\omega ^2+\frac{n^2}{16}\frac{1}{2}\right)T_n^{\prime \prime }(2\omega )+\frac{\omega (4\omega ^21)}{12}T_n^{}(2\omega )+\frac{1}{4}\left(\omega ^2\frac{1}{12}\right)T_n(2\omega )\hfill \\ & \frac{n(n+4)}{768}\frac{11\omega ^2}{48}+\frac{1}{24}\overline{\tau }_0+\frac{\tau _2}{2}\left(\omega ^2\frac{n^2}{16}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}& T_n(a)=\psi (a+n/2)+\psi (a+n/2)+2\gamma _E+2\overline{\tau }_0,\hfill \\ & T_n^{}(a)=\frac{d}{da}T_n(a),T_n^{\prime \prime }(a)=\frac{d^2}{da^2}T_n(a).\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand, the expansion in powers of $`\rho `$ of (3.1) uniquely determines the coefficients $`u_1,v_1`$ and $`v_2\frac{3}{2}u_2`$ in the first equation of (3.1). The coefficient $`u_1`$ thus obtained is in agreement with (B.1), verifying the assumption (5.1) to first order. The coefficients $`v_1`$ and (using the expressions $`u_{1,2}`$ from (B.1)) $`v_2`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_1& =\frac{\omega }{2}\left(\omega ^2\frac{n^2}{16}\right)T_n^{}(2\omega )+\frac{1}{4}\left(\omega ^2\frac{n^2}{16}\right)T_n^2(2\omega )\hfill \\ & \frac{3}{4}\left(\omega ^2\frac{n(5n4)}{48}\right)T_n(2\omega )+\frac{7}{8}\left(\omega ^2\frac{n(17n20)}{112}\right)+\frac{u_1}{2},\hfill \\ \hfill v_2& =\left(\omega ^2\frac{n^2}{16}\right)\left(\frac{1}{24}\frac{\omega ^2}{4}\right)T_n^{\prime \prime }(2\omega )\hfill \\ & \left(\left(\omega ^2\frac{n^2}{16}\right)\frac{T_n(2\omega )}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\omega ^2+\frac{n(n4)}{16}\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)\omega T_n^{}(2\omega )\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{12}\left(\omega ^2\frac{n^2}{16}\right)T_n^3(2\omega )\frac{1}{8}\left(\omega ^2+\frac{n(n4)}{16}\right)T_n^2(2\omega )\frac{1}{8}\left(\omega ^2\frac{n(n2)}{8}\frac{1}{2}\right)T_n(2\omega )\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{8}\left(\omega ^2\frac{n^2}{16}\right)\left(2\tau _214\zeta (3)3\right)\frac{n(n8)}{256}+\frac{u_1}{8}+\frac{v_1}{2}+\frac{3u_2}{2}\frac{\overline{\tau }_0}{8}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Appendix C.

In this appendix, we give the formula for the three-particle contribution $`F^{(3)}`$ (6.1) to the fermion two-point function in the $`SU(2)`$-Thirring model that we used for our numerical calculations. We first specialize the expression written in  to the case of three-particle form factors of the field $`𝒪_{\beta /4}^1`$ for $`\beta ^2=1`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& vac|𝒪_{1/4}^1(0)|A_{}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}A_+(\theta _k)\mathrm{}A_{}(\theta _3)_{in}=\frac{A_G^{\frac{9}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^3(\frac{1}{4})}{2^{\frac{15}{4}}e^{\frac{3}{8}}\pi ^{\frac{9}{4}}}e^{\frac{i\pi }{8}}M^{\frac{1}{4}}\times \hfill \\ & \underset{m=1}{\overset{3}{}}e^{\frac{\theta _m}{4}}\underset{m<j}{}G(\theta _m\theta _j)\{_{C_+}\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi }e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}}\underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}W(\theta _p\gamma )\underset{p=k+1}{\overset{3}{}}W(\gamma \theta _p)+\hfill \\ & _C_{}\frac{d\gamma }{2\pi }e^{\frac{\gamma }{2}}\underset{p=1}{\overset{k1}{}}W(\theta _p\gamma )\underset{p=k}{\overset{3}{}}W(\gamma \theta _p)\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here the functions $`G`$ and $`W`$ are

$$G(\theta )=i\frac{2^{\frac{5}{12}}e^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})}{\sqrt{\pi }A_G^3}\mathrm{sinh}(\theta /2)\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2t(1i\theta /\pi )e^t}{\mathrm{sinh}(2t)\mathrm{cosh}(t)}\right)$$

and

$$W(\theta )=2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{4}\frac{i\theta }{2\pi })\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{i\theta }{2\pi })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\frac{1}{4})}.$$

The contour $`C_+`$ starts from $`\mathrm{}`$ on the real axis of the complex $`\gamma `$-plane, goes above the poles located at $`\gamma =\theta _p+i\pi /2`$, $`p=1,\mathrm{},k`$ and below those located at $`\gamma =\theta _pi\pi /2`$, $`p=k+1,\mathrm{},3`$, always staying in the strip $`\pi /20<\mathrm{}m\gamma <\pi /2+0`$, and finally extends to $`+\mathrm{}`$ on the real axis. Similarly, the contour $`C_{}`$ goes above the poles located at $`\gamma =\theta _p+i\pi /2`$, $`p=1,\mathrm{},k1`$ and below those at $`\gamma =\theta _pi\pi /2`$$`p=k,\mathrm{},3`$. Notice that the integrals in (C.1) can be expressed in terms of the generalized hypergeometric function $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$ at unity.

Using the expressions (C.1) and performing one of the rapidity integrals in (5.1), one can obtain the following form for the function $`F^{(3)}`$ in (6.1):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& F^{(3)}=\frac{2e^{\frac{3}{4}}A_G^9}{3\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }^6(\frac{1}{4})}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dxdy\frac{e^{Mr\sqrt{3+2\mathrm{cosh}x+2\mathrm{cosh}y+2\mathrm{cosh}(xy)}}}{(3+2\mathrm{cosh}x+2\mathrm{cosh}y+2\mathrm{cosh}(xy))^{\frac{1}{4}}}\times \hfill \\ & \left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}|R_1(x,y)|^2+|R_2(x,y)|^2\right)|G(x)G(y)G(xy)|^2e^{\frac{x+y}{2}}\left(\frac{e^x+e^y+1}{e^x+e^y+1}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The functions $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ here are

$$R_2(x,y)=e^{\frac{x}{2}+\frac{i\pi }{4}}R_1(x,yx)e^{\frac{y}{2}\frac{i\pi }{4}}R_1^{}(y,xy)$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}& R_1(x,y)=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{x}{2}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{y}{2}}{2\mathrm{sinh}x\mathrm{sinh}y}U(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\frac{ix}{2\pi },\frac{1}{2}\frac{iy}{2\pi };\frac{ix}{2\pi },\frac{iy}{2\pi })\hfill \\ & +e^{\frac{x}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{yx}{2}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{x}{2}}{2\mathrm{sinh}(yx)\mathrm{sinh}x}U(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\frac{i(yx)}{2\pi },\frac{1}{2}+\frac{ix}{2\pi };1\frac{i(yx)}{2\pi },2+\frac{ix}{2\pi })\hfill \\ & +e^{\frac{y}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{xy}{2}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{y}{2}}{2\mathrm{sinh}(xy)\mathrm{sinh}y}U(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\frac{i(xy)}{2\pi },\frac{1}{2}+\frac{iy}{2\pi };1\frac{i(xy)}{2\pi },2+\frac{iy}{2\pi }),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`U(a,b,c;d,e)`$ is related to the generalized hypergeometric function $`{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$ by

$$U(a,b,c;d,e)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(e)}_3F_2(a,b,c;d,e;1).$$

References

relax Gruner, G.: Density Waves in Solids, Addison-Wesley, 1994 relax Bourbonnais, C. and Jerome, D: The normal phase of quasi-one-dimensional organic superconductors. In “Advances in Synthetic Metals, Twenty years of Progress in Science and Technology”, ed. by Bernier P., Lefrant, S. and Bidan, E. Elsevier, New York, 1999 relax Gogolin, A.O., Nersesyan, A.A. and Tsvelik, A.M.: Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems. Cambridge University Press, 1999 relax Hwu, Y. et al.: Photoemission near the Fermi energy in one dimension. Phys. Rev. B46, pp. 13624-13626 (1992); Zwick, F. et al.: Absence of quasiparticles in the photoemission spectra of quasi-one dimensional Berchgaard salts. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, pp. 3982-3985 (1997) relax Zinn-Justin, J.: Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996 (third ed.) relax Andrei, N. and Lowenstein, J.H.: Diagonalization of the Chiral-Invariant Gross-Neveu Hamiltonian. Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, pp. 1698-1701 (1979) relax Belavin, A.A.: Exact solution of the two-dimensional model with asymptotic freedom. Phys. Lett. B87, pp. 117-121 (1979) relax Filev, V.M.: Spectrum of two-dimensional relativistic model. Teor. i Mat. Fiz. 33, pp. 119-124 (1977) relax Emery, V.J., Luther, A. and Peschel, I.: Solution of the one-dimensional electron gas on a lattice. Phys. Rev. B13, pp.1272-1276 (1976) relax Korepin, V.E. and Essler, F.H.L.: $`SU(2)SU(2)`$ invariant scattering matrix of the Hubbard model. Nucl. Phys. B426, pp. 505-533 (1994) relax Melzer, E.: On the scaling limit of the 1-d Hubbard model at half filling. Nucl. Phys. B443 \[FS\], pp. 553-564 (1995) relax Woynarovich, F. and Forgacs, P.: Scaling limit of the one-dimensional attractive Hubbard model: The half-filled band case. Nucl. Phys. B498, pp.65-603 (1997) relax Lukyanov, S. and Zamolodchikov, A.: Form factors of soliton-creating operators in the sine-Gordon model. Nucl. Phys. B607 \[FS\] pp. 437-455 (2001) relax Babujian, H., Fring, A., Karowski, M. and Zapletal, A.: Exact form-factors in integrable quantum field theories: the sine-Gordon model. Nucl. Phys. B538, pp. 535-586 (1999) relax Delfino, G.: Off critical correlations in the Ashkin-Teller model. Phys. Lett. B450, pp. 196-201 (1999) relax Zamolodchikov, Al.B.: Two-point correlation function in scaling Lee-Yang model. Nucl. Phys. B348, pp. 619-641 (1991) relax Coleman, S.: The quantum sine-Gordon equation as the Massive Thirring model. Phys. Rev.D11, pp. 2088-2097 (1975) relax Mandelstam, S.: Soliton operators for the quantized sine-Gordon equation. Phys.Rev. D11, pp. 3026-3030 (1975) relax Acerbi C., Mussardo G., and Valleriani, A.: Form-factors and correlation functions of the stress - energy tensor in massive deformation of the minimal models $`E_{(N)}^{(1)}\times E_{(N)}^{(1)}/E_{(N)}^{(2)}`$. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11, pp. 5327-5364 (1996) relax Balog, J. and Niedermaier, M.: Off-shell dynamics of the O(3) nonlinear sigma model beyond Monte Carlo and perturbation theory. Nucl. Phys. B500, pp. 421-461 (1997) relax Ali, D.B. and Gracey, J.A.: Four loop wave function renormalization in the non-abelian Thirring model. Nucl. Phys. B605, pp. 337-364 (2001) relax Essler, F.H.L. and Tsevelik, A.M.: Weakly coupled one-dimensional Mott insulator. Preprint, 2001 (cond-mat/0108382) relax Zamolodchikov, Al.B.: Mass scale in the sine-Gordon model and its reduction. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A10, pp. 1125-1150 (1995) relax Mahur, S.D.: Quantum Kac-Moody symmetry in integrable field theories. Nucl. Phys. B369, pp. 433-460 (1992) relax Dotsenko, V., Picco M. and Pujoi, P.: Renormalization group calculation of correlation functions for the 2D random bound Ising and Potts models. Nucl. Phys. B455, pp. 701-723 (1995) relax Guida, R. and Magnoli, N.: Tricritical Ising model near criticality. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A13, pp. 1145-1158 (1998) relax Zamolodchikov, Al.B.: unpublished relax Stevenson, P.M.: Optimized perturbation theory. Phys. Rev. D23, pp. 2916-2943 (1981) relax Bennett, J.F. and Gracey, J.A.: Three-loop renormalization of the $`SU(N_c)`$ non-abelian Thirring model. Nucl. Phys. B563, pp. 390-436 (1999) relax Smirnov, F.A.: Form-factors in Completely Integrable Models of Quantum Field Theory, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992 relax Lukyanov, S.: Free field representation for massive integrable models. Commun. Math. Phys. 167, No.1, pp. 183-226 (1995) ; Form-factors of exponential fields in the sine-Gordon model. Mod. Phys. Lett. A12, pp. 2543-2550 (1997) relax Corless, R.M., Gonnet, G.H., Hare, D.E.G., Jeffrey, D.J. and Knuth, D.E.: On the Lambert W function. Adv. Comput. Math. 5, no.4, pp. 329-359 (1996); Jeffrey, D.J., Hare, D.E.G. and Corless, R.M.: Unwinding the branches of the Lambert W function. Math. Sci. 21, pp. 1-7 (1996)


text:
# Comments on nonlinear viscosity and Grad’s moment method

## Abstract

It is shown that the steady unidirectional flow with vanishing heat flux considered by B. C. Eu \[Phys. Rev. E 65, 031202 (2002)\], and earlier by Uribe and García–Colín \[Phys. Rev. E 60, 4052 (1999)\], is inconsistent with the exact conservation laws of mass, momentum, and energy. The inconsistency does not lie in the assumed symmetry properties of the flow but in the stationarity assumption. The unsteady problem is considered and its solution from the Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules is given.

In a recent paper E02 , Eu analyzed a steady unidirectional flow at uniform temperature and derived the equations for the stress tensor elements from the Boltzmann equation by means of Grad’s moment method. These are essentially the same state and the same method as those considered by Uribe and García–Colín UGC99 , except that the transversal velocity gradients were assumed to vanish in Ref. UGC99 , while they are included in the analysis of Ref. E02 . The major aim of this Comment is to show that the steady unidirectional flow at uniform temperature of Refs. E02 ; UGC99  is inconsistent with the exact macroscopic conservation equations.

For a dilute monatomic gas, the macroscopic balance equations expressing the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy are GM84 ; CC70

$$D_tn+n𝐮=0,$$
(1)
$$D_t𝐮+\frac{1}{mn}𝖯=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(2)
$$D_tT+\frac{2}{3nk_B}(𝐪+𝖯:𝐮)=0,$$
(3)
where $`D_t_t+𝐮`$ is the material time derivative, $`n`$ is the local number density, $`𝐮`$ is the local flow velocity, $`T`$ is the local temperature, $`m`$ is the mass of a particle, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`𝐪`$ is the heat flux vector, and $`𝖯`$ is the pressure (or stress) tensor. The flow considered in Refs. E02 ; UGC99  is characterized by the following properties (not necessarily independent): (a) it is a unidirectional flow, i.e., $`𝐮(𝐫)=u_x(𝐫)\widehat{𝐱}`$, where $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ is the unit vector along the flow direction; (b) the temperature is uniform, $`T=\mathrm{𝟎}`$; (c) the heat flux vanishes, $`𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}`$; (d) the pressure tensor is uniform; and (e) the state is stationary, i.e., $`_t0`$. Let me consider first the geometrical properties (a)–(d) separately from the stationarity assumption (e). Application of assumptions (a)–(d) on the exact balance equations (1)–(3) yields

$$_tn+\frac{}{x}\left(nu_x\right)=0,$$
(4)
$$_tu_x+u_x\frac{}{x}u_x=0,$$
(5)
$$\frac{3nk_B}{2}_tT+P_{xx}\frac{u_x}{x}+P_{xy}\frac{u_x}{y}+P_{xz}\frac{u_x}{z}=0.$$
(6)
Are Eqs. (4)–(6) consistent with a steady state? Equation (5) shows that the flow velocity is stationary if and only if the flow is incompressible, i.e., if $`u_x/x=0`$. In that particular case, Eq. (4) is consistent with a stationary density if and only if the density is uniform as well. But, even if $`u_x/x=0`$ and $`n=\text{const}`$, energy balance equation (6) implies that the temperature cannot be stationary but monotonically increases with time due to viscous heating effects (note that $`P_{xy}u_x/y<0`$ and $`P_{xz}u_x/z<0`$ because of physical reasons). Therefore, the steady state assumption (e) is incompatible with assumptions (a)–(d), except in the trivial case $`u_x=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, i.e., at equilibrium. The unsteady Boltzmann equation for the incompressible unidirectional flow with $`u_x/x=u_x/z=0`$, $`u_x/y=\text{const}`$, usually referred to as uniform shear flow or homoenergetic simple shear flow, has been solved exactly for arbitrary shear rates in the case of Maxwell molecules IT56 ; TM80 ; SG95 . An analogous solution has been obtained in the case of the BGK model kinetic equation for more general interactions Z79 ; SB91 ; GS95 .

In the case of a compressible flow in the absence of transversal gradients, i.e., $`u_x\widehat{\text{x}}`$, Eq. (5) shows that the flow velocity is necessarily unsteady. According to continuity equation (4), it is still mathematically possible that $`_tn=0`$ if the product $`nu_x`$ is uniform, i.e., $`n(x)u_x(x,t)=K(t)`$. Insertion of this condition into Eq. (5) yields $`K^2\dot{K}(t)=n^2n^{}(x)=A^1`$, where the dot denotes a time derivative, the prime denotes a spatial derivative, and $`A`$ is a constant. The solution to these equations is simply $`n(x)=A/(xx_0)`$, $`u_x(x,t)=a(xx_0)/(1+at)`$, where $`x_0`$ and $`a`$ are constants. This mathematical solution is unphysical unless the problem is restricted to the half domain $`x>x_0`$ ($`x<x_0`$) if $`A>0`$ ($`A<0`$). But even in that case the existence of a nonuniform density is in conflict with the uniformity assumptions (b) and (d) because in a dilute gas $`n=p/k_BT`$, where $`p=\frac{1}{3}\text{tr}𝖯`$ is the hydrostatic pressure. In summary, assumptions (a)–(d) do not contradict the conservation laws (1)–(3) in the compressible flow with $`u_x/x0`$ if and only if the three hydrodynamic quantities (density, flow velocity, and temperature) are unsteady, so assumption (e) is again incompatible with (a)–(d).

Strictly speaking, assumptions (b) and (d), i.e., uniform temperature and pressure tensor, were not explicitly stated in Ref. UGC99 . Actually, assumption (b) is implicit in (c); otherwise, one would have a thermal gradient that does not produce any heat flux, what is at odds with the second principle of thermodynamics. As for assumption (d), it was replaced in Ref. UGC99  by a weaker one: (d’) the irreversible part of the pressure tensor is uniform, namely $`(P_{xx}p)/x=0`$. From a physical point of view it seems difficult to reconcile a uniform normal stress difference $`P_{xx}p`$ with a nonuniform hydrostatic pressure $`p`$. In any case, let me drop conditions (b) and (d) for the moment and prove that conditions (a), (c), (d’), and (e) are also inconsistent with the conservation laws, except at equilibrium. Application of (a), (c), and (e) on Eqs. (1)–(3) gives

$$\frac{}{x}\left(nu_x\right)=0,$$
(7)
$$mnu_x\frac{}{x}u_x+\frac{}{x}P_{xx}=0,$$
(8)
$$\frac{3}{2}nk_Bu_x\frac{}{x}T+P_{xx}\frac{}{x}u_x=0,$$
(9)
where, as in Ref. UGC99 , the case $`u_x\widehat{𝐱}`$ has been considered. Equations (7)–(9) can be easily integrated to get

$$nu_x=n_0u_0=\text{const},$$
(10)
$$P_{xx}+mnu_x^2=P_0+mn_0u_0^2=\text{const},$$
(11)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}p+P_{xx}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}nu_x^2\right)u_x`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}p_0+P_0+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}n_0u_0^2\right)u_0`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\text{const},`$
where the subscript 0 denotes quantities evaluated at some reference point $`x=x_0`$. So far, assumption (d’) has not beeen used. This condition implies that $`P_{yy}p=P_0p_0=\text{const}`$, so that, according to Eq. (11),

$$p+mnu_x^2=p_0+mn_0u_0^2=\text{const}.$$
(13)
Insertion of Eqs. (11) and (13) into Eq. (12) yields

$$\left[\frac{3}{2}p_0+P_0+mn_0u_0\left(\frac{1}{2}u_02u_x\right)\right]\left(u_xu_0\right)=0.$$
(14)
Both solutions of this quadratic equation are constants (but the physical one is $`u_x=u_0`$). This closes the proof that assumptions (a), (c), (d’), and (e) are not consistent with the conservation equations except in the trivial case $`u_x=\text{const}`$.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with assumptions (a)–(d) in the unsteady case. What is then the right form of $`n`$ and $`u_x`$ if $`u_x\widehat{\text{x}}`$? Since assumptions (b) and (d) imply that $`n`$ is uniform, Eq. (4) states that $`u_x/x=n^1\dot{n}=K(t)`$, so $`u_x(x,t)=K(t)(xx_0)`$. Substitution into Eq. (5) gives $`K^2\dot{K}=1`$, so we finally have $`n(t)=n_0/(1+at)`$, $`u_x(x,t)=a(xx_0)/(1+at)`$. This simple flow is known as homoenergetic extension TM80 ; G95 . Again, the unsteady Boltzmann equation can be solved exactly for arbitrary values of the constant control parameter $`a`$ in the case of Maxwell molecules TM80 ; G95 ; S00 , as well as with Grad’s method KDN97  and in the case of the BGK model kinetic equation S00  for more general interactions. A situation where a transversal velocity gradient $`u_y/x`$ coexists with a longitudinal one $`u_x/x`$ has been studied by Galkin G95 .

It is illustrative to recall the application of Grad’s method to the unsteady unidirectional flow at uniform temperature with no transversal gradients KDN97 . We have seen above that conservation of mass and momentum imply that $`n(t)=n_0/(1+at)`$ and $`\gamma _x(t)u_x(x,t)/x=an(t)/n_0`$. Positive values of the longitudinal deformation rate $`\gamma _x`$ represent some sort of “explosion” (or expansion) flow, while negative values represent an “implosion” (or condensation) flow UGC99 . The energy balance equation (6) becomes

$$_tp+\left(p+\frac{2}{3}P_{xx}\right)\gamma _x=0.$$
(15)
In Grad’s method, this equation is coupled to the (approximate) evolution equation for the stress element $`P_{xx}`$ KDN97 :

$$_t\left(P_{xx}p\right)+\left(P_{xx}p+\frac{4}{3}P_{xx}\right)\gamma _x=\mu \left(P_{xx}p\right),$$
(16)
where nonlinear terms have been neglected on the right-hand side and $`\mu =p/\eta _{\text{NS}}`$ is an effective collision frequency, $`\eta _{\text{NS}}`$ being the Navier–Stokes shear viscosity. Equation (16) is equivalent to Eq. (21) of Ref. UGC99 , except that the time derivative is absent in the latter. Without the time derivative operator, however, Eq. (16) cannot be made consistent with Eq. (15). After a transient regime, the system reaches a generalized hydrodynamic regime with $`P_{ij}(t)=p(t)P_{ij}^{}(\gamma _x^{}(t))`$, where $`\gamma _x^{}(t)\gamma _x(t)/\mu (t)`$ is the reduced longitudinal deformation rate. In general, from Eqs. (15) and (16) one gets a nonlinear first-order ordinary differential equation for $`P_{xx}^{}(\gamma _x^{})`$ S00 ; KDN97 . In the special case of Maxwell molecules (i.e $`\mu n`$), $`\gamma _x^{}`$ (but not $`\gamma _x`$) is independent of time so one gets from Eqs. (15) and (16) an algebraic quadratic equation whose physical solution is $`P_{xx}^{}=32P_{yy}^{}`$ with

$$P_{yy}^{}(\gamma _x^{})=\frac{3}{8\gamma _x^{}}\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{3}\gamma _x^{}+4\gamma _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}1+2\gamma _x^{}\right).$$
(17)
It turns out that this result for Maxwell molecules goes beyond the scope of Grad’s method since it can be exactly derived from the Boltzmann equation TM80 ; G95 ; S00 .

To the best of my knowledge, Grad’s method has not been applied yet to the unsteady unidirectional flow at uniform temperature with both longitudinal and transversal gradients. For this flow, an analysis of Eqs. (4) and (5) shows that, in addition to $`n(t)=n_0/(1+at)`$ and $`\gamma _xu_x/x=an(t)/n_0`$, one generally has shear rates $`\gamma _{yx}u_x/y=a_2n(t)/n_0`$ and $`\gamma _{zx}u_x/z=a_3n(t)/n_0`$, where $`a`$, $`a_2`$, and $`a_3`$ are independent constants. Standard application of Grad’s method yields the following evolution equation for the elements of the stress tensor:

$$_tP_{ij}+P_{ij}\frac{u_x}{x}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(P_{ik}\delta _{jx}+P_{jk}\delta _{ix}\right)\frac{u_x}{x_k}=\mu (P_{ij}p\delta _{ij}).$$
(18)
Taking the trace in this equation one recovers the energy conservation equation (6). It is worth noting that Eq. (18) can again be obtained exactly from the Boltzmann equation in the case of Maxwell molecules. For this interaction potential, the reduced rates $`\gamma _x^{}\gamma _x/\mu `$, $`\gamma _{yx}^{}\gamma _{yx}/\mu `$, and $`\gamma _{zx}^{}\gamma _{zx}/\mu `$ are constants and Eq. (18) yields a coupled set of algebraic equations for $`P_{ij}^{}P_{ij}/p`$. Without loss of generality note1  we can choose $`\gamma _{zx}^{}=\gamma _{yx}^{}`$, so that $`P_{yy}^{}=P_{zz}^{}`$ and $`P_{xy}^{}=P_{xz}^{}`$. In that case, Eq. (18) yields

$$\gamma _x^{}=\frac{3P_{yy}^{}\left(1P_{yy}^{}\right)4P_{xy}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2P_{yy}^{}\left[2P_{xy}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}P_{yy}^{}\left(32P_{yy}^{}\right)\right]},$$
(19)
$$\gamma _{yx}^{}=\frac{P_{xy}^{}\left(3P_{yy}^{}\right)}{2P_{yy}^{}\left[2P_{xy}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}P_{yy}^{}\left(32P_{yy}^{}\right)\right]}.$$
(20)
These two equations include as particular cases the homoenergetic extension flow ($`\gamma _{yx}^{}=0`$), in which case Eq. (17) is recovered, as well as the uniform shear flow ($`\gamma _x^{}=0`$), where $`P_{xy}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{3}{4}P_{yy}^{}\left(1P_{yy}^{}\right)`$ and $`P_{yy}^{}`$ is the solution of the cubic equation $`4\gamma _{yx}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}P_{yy}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}=3\left(1P_{yy}^{}\right)`$.

The inconsistency of assumption (e) on the stationarity of the flow geometrically characterized by (a)–(d) \[or (a), (c), and (d’)\] manifests itself in the results obtained in Refs. E02  and UGC99  for the stress tensor elements from Grad’s method. Assuming cylindrical symmetry ($`P_{xy}=P_{xz}`$, $`P_{yy}=P_{zz}`$), Eu gets the following expression for the normal pressure element $`P_{yy}`$ (neglecting nonlinear terms in the collisional integrals) E02 :

$$P_{yy}^{}=3\frac{(1+2\gamma _x^{})(1+3\gamma _x^{})}{(1+2\gamma _x^{})(3+7\gamma _x^{})+4\gamma _{yx}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(21)
According to Eq. (21), $`P_{yy}`$ becomes negative at least in the interval $`\frac{3}{7}<\gamma _x^{}<\frac{1}{3}`$, regardless of the value of $`\gamma _{yx}^{}`$. This is unphysical because the diagonal elements of the pressure tensor are positive definite quantities. Setting $`\gamma _{yx}^{}=0`$, Eq. (21) reduces to the result derived by Uribe and García–Colín in the linear approximation UGC99 . When the nonlinear terms are included, they get UGC99

$$P_{yy}^{}=8+\frac{49}{3}\gamma _x^{}7\sqrt{1+\frac{94}{21}\gamma _x^{}+\frac{49}{9}\gamma _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(22)
According to this expression, $`P_{yy}<0`$ if $`\gamma _x^{}<\frac{5}{14}`$. The prediction of negative values of $`P_{yy}`$ can be observed in Fig. 1, which shows the ratio $`P_{yy}/p`$ given by Eqs. (21) and (22) in the range $`0.4\gamma _x^{}0`$ for vanishing shear rate ($`\gamma _{yx}^{}=0`$) and for $`\gamma _{yx}^{}=\frac{1}{2}`$. Comparison with the exact results (17) for $`\gamma _{yx}^{}=0`$ and Eqs. (19) and (20) for $`\gamma _{yx}^{}0`$ in the case of Maxwell molecules shows that the predictions (21) and (22) are only valid in the Navier-Stokes domain of small gradients, where $`P_{yy}/p1+\frac{2}{3}\gamma _x^{}`$. It is worth noting that the application to the unidirectional flow of a rheological theory by Eu E02b  also yields unphysical negative values for the diagonal elements of the pressure tensor UGC02 .

In Ref. E02 , Eu claims that Grad’s moment method is not thermodynamically consistent note2 . Actually, Grad’s method is not but an approximate scheme for (partially) solving the hierarchy of moment equations stemming from the Boltzmann equation. The point I want to emphasize is that the physical inconsistency of the equations for the stress tensor elements derived in Refs. E02 ; UGC99  does not lie in the use of Grad’s method (even if nonlinear terms are neglected), but in the wrong ansatz about the stationarity of the flow. In fact, as said before, the application of Grad’s method to the unidirectional flow at uniform temperature for Maxwell molecules gives the same evolution equations for the stress elements as the Boltzmann equation. Therefore, at least in this instance, Grad’s method is free from any thermodynamic inconsistency.

It might be argued that assumptions (a)–(e) \[or (a), (c), (d’), and (e)\] are used in Refs. E02 ; UGC99  only as a tool to derive rheological constitutive equations relating the irreversible part of the stress tensor to the velocity gradients in a nonlinear way by means of Grad’s method. Such constitutive equations could then be applied to the conservation equations (1)–(3) regardless of whether the flow is steady or not, whether the pressure is uniform or not, etc. However, it is doubtful that a constitutive equation derived from assumptions incompatible with the conservation laws can be acceptable beyond the Navier–Stokes regime, as Fig. 1 illustrates.

Before closing this paper, let me comment on a couple of remarks made in Ref. E02  which are not directly related to the discussion made so far. First, Eu states that “the shear viscosity is impossible to define” in the absence of transversal velocity gradients and, consequently, “it is impossible to measure a shear viscosity without shearing the fluid.” This is misleading. To clarify this point, take the Navier–Stokes constitutive equations, namely CC70 ,

$$P_{ij}=p\delta _{ij}\eta _{\text{NS}}\left(\frac{u_i}{x_j}+\frac{u_j}{x_i}\frac{2}{3}𝐮\delta _{ij}\right).$$
(23)
In the special case of a unidirectional flow $`𝐮=u_x\widehat{𝐱}`$, Eq. (23) yields

$$P_{xy}=\eta _{\text{NS}}\frac{u_x}{y},\frac{1}{2}\left(P_{xx}P_{yy}\right)=\eta _{\text{NS}}\frac{u_x}{x}.$$
(24)
Thus, to Navier–Stokes order, the response of the shear stress $`P_{xy}`$ to a shear rate $`u_x/y`$ is the same as the response of the normal stress difference $`(P_{xx}P_{yy})/2`$ to a longitudinal deformation rate $`u_x/x`$. As a consequence, the Navier–Stokes shear viscosity can be measured from the normal stress difference, even in the absence of shearing ($`u_x/y=0`$).

The second point refers to Eu’s claim E02  that the velocity distribution function $`f(𝐫,𝐯;t)`$ obeying the Boltzmann equation must always depend on the three spatial coordinates despite the fact that the hydrodynamic variables may depend on one space coordinate only, e.g., $`n(x,t)`$, $`𝐮(x,t)`$, $`T(x,t)`$. In support of this claim, Eu recalls that “even if the fluid particle moves one dimensionally in its hydrodynamic configuration space, it does not mean that the molecules making up the fluid particle and contained in the elementary volume of the hydrodynamic configuration space \[…\] should be moving one dimensionally.” While the quoted sentence is entirely correct, Eu’s conclusion, namely that one cannot have $`f(𝐫,𝐯,t)=f(x,𝐯,t)`$, does not apply to the Boltzmann velocity distribution function $`f(𝐫,𝐯,t)`$ but to the microscopic one-body distribution function defined by

$$F(𝐫,𝐯,t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (𝐫𝐫_i(t))\delta (𝐯𝐯_i(t)),$$
(25)
where $`\{𝐫_i(t),i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ and $`\{𝐯_i(t),i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ are the sets of positions and velocities of the particles of the system at time $`t`$. Actually, the velocity distribution function $`f(𝐫,𝐯,t)`$ is the average of $`F(𝐫,𝐯,t)`$,

$$f(𝐫,𝐯,t)=F(𝐫,𝐯,t)=𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }F(𝐫,𝐯,t)\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma }),$$
(26)
where $`\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the probability density or ensemble for the initial state and the integration is carried out over all the points $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the phase space. While in a given microscopic realization of the system $`F(𝐫,𝐯,t)`$ is a highly nonuniform function, its statistical average $`f(𝐫,𝐯,t)`$ has a much smoother spatial dependence. In particular, it can depend on one coordinate only or it can even be uniform (e.g., at equilibrium). Of course, the fact that the hydrodynamic fields have a one-dimensional spatial dependence does not necessarily mean that the same holds to $`f`$, but there is nothing wrong if one restricts oneself to solutions to the Boltzmann equation with the same symmetry properties as the hydrodynamic fields. In fact, the so-called normal solutions are those that depend on space and time through a functional dependence on the hydrodynamic fields CC70 .

###### Acknowledgements.

Partial support from the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Spain) and from FEDER through grant No. BFM2001-0718 is gratefully acknowledged.