text:
# Hydrodynamics in an external field

## 1 Introduction

In a previous paper , we described a stochastic model of a fluid with no external field and derived a system of parabolic equations expressing the dynamics of the density-fields of mass, energy and momentum. An unusual feature of the system is that the Euler continuity equation acquires a diffusion term. This bulk diffusion does not appear in the standard theory , but has arisen in some other work . It is likely that our equations are more stable and physically more accurate than the usual Navier-Stokes equations. In a model in an external field, but without a velocity field , we studied the dynamics of the mass and energy densities; they differed from the equations got by putting the velocity field, $`𝐮(𝐱,t)`$ equal to zero in the Navier-Stokes system. In particular, the mass-density $`\rho (𝐱,t)`$ did not obey the Euler continuity equation with $`𝐮=0`$, but rather the Smoluchowski equation. This contains not only the diffusion term found in , but also a drift, as predicted by Smoluchowski, and implicit in the work of Einstein. In the present paper, we take the model of , and put it in an external field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We derive the full set of equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`\text{div}(𝐮\rho )=\lambda \text{ div}\left(\rho ^1(\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}\rho )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}\right)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho e)}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`\text{div }[𝐮(\rho e+P)]=\lambda \text{ div }[2\rho ^1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}P\right)+\rho ^1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}\rho \right)\mathrm{\Phi }/m`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}\varphi +2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}P]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho 𝐮}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`\text{div}(\rho 𝐮𝐮)=\rho \mathrm{\Phi }/mP+\lambda \text{ div}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}𝐮\right)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{5}}^i\rho ^1\left[3_i\left(\rho (x)\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}𝐮\right)+\left(\rho (x)\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}u_i\right)\right].`$
Here, $`\rho `$ is the mass density, $`𝐮`$ is the velocity field, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the temperature. The energy density per unit mass, $`e`$, reduces in this approximation to $`\mathrm{\Phi }/m+3k_B\mathrm{\Theta }/(2m)`$. The equations reduce to those of  when $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, while if $`𝐮=0`$ they reduce to  with suitable changes due to the different multiplicity of states in the two models. This is a property of any good approximation method, which is not true of the usual compressible Navier-Stokes equations with temperature, as studied in  for example. The equations of  can be extended to models with interparticle forces, treated as a nonlinear mean field theory by a development of the theory of non-linear parabolic systems .

## 2 Review of the model

### 2.1 The sample space, conserved quantities and information manifold

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a finite subset of the cubic lattice $`(a)^3`$ with spacing $`a10^8`$ cm, representing the size of the hard core of the fluid molecules. We endow our model with a local structure by assigning to each $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a sample space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$, which specifies the possible configurations at $`x`$. The total sample space is then the product space $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$. For a structureless monatomic fluid (e.g. argon) we choose

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_x=\{\mathrm{},(ϵ)^3\},$$
(4)
where $`ϵ6.6\times 10^{19}`$ c.g.s. is the quantum of momentum of a particle confined to a region of size $`a^3`$ (see the discussion following equation (6) in ) . A point $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is thus the collection $`\{\omega _x\}_{x\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. If $`\omega `$ is such that $`\omega _x=\mathrm{}`$ for a certain $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ then the configuration $`\omega `$ has no particle at $`x`$; we also say that there is a hole, or vacancy, at $`x`$. If $`\omega _x=𝐤(ϵ)^3`$, then in the configuration $`\omega `$ there is a particle at $`x`$ and its momentum is $`𝐤`$.

The state space of the system consists of the probability measures on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The information manifold $`𝒮\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ associated with the model consists of the parametric exponential family  determined by the slow variables, that is, the local mean values of the five conserved quantities: the mass, energy and the three components of the momentum along the three unit vectors $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ generating the lattice. These are the random variables

$`𝒩_x(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }\omega _x=\mathrm{}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }\omega _x=𝐤(ϵ)^3\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
$`_x(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }\omega _x=\mathrm{}\hfill \\ (2m)^1𝐤.𝐤+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\hfill & \text{ if }\omega _x=𝐤\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
$`𝓟_x(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }\omega _x=\mathrm{}\hfill \\ 𝐤\hfill & \text{ if }\omega _x=𝐤,\hfill \end{array}`$ (13)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the molecule and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a given real-valued potential, which could be time-dependent. The states in $`𝒮\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are those of the form $`p=_xp_x`$, where

$$p_x=\mathrm{\Xi }_x^1\mathrm{exp}\left\{\xi _x𝒩_x\beta _x_x𝜻_x𝓟_x\right\}.$$
(14)
Here, $`\xi _x,\beta _x`$ and $`𝜻_x`$ are fields of intensive variables that obviously determine $`p`$; they are called the canonical coordinates for $`p𝒮`$. The great grand partition function $`\mathrm{\Xi }_x`$ at each site is the normalising factor

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _x\mathrm{\Omega }_x}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\xi _x𝒩_x\beta _x_x𝜻_x𝓟_x\right\}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`1+e^{\xi _x\beta _x\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}Z_1Z_2Z_3,`$ (16)
where

$$Z_i=\underset{kϵ}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\beta _xk^2}{2m}\zeta _x^ik\right).$$
(17)
This can be calculated explicitly if, due to the small parameter $`ϵ`$, we approximate sums by integrals:

$`Z_i`$ $``$ $`ϵ^1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\frac{\beta _xk^2}{2m}\zeta _x^ik}𝑑k`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`ϵ^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m\pi }{\beta }}\right)^{1/2}e^{m(\zeta ^i)^2/(2\beta )}.`$ (19)
The means $`(N_x,E_x,\mathit{\varpi }_x)`$ of the slow variables in a state $`pM`$ also determine $`p`$; these are called the ‘mixture’ coordinates. They are related to the canonical coordinates by a Legendre transform:

$`N_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Xi }_x}{\xi _x}},x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (20)
$`E_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Xi }_x}{\beta _x}},x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (21)
$`\varpi _x^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Xi }_x}{\zeta _x^i}},i=1,2,3,x\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (22)
Using the explicit expression for the partition function, these can be used to deduce several equations relating the macroscopic variables in the theory. In particular, if we introduce the mean velocity field

$$𝐮_x=\frac{\mathit{\varpi }_x}{mN_x},$$
(23)
and the temperature field $`\mathrm{\Theta }_x=1/(k_B\beta _x)`$, it is straightforward to show that

$$\zeta ^i=\frac{\beta _x\varpi _x^i}{mN_x}=\beta _xu_x^i$$
(24)
and

$$E_x=N_x\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+\frac{3}{2}k_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x+\frac{1}{2}m𝐮_x𝐮_x\right).$$
(25)
The discrete nature of the model allows us to use the von Neumann entropy

$$S(p):=k_B\underset{\omega }{}p(\omega )\mathrm{log}p(\omega ),$$
(26)
which for $`p𝒮`$ gives

$$S=\underset{𝐱\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\left(\xi _𝐱N_𝐱+\beta _𝐱E_𝐱+𝜻_𝒙\mathit{\varpi }_𝒙+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Xi }_𝐱\right)$$
(27)
An argument from equilibrium theory  then leads to the definition of the thermodynamical pressure as

$$P(𝐱)=a^3k_B\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Xi }_𝐱.$$
(28)
If the ratio $`V_0/V`$ (between the smallest volume that the $`N=_xN_x`$ particles can occupy, that is $`V_0=a^3N`$, and the total volume $`V`$) is small, then the formula above for the pressure reduces to the perfect gas approximation

$$P_x=\frac{N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x}{a^3}$$
(29)
The other macroscopic variables in terms of which the hydrodynamical equations are written are the mass density $`\rho (x)=mN_x/a^3`$ and the energy-density per unit of mass $`e(x)=E_x/(mN_x)`$. If we ignore the small term involving $`𝐮_x𝐮_x`$ in (25), we see that

$$e(x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{m}+\frac{3k_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x}{2m}:=\varphi (x)+\frac{3k_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x}{2m}.$$
(30)
### 2.2 The hopping dynamics and the continuum limit

Whether time is discrete or continuous, the dynamics traces out an orbit in $`𝒮`$. The need to take the time-interval larger than zero has been well explained in . For discrete time, the dynamics consists of two steps. The first one is a stochastic map $`T:\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which maps each shell

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{N,E,\mathit{\varpi }}=\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }:\underset{x}{}𝒩_x=N,\underset{x}{}_x=E,\underset{x}{}𝓟_x=\mathit{\varpi }\}$$

to itself. This is obtained when we specify the hopping rules that are responsible for changing the configuration of the particles and hence the local values of the slow variables. If we start with a state $`p𝒮`$, the state $`T(p)`$ will generally not be an exponential state. The second step in the dynamics is then a orthogonal projection back to $`𝒮`$ following a path that conserves the means of all the slow variables. This is the thermalising map $`Q`$, defined for any state $`p`$ with finite expectations of the five slow fields, as the unique point in $`𝒮`$ with these expectations as mixture coordinates. So $`Qp`$ is determined by

$`𝐄_{Qp}[𝒩_x]`$ $`=`$ $`𝐄_p[𝒩_x]=N_x`$ (31)
$`𝐄_{Qp}[_x]`$ $`=`$ $`𝐄_p[_x]=E_x`$ (32)
$`𝐄_{Qp}[𝓟_x]`$ $`=`$ $`𝐄_p[𝓟_x]=\mathit{\varpi }_x.`$ (33)
The precise meaning of orthogonality in the description above, as well as the characterisation of the path followed during the projection as a geodesic for a certain affine connection (the ‘mixture’ connection), is part of the subject called information geometry .

Our model is specified by giving hopping rules. We require that $`T`$ should couple only neighbouring points in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where we consider two points to be neighbours if their distance along one of the lattice unit vectors is one mean free path, denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$. A particle moving from a site is taken to move exactly the distance $`\mathrm{}`$, and then to thermalise. This was called abrupt thermalisation. The more elaborate assumption, that the size of its hop is random, governed by the exponential law with mean $`\mathrm{}`$, leads  to similar conclusions. We assume that $`\mathrm{}`$ is an integer multiple of the lattice spacing $`a`$, but allow it to depend on the local density by taking $`\mathrm{}/a`$ to be the nearest integer to

$$\frac{\rho _{max}}{\rho (x)}=\frac{m}{a^3\rho (x)}.$$

Suppose that $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is such that $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is occupied. Consider in turn the possibility of jumping from $`x`$ along the direction of the unit vectors $`\pm e_i`$ of the cubic lattice to an empty site $`x^{}:=x\pm \mathrm{}e_i,i=1,2,3`$. In the absence of an external potential , the jump will take a time $`\mathrm{}/|v_x^i|`$, where $`𝐯_x:=𝐤_x/m`$. We then define the (random) hopping rate from $`x`$ to $`x+\mathrm{}e_i`$ to be the inverse of this relaxation time, namely $`v_x^i/\mathrm{}`$ if $`v_x^i0`$ and zero if $`v_x^i`$ is negative, in which case there is a rate $`v_x^i/\mathrm{}`$ of hopping to $`x\mathrm{}e_i`$. The situation in the presence of an external potential is a little more involved, because the potential causes a change in the velocity along the jump. From now on, assume for definiteness that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\mathrm{}e_i)>\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$. If the particle at $`x`$ hops to $`x+\mathrm{}e_i`$, its potential energy increases to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\mathrm{}e_i)`$ and so its kinetic energy must decrease by the same amount. Its change in momentum is taken to be entirely in the direction of $`e_i`$. So its velocity in the $`i`$-direction, $`v_x:=k_x/m`$ (we omit the index $`i`$ for $`v`$ and $`k`$ in the following formulae since it is clear from the rest of the notation what is the component involved) is reduced to $`v_x^{}:=k_x^{}/m`$, where

$`k_x^2/(2m)`$ $`=`$ $`k_x^2/(2m)\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\mathrm{}e_i)+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`k_x^2/(2m)\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+O(\mathrm{}^2),`$
that is

$$k_x^{}=\left(k_x^22m\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)^{1/2}.$$
(35)
In order for the move to be energetically possible, we must have

$$k_x\kappa _x^i:=\left(2\mathrm{}m_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)^{1/2}.$$
(36)
Similarly, if the particle at $`x`$ with velocity $`v_x<0`$ in the $`i`$-direction hops to $`x\mathrm{}e_i`$, its potential energy decreases to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_i)`$, with a corresponding rise in its kinetic energy. Therefore (again taking the change in momentum to be entirely in the $`i`$-direction) its (negative) velocity in the $`i`$-direction becomes $`v_x^{\prime \prime }=k_x^{\prime \prime }/m`$, where

$`k_x^{\prime \prime 2}/(2m)`$ $`=`$ $`k_x^2/(2m)+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_i)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`k_x^2/(2m)+\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_i)+O(\mathrm{}^2),`$
that is

$$k_x^{\prime \prime }=\left(k_x^2+2m\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_i)\right)^{1/2}.$$
(38)
We take the hopping rate from $`x`$ to $`x^{}=x\pm \mathrm{}e_i`$ to be the average of the initial and final rates:

$$r(k_x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}r_{}(k_x):=\frac{v_x+v_x^{\prime \prime }}{2m\mathrm{}}=\frac{k_x+\left[k_x^2+(\kappa _{x\mathrm{}e_i}^i)^2\right]^{1/2}}{2m\mathrm{}},& \text{ if }k_x0;\hfill \\ r_+(k_x):=\frac{v_x+v_x^{}}{2m\mathrm{}}=\frac{k_x+\left[k_x^2(\kappa _x^i)^2\right]^{1/2}}{2m\mathrm{}},& \text{ if }k_x\kappa _x^i.\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
These hopping rates increase with $`k_x`$ and there are infinitely many possible momentum states. To be a Markov chain, the sum of all rates out of a configuration must be less than one. For any $`k_x`$ this can be achieved by choosing $`dt`$ small enough. To do this for all $`k_x`$ with a fixed $`dt`$ we must put in a cut-off; there are no hops if $`|k_x|>K_x`$, say. Finally, $`r(k_x)dt`$ gives the probability of a transition in an interval $`dt`$ provided that the site $`x`$ is occupied and the site $`x^{}`$ is empty, so the actual entries of the Markov matrix are conditional probabilities and the transition rate above should appear multiplied by factors of the form $`N_x(1N_x^{})`$. As argued in , we neglect $`N_x`$ comparing to 1, therefore leaving out the second term in the factors above.

The continuum limit we are going to take in order to obtain the hydrodynamical equations corresponds to $`\mathrm{}0`$, $`c\mathrm{}`$ such that the product $`\mathrm{}c`$ remains finite and non-zero, where

$$c:=\left(\frac{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }_0}{m}\right)^{1/2}$$
(40)
is the approximate velocity of sound at the reference temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$. The diffusion constant that appears when we take the limit is then predicted to be

$$\lambda :=\frac{\mathrm{}c\rho }{(2\pi \mathrm{\Theta }_0)^{1/2}}=\frac{a\rho _{max}c}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Theta }_0)^{1/2}}.$$
(41)
## 3 Hydrodynamics in an external field

When a transition from $`x`$ to $`x+\mathrm{}e_i`$ occurs in a potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the loss of mass and energy from the site $`x`$ is equal to the gain at the site $`x+\mathrm{}e_i`$. This is not true of momentum; the loss at $`x`$ differs from the gain at $`x+\mathrm{}e_i`$ by $`\kappa _i:=(2\mathrm{}m_i\mathrm{\Phi })^{1/2}`$. So we deal will $`𝒩`$ and $``$ first. We take it that if $`0k^{}<\kappa _i`$ then no hop is made.

Before we start the calculations, let us recall that integrals of the form

$$M_n(\zeta )=_0^{\mathrm{}}k^n\mathrm{exp}\{\beta k^2/(2m)\zeta k\}𝑑k,n=0,1,2,3$$

were evaluated up to second order in $`\zeta `$ in Appendix 1 of . For later use, we reproduce the results here up to zeroth order in $`\zeta `$ for $`n=0,1`$,

$`M_0(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi m}{2\beta }}\right)^{1/2},`$ (42)
$`M_1(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }},`$ (43)
and to first order in $`\zeta `$ for $`n=2`$,

$$M_2(\zeta )=\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{m}{\beta }\right)^{3/2}2\left(\frac{m}{\beta }\right)^2\zeta .$$
(44)
### 3.1 Dynamics of the mass-density in an external field

Since the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is external, it does not depend on the configuration $`\omega _x`$ of the random fields at $`x`$. It therefore cancels in the exponential states. This is seen in its simplest case in the model studied in . The potential enters only in its supression or enhancement of the transition rate; in the present case, the rate is the average of the initial and final rates. This shows up mainly in the appearance of a non-zero lower limit to the (positive) momentum for any right-going hop to be possible.

Let $`J_x^i/\mathrm{}`$ be the change in the value of $`N_x`$ due to the hoppings occuring between $`x`$ and $`x\mathrm{}e_i`$ in such a way that the change due to exchanges with both $`x\pm \mathrm{}e_i`$ in an interval $`\delta t`$ is

$$\delta _iN_x=\frac{J_{x+\mathrm{}e^i}^iJ_x^i}{\mathrm{}}\delta t.$$
(45)
So the total change in $`N_x`$ in an interval $`\delta t`$ due to hoppings in all directions is

$$\delta N_x=(\delta _1N_x+\delta _2N_x+\delta _3N_x)\delta t.$$
(46)
Using the hopping rates defined in the previous section, the loss/gain contribution to the particle current involving the exchange between $`x`$ and $`x\mathrm{}e_i`$ is

$$J_x^i=\underset{k^i0}{}\mathrm{}r_{}(k_x)p_x(𝐤)𝒩_x(𝐤)+\underset{k^i\kappa ^i}{}\mathrm{}r_+(k_{x\mathrm{}e_i})p_{x\mathrm{}e_i}(k)𝒩_{x\mathrm{}e_i}(k).$$
(47)
As in , the analysis of this expression is best handled by introducing a conditional probability $`\overline{p}_x(\omega )=p(\omega |𝒩_x=1)`$ on the particle space $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$, that is,

$$\overline{p}_x(𝐤)=(Z_1Z_2Z_3)^1\mathrm{exp}\{\beta _x|𝐤|^2/(2m)𝜻_x𝐤\}.$$
(48)
We now use the fact that $`p_x(k)=N_x\overline{p}_x(k)`$ and $`𝒩_x(k)=1`$ on the particle space $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$, replace the sums by integrals in (47), and add and subtract the term

$$F_x^i=N_x(Z_iϵ)^1_{k\kappa }\mathrm{}r_+(k)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta k\right\}𝑑k,$$
(49)
to obtain

$`J_x^i`$ $`=`$ $`F_x^i{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}}{\displaystyle _{k0}}\mathrm{}r_{}(k_x)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik\right)𝑑k`$ (50)
$`\mathrm{}\left(F_x^iF_{x\mathrm{}e_i}^i\right)/\mathrm{}.`$
We start by calculating $`F_x^i`$. In the term

$$_{k\kappa }\frac{k+(k^2\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik\right\}𝑑k,$$

we make the change of variable

$$k^2=k^2\kappa ^2.$$

Then $`kdk=k^{}dk^{}`$, and the integral becomes

$$_{k^{}0}\frac{k^{}\left[(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}\right]}{2m(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta (k^2+\kappa ^2)}{2m}\zeta ^i(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}\right\}𝑑k^{},$$

which can be written as

$`{\displaystyle _{k^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}\left[(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}\right]}{2m(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}}\left((k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k^{}\right)\zeta ^i\right\}dk^{}.`$
The arguments of the exponentials are small, and we expand them to first order:

$$\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}\left[\left(k^2+\kappa ^2\right)^{1/2}k^{}\right]\zeta ^i\right\}=1\frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}\left[k^{}\left(k^2+\kappa ^2\right)^{1/2}\right]\zeta ^i.$$

This gives us the three terms

$`{\displaystyle _{k^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}\left[(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}\right]}{2m(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle _{k^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}\left[(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}\right]}{2m(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\zeta ^i}{2m}}{\displaystyle _{k^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}.`$ (53)
The dominant term is (51), in which we may replace the factor

$$\frac{k^{}\left[(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}\right]}{2m(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}$$

by the velocity when $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, namely $`k^{}/m`$, with an error of $`O(\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{})`$ (Appendix 1). So the contribution of this term to the mass current can be approximated in the limit by

$$\frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{k^{}}{m}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k.$$
(54)
Making the same replacement in (52), with the same error, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{m}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m^2}}M_1(\zeta ^i).`$
Therefore, the contribution coming from (52) to the mass current is

$$\frac{N_x\beta \kappa ^2}{2m^2Z_iϵ}M_1(\zeta ^i)=\frac{N_x\beta \kappa ^2}{2m^2}\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi m}\right)^{1/2}e^{m(\zeta ^i)^2/2\beta }M_1(\zeta ^i),$$

which, to zeroth order in $`\zeta ^i`$, gives

$$N_x\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi m}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\frac{N_x}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}\frac{\mathrm{}c}{2\pi \mathrm{\Theta }_0}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\frac{\lambda N_x}{\rho k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x).$$
(55)
When multiplied by $`m/a^3`$ this is what we call the Smoluchowski, or drift, current:

$$J_S^i=\lambda \frac{_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}.$$
(56)
The integral in (53) is bounded by

$$\frac{\kappa ^2\zeta ^i}{2m}M_0(\zeta ^i).$$

Expanding $`M_0`$ to zeroth order in $`\zeta ^i`$, this gives

$$\frac{\zeta ^i\kappa ^2}{2m}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{2\pi m}{\beta }\right)^{1/2}=\frac{\zeta ^i\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{2}\left(\frac{2\pi m}{\beta }\right)^{1/2}=\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\mathrm{}u^i}{c}_i\mathrm{\Phi },$$

so that it can be ignored in the limit.

We now turn our attention to the second term in the current (50). We can again replace the factor $`\mathrm{}r_{}`$ by $`|k^i|/m`$ (Appendix 2), so that the contribution to the mass current from this term is

$$\frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}_{\mathrm{}}^0\frac{k}{m}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik\right\}𝑑k.$$
(57)
When we combine this with (54) and multiply it all by $`m/a^3`$ what we find is simply $`\rho u^i`$.

Finally, we need to deal with the last term in (50), which in the limit becomes just $`\mathrm{}_iF_x^i`$. As we have just shown, the only non-negligible terms in $`F_x^i`$ itself are (54) and (55). But (55) is already of order $`\mathrm{}c`$ and therefore can be ignored when multiplied by the additional $`\mathrm{}`$ above. The only term that survives is

$`\mathrm{}_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{m}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik\right\}𝑑k\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}_i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}e^{m(\zeta ^i)^2/2\beta }M_1(\zeta ^i)\right],`$
which, to zeroth order in $`\zeta ^i`$, is

$$\mathrm{}_i\left(\frac{N_x}{(2\pi m\beta )^{1/2}}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Theta }_0)^{1/2}}_i\left(\frac{N_x}{k_B^{1/2}\beta ^{1/2}}\right)=\frac{\lambda }{\rho }_i(\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}N_x).$$
(58)
When multiplied by $`m/a^3`$ this is what we call the diffusion current

$$J_d^i=\frac{\lambda }{\rho }_i(\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}\rho ),$$
(59)
which is made up of the Fick current

$$\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}_i(\mathrm{log}\rho )$$
(60)
and the Soret current

$$\lambda (2\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2})^1_i\mathrm{\Theta }.$$
(61)
Therefore, we obtain the total mass current by collecting together (54), (57), (55) and (58), that is

$$J_x^i=N_xu_x^i\frac{\lambda }{\rho }\frac{N_x}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\frac{\lambda }{\rho }_i(\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}N_x).$$
(62)
We now go back to (45) and expand the finite difference in there as

$$\frac{J_{x+\mathrm{}e_i}^iJ_x^i}{\mathrm{}}=\frac{J_x^i}{x^i}+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{^2J_x^i}{x^{i^2}}+O(\mathrm{}^2).$$

Since the expression we just found for $`J_x^i`$ does not contain any term with a large factor $`c`$, we see that, in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ subject to keeping $`\mathrm{}c`$ finite, equation (46) becomes

$$\frac{N_x}{t}+\text{div}J=0.$$
(63)
Multiplying both sides of (63) by $`m/a^3`$ gives us the equation for the time evolution of the particle’s density

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\text{div}(𝐮\rho )=\lambda \text{ div}\left(\rho ^1(\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}\rho )+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}\right),$$
(64)
or

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\text{div}(J_\rho )=0$$
(65)
where the conserved density current is found to be

$$J_\rho =𝐮\rho +J_d+J_S.$$
(66)
### 3.2 Dynamics of the energy in an external potential

Let $`J_x^i/\mathrm{}`$ be now the change in the value of $`E_x`$ due to the hoppings occuring between $`x`$ and $`x\mathrm{}e_i`$. As before, the change due to exchanges with both $`x\pm \mathrm{}e_i`$ in an interval $`\delta t`$ is

$$\delta _iE_x=\frac{J_{x+\mathrm{}e_i}^iJ_x^i}{\mathrm{}}\delta t$$
(67)
and the total change due in $`E_x`$ in an interval $`\delta t`$ due to hoppings in all directions is

$$\delta E_x=(\delta _1E_x+\delta _2E_x+\delta _3E_x)\delta t.$$
(68)
We have that

$$J_x^i=\underset{k^i0}{}\mathrm{}r_{}(k_x)p_x(𝐤)_x(𝐤)+\underset{k^i\kappa ^i}{}\mathrm{}r_+(k_{x\mathrm{}e_i})p_{x\mathrm{}e_i}(𝐤)_{x\mathrm{}e_i}(𝐤),$$
(69)
where $`=𝐤𝐤/2m+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$.

The analogue of the quantity $`F_x`$ of the previous section is now

$$G_x^i=N_x(Zϵ^3)^1_{k^i\kappa ^i}\mathrm{}r_+(k^i)\left(\frac{𝐤𝐤}{2m}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta 𝐤𝐤}{2m}𝜻𝐤\right\}d^3𝐤.$$
(70)
Adding and subtracting this to (69), replacing sums by integrals and again using that $`p_x(k)=N_x\overline{p}_x(k)`$, we obtain

$`J_x^i`$ $`=`$ $`G_x^i{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k^i0}}\mathrm{}r_{}(k_x)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐤}{2m}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤𝐤}{2m}}𝜻𝐤\right\}d^3𝐤`$ (71)
$`\mathrm{}\left(G_x^iG_{x\mathrm{}e_i}^i\right)/\mathrm{}.`$
We calculate $`G_x`$ first (for $`i=1`$). In the integral

$$_{k_1\kappa }\frac{k_1+(k_1^2\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m}\left(\frac{𝐤𝐤}{2m}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta 𝐤𝐤}{2m}𝜻𝐤\right\}d^3𝐤,$$

we make the change of variables $`k_1^2=k_1^2\kappa ^2`$ while keeping $`k_2^{}=k_2`$ and $`k_3^{}=k_3`$. Note that

$$k_1^2/2m+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=k_1^2/2m+\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\mathrm{}e_1)$$

and $`k_1dk_1=k_1^{}dk_1^{}`$, so defining

$$A(𝐤^{})=\left(\frac{𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\mathrm{}e_1)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\},$$

the integral becomes

$$_{k_1^{}0}\frac{k_1^{}\left[(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k_1^{}\right]}{2m(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}A(𝐤^{})\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}\left((k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k_1^{}\right)\zeta ^1\right\}d^3𝐤^{}$$
(72)
We now expand the exponential to first order

$$\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}\left[\left(k_1^2+\kappa ^2\right)^{1/2}k_1^{}\right]\zeta ^1\right\}=1\frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}\left[k_1^{}\left(k_1^2+\kappa ^2\right)^{1/2}\right]\zeta ^1.$$

Thus the integral splits in the following three terms

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}\left[(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k_1^{}\right]}{2m(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}A(𝐤^{})d^3𝐤^{}`$ (73)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\beta \kappa ^2}{2mZϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}\left[(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k_1^{}\right]}{2m(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}A(𝐤^{})d^3𝐤^{}`$ (75)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\kappa ^2}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}}{2m(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}A(𝐤^{})d^3𝐤^{}.`$
If, we approximate the hopping rates appearing above simply by $`k_1^{}/m`$ (Appendix 3) and use that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\mathrm{}e_1)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$, the integral in (73) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}d^3𝐤^{}`$ (76)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}}{m}}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}d^3𝐤^{}`$
The first part of (76) is later going to be combined with the integral over the negative values of $`k_1`$ appearing in the second term of (71). As for the second part of (76), we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}}{m}}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}d^3𝐤^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{Z_1ϵm}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}k_1^{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k_1^2}{2m}}\zeta ^1k_1\right\}𝑑k_1^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{Z_1ϵm}}M_1(\zeta ^1)={\displaystyle \frac{N_x\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}M_1(\zeta ^1)e^{\frac{m(\zeta ^1)^2}{2\beta }}`$
Expanding it to zeroth order in $`\zeta ^1`$, we get

$$\frac{N_x\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{\beta }\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi m}\right)^{1/2}=\frac{\lambda }{\rho }N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x).$$
(77)
For the integral (75), we again approximate the hopping rate by $`k_1^{}/m`$ and use that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\mathrm{}e_1)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$, to obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\beta \kappa ^2}{2m^2Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}k_1^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}d^3𝐤^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\beta \kappa ^2}{2m^2Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}k_1^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x))\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}d^3𝐤^{}`$ (78)
The first term above divides into three integrals. The first one is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta N_x\kappa ^2}{2m^2Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^3}{2m}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}d^3𝐤^{}`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta N_x\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }}{mZ_1ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_3(\zeta ^1)}{2m}}`$
$`=`$ $`N_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)k_B\mathrm{\Theta };`$
the second one is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta N_x\kappa ^2}{2m^2Z_1Z_2ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^3}{2m}}e^{\frac{\beta k_1^2}{2m}\zeta ^1k_1}𝑑k_1{\displaystyle _{k_2}}k_2^2e^{\frac{\beta k_2^2}{2m}\zeta ^2k_2}𝑑k_2`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta N_x\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{mZ_1ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(\zeta ^1)}{2m}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(\zeta ^2)^2}{\beta ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`N_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m(u^2)^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_B\mathrm{\Theta }\right];`$
while the third one is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta N_x\kappa ^2}{2m^2Z_1Z_3ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^3}{2m}}e^{\frac{\beta k_1^2}{2m}\zeta ^1k_1}𝑑k_1{\displaystyle _{k_3}}k_3^2e^{\frac{\beta k_3^2}{2m}\zeta ^3k_3}𝑑k_3`$ (81)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta N_x\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{mZ_1ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1(\zeta ^1)}{2m}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(\zeta ^3)^2}{\beta ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`N_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m(u^3)^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_B\mathrm{\Theta }\right].`$
So the total contribution from the first term of (78) is

$$N_x\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi m}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\left(\frac{m(u^2)^2}{2}+\frac{m(u^3)^2}{2}+2k_B\mathrm{\Theta }\right).$$
(82)
The terms involving the velocities disappear in the limit. The remaining term is

$$2\frac{\lambda }{\rho }N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x).$$
(83)
As for the second part of (78) we have

$$\frac{N_x\beta \kappa ^2}{2m^2Zϵ^3}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right]M_1(\zeta ^1)=N_x\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi m}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right],$$
(84)
of which only the first term survives in the limit, leaving us with

$$\lambda \frac{_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}\frac{N_x}{\rho }\mathrm{\Phi }(x)$$
(85)
The integral in (75) is itself of smaller order and can be ignored (Appendix 4). This completes the contribution of $`G_x^i`$ to the energy current.

We move on to deal with the second term in (71). The factor $`\mathrm{}r_{}`$ can be replaced by $`k_1/m`$ (Appendix 5), leading to a contribution of the form

$$\frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}_{k_10}\frac{k_1}{m}\left(\frac{𝐤𝐤}{2m}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta 𝐤𝐤}{2m}𝜻𝐤\right\}d^3𝐤.$$
(86)
As promised, this joins the first part of (76) to give

$`N_x𝐄_{\overline{p}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_1}{m}}_x\right]`$ $`=`$ $`N_x𝐄_{\overline{p}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_1}{m}}\right]𝐄_{\overline{p}}[]+N_x\overline{cor}({\displaystyle \frac{𝒫^1}{m}},_x)`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`u_x^1E_x+{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{log}Z}{\zeta _1\beta }}`$
$`=`$ $`u_x^1E_x+N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_xu_x^1`$
We finally look at the last part of (71), which in the limit becomes $`\mathrm{}_1G_x`$. As we have just seen, all the contribution coming from $`G_x`$ are already of order $`\mathrm{}c`$ (and can therefore be discarded when multiplied by the additional $`\mathrm{}`$ above) with the exception of the first part of (76), that is,

$$\frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}_{k_1^{}0}\frac{k_1^{}}{m}\left(\frac{𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}d^3𝐤^{}.$$
(88)
We recognise the term not involving $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as being equal to the first term in (78) times a factor $`2m/\beta \kappa ^2=(\beta \mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x))^1`$. Therefore, its contribution to the energy current is

$$\mathrm{}_1\left[2\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{}\rho }N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}\right]=2\frac{\lambda }{\rho }_1(N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}).$$
(89)
As for the term involving $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we again recognise it as being equal to the term involving $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the second part of (78) times the factor $`2m/\beta \kappa ^2=1/\beta \mathrm{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therefore, its contribution to the energy current is

$$\mathrm{}_1\left[\frac{\lambda }{\rho }\frac{N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right]=\frac{\lambda }{\rho }_1(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2})\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\frac{\lambda }{\rho }N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(x)$$
(90)
We can now take a breath and collect all the terms we have obtained for the energy current to put back in (71). They are (77), (83), (85), (87), (89) and (90) and the end result is

$`J_x^i`$ $`=`$ $`u_x^i(E_x+N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x)2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ (91)
$``$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{\rho }}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}_i(N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}_i(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2})\mathrm{\Phi }(x).`$
Again we see that none of the terms in $`J_x^i`$ contains a large factor $`c`$, so that the discussion preceding (63) applies here as well and in the limit we obtain

$$\frac{E_x}{t}+\text{div}J=0,$$
(92)
that is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_x}{t}}+\text{ div }[𝐮_x(E_x+N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x)]=\text{ div }[2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ (93)
$`+`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{\rho }}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}(N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2})+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2})\mathrm{\Phi }(x)].`$
We now use that $`e(x)=E_x/(mN_x)`$, $`\varphi (x)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x)/m`$, $`\rho (x)=mN_x/a^3`$ and $`P_x=N_xK_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x/a^3`$, divide both sides of the previous equation by $`a^3`$ and obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho e)}{t}}+\text{ div }[𝐮(\rho e+P)]`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \text{ div }[2\rho ^1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}P\right)+\rho ^1\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}\rho \right)\varphi `$ (94)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}\varphi +2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}P],`$
which can be written as (recall (56) and (59))

$$\frac{(\rho e)}{t}+\text{ div }[𝐮(\rho e+P)+(J_d+J_S)\varphi +2J_SP]=2\lambda \text{ div }\left[\rho ^1\left(P\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}\right)\right]$$
(95)
### 3.3 Dynamics of the momentum in an external field

Since momentum is not conserved (as there are body-forces due to the external field), the rate of change of momentum density will not be the divergence of something; we expect the extra term to be $`\rho 𝐟`$ where $`𝐟:=\mathrm{\Phi }/m`$ is the force per unit mass. To see this, let us define the current $`J_x^i`$ as in the previous sections, namely

$$J_x^i=\underset{k^i0}{}\mathrm{}r_{}(k_x^i)p_x(k)𝒫_x^j(k)+\underset{k^i\kappa ^i}{}\mathrm{}r_+(k_{x\mathrm{}e_i}^i)p_{x\mathrm{}e_i}(k)𝒫_{x\mathrm{}e_i}^j(k)$$
(96)
Then the change in $`\varpi _x^j`$ due to exchanges with both $`x\pm \mathrm{}e_i`$ in an interval $`\delta t`$ will only be given by the usual

$$\delta _i\varpi _x^j=\frac{J_{x+\mathrm{}e^i}^iJ_x^i}{\mathrm{}}\delta t$$
(97)
for $`ij`$, because it is implicit in this formula that the particles hopping from $`x\pm \mathrm{}e_i`$ to $`x`$ have their $`j`$-component of the momentum unchanged during the jump. We do this case first. The analogue of $`F_x^i`$ and $`G_x^i`$ from the previous sections is now

$$H_x^i=N_x(Zϵ^3)^1_{k^i\kappa ^i}\mathrm{}r_+(k^i)k^j\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta 𝐤𝐤}{2m}𝜻𝐤\right\}d^3𝐤.$$
(98)
Adding and subtracting this to (96), replacing sums by integral and using that $`p_x(k)=N_x\overline{p}_x(k)`$, we obtain the familiar form

$`J_x^i`$ $`=`$ $`H_x^i{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k^i0}}\mathrm{}r_{}(k^i)k^j\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤𝐤}{2m}}𝜻𝐤\right\}d^3𝐤`$ (99)
$``$ $`\mathrm{}\left(H_x^iH_{x\mathrm{}e_i}^i\right)/\mathrm{}.`$
Notice that since $`\varpi _x^j=mN_xu_x^j`$, in this section we shall keep all terms of order $`mu_x^j`$. If we now perform in (98) the integrations over $`k_r`$ ($`ri`$, $`rj`$) and $`k_j`$ we find

$`H_x^i`$ $`=`$ $`mu_x^j{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}}{\displaystyle _{k\kappa }}\mathrm{}r_+(k)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta k\right\}𝑑k`$
$`=`$ $`mu_x^jF_x^i.`$
But now we can use the calculation we have already done for $`F_x^i`$, that is, in the limit we have

$`H_x^i`$ $`=`$ $`mu_x^j{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{m}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k`$ (100)
$``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda N_x}{\rho k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right]mu_x^j`$
The second term above, when multiplied by $`m/a^3`$, simply gives $`mu_x^jJ_S^i`$.

As for the second term in (99), we can also perform the integrations over $`k_r`$ ($`ri`$,$`rj`$) and $`k_j`$, as well as to replace the factor $`\mathrm{}r_{}(k^i)`$ by $`k^i/m`$ to find

$$mu_x^j\frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}_{\mathrm{}}^0\frac{k}{m}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik\right\}𝑑k.$$
(101)
When we add this to what we have found in the first term in (100) and multiply them $`m/a^3`$, the resulting term is $`m\rho u_x^ju_x^i`$.

Finally, we look at the last term in (99), which in the limit becomes $`\mathrm{}_iH_x^i`$. Since the second term in (100) is already of order $`\mathrm{}c`$, we see that the only surviving contribution here is

$$\mathrm{}_i\left[mu_x^j\frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{k^{}}{m}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k\right]=\mathrm{}_i\left[mu_x^j\frac{N_x}{Z_iϵm}M_1(\zeta ^i)\right],$$
(102)
which, to zeroth order in $`\zeta ^i`$, gives

$`\mathrm{}_i\left[mu_x^j{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Theta }_0)^{1/2}}}_i(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu^j)`$ (103)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}_i(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu^j).`$
Therefore, the momentum current, for $`ij`$, is given by

$$J_x^i=mN_xu_x^ju_x^i\left[\frac{\lambda N_x}{\rho k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}_i\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right]mu_x^j\frac{\lambda }{\rho }_i(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu^j).$$
(104)
Once more, none of the above terms contain a large factor $`c`$, so in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ subject to $`\mathrm{}c`$ finite, we can approximate the term $`(J_{x+\mathrm{}e_i}^iJ_x^i)/\mathrm{}`$ in (97) simply by $`_iJ_x^i`$.

For $`i=j`$, equation (97) is not correct. In this case, if $`k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}>\kappa _{x\mathrm{}e_j}^j`$ is the $`j`$-component of the momentum for a particle at $`x\mathrm{}e_j`$, then

$$k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}^{}=[k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}^22m\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_j)]^{1/2}$$

is the $`j`$-component of its momentum when it arrives at $`x`$. Similarly, if $`k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}<0`$ is the $`j`$-component of the momentum for a particle at $`x+\mathrm{}e_j`$, then

$$k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}^{\prime \prime }=[k_{x+\mathrm{}e_i}^2+2m\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)]^{1/2}$$

is the $`j`$-component of its momentum when it gets to $`x`$. Therefore, the total rate of change in $`\varpi _x^j`$ due to exchanges with $`x\pm \mathrm{}e_j`$ consists of the following four terms

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _j\varpi _x^j}{\delta t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}0}{}}r_{}(k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j})k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}^{\prime \prime }p_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}(𝐤_{x+\mathrm{}e_j})`$ (105)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_x\kappa _x^j}{}}r_+(k_x)k_xp_x(𝐤_x){\displaystyle \underset{k_x0}{}}r_{}(k_x)k_xp_x(𝐤_x)`$ (106)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}\kappa _{x\mathrm{}e_j}^j}{}}r_+(k_{x\mathrm{}e_j})k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}^{}p_{x\mathrm{}e_j}(𝐤_{x\mathrm{}e_j})`$ (107)
If we now recall from (39) what the hopping rates look like, and use that

$`\left(k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}+k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}^{\prime \prime }\right)k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}+k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}^{\prime \prime }\right)k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}+2m\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$
$`\left(k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}+k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}^{}\right)k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}+k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}^{}\right)k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}2\mathrm{}m_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_j),`$
then we can rewrite the above as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _j\varpi _x^j}{\delta t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}0}{}}r_{}(k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j})k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}p_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}(𝐤_{x+\mathrm{}e_j})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_x\kappa _x^j}{}}r_+(k_x)k_xp_x(𝐤_x){\displaystyle \underset{k_x0}{}}r_{}(k_x)k_xp_x(𝐤_x)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}\kappa _{x\mathrm{}e_j}^j}{}}r_+(k_{x\mathrm{}e_j})k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}p_{x\mathrm{}e_j}(𝐤_{x\mathrm{}e_j})`$
$``$ $`_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x){\displaystyle \underset{k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}0}{}}p_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}(𝐤_{x+\mathrm{}e_j})`$
$``$ $`_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_j){\displaystyle \underset{k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}\kappa _{x\mathrm{}e_j}^j}{}}p_{x\mathrm{}e_j}(𝐤_{x\mathrm{}e_j})`$
which we then recognise as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _j\varpi _x^j}{\delta t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{x+\mathrm{}e^j}^jJ_x^j}{\mathrm{}}}`$ (108)
$``$ $`_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x){\displaystyle \underset{k_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}0}{}}p_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}(𝐤_{x+\mathrm{}e_j})`$
$``$ $`_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_j){\displaystyle \underset{k_{x\mathrm{}e_j}\kappa _{x\mathrm{}e_j}^j}{}}p_{x\mathrm{}e_j}(𝐤_{x\mathrm{}e_j}).`$
In the limit, the last two terms above add up to $`N_x_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ (Appendix 6).

Let us now calculate $`J_x^j`$, that is

$`J_x^j`$ $`=`$ $`H_x^j{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k^j0}}\mathrm{}r_{}(k^j)k^j\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤𝐤}{2m}}𝜻𝐤\right\}d^3𝐤`$ (109)
$``$ $`\mathrm{}\left(H_x^jH_{x\mathrm{}e_j}^j\right)/\mathrm{}.`$
We find that $`H_x^j`$ reduces to

$$H_x^j=\frac{N_x}{Z_jϵ}_{k\kappa }\frac{k+(k^2\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m}k\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^jk\right\}𝑑k,$$

where we can make the familiar change of variables $`k^2=k^2\kappa ^2`$ to obtain

$`H_x^j={\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_jϵ}}{\displaystyle _{k^{}0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}}{2m}}\right]k^{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^jk^{}\right\}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}}\left((k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k^{}\right)\zeta ^j\right\}dk^{}.`$
Expanding the exponential to first order gives the usual three terms

$`H_x^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_jϵ}}({\displaystyle _{k^{}0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}}{2m}}\right]k^{}\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^jk^{}\}dk^{}`$ (112)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \kappa ^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle _{k^{}0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}}{2m}}\right]k^{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^jk^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\zeta ^j}{2m}}{\displaystyle _{k^{}0}}k^{}\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^jk^{}\}dk^{}.)`$
In (112), we can replace the factor

$$\frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}}{2m}$$

by $`k^{}/m`$ (Appendix 7), so that it amounts to

$$\frac{N_x}{Z_jϵm}_{k^{}0}(k^{})^2\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^jk^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}.$$
(113)
In (112), the same replacement gives

$$\frac{N_x\beta \kappa ^2}{2Z_jϵm^2}_{k^{}0}(k^{})^2\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^jk^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}=\frac{N_x\beta \kappa ^2}{2Z_jϵm^2}M_2(\zeta ^j),$$
(114)
which, to first order in $`\zeta _j`$ (recall that we are keeping terms proportional to $`mu^j`$ in this section, since $`\varpi _x^j=N_xmu_x^j`$), gives

$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N_x\beta m\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{2m^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}\right)^{3/2}2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}\right)^2\zeta ^j\right]=`$ (115)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}N_x_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{2}}2N_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)mu^j`$
of which only the second term survives in the limit, resulting in

$$2\left[\frac{\lambda N_x}{\rho k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right]mu_x^j.$$
(116)
Similarly in (112), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\kappa ^2\zeta ^j}{2Z_jϵm}}M_1(\zeta ^j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N_xm\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{\Phi }\beta u_x^j}{2m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}`$ (117)
$`=`$ $`N_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)mu_x^j`$
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda N_x}{\rho k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right]mu_x^j.`$
Moving to the second term in (109), we replace the factor $`\mathrm{}r_{}(k^j)`$ by $`k^j/m`$ (Appendix 8), so it contributes with

$$\frac{N_x}{Z_jϵm}_{k0}k^2\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^jk\right\}𝑑k.$$
(118)
Combining (113) and (118), what we obtain is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{mZ_jϵ}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}(k^j)^2\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^jk\right\}𝑑k^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{m}}E_{\overline{p}}\left[(k^j)^2\right]`$ (119)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{m}}E_{\overline{p}}\left[k^j\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{log}Z_j}{(\zeta ^j)^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`mN_x(u_x^j)^2+N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x.`$
Finally, for the last term in (109), which in the limit becomes $`\mathrm{}_jH_x^j`$, only (113) contributes, since the other terms in $`H_x^j`$ are already of order $`\mathrm{}c`$. We get

$`\mathrm{}_jH_x^j`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}_j\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_jϵm}}{\displaystyle _{k^{}0}}(k^{})^2\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^jk^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}_j\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_jϵm}}M_2(\zeta ^j)\right],`$
which, to first order in $`\zeta ^j`$, gives

$``$ $`\mathrm{}_j\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}\right)^{3/2}2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}\right)^2\zeta ^j\right]\right\}=`$ (120)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}_j\left(N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x\right)2\mathrm{}_j\left[mu^jN_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi m}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\right]=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}_j\left(N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x\right)2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}_j\left(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu_x^j\right)`$
Therefore, the momentum current, for $`i=j`$ is given by the sum of (116), (117), (119) and (120), that is

$`J_x^j=mN_x(u_x^j)^2`$ $`+`$ $`N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda N_x}{\rho k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right]mu_x^j`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}_j\left(N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x\right)2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}_j\left(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu_x^j\right).`$
We see that the term $`N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x`$ above is of a larger order than the others and is not negligible in the expansion of the finite difference $`\left(J_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}J_x\right)/\mathrm{}`$. What we obtain is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}J_x}{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_x^j}{x^j}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2J_x^j}{x^{j^2}}}+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_x^j}{x^j}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2(N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x)}{x^{j^2}}}+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$
Thus, in this case, the finite difference $`\left(J_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}J_x\right)/\mathrm{}`$ can be approximated by

$$_j\left\{mN_x(u_x^j)^2+N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x\left[\frac{\lambda N_x}{\rho k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right]mu_x^j2\frac{\lambda }{\rho }_j\left(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu_x^j\right)\right\}.$$
(121)
Therefore, collecting together the contributions from $`i=1,2,3`$, we see from (97), (108) and the equation above, that the change in $`\varpi ^j`$ is governed by the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varpi _x^j}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{}{x^j}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^j}}\left(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu_x^j\right)\right]N_x_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}[mN_xu_x^iu_x^j`$ (122)
$`+`$ $`N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x\delta _{ij}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda N_x}{\rho k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}_i\mathrm{\Phi }\right)mu_x^j{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}\left(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu_x^j\right)]`$
The first term above is not covariant and we need to average it over $`SO(3)`$. The averaging procedure is explained in , and its result is

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{}{x^i}\frac{\lambda }{5\rho }\left[\frac{}{x^i}\left(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu_x^j\right)+2\frac{}{x^j}\left(N_x\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}mu_x^i\right)\right].$$
(123)
We can now put it back into (122), divide both sides of it by $`a^3`$ and use that $`\varpi _x^j=mN_xu_x^j`$, $`\rho (x)=mN_x/a^3`$, $`f_x^j=_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)/m`$ and $`P_x=N_xk_B\mathrm{\Theta }_x/a^3`$ to obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (x)u_x^j}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (x)f_x^j{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}\{\rho (x)u_x^iu_x^j+P_x\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _i\mathrm{\Phi }}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}u_x^j`$ (124)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{5\rho }}[3{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}\left(\rho (x)\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}u_x^j\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^j}}\left(\rho (x)\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}u_x^i\right)]\}.`$
In vector notation, this reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho 𝐮}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`\text{div}(\rho 𝐮𝐮)=\rho 𝐟P+\lambda \text{ div}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{k_B\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}}}𝐮\right)`$ (125)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{5}}_i\rho ^1\left[3^i\left(\rho (x)\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}𝐮\right)+\left(\rho (x)\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}u^i\right)\right],`$
which can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho 𝐮}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`\text{div}\left(\rho 𝐮𝐮+J_S𝐮\right)=\rho 𝐟P`$ (126)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{5}}_i\rho ^1\left[3^i\left(\rho (x)\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}𝐮\right)+\left(\rho (x)\mathrm{\Theta }^{1/2}u^i\right)\right].`$
## 4 Appendices

### 4.1 Appendix 1

The difference between the cases with and without an external potential is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}\left[(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k^{}\right]}{2m(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}\left[(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k^{}\right]}{2m(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k^{}}{2m}}.`$
So we need to bound integrals of the form

$$B_1:=\frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}_{k^{}0}\frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k^{}}{2m}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}.$$

We have

$`(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{k^{}+(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}`$
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\kappa ^2}{2k^{}}& \text{if }k^{}\kappa \hfill \\ \kappa & \text{if }0k^{}\kappa .\hfill \end{array}`$
Hence

$`B_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{2mZ_iϵ}}({\displaystyle _0^\kappa }\kappa \mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik^{}\}dk^{}`$
$`+\kappa ^2{\displaystyle _\kappa ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^{}}{k^{}}}\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta _ik^{}\})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{2mZ_iϵ}}\left(\kappa ^2+\kappa ^2{\displaystyle _\kappa ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^{}}{k^{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\right\}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{2mZ_iϵ}}\left(\kappa ^2\kappa ^2\mathrm{log}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{m}}\right)^{1/2}\kappa \right]+\kappa ^2{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\mathrm{exp}\{1/2y^2\}𝑑y\right).`$
Since $`\kappa ^2=2\mathrm{}m\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the term $`N_x/(Z_iϵ)`$ is $`O(1)`$, we see that the error is $`O(\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{})`$.

### 4.2 Appendix 2

Here the difference between the cases with and without an external potential is

$$\frac{k}{m}\frac{k(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m}=\frac{k+(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m},$$

so the integral we need to bound is

$$B_2:=\frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}_{k0}\frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k}{2m}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik\right\}𝑑k.$$

With the change of variable $`k^{}=k`$, we are led to the problem of finding an upper bound for

$$\frac{N_x}{Z_iϵ}_{k^{}0}\frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k^{}}{2m}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}+\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}.$$

But this reduces to the case of Appendix 1, since the quadratic (negative) term in the exponent eventually (and in fact very quickly, since $`m`$ is so small) overcomes the linear (positive) one.

### 4.3 Appendix 3

As in Appendix 1, the difference between the cases with or without an external potential is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}\left[(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k_1^{}\right]}{2m(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^{}\left[(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k_1^{}\right]}{2m(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k_1^{}}{2m}}.`$
so that we need to bound the integral

$`B_3`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k_1^{}}{2m}}A(𝐤^{})d^3𝐤^{}.`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}𝑑𝐤^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k_1^{}}{2m}}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x^{})\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}`$
which gives rise to the following four terms

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_1ϵ}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k_1^{}}{2m}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{2m}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k_1^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik_1^{}\right\}𝑑k_1^{}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{(Z_1ϵ)(2mZ_2ϵ)}}B_1[M_2(\zeta ^2)+M_2(\zeta ^2)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{(Z_1ϵ)(2mZ_3ϵ)}}B_1[M_2(\zeta ^3)+M_2(\zeta ^3)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_1ϵ}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x^{})B_1`$
Using that, to zeroth order in $`\zeta `$, $`M_2`$ and $`Z_iϵ`$ are proportional, respectively, to $`m^{3/2}`$ and $`m^{1/2}`$, we conclude that the last three terms are all of the same order as $`B_1`$, that is, $`O(\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{})`$.

For the first of these terms, using the same estimate as in Appendix 1, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_1ϵ}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k_1^{}}{2m}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2}{2m}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k_1^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik_1^{}\right\}𝑑k_1^{}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{4m^2Z_1ϵ}}[\kappa {\displaystyle _0^\kappa }k_1^2\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k_1^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik_1^{}\}dk_1^{}`$
$`+\kappa ^2{\displaystyle _\kappa ^{\mathrm{}}}k_1^{}\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k_1^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik_1^{}\}dk_1^{}]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{4m^2Z_1ϵ}}\left[\kappa ^4+\kappa ^2M_1(\zeta ^1)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Z_1ϵ}}\left[(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }}{2\beta }}\right],`$
making it of a smaller order than the last three. Therefore, $`B_3`$ itself is of order $`O(\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{})`$.

### 4.4 Appendix 4

The integral in (75) is bounded by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\kappa ^2}{2mZϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}A(𝐤^{})d^3𝐤^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\kappa ^2}{2mZϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x^{})\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}d^3𝐤^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x\kappa ^2}{2mZϵ^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(Z_2ϵ)(Z_3ϵ)}{2m}}M_2(\zeta ^1)+{\displaystyle \frac{(Z_1ϵ)(Z_3ϵ)}{2m}}[M_2(\zeta ^2)+M_2(\zeta ^2)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(Z_1ϵ)(Z_2ϵ)}{2m}}[M_2(\zeta ^3)+M_2(\zeta ^3)]+\mathrm{\Phi }(x^{})(Z_2ϵ)(Z_3ϵ)M_0(\zeta ^1)].`$
Now, to zeroth order in $`\zeta `$, this reduces to

$$\frac{N_x\kappa ^2\pi ^{1/2}}{4\sqrt{2}\beta ^{3/2}m^{1/2}(Z_1ϵ)}+\frac{N_x\kappa ^2\pi ^{1/2}}{2\sqrt{2}\beta ^{3/2}m^{1/2}(Z_2ϵ)}+\frac{N_x\kappa ^2\pi ^{1/2}}{2\sqrt{2}\beta ^{3/2}m^{1/2}(Z_3ϵ)}+\frac{N_x\kappa ^2}{Z_1ϵ2m}\left(\frac{\pi m}{2\beta }\right)^{1/2}.$$

Recalling that $`\kappa ^2=2\mathrm{}m\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and that the term $`N_x/(Z_iϵ)`$ is $`O(1)`$, we find that the expression above is $`O(\mathrm{}^2)`$.

### 4.5 Appendix 5

As in Appendix 2, the difference between the cases with or without an external potential is

$$\frac{k}{m}\frac{k(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m}=\frac{k+(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m},$$

so that the integral to be bound in this is

$`B_5`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_10}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}+k_1}{2m}}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐤}{2m}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤𝐤}{2m}}𝜻𝐤\right\}d^3𝐤`$
So performing the change of variable $`𝐤^{}=𝐤`$, the integral becomes

$`B_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{Zϵ^3}}{\displaystyle _{k_1^{}0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k_1^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k_1^{}}{2m}}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝐤^{}𝐤^{}}{2m}}+𝜻𝐤^{}\right\}d^3𝐤^{}`$
which reduces to the case dealt in Appendix 3, since the quadratic term in the exponential quickly dominates the linear one.

### 4.6 Appendix 6

Replacing sums by integrals and using that $`p_x(k)=N_x\overline{p}_x(k)`$ we find that the last two terms in (108) can be expressed as

$`_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x){\displaystyle \frac{N_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}}{Z_j(x+\mathrm{}e_j)ϵ}}{\displaystyle _{k0}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{x+\mathrm{}e_j}k^2}{2m}}\zeta _{x+\mathrm{}e_j}^jk\right\}𝑑k`$
$`+_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_j){\displaystyle \frac{N_{x\mathrm{}e_j}}{Z_j(x\mathrm{}_j)ϵ}}{\displaystyle _{k\kappa }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{x\mathrm{}e_j}k^2}{2m}}\zeta _{x\mathrm{}e_j}^jk\right\}𝑑k`$
We first notice that we can move the lower limit of integration in the second term above from $`\kappa `$ to zero, since the error involved in doing so is of order $`\kappa `$, that is, $`O(\mathrm{}^{3/2})`$. We are then left with

$$_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\frac{N_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}}{Z_j(x+\mathrm{}e_j)ϵ}M_0(\zeta _{x+\mathrm{}e_j}^j)+_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_j)\frac{N_{x\mathrm{}e_j}}{Z_j(x\mathrm{}_j)ϵ}M_0(\zeta _{x\mathrm{}e_j}^j).$$

Expanding $`M_0`$ to zeroth order in $`\zeta `$

$$_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\frac{N_{x+\mathrm{}e_j}}{Z_j(x+\mathrm{}e_j)ϵ}\left(\frac{\pi m}{2\beta _{x+\mathrm{}e_j}}\right)^{1/2}+_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x\mathrm{}e_j)\frac{N_{x\mathrm{}e_j}}{Z_j(x\mathrm{}_j)ϵ}\left(\frac{\pi m}{2\beta _{x\mathrm{}e_j}}\right)^{1/2}.$$

In the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ this reduces to

$$_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\frac{N_x}{Z_jϵ}2\left(\frac{\pi m}{2\beta }\right)^{1/2}=N_x_j\mathrm{\Phi }(x)$$

### 4.7 Appendix 7

Here the difference is

$$\frac{k^{}+(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m}\frac{k^{}}{m}=\frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k^{}}{2m}$$

and the integral to bound is

$$B_7:=\frac{N_x}{Z_jϵ}_k^{}\frac{(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}k^{}}{2m}k^{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k^{}.$$

Using the same estimate as in Appendix 1, we find

$`B_7`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{2mZ_jϵ}}(\kappa {\displaystyle _0^\kappa }k^{}\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta ^ik^{}\}dk^{}`$
$`+\kappa ^2{\displaystyle _\kappa ^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta k^2}{2m}}\zeta _ik^{}\}dk^{})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_x}{2mZ_iϵ}}[\kappa ^3+\kappa ^2M_0(\zeta ^1)],`$
which we conclude is $`O(\mathrm{}^2)`$, since, to zeroth order in $`\zeta `$, $`M_0`$ is proportional to $`m^{1/2}`$.

### 4.8 Appendix 8

The integral to be bound here is

$$B_8:=\frac{N_x}{Z_jϵ}_{k0}\frac{k+(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m}k\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik\right\}𝑑k.$$

With the change of variables $`k^{}=k`$ this becomes

$$B_8=\frac{N_x}{Z_jϵ}_{k^{}0}\frac{k^{}+(k^2+\kappa ^2)^{1/2}}{2m}k\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta k^2}{2m}\zeta ^ik^{}\right\}𝑑k^{},$$

which has the same bound as that of Appendix 7.


format: text

text:
# An Elementary (Pseudo)Scalar at all scales.

## 1 Introduction

The question of elementarity of a particle has been an abiding theme in Physics. From the atom to the nucleus, to the nucleon, all have been treated as elementary till proved otherwise. The higher the energies we explore, and this is a process that goes monotonically with time, the greater the resolution. It is, then, not surprising that elementarity has been a strongly time dependent attribute. However, we do have some long term ’elementary’ survivors like the electron and the quark, to name a few. The electron has continued to be elementary from the time it was discovered to this day whereas the quark is a recent arrival. There is a rather important difference , the electron is manifest in a free state but the quark is not - it is confined.

From a field theory point of view this difference between the quark and the electron is perhaps even more interesting. We could consider the electron entirely within the framework of QED, which is not an asymptotically free theory whereas the quarks can be described by QCD which is an asymptotically free( AF ) theory. In that case the electron couples to the photon more and more strongly as the energy goes up and so we cannot predict its fate ( or its elementarity) at some very high energy when the coupling diverges at the so called Landau Singularity(LS). In QCD, the quark coupling to the gluons , however, decreases as we go to higher and higher energies and so it starts behaving like a free particle or parton and is in no danger of losing its elementarity as the energy goes higher.

So it seems that particles that are strictly governed by a non abelian gauge AF theory can be elementary in the sense that they cannot resolve any further into constituents as the energy goes up. This is a new way to look at elementarity.

This, however, comes at a cost. Particles of a non abelian gauge theory, like quarks and gluons, turn out to be confined and so cannot be seen in a free state. This means that these particles are absent from the spectrum of the theory. It is not meaningful, then, to talk about their elementarity at these scales.

This leaves us in a bit of a bind. Particles which belong to an AF theory like QCD are clearly elementary at asymptotic energies but are confined at low energy. At the other end particles that are seen only at low energies are generally composite. Can we find a particle that eludes this catch i.e one which is elementary at all scales ?

In what follows, this problem is eluded by considering an extension of QCD by the addition of a colour singlet chiral multiplet, ($`\sigma ,\stackrel{}{\pi }`$), that couples to quarks via a yukawa coupling. This chiral multiplet should not be confused with the dynamically generated multiplet that consists of the Goldstone boson, the pion. This coupling, as it turns out, can be AF . The AF nature of the yukawa coupling is possible only when the quarks are also coupled to an AF non abelian gauge theory. Since it is the AF nature of the yukawa coupling that makes the scalar elementary, the elementarity of the scalar can only be gained by riding piggy back on a nonabelian gauge theory.

Further, since the scalar is not confined like the the quarks, it is elementary and visible at all energies! This is indeed a new situation in Particle Physics. The electron in QED has a problem at very high energy, when the coupling gets large and has a Landau Singularity and we have no way to handle the physics 111 Of course, this is evaded when QED is embedded in a larger AF theory.. The quark or gluons, on the other hand, are confined at low energy and so the question of their elementarity at low energy is not very meaningful.

The issue of elementarity vs compositeness in local field theory has a long and interesting history. An important first step was the construction of a local field operator for composite particles . A central idea in the field theoretic context was that compositeness is signalled by the vanishing of the wavefunction renormalisation. While this remained a conjecture for sometime which was supported in some specific models , Fried and Jin on the one hand , and independently Divakaran  on the other, were able to prove this on general grounds. Divakaran was also able to demonstrate the so called ”indifference hypothesis” of Feynman according to which the Lagrangian can be written as a function of any one of all the irreducible sets of fields. In particular, sets including the composite fields can also be used. This immediately indicates that characterisations according to which elementary particles are those whose fields appear in the Lagrangian and composite the ones whose fields do not appear so  are rather naive. This fact is explicitly borne out in the works of Hasenfratz et al  and Zinn-Justin .

Coming back to the question of wavefunction renormalisation, if $`Z_\varphi `$ vanishes at some scale, it implies that the particle loses its kinetic term and that it is composite from this scale onwards. However, often it is not possible to compute $`Z_\varphi `$ except in perturbation theory - making it difficult to extend the calculation all the way to the region where $`Z_\varphi =0`$. The criterion is therefore more useful as a rough guide to the compositeness scale. As we point out, $`Z_\varphi =0`$ often occurs simultaneously with the coupling diverging at a LS. In the case of confinement, we expect $`Z_\varphi =0`$ at the confinement scale, which is inherently non perturbative and at present not calcuable.

Even within the framework of S-matrix theory it is interesting to raise the distinction between elementarity and compositeness. At first sight it would appear that since both of them manifest as poles no clear distinction would be possible. Within the Lee model  Vaughn et al  indeed found a distinction that would be reflected in the properties of the S-matrix alone. This was in the high energy behaviour of the scattering phase shifts similar to the case in potential scattering as indicated by the Levinson  theorem. Rajasekaran  has proposed another way of distinguishing elementary and composite particles within S-matrix theory; according to him absence of a pole in the K-matrix signals compositeness.

We have scenarios of dynamical symmetry breaking (see for example, Refs.,)) where a sufficiently strong effective four fermion interaction at the compositeness scale can generate kinetic terms for a new particle mode below the compositeness scale and also spontaneously break an explicit symmetry which will convert some particle modes to goldstone bosons ( for example the QCD ‘pion’). In these models the low energy theory is a renormalizable sigma model. Using perturbative renormalization group (RG) it is found that as we approach the scale of the LS at which the yukawa coupling diverges, $`Z_\varphi `$ ( for the scalar /pseudoscalar ( PS )) simultaneously goes as an inverse power of the yukawa coupling. As we approach this scale we may use the approximation of dropping the kinetic term for the scalar. In this circumstance, the four fermi interaction is recovered using the field equation. This scale may be loosely identified with the compositeness scale for the scalar (PS). Evidently, this procedure is far from rigorous, since the analysis breaks down for large coupling long before the LS for the yukawa coupling is reached. The above cosiderations are then only a pointer to compositeness and not a proof.

### 1.1  Elementarity and fixed points.

The question of fixed points is of fundamental importance in understanding the behaviour of a field theory; in particular of the scaling properties of a quantum field theory.

In four dimensions Yang Mills gauge theories are the only theories that have a non trivial ultra violet (UV) fixed point . The presence of a UV free fixed point for this theory is equivalent to the property of asymptotic freedom (AF) which, in turn, translates into the scaling behaviour of scattering amplitudes.

On the other hand, the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory ( nonperturbatively ) is governed by only a gaussian IR fixed point and is therefore trivial. Perturbatively , as we know, the coupling diverges at LS.

The conventional wisdom on scalar field theories is that they are generally not AF. The introduction of fermions that interact with the scalars, e.g. the linear $`\sigma `$ model of Gell Mann and Levy, makes these theories more interesting but nevertheless it has been shown that they cannot be asymptotically free . This implies that they must be theories defined by a finite cut off. However, this does not clear up the issue of their triviality; in the sense that as the UV cut off is removed it is not clear that such theories go to free field theories. It is conceivable that these theories may be governed by a non gaussian IR fixed point.

Hasenfratz et al  and Zinn-Justin  consider a large N yukawa field theory in which the fermions (quarks) are $`N`$ component colour fields that couple to scalar fields. The colour index is a free index as there are no colour interactions. Effectively, the N components perform a counting operation to permit a large N expansion. They find that these theories are governed by an IR gaussian fixed point in analogy to the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory. They also find that the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model which has the same symmetry but is perturbatively non-renormalizable, is also governed by the gaussian IR fixed point in the large N limit.

An interesting question then arises as to whether the introduction of non abelian gauge fields that couple to the fermions can change the fixed point structure of the theory.

In  we considered a chirally invariant Yukawa-gauge theory in which a colour singlet, flavour chiral multiplet, was coupled to quarks in QCD, for the case $`N_C=3`$ and $`N_F=6`$. Another such theory in which the degrees of freedom are quarks, gluons, Higgs bosons, weak vector bosons and leptons is the standard EW model (the GSW model) . We have shown for such theories that: i) if the initial data on the couplings falls in a certain region in the parameter space of the couplings, namely , $`\rho =g_y^2/g_3^2<\rho _c`$ where $`g_y`$ and $`g_3`$ are the yukawa and QCD couplings respectively ($`\rho _c`$ is determined by $`N_C`$ and $`N_F`$), and, ii) only on a specific trajectory (the Invariant Line, IL) in the \[R,$`\rho `$\] parameter space (where $`R=\lambda /g_y^2`$, and $`\lambda `$ the scalar self coupling), the theory can be asymptotically free. For couplings outside of this specific region the theory is not asymptotically free.

The AF branch above gives us a chiral invariant and completely asymptotically free theory (that is AF for all couplings), which can be a candidate theory for the strong interactions, similar to QCD. In , the difference between this theory and QCD is made explicit. Due to AF the entire spectrum of this theory, including the colour singlet scalar, is parton like or elementary at high energy.

This result runs counter to the popular belief that a generic non abelian guage theory with scalars may not be AF. This demonstrates that when we couple non abelian gauge fields, gluons, to a chiral theory of quarks and scalars the theory can have an entirely new fixed point - an UV fixed point, as in QCD. This is in contrast to the case in the absence of the gauge fields, when the theory is governed by the IR free fixed point alone.

## 2  The theory

We begin with a spontaneously broken Yukawa gauge theory given by the Lagrangian below :

$`=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu v}^aG^{a\mu v}|_{colour}{\displaystyle \overline{\psi }\left(D+g_y(\sigma +i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi })\right)\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \sigma )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi })^2`$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2(\sigma ^2+\stackrel{}{\pi }^2){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\sigma ^2+\stackrel{}{\pi }^2)^2+\text{const}`$
We consider here a particular chiral theory. The fermions are quarks. The scalars ($`\sigma ,\stackrel{}{\pi }`$) are a colour singlet chiral multiplet of fields. The quarks belong to the fundamental representation of the colour group $`SU(N_C)`$. All quark generations couple to the chiral multiplet identically with an $`SU_2(L)\times SU_2(R)`$ symmetry.

We find that when $`N_C`$ and $`N_G`$ are mutually constrained and so also the ratio of the gauge and Yukawa couplings, this theory can be completely asympototically free (AF) for all couplings. It should however be noted that the various couplings need not maintain fixed ratios with respect to each other.

We give below the 1 loop beta functions of this theory:

$$\frac{g_3(t)^2}{t}=g_3^4/8\pi ^2P$$
(2)
where

$$P=11N_C/34N_G/3.$$
(3)
Likewise

$$\frac{g_y(t)^2}{t}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}g_y^2(4N_GN_Cg_y^23g_3^2(N_C^21)/N_C)$$
(4)
Note, that in our case $`N_F=2N_G`$. These equations can be brought to the form

$$\frac{\rho }{g_3^2}=\frac{\rho }{2g_3^2P}L$$
(5)
with

$$L=8N_CN_G\rho +2P6(N_C^21)/N_C$$
(6)
where $`\rho `$ is as defined before. The zero of L occurs at $`\rho =\rho _c`$ where $`\rho _c`$ is given by

$$\rho _c=\frac{4(2N_GN_C)/36/N_C}{8N_CN_G}$$
(7)
Note that the derivative of $`\rho `$ above is positive when L becomes negative, i.e. for $`\rho <\rho _c`$. In this case $`\rho `$ increases as $`g_3^2`$ increases. Since $`g_3`$ decreases with increasing momentum scale (since it is AF), this means that $`\rho `$ will also decrease with increasing momentum scale. The implication then is that if $`\rho <\rho _c`$ then $`g_y^2`$ is also AF and decreases faster than $`g_3^2`$ in the UV. It is then clear that the the behaviour of $`g_y^2`$ is now controlled not by the IR free fixed point  but by the UV free fixed point that controls the AF QCD coupling. This is possible only if $`N_G>(N_C/2+9/(2N_C))`$.

On the other hand AF of $`g_3`$ requires P to be positive, i.e. $`N_C>4N_G/11`$. The constraint required to have both an AF $`g_3^2`$ as well as an AF $`g_y^2`$ is, for large $`N_C`$, $`2N_G>N_C>4N_G/11`$.

Moving on to the scalar self coupling, the RG flow equation is

$$\frac{\lambda (t)}{t}=2N_G(4\lambda N_Cg_y^2++12\lambda ^2/(2N_G)4N_Cg_y^4)/8\pi ^2$$
(8)
After a little algebra this can be brought to the form

$$\frac{R}{\rho }=\frac{4N_G}{L}\left(2R4+R\frac{3}{2\rho }\right)$$
(9)
with $`R`$ as defined before. As observed in , for the constraints given above it has three quasi-fixed points which are also the zero slope points in the above equation. These quasi-fixed points are given by: $`i)\rho =0,R=0;ii)\rho =\rho _c,R(\rho _c);iii)\rho =\mathrm{},R=2`$.

The above equation is characterised by an invariant line (IL) that goes through all the above points. It divides the paramater space into two regions (see  for details):

i) The AF phase : $`\rho <\rho _c`$. In this region the IL is the only trajectory on which an AF theory in all couplings can be defined. Wherever we are on the IL, we move to the origin as we go to the UV. All other trajectories diverge. There is a reduction in coupling constants on the IL; $`\lambda `$ is fixed once $`g_y`$ is fixed. Around the origin, it is easy to see that R is proportional to $`\rho `$ on the IL. It is then clear that as R goes to zero in the UV , that $`\lambda `$ goes to 0 even faster than $`g_y^2`$ in the UV.

This completes the demonstration that the coupling, $`\lambda `$, is also AF on one trajectory ( IL ) and governed by a UV free fixed point. Since all couplings are AF, the entire spetrum, including the scalars, is elementary at high energy.

ii) The non AF phase: $`\rho >\rho _c`$. In this region the theory is not AF in the yukawa and scalar self couplings. The fixed point structure is rather complicated and the scalars are not elementary. This phase will be considered separately.

### 2.1 Remarks

1. Till now we have considered the RNG evolution equations in the absence of the electroweak gauge coupling. The effect of the weak gauge coupling is to increase the value of $`\rho _c`$, permitting us to find a completely AF theory for smaller, $`N_F>3`$, whereas, in the absence of the gauge coupling we had an AF solution only for $`N_F>4`$, where $`N_F`$ is the number of flavours .

2.Is the Standard Model Higgs Composite? It is a simple exercise to read off the compositeness condition from the value of $`\rho _c`$. If $`\rho <\rho _c`$ then the theory is AF and the higgs elementary. If on the other hand $`\rho >\rho _c`$, the higgs is composite. It follows, from substituting the known top quark yukawa coupling (the other yukawa couplings may be neglected as they are much smaller in comparison) and the QCD and weak gauge couplings at the weak scale, that, even on including the weak coupling contribution to $`\rho _c`$, we are still left with a composite higgs. A full analysis of this will be presented elsewhere.

## 3  Conclusions.

We have found interesting structure in field theories with scalars and gauge fields. Whereas the AF of the gauge coupling is gained for large $`N_C`$ and minimal $`N_G`$, the AF for the yukawa coupling can happen only when $`N_G>(N_C/2+9/(2N_C))`$, for only then can we have a positive $`\rho _c`$ (inclusion of the weak gauge coupling modifies this condition). Therefore, there is a window in which AF for all couplings is possible.

To sum up we have found such a window in the above theory in which all couplings are AF. This guarantees that all particles in the spectrum of the theory are partonic/ elementary at arbitrarily high energies and their wave function renormalization remains non-zero. As we go to low energies, however, the coloured part of the spectrum is expected to get confined into hadrons. Since the scalar/pseudoscalars are colour singlets, they are not confined,but remain part of the low energy spectrum.Thus, we have demonstrated that in a renormalizable field theory the scalars/pseudoscalars can be elementary particles and visible at all scales.

Harada etal  have also looked at the nontriviality of the gauge higgs yukawa system and the gauged NJL model. Their emphasis is, however, different and not on the issue of elementarity. Also, they have not considered the effect of the weak gauge coupling.

Acknowledgements: Work, of which this forms a part, was started with a larger team consisting of Rahul Basu, H.S. Sharatchandra and Ramesh Anishetty. We thank them for their initial contributions. Charan Aulakh, D. Sahdev and V. Srinivasan are thanked for animated discussions. V.S. dedicates this work to his father.