text:
# Possible Strong Gravitational Wave Sources for the LISA Antenna

## 1 Introduction

The Laser Interferometric Space Antenna (LISA) is designed to detect low frequency gravitational waves in the frequency range $`10^41\mathrm{Hz}`$, which cannot be detected on the Earth because of seismic noise. A lot of very interesting astrophysical phenomena are believed to generate GWs in this frequency band: the formation of supermassive black holes (SMBHs), SMBH-SMBH binary coalescence, compact stars orbiting SMBHs in galactic nuclei, pairs of close white dwarfs, pairs of neutron stars, neutron star and black hole binaries, pairs of contact normal stars, normal star and white dwarf binaries, and pairs of stellar black holes.

We are particularly concerned here with SMBHs, which are believed to be present in galactic nuclei (Blandford 1999). Lynden-Bell (1969) originally proposed that active galaxies harbor a SMBH engine fed by accretion and there is now solid observational evidence for this (Richstone et al. 1998), although there remain some unanswered questions related to their formation. Several interesting papers study the mass function of SMBHs in galaxies (Franceschini, Vercellone & Fabian 1998; Salucci et al. 1999), using different combinations of optical, infrared, radio and X-ray data.

SMBHs could form through the dynamical evolution of dense star cluster objects; by the merging of SMBHs of smaller masses and by the viscous evolution and collapse of self-gravitating gaseous objects (e.g., supermassive stars). Quinlan & Shapiro (1990) assumed the existence of a dense star cluster in a galactic nucleus and followed the build-up of $`100M_{}`$ or larger seed black holes by collisions. Another possibility is that $`10^6M_{}`$ SMBHs form by coherent collapse in galactic nuclei before most of the bulge gas turns into stars (Silk & Rees 1998; Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees 1998). Other interesting studies concerning SMBH formation are discussed by Rees (1997, 1998); Haehnelt & Rees (1993); Haehnelt (1994); Eisenstein & Loeb (1995); Umemura et al. (1993) and Fuller & Shi (1998; hearafter FS).

SMBHs may produce a strong GW signal during their formation, which could be detectable by LISA even at cosmological distances. Since most galaxies could harbor SMBHs it is argued that the number of events expected could be several per year or even per day.

It is worth studying whether other astrophysical phenomena related to the formation of such putative SMBHs, such as the emission of electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos, could help constrain the SMBH production rate and formation epoch. For example, $`\gamma `$-ray could be related to the production of GWs since the formation of SMBHs may be a very energetic phenomenon. In particular GBRs have been puzzling astrophysicists, because of the enormous electromagnetic energy produced, $`10^{51}10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}`$, the spatial isotropy (which suggests that the sources are cosmological), and the event rate of several sources per day.

Recently FS (see also Shi & Fuller 1998; Abazajian, Fuller & shi 1999) proposed that the gravitational collapse of supermassive objects ($`M10^4M_{}`$), either as relativistic star clusters or as a single supermassive star could account for cosmological GRBs. These authors also proposed that such supermassive objects should produce neutrino emission, but they did not consider whether such $`\gamma `$-ray and neutrino sources could be also strong GW sources. Since the FS model involves the formation of a SMBH it is hard to avoid GWs being also produced.

The paper is organized as follows: §2 deals with the GWs generated by GRB SMBHs and §3 presents the discussion and conclusions.

## 2 Gravitational Waves from GRB SMBHs

This paper extends the study by FS, which considers whether the collapse of supermassive objects could account for cosmological GRBs. We argue that such a source of $`\gamma `$-rays could also be a strong source of GWs. Then we propose an independent way to check FS model through GW astronomy.

FS define a supermassive object in terms of a star or star cluster that undergoes the general relativistic Feynman-Chandrasekhar instability during its evolution. Supermassive objects with $`M5\times 10^4M_{}`$ could leave black hole remnants of $`M10^3M_{}`$. To account for the observed rate of GRBs the supermassive object collapses should amount to several per day. Each collapse probably leads to a black hole remnant, so it is hard to avoid the conclusion that GWs are generated with the same frequency. If other processes of SMBH formation do not involve GRB events, GW production rate could well be even higher.

If all supermassive objects form and collapse at a redshift $`z`$, as assumed by FS, the event rate is

$$R_{\mathrm{BH}}4\pi r^2a_\mathrm{z}^3\frac{dr}{dt_0}\frac{\rho _\mathrm{b}F(1+z)^3}{M},$$
(1)
where $`r`$ is the Friedman-Robertson-Walker comoving coordinate of the supermassive object, $`a_\mathrm{z}`$ is scale factor of the Universe at redshift $`z`$, $`t_0`$ the age of the Universe, $`\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ is the present value of the baryonic density, $`F`$ is the fraction of baryons incorporated in supermassive objects, $`M`$ is the mass of the initial hydrostatic supermassive star, taken to be $`M=10M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the mass of the resulting SMBH (FS; Shi & Fuller 1998; Abazajian, Fuller & Shi 1999). This rate can be rewritten as

$$R_{\mathrm{BH}}4\pi r^2cn_{\mathrm{BH}},$$
(2)
where $`n_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the number density of SMBHs, given by

$$n_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{\rho _\mathrm{b}F}{M}.$$
(3)
Equation (2) is implicit in the equations derived by Carr (1980) in a study concerning the generation of GWs from SMBHs.

The GW amplitude associated with the formation of each SMBH is (Thorne 1987)

$$h_{\mathrm{BH}}=\left(\frac{15}{2\pi }\epsilon \right)^{1/2}\frac{G}{c^2}\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{r_0}7.4\times 10^{20}\epsilon ^{1/2}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M_{}}\right)\left(\frac{r_0}{1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}\right)^1,$$
(4)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the efficiency of generation of GWs. The collapse to a black hole produces a signal with frequency

$$\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}=\frac{1}{5\pi M_{\mathrm{BH}}}\frac{c^3}{G}(1+z)^11.3\times 10^4\mathrm{Hz}\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}\right)(1+z)^1.$$
(5)
The ensemble of SMBHs formed should produce a background of GWs with amplitude

$$h_{\mathrm{BG}}^2=\frac{1}{\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}}h_{\mathrm{BH}}^2𝑑R_{\mathrm{BH}}$$
(6)
(de Araujo, Miranda & Aguiar 2000; Miranda, de Araujo & Aguiar 2000), where $`dR_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the differential SMBH formation rate. If the SMBHs are assumed to have the same mass and formation redshift, as in the FS model, we have

$$h_{\mathrm{BG}}=\left(\frac{4\pi R^2cn_{\mathrm{BH}}}{\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}}\right)^{1/2}h_{\mathrm{BH}}.$$
(7)
This equation can be written as

$$h_{\mathrm{BG}}=\left(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right)_0^{1/2}h_{\mathrm{BH}},$$
(8)
(cf. Carr 1980) where the subscript zero indicates a present day value, $`\tau _0`$ is the duration of each burst and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_0`$ is the interval between bursts. Unlike Carr, we assume that the above equation holds only for $`(\tau /\mathrm{\Delta }t)_01`$. These time scales are

$$\tau _0\frac{1}{\nu _{\mathrm{obs}},}$$
(9)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_0\frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{BH}}}.$$
(10)
The ratio

$$\left(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right)_0\frac{4\pi R^2cn_{\mathrm{BH}}}{\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}},$$
(11)
is called duty-cycle and can be interpreted as the number of overlapping bursts.

If the bursts overlap, $`(\tau /\mathrm{\Delta }t)_0`$ is greater than 1 and thus $`h_{\mathrm{BG}}>h_{\mathrm{BH}}`$; on the other hand, if $`(\tau /\mathrm{\Delta }t)_0`$ is less than 1, they do not overlap and the GW background is not continuous, but consists of a sequence of spaced bursts with a mean separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_0`$ (see Ferrari, Matarrese & Schneider 1999, who consider the case where a non-continuous background also appears).

The cosmological model considered here has a density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=0.1`$ and Hubble constant $`H_0=50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. For a SMBH formed at redshift $`z3`$ with mass $`10^7M_{}`$, the GWs would be detected at frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}3.3\times 10^4\mathrm{Hz}`$, so the characteristic duration of the burst is $`\tau _03\times 10^3\mathrm{s}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_01/R_{\mathrm{BH}}=1`$ day-1, as observed for GRBs, we obtain $`4.0\times 10^2`$ for the duty-cycle. In this case, a population of SMBHs formed at $`z3`$ with mass $`10^7M_{}`$ cannot produce a background and one will observe a burst a day with duration $`\tau _0`$, amplitude $`h_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$.

The results are summarized in Fig. 1 which shows the duty-cycle ($`\tau _0/\mathrm{\Delta }t_0`$) as a function of the mass of the SMBHs, for the formation redshift range $`z=15`$. We also present, for comparison, results for $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}10`$ day-1.

The energy density of the GWs can be written in units of the critical density as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}=\frac{1}{\rho _\mathrm{c}}\frac{d\rho _{\mathrm{GW}}}{d\mathrm{log}\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}},$$
(12)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{c}=3H^2/8\pi G`$. Equivalently

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}=\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}}{c^3\rho _\mathrm{c}}F_\nu =\frac{4\pi ^2}{3H^2}\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}^2h_{\mathrm{BH}}^2.$$
(13)
Assuming a maximum efficiency for the generation of GWs ($`\epsilon 7\times 10^4`$; Stark & Piran 1986) during the collapse of an object to a black hole, one has $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}<10^6`$ for the redshifts and masses studied here.

In Fig. 2 we present the amplitude $`h_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ as a function of the observed frequency ($`\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$) for different values of $`\epsilon `$, SMBH mass and formation redshift. We also present the LISA sensitivity ($`h_\mathrm{s}`$) for a signal-to-noise ratio of 1 for burst sources.

For example, $`h_{\mathrm{BH}}>h_\mathrm{s}`$ for $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=10^6M_{}`$ and $`\epsilon >10^5`$. Thus, even for low GW efficiency the signal produced by these SMBHs could be detected by LISA.

## 3 Discussion and Conclusions

The results presented here were obtained for an open Universe model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}=0.1`$ and $`H_0=50\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. We also assume the same scenario as FS, with all the SMBHs forming at the same redshift. For a given event rate, and for a given range of mass, we first calculate the duty-cycle to see whether the GWs produced by the ensemble of SMBHs generate a stochastic background. For an event rate exceeding $`110`$ day-1 we find that the bursts do not overlap and so they do not produce a continuous stochastic background. In particular, a stochastic background could occur for black holes with $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}10^7M_{}`$ only if the event rate exceeded 30 per day-1. In this case we would have $`\tau _0/\mathrm{\Delta }t_0>1`$ and the GWs of different seeds could overlap producing a background with amplitude given by equation (7). SMBHs formed with masses $`<10^6M_{}`$ could produce a GW background for the same event rate only if they formed at $`z>5`$.

The major advantage of the FS scenario, as a cosmological source of $`\gamma `$-ray emission, is its enormous energy reservoir; the gravitational binding energy is $`E_\mathrm{g}10^{54}(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_{})\mathrm{erg}`$. Another advantage of this scenario is related to the angular scale of the sources. Although tremendous energy is deposited into the fireball ($`10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}`$ during the collapse to a black hole of $`10^6M_{}`$), the distortion produced in the cosmic background radiation through the scattering of hot electrons (Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect) occurs on a very small angular scale ($`\theta \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^{10}`$ arc seconds) and is therefore undetectable.

In the FS model a potential problem, as a GRB source, is related to the “baryon-loading” 111There are many papers in the literature discussing aspects related to the injection of energy (including the baryon-loading problem) associated with GRBs. In particular, we refer the reader for the papers of Shemi & Piran 1990; Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1999 and Fuller, Pruet & Abazajian 2000., that is, the confinement of the electron/positron/photon fireball by the baryons which could carry energy of it in the form of kinetic energy, thus diminishing the amount of energetic photons (the gamma ones). This suggests that the region at several Schwarzschild radii from the supermassive star core should have extremely low baryon density. There are, at least two ways to avoid the excessive baryon-loading: rotation of the star producing the flattened collapse or the collapse of a dense star cluster instead of a single object. This could result in a different event rate for the GRBs and the GW bursts, not all GW bursts being related to GRBs in the present scenario since the baryons could block the $`\gamma `$ray.

Even if the GRBs and GW bursts have completely different event rates, either because the source of GWs does not produce GRB at all or because the gamma radiation is blocked, it would be possible to verify the FS scenario by looking for GRBs once GW bursts associated with SMBH formation are observed and identified. There will be a time interval between the GRB and the GW burst because the types of radiation are generated in different ways. The generation of the GRB depends on a series of physical processes after the collapse of the core, e.g., the generation of the fireball to accelerate the matter to the ultra-relativistic regime when the kinetic energy in the fireball could be converted to $`\gamma `$-rays. The GWs, on the other hand, are mainly produced when the SMBH is formed, through the excitation of its quasi-normal modes. A detailed modeling is required however to evaluate the time interval between the GRB and the GW burst.

Using the LISA observatory to detect GW bursts related to the SMBHs formation, one could find their GW amplitudes, the characteristic frequencies and also the formation rate of SMBHs. If we also find the redshift associated with the events (by observing in the electromagnetic window) we will be able to obtain the SMBH masses and the GW efficiency using the model proposed here. By comparing the SMBH formation GW event rates with the GRB rates one could also infer what fraction of an ensemble of SMBHs had conditions to generate GRBs and to impose constraints on the FS scenario. Then in the present study we are proposing an independent way to check FS model through GW astronomy.

The Brazilian agency FAPESP partially supports this work (JCNA under grants 97/06024-4 and 97/13720-7; ODM under grant 98/13735-7). ODA thanks CNPq (Brazil) for financial support (grant 300619/92-8). We would like to thank Dr. Robin Stebbins and Prof. Peter Bender for kindly providing us with the LISA sensitivity curve. Finally, we would like to thank an anonymous referee for his (her) criticisms and suggestions which greatly improved the present version of our paper.


format: text

text:
# Relaxation times hierarchy in two-component quasiparticle gas

## I Introduction

It is well known that variety of properties of some condensed media can be described by the interaction processes in quasiparticle gases. These are, say, transverse and longitudinal phonons in solids, phonons and magnons in magnetically ordered materials, phonons and rotons in superfluid helium, conduction electrons and holes in semiconductors etc. As a rule, to study the dissipative properties of such systems investigators use either classical kinetic theory in its simplest form or some semi-intuitive models, which lead sometimes to quite ambiguous results in case of quasiparticle systems. Here I present the theory of diffusion processes in two-component quasiparticle systems, which in general is independent on particular quasiparticles statistics and dispersion law. Let me first briefly review the present state of classical kinetic theory and analyze its pitfalls in description of quantum quasiparticle systems of condensed media.

The kinetic theory of gases in modern understanding takes its beginning from pioneering work by Maxwell , in which he has proved the law for distribution of velocities of molecules in homogeneous equilibrium gas (so-called Maxwell velocities distribution) and law of an equidistribution of average energy of molecules in a mixture of gases. These his results were updated and improved in further works devoted to the theory of inhomogeneous gases (about a history of a problem see Ref. 2). However as basis of all mathematical methods of the modern kinetic theory it is necessary to consider apparently the basic works by Boltzmann , in which both the H-theorem was proved and the classical Boltzmann equation was introduced.

Boltzmann equation is the integro-differential equation describing the collisional behaviour of rarefied gas. Until now it remains to be a basis of the kinetic theory of gases and it appears to be very fruitful not only for a research of classical gases, which Boltzmann himself kept in mind, but - with an appropriate generalization - for study of electron transport in solids and plasma, transport of neutrons in nuclear reactors, phonon and roton transport in superfluid liquids, and transport of a radiation in atmospheres of stars and planets. For past 130 years these researches have led to significant achievements both in new areas, and in old one.

Generally, kinetic equation of the Boltzmann type (the equation describing the evolution of a single–particle distribution function in the phase space) represents the integro-differential equation, which remarkable property is the nonlinearity of collision term. Just this fact makes a main obstacle in construction of methods for solution of the kinetic equation. The monographies  are devoted to a detail exposition of such methods in case of classical gas systems.

In majority of experimental problems there is no necessity to use the detail microscopic description of gas systems at a level of distribution functions. As a rule, investigation of physical processes in macroscopic systems is carried out at a less detail level of hydrodynamic variables. Since these variables are determined through the moments of a distribution function, then, as a rule, the detail study of main moments of distribution function appropriate to collisions invariants is required, but not the distribution function itself. Thus, the connection between the kinetic theory and hydrodynamics appears to be one of the main problem. In particular, one of the main aspects of this problem is the determination of transport coefficients, such as diffusion coefficient, viscosity (first and second), thermal conductivity appeared in equations of hydrodynamics of a viscous liquid .

In spite of so long history of physical kinetics, today we have rather small number of approaches to a solution of the kinetic equations. All these approaches and methods were formed depending on concrete problems, on which were directed. Most general methods of research of non-equilibrium state of classical and quantum gases were directed rather on demonstrating of a mathematical resolvability (or insolubility) of certain basic problems in principle, than on construction of the serviceable theories, suitable for a solution of concrete physical problems.

The classical methods of a solution of the kinetic equations allow to derive the kinetic coefficients as series expansions on an infinite set of orthogonal polynomials. However, it appeared to be very difficult to use these classical results for numerical calculation and analysis of physical processes in real systems. In particular, it is caused by impossibility of selection of the contribution from different types of interactions to various kinetic coefficients, while many physical systems behave qualitatively differently for different ratio between a speed of a relaxation inside each subsystem and between subsystems.

In classical gases with point-like interaction this problem is less important because the speed of relaxation inside subsystems unambiguously determined by their mass and concentration. In the quantum case, when we talk about quasiparticles, the situation becomes more complicated. The mechanism of interaction between quasiparticles can be any independently on simple macroscopic parameters. For example, in some cases such notation as mass cannot be well defined at all (say, what is the mass of phonon?).

The mathematical theory of transport processes is most sequentially advanced for mixtures of classical gases, the evolution of which is described by a set of Boltzmann equations. A basis of classical methods for solution of the Boltzmann equation in case of one–component gas is the formal expansion of distribution function in power series of some parameter $`\sigma `$ in the form $`f=f^{(0)}+\sigma f^{(1)}+\sigma ^2f^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$, so that function $`f^{(0)}`$ corresponds to statistical equilibrium. In this case parameter $`\sigma `$ is some scale factor for density, the physical sense of which can be different depending on a particular problem. As a rule, this parameter is formally considered to be small, so that the solution of the kinetic equation represents a problem of singular perturbation . The most successful methods of a solution of the kinetic equation, such as the Hilbert method and the Chapman–Enskog method , are based on this principle. In spite of the successes of the Chapman–Enskog method in the description of connection of the kinetic theory with the equations of hydrodynamics (the Navier-Stokes equations appear already in the first order in parameter $`\sigma `$), the explicit expressions for kinetic coefficients have a rather complicated form. Main defect of these expressions is that already in the first order in parameter $`\sigma `$ their analysis becomes practically impossible. The situation becomes more problematic in the case of two–component gas. The infinite series of integral brackets containing Sonin polynomials does not allow to select explicitly the contributions from different types of interactions in a system to various dissipative coefficients. This frequently leads to necessity to use various ungrounded approximations, such as the Chapman–Cowling approximation  or Kihara approximation .

At the same time, in spite of some successes , there is no yet consistent mathematical theory for deriving the dissipative coefficients in gases of quasiparticles. And, naturally, the problem of distinguishability of contribution from interactions between identical quasiparticles and between different subsystems has not been solved yet. This problem has his own history. In practice, when analyzing particular physical systems, many physicists use some model approximations for collision integrals. The most popular one is the so–called BGK–approximation . In its simple form BGK–approximation leads sometimes to quite confusing results. Really, let us have several relaxation mechanisms in the system, and, therefore several characteristic times depending on momenta or energies of quasiparticles. The final observed quantities should be obtained by averaging this times in some manner. In particular problems the following question frequently appears: What must be averaged, e.i. the time or the rate (inverse time)? and how to obtain the real relaxation time, i.e. by summation of the times or by summation of the rates? This uncertainty led to many confusing situations. For example, more than for 15 years there were two different theories for the mobility of two–dimensional electron gas localized over the free surface of liquid helium . The first theory  assumes the mobility to depend on the averaged characteristic time of electron–ripplon interaction (ripplons are the quantized surface waves of liquid helium). This theory well describes the experimental data for small electron density . Another theory  assumes the mobility to be determined by the inverse averaged rate of the same interaction. These theoretical results well fit another experiments  with large electron density. The problem of relationship between these two results has naturally appeared. Similar confusion was in the theory of dissipative processes in superfluids . The analogous situation took place for some time in theory of thermal conductivity in solids .

The aim of this paper is to present alternative approach for solution of the system of linearized kinetic equations for two–component gas of quasiparticles with arbitrary statistics and dispersion law. The theory explicitly accounts the all types of interactions in the system. This allows to analyze the contribution of interaction between identical particles into the relaxation of the whole system. I do not restrict myself here in the frame of particular system. So, the results obtained here can be applied to any quantum system, whose dissipative properties are determined by the processes in two–component gas of quasiparticles.

The paper is constructed as follows. In Section II I formulate the problem mathematically and carry out the linearization procedure. Section III is devoted to the procedure of inversing of collision operator by the use of projection operators method. In Section IV I derive the exact solution for characteristic diffusion time and analyze all limiting cases. The classical systems of Lorentz and Rayleigh gases and their generalization to the quasiparticle systems are considered in Section V. In Section VI I consider the generalization of the Kihara approximation on the quasiparticle quantum systems. The outlines and conclusions are given in Section VII.

## II General expressions

So, consider stationary nonequilibrium state of gaseous mixture of quasiparticles of two species. The most interesting relaxation process in such a system is a diffusion , so I will concentrate on the diffusive processes.

One of the most essential advantage of the offered theory undoubtedly is the fact, that it is correct for quantum gases with any statistics and any dispersion of quasiparticles. All main outcomes remain applicable for both systems with nonzero chemical potential, and with chemical potential equal to zero (when the number of quasiparticles is not conserved). The constructed theory does not meet principal difficulties in generalization on multicomponent systems (i.e. on systems with number of active components exceeding two ones).

The evolution of distribution functions $`f_k`$ (subscript $`k=1,2`$ numbers the component of the mixture) can be described by the following set of kinetic equations

$$𝐯_k\frac{f_k}{𝐫}=\underset{j=1,2}{}C_{kj}(f_k,f_j),(k=1,2),$$
(1)
where $`𝐯_k=ϵ_k/𝐩_k`$ is the velocity of quasiparticle of $`k`$th type, $`ϵ_k`$ and $`𝐩_k`$ are its energy and momentum, respectively; $`𝐫`$ is the coordinate, $`C_{kj}(f_k,f_j)`$ is the collision integral, which is a functional of the distribution functions of mixture components $`1`$ and $`2`$. The particular form of these collision integrals depends on the concrete physical problem. To find the diffusion coefficient let us consider the stationary nonequilibrium state of two–components $`1`$ and $`2`$ of the mixture, in which the quasiparticles number densities are functions of coordinate $`𝐫`$. In particular, for the gas of thermal excitations such situation can be realized by creation of constant temperature gradient.

Under the considered conditions there are stationary gradients of partial pressure of components, which result in flow of quasiparticles. This flow is determined by momentum current density

$$𝐣_k=\underset{j=1,2}{}\frac{\rho _k}{\rho }d_{kj}\frac{P_j}{𝐫},(k=1,2),$$
(2)
where $`\rho _k`$ is the normal density of $`k`$th component of the system, $`\rho =\rho _1+\rho _2`$ is the total density, $`d_{kj}`$ is the matrix of diffusion times. The partial pressure of quasiparticles is determined in standard manner

$$P_j=\frac{1}{3}𝐩_j𝐯_jf_j𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_j,$$
(3)
where $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ is the measure in phase space. The density of $`k`$th component can be written in the universal form

$$\rho _k=\frac{1}{3}𝐩_k^2f_k^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_k,$$
(4)
where $`f_k^{}=f_k/ϵ_k`$. Relations (2)–(4) are suitable for the quasiparticles with arbitrary dispersion law, statistics, and chemical potential (I mean both for zero chemical potential and for nonzero one). Note, the definition of normal density (4) does not depend explicitly on such notations as mass or number density.

To exclude convective transport in a quasiparticle system, i.e. to investigate only dissipative processes, hereinafter I shall consider the sum of partial pressure of different components of a mixture to be a constant, so put $`P=P_1+P_2=\mathrm{const}`$. The analytical relation between matrix elements of a matrix of diffusion times $`d_{kj}`$ and usual diffusion coefficient $`D`$ of a binary mixture can be obtained by a direct comparison of expression (2) with definition of diffusion coefficient. Thus, one can use the ordinary gas-dynamic definition of current density of $`k`$th component of a mixture (see e.g. Ref. 5)

$$𝐣_k=𝐩_kf_k𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_k.$$
(5)
It appears that for various both quantum and classical physical systems diffusion coefficient can be written in the most general form

$$D=u_D^2\tau _D,$$
(6)
where $`u_D`$ is the characteristic velocity, whose analytic form depends on the particular dispersion law and statistics of quasiparticles, $`\tau _D`$ is the characteristic diffusion time to be determined.

According to the relations (2) and (5), for deriving the diffusion coefficient (6) it is necessary to solve a system of the kinetic equations (1). Below for definiteness the diffusion in a system with conserved number of quasiparticles (and, therefore nonzero chemical potential) will be considered. The calculation for case with not conserved number of quasiparticles can be carried out within the similar framework.

Since we are interested in the theory within linear response approximation, let us assume the deviation of distribution functions $`f_k`$ from their locally equilibrium values $`f_k^{(0)}`$ to be small. So, put as usual

$$f_k=f_k^{(0)}+\delta f_k,|\delta f_k|f_k^{(0)}.$$
(7)
The small deviation $`\delta f_k`$ can be conveniently rewritten in the form

$$\delta f_k=\frac{f_k^{(0)}}{ϵ_k}g_k$$
(8)
with unknown functions $`g_k`$. Linearizing the system of kinetic equations (1) we come to the system of linear integro-differential equations for unknown quantities $`g_k`$, which determine the degree of system perturbation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_k}{n_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_k}{𝐫}}=C_{kk}g_k+C_{kj}(g_k+g_j)`$ (9)
$`(k,j=1,2;kj).`$ (10)
Here $`n_k`$ is the number density of $`k`$th component, $`C_{kj}`$ are the linearized collision operators for the collisions within each component ($`k=j`$) and for the collisions between different quasiparticles ($`kj`$). The acting of this operators on an arbitrary function of momentum, say $`\xi (𝐩_{k,j})`$, is determined by the particular form of collision integrals appeared in equation (1). If we deal with the ordinary binary collision integral with probability density function $`W_{kj}(𝐩_k𝐩_j|𝐩_k^{}𝐩_j^{})`$ then we obtain

$`C_{kj}\xi (𝐩_{k,j})={\displaystyle W_{kj}(𝐩_k𝐩_j|𝐩_k^{}𝐩_j^{})f_j^{(0)}(𝐩_j)}`$ (11)
$`\times \left\{1\pm f_k^{(0)}(𝐩_k)\right\}^1\left\{1\pm f_k^{(0)}(𝐩_k^{})\right\}\left\{1\pm f_j^{(0)}(𝐩_j^{})\right\}`$ (12)
$`\times \left[\xi (𝐩_{k,j}^{})\xi (𝐩_{k,j})\right]d\mathrm{\Gamma }_jd\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{}d\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{}`$ (13)
for $`kj`$, and

$`C_{kk}\xi (𝐩_k)={\displaystyle W_{kk}(𝐩_k𝐩|𝐩_k^{}𝐩^{})f_k^{(0)}(𝐩)}`$ (14)
$`\times \left\{1\pm f_k^{(0)}(𝐩_k)\right\}^1\left\{1\pm f_k^{(0)}(𝐩_k^{})\right\}\left\{1\pm f_k^{(0)}(𝐩^{})\right\}`$ (15)
$`\times \left[\xi (𝐩_k^{})+\xi (𝐩^{})\xi (𝐩_k)\xi (𝐩)\right]d\mathrm{\Gamma }d\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{}d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ (16)
for $`k=j`$. The plus and minus in eqs. (13) and (16) signs correspond to bosons and fermions, respectively.

Note that in fact our general approach allows to account in such a manner not only binary collisions, but a variety of more specific types of interaction, such as decay or conversion processes , creation or annihilation of quasiparticles, interaction with boundaries and point defects etc.

## III Inversing of collision operator

According to the relation (3), the gradient of partial pressure for quasiparticles with nonzero chemical potential can be written as

$$\frac{P_k}{𝐫}=n_k\left(\frac{\mu _k}{𝐫}\right)_{T=\mathrm{const}},$$
(17)
where $`\mu _k`$ is the chemical potential of $`k`$th subsystem, $`T`$ is the mixture temperature.

For further calculations it is convenient to present system (9) in the compact matrix form

$$\underset{k=1,2}{}|\psi _k\frac{P_k}{𝐫}=\widehat{𝒞}|g,$$
(18)
where

$$|\psi _1=|\begin{array}{c}𝐯_1n_1^1\\ 0\end{array},|\psi _2=|\begin{array}{c}0\\ 𝐯_2n_2^1\end{array},|g=|\begin{array}{c}g_1\\ g_2\end{array},$$
(19)
are the two–component ket-vectors, defined in infinite Hilbert space to be specified. The collisional operator matrix $`\widehat{𝒞}`$ can be conveniently written as a sum

$$\widehat{𝒞}=\widehat{J}+\widehat{S},$$
(20)
where the operator matrix

$$\widehat{J}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C_{12}& C_{12}\\ C_{21}& C_{21}\end{array}\right)$$
(21)
contains only the quantities corresponding to interactions between quasiparticles from different subsystems, and

$$\widehat{S}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C_{11}& 0\\ 0& C_{22}\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
corresponds to the relaxation inside each subsystem. To define completely the Hilbert space I am working in, let us introduce the scalar product of two–dimensional bra-vector $`\zeta |=\zeta _1(𝐩_1),\zeta _2(𝐩_2)|`$ and ket-vector $`|\chi =\left(\chi |\right)^{}`$ in the following manner

$$\zeta |\chi =\underset{k=1,2}{}(\zeta _k|\chi _k)=\underset{k=1,2}{}\zeta _k^{}\chi _k\frac{f_k^{(0)}}{ϵ_k}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_k,$$
(23)
where $`(\zeta _k|`$ and $`|\chi _k)`$ are the corresponding one–component bra-vector and ket-vector, respectively. It is easy to verify that with such a choice of scalar product (23) the collision operator $`\widehat{𝒞}`$ becomes hermitian.

System (18) is the system of non-uniform linear integral equations. According to the general theory of integral equations the sought solution $`|g`$ of system (18) must be orthogonal to the solution of corresponding uniform equations

$$\widehat{𝒞}|\varphi _1=0.$$
(24)
The normalized solution of equation (24) can be written in the following form

$$|\varphi _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3\rho }}|\begin{array}{c}𝐩_1\\ 𝐩_2\end{array}.$$
(25)
This vector $`|\varphi _1`$ corresponds to the total momentum of our two–component quasiparticle system. In general, equation (24) has another solutions, corresponding to conservation of energy, particle number etc. I account here only the momentum conservation law because the sought solution can depend only on the quasiparticle momenta (see initial equations (18)). It is convenient to write the formal solution of equation (18) so that the orthogonality condition

$$g|\varphi _1=0$$
(26)
is contained explicitly in the solution. For this purpose let us define the projection operator $`𝒫_n`$ onto the subspace orthogonal to the vector $`|\varphi _1`$,

$$𝒫_n=1𝒫_c,𝒫_c=|\varphi _1\varphi _1|.$$
(27)
As a result, the formal solution of equation (18) can be written in the form

$$|g=𝒫_n\left(\widehat{𝒞}^1\right)𝒫_n\underset{k=1,2}{}|\psi _k\frac{P_k}{𝐫}.$$
(28)
Further we must insert the solution (28) into the expression for current density (5) keeping in mind the relations (7) and (8). Comparing the obtained result with definition (2) for a matrix of diffusion times we come to

$$d_{11}=\frac{\rho _2}{\rho _1}\tau _D,d_{12}=d_{21}=\tau _D,d_{22}=\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _2}\tau _D,$$
(29)
where

$$\tau _D=\varphi _2|\widehat{𝒞}^1|\varphi _2$$
(30)
is the characteristic diffusion time, and

$$|\varphi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3\rho \rho _1\rho _2}}|\begin{array}{c}\rho _2𝐩_1\\ \rho _1𝐩_2\end{array}$$
(31)
is the characteristic diffusion vector, which is orthogonal to $`|\varphi _1`$.

Now the problem is reduced to calculation of the matrix element (30), which contains the inverse matrix operator determined by integral collision operators.

## IV Exact and limiting expressions for the diffusion time

To derive an exact analytical expression for the unknown quantity (30) it is necessary to introduce a full system of orthonormal two-dimensional vectors $`|\varphi _n`$ (here $`n=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$) belong to the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space with a scalar product (23). The concrete choice of a system of basis vectors in many respects depends on convenience of calculations within the framework of a concrete physical problem (see, e.g. Refs. 5 and 8). In our problem it is convenient to take vector (25) as the first of them, and (31) as the second. The remaining vectors can be arbitrary (for example, such vectors can be built on the basis of Sonin polynomials in classical case , or Akhiezer-Aleksin-Khodusov polynomials  in quantum systems), but should satisfy to the completeness and orthogonality conditions

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\varphi _m\varphi _m|=1,\varphi _m|\varphi _n=\delta _{mn}.$$
(32)
In a constructed full system of vectors an exact expression for the diffusion time

$$\tau _D=\left\{\left(\widehat{J}+\widehat{S}\right)^1\right\}_{22}$$
(33)
can be reduced to the visual analytical form allowing simple physical interpretation and providing a possibility to carry out the in-depth qualitative analysis of the obtained result in various limiting cases, corresponding to different mechanisms of equilibration in the system of quasiparticles:

$$\tau _D=\left\{I_{22}\underset{n,m=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}I_{2n}\left[\left(+𝒮\right)^1\right]_{nm}I_{m2}\right\}^1.$$
(34)
Here the square matrices $``$ and $`𝒮`$ contains the following matrix elements

$`_{nm}=I_{nm}=\varphi _n|\widehat{J}|\varphi _m,`$ (35)
$`𝒮_{nm}=I_{nm}=\varphi _n|\widehat{S}|\varphi _m.`$ (36)
To obtain the formal result (34) I have used the relations (24) and (32).

The matrices (35) and (36) are infinite-dimensional and non-diagonal. Therefore the exact solution (34) does not allow to obtain the closed analytical expression for characteristic diffusion time. However it is necessary to emphasize, that the result (34) contains explicitly not only the quantities responsible for interaction between quasiparticles of different types, but also the matrix elements appropriate to collisions between the quasiparticles within each subsystem. It allows to investigate various limiting cases, to find minimum and maximum values of diffusion time, to construct correct interpolation formulae and useful analytical models, to make calculations on computers for concrete physical systems.

To carry out the detailed analysis of the formal solution (34), it is convenient to concretize slightly the vector basis $`|\varphi _n`$ for $`n>2`$. Namely, let us choose the remaining vectors in the following form:

$$|\varphi _{2\alpha +1}=\frac{1}{𝒩_1^{(\alpha )}}|\begin{array}{c}F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_1)\\ 0\end{array},$$
(37)
$$|\varphi _{2\alpha +2}=\frac{1}{𝒩_2^{(\alpha )}}|\begin{array}{c}0\\ F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_2)\end{array},$$
(38)
where $`\alpha =1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, $`F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_k)`$ is the system of properly chosen orthogonal polynomials with the norm $`𝒩_k^{(\alpha )}=(F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_k)|F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_k))^{1/2}`$, such that $`(F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_k)|𝐩_𝐤)=0`$ (it is clear that such polynomials cannot contain first degree of momentum). Such a choice (37), (38) provide a possibility to ”separate” in some manner the component of the mixture. The matrix $`𝒥+𝒮`$ takes now the following form

$`𝒥+𝒮=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\nu _1^{(11)}& \nu _{12}^{(11)}& \nu _1^{(12)}& \mathrm{}\\ \nu _{21}^{(11)}& \nu _2^{(11)}& \nu _{21}^{(12)}& \mathrm{}\\ \nu _1^{(21)}& \nu _{12}^{(21)}& \nu _1^{(22)}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)`$ (43)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega _1^{(11)}& 0& \omega _1^{(12)}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \omega _2^{(11)}& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \omega _1^{(21)}& 0& \omega _1^{(22)}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),`$ (48)
where I have introduced the following ”higher” interaction rates:

$$\nu _{jk}^{(\alpha \beta )}=\frac{(F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_j)|C_{jk}|F^{(\beta )}(𝐩_k))}{𝒩_j^{(\alpha )}𝒩_k^{(\beta )}}$$
(49)
and

$$\nu _j^{(\alpha \beta )}=\frac{(F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_j)|C_{jk}|F^{(\beta )}(𝐩_j))}{𝒩_j^{(\alpha )}𝒩_j^{(\beta )}}$$
(50)
for collisions of different quasiparticles, and

$$\omega _j^{(\alpha \beta )}=\frac{(F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_j)|C_{jj}|F^{(\beta )}(𝐩_j))}{𝒩_j^{(\alpha )}𝒩_j^{(\beta )}}$$
(51)
corresponding to relaxation within each subsystem. The representation (48) helps us to understand the explicit structure of the formal solution (34). This particularly provide a possibility to study the most important limiting cases and to reveal their physical matter.

So, in case of infinitely fast establishment of an equilibrium between quasiparticles of identical type (so-called complete control regime ), when the strong inequalities

$$\omega _j^{(\alpha \beta )}\nu _j^{(\alpha \beta )},\nu _{jk}^{(\alpha \beta )},(j,k=1,2)$$
(52)
take a place, the second term in the brackets of general result (34) vanishes and diffusion time (33) is given by the following simple formula

$$\tau _D^{(\mathrm{cc})}\tau _D^{(\mathrm{min})}=\frac{1}{I_{22}}=\left(\tau _{12}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{1}+\tau _{21}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)^1,$$
(53)
where

$$\tau _{kj}^{(0)}=C_{kj}_k^1,(k,j=1,2;kj).$$
(54)
Here and thereafter the brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ stand for a normalized average defined by the relation

$$𝒜_k=\frac{1}{3\rho _k}(𝐩_k|𝒜|𝐩_k),(k=1,2).$$
(55)
According to the momentum conservation law $`C_{kj}|𝐩_k)=C_{jk}|𝐩_j)`$ the relation between ”basic” interaction rates in equation (53) can be found as follows

$$\tau _{12}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{1}=\frac{\rho _2}{\rho _1}\tau _{21}^{(0)}{}_{}{}^{1}.$$
(56)
Proceeding from hermiticity and negativity of operators $`\widehat{S}`$ and $`\widehat{J}`$ with the help of well–known Cauchy-Bunyakovsky inequality it is possible to show , that the following inequality is always valid

$$\tau _D\tau _D^{(\mathrm{min})},$$
(57)
where $`\tau _D^{(\mathrm{min})}`$ is determined by eq. (53)

In the opposite limiting case of extremely slow establishment of equilibrium between identical quasiparticles, i.e. when

$$\omega _j^{(\alpha \beta )}\nu _j^{(\alpha \beta )},\nu _{jk}^{(\alpha \beta )},(j,k=1,2),$$
(58)
the second matrix in eq. (48) can be neglected and the whole formula (34) can be converted so that the diffusion time $`\tau _D`$ runs up to its maximum value

$$\tau _D^{(\mathrm{max})}=\varphi _2|\widehat{J}^1|\varphi _2.$$
(59)
Comparing the main limiting results (53) and (59) we come to the important conclusion: The main qualitative difference between expressions for diffusion time in case of a fast and slow relaxation inside each subsystem of a mixture consists in a method of averaging of operator matrices corresponding to interaction between different subsystems.

Very interesting situation can be realized when one, say first, subsystem equilibrates very slowly $`C_{11}0`$, but relaxation in another one is extremely fast $`C_{22}\mathrm{}`$, so that

$$\omega _1^{(\alpha \beta )}\nu _1^{(\alpha \beta )},\nu _{12}^{(\alpha \beta )},\omega _2^{(\alpha \beta )}\nu _2^{(\alpha \beta )},\nu _{21}^{(\alpha \beta )}.$$
(60)
In this case the results (34) and (48) can be converted as follows

$$\tau _DC_{12}^1_1C_{21}_2^1.$$
(61)
Let us pay attention to the principal difference between first and second terms in relation (61). Again, in the first term we average the time, while in the second one we average the rate of interaction between quasiparticles of different species. According to the Cauchy-Bunyakovsky inequality the characteristic time $`C_{jk}^1`$ is always less than the time $`C_{jk}^1`$ for any momentum dependence of $`C_{jk}`$. If the collision operator $`C_{jk}`$ does not depend on the quasiparticles momenta, then $`\tau _D\tau _D^{(\text{min})}`$. If $`C_{jk}`$ depends on momenta, then speed of equilibration of a system depends on how fast the equilibration between identical quasiparticles is . Such situation brightly manifests in a phonon–impuriton system of superfluid mixtures of helium isotopes  and in phonon systems in solids . There is a two–stage mechanism of relaxation in these systems. At the first stage quasiparticles of the second type interact only with those quasiparticles of first type, whose momenta correspond to maximum of collision operator $`C_{12}`$. At the second stage establishment of an equilibrium in a system is determined by the interaction of quasiparticles of $`1`$st type with each other. This occurs because the quasiparticles of first type with minimum $`C_{12}`$ prefer to interact with such quasiparticles within their subsystem, which are already at equilibrium with second subsystem.

The significance of manner of averaging of collision operators can be illustrated on the simple example of lattice thermal conductivity in solids. The interaction rate between phonon and scattering center $`\nu _{phi}C_{phi}`$ (say, point defect or impurity) is proportional to $`p_{ph}^4`$ (so-called Rayleigh scattering). So, the integral $`C_{phi}^1_{ph}`$ diverges at zero momentum and the corresponding relaxation time tends to zero. This means that nonequilibrium long wavelength phonon simply ”does not see” an impurity. At the same time the quantity $`C_{phi}_{ph}`$ is finite and leads to finite thermal current. So, the mechanism of equilibration of such system can be drawn as follows: at first all phonons come to quasi-equilibrium in their own subsystems, which corresponds to some stationary flux of phonons, then they begin to scatter on the impurities and point defects. As it can be seen from the results (34), (48), (53), (59), and (61), analogous competition mechanisms can occur in any two–component quasiparticle system.

Calculation of $`C_{jk}_j`$ for particular physical systems does not meet any difficulties. However, to calculate $`C_{jk}^1_j`$ we must inverse the collision operator $`C_{jk}`$, which is not a straightforward operation. As a rule, it can be done by replacing $`C_{jk}`$ with some characteristic rate of interaction between quasiparticles $`\nu _{jk}=\nu _{jk}(𝐩_k)`$, and then by straightforward averaging the value $`\nu _{jk}(𝐩_k)^1`$, which is simply a multiplying operator. In the next Section I consider the most popular models in various problems associated with two-component classical gases or with condensed media whose transport properties are determined by the processes in two-component quasiparticle systems.

## V The Rayleigh and Lorentz models for two-component gaseous mixtures

Any theory claiming for a solution of some complicated special problems, should first of all be agreed necessarily with some fundamental results in the most simple limiting cases. In the kinetic theory of classical gases the diffusion in Lorentz gas (diffusion of light very rarefied component in a gas of massive slow particles) and Rayleigh gas (diffusion of massive particles with small concentration in a light gas) traditionally are considered.

Both classical models, i.e. the Rayleigh and Lorentz gases correspond in fact to the limiting case (60), but are more restricted in particles characteristics. Let us start with Lorentz model. This is the mixture of light component with very small concentration and the massive gas (buffer component). Let the light component be $`1`$st one. Let me briefly review the classical approach to a problem of diffusion in such a mixture . The strong inequality

$$n_1/n_21$$
(62)
was required for light particles to interact only with a massive component, but not with one another. Large difference in masses of particles

$$m_1/m_21$$
(63)
ensured an elasticity of scattering of particles of a light component on massive particles and large difference in thermal velocities of particles of different types. Thus, particles of the massive component can be treated as fixed and described by their equilibrium distribution function. With the purpose of calculation of a diffusion coefficient in such a system the strong inequalities (62) and (63) are usually used for simplification of initial kinetic equation, which can be reduced to the so-called Boltzmann-Lorentz equation . The consequent solution of this equation gives explicit expression for a diffusion coefficient.

Let us show, that the classical results for diffusion in Lorentz gas can be directly obtained from the general results given by eqs. (34) and (48). The operations below have certain value itself as a generalization of Rayleigh and Lorentz models on quantum gases of quasiparticles. Such generalization is not trivial because of impossibility to introduce the mass and conserved number density for some quasiparticles. So, we will formulate the problem in terms of normal densities. In this regard for Lorentz gas we replace two strong inequalities with the following

$$\rho _1/\rho _21.$$
(64)
Then we can rewrite vector $`|\varphi _2`$

$$|\varphi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3\rho _1}}|\begin{array}{c}𝐩_1\\ 0\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ 0\end{array}.$$
(65)
An equilibrium in massive component leads to the following simple expression for operator matrix $`\widehat{J}`$ given in general by eq. (21):

$$\widehat{J}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C_{12}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(66)
Then, using the explicit expression (48) we can reduce the general result (34) to the following form

$`\tau _D^{(L)}=\{(\chi _1|C_{12}|\chi _1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩_1^{(\alpha )}𝒩_1^{(\beta )}}}`$ (67)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\chi _1|C_{12}|F^{(\alpha )}(𝐩_1))((\varphi _{2\alpha +1}|C_{12}|\varphi _{2\beta +1})^1)_{\alpha \beta }`$ (68)
$`\times (F^{(\beta )}(𝐩_1)|C_{12}|\chi _1)\}^1.`$ (69)
Vectors $`|\varphi _{2\alpha +1})`$ represent a complete set of orthonormal vector-functions in momentum space of first component. This allows us to rewrite relation (69) as follows

$$\tau _D^{(L)}=\frac{1}{3\rho _1}(𝐩_1|C_{12}^1|𝐩_1)\tau _{12}^{(\mathrm{})}$$
(70)
Further simplification can be achieved if we believe the massive particles to be fixed during a collision, so that

$$v=|𝐯_1𝐯_2||𝐯_1|.$$
(71)
This particularly means that differential cross section depends on momenta of light particles only. Moreover, the momentum of a light particle can change only its direction but not an absolute value. With these assumptions we can write collision operator $`C_{12}`$ as

$$C_{12}=|𝐯_1|\sigma _tn_2,$$
(72)
which is simply a multiplication operator and, therefore, it can be inversed without any difficulties. Here I introduced the transport cross section

$$\sigma _t=(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12})𝑑\sigma ,$$
(73)
where $`\theta _{12}`$ is the scattering angle, $`d\sigma `$ is the ordinary differential cross section. As a result, using the relations (71)–(73) and defining the diffusion coefficient in binary gas in usual manner  we come to the classical result

$$D_{12}^{(L)}=\frac{1}{3nn_1}f_1^{(0)}\frac{v_1}{\sigma _t}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_1.$$
(74)
The obtained expression (74) coincides with analogous formulae obtained in Refs. 5 and 23 by simplification of the initial kinetic equation.

Note that for deriving the formula (74) in the frame of developed here approach it is enough to require fulfilment of strong inequality (64) for normal densities of components of a mixture, absence of equilibrium in first component, equilibrium in second component and elasticity of quasiparticles scattering.

Now I shall consider one more classical example, namely a diffusion in so-called Rayleigh gas , that is diffusion of very rarefied massive gas in the light buffer component with large concentration. In other words, we, as well as in the previous case, have a mixture of light and massive components, but under opposite conditions. So we assume the concentration of a massive component to be so small that

$$\rho _2/\rho _11.$$
(75)
Now I assume, that the light component of a mixture is already in equilibrium, while the particles of the massive component almost do not interact with one another. In this limiting case we again can use the result (69) with a replacement of subscripts $`12`$. In this case, however, the relative velocity of particles from different components again is determined by a velocity of light particle. Therefore, the appropriate collision operator does not depend on momenta, so that in view of an orthogonality of vectors of selected basis its nongiagonal elements vanish, i.e.

$$\left(\chi _2|C_{21}|F^{(\beta )}(𝐩_2)\right)=0,(\beta =1,2\mathrm{}).$$
(76)
Thus, proceeding from the relation (69) with a replacement of subscripts of components, we come to the relation

$$\tau _{D}^{(R)}{}_{}{}^{1}=\frac{1}{3\rho _2}(𝐩_2|C_{21}|𝐩_2)\tau _{21}^{(0)^1},$$
(77)
which determines diffusion time in a weak solution of massive component in an equilibrium light gas. Further, proceeding from a momentum conservation law, we obtain

$`\tau _{D}^{(R)}{}_{}{}^{1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\rho _2}}(𝐩_1|C_{12}^1|𝐩_1)`$ (78)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n_1n_2}{3n\rho _2T}}{\displaystyle f_1^{(0)}p_1^2v_1\sigma _t𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}.`$ (79)
Expression (79) leads to the well known relation for a diffusion coefficient of massive particles in equilibrium light classical gas . Let me remark, that in Ref. 5 this result was obtained by an indirect method with the use of Einstein relation between diffusion coefficient and mobility. The use of the method developed here has allowed to obtain the formula (79) without engaging artificial approaches, i.e. immediately from a general solution (34), (48). The developed approach allows to generalize the result (79), as well as (74), on quasiparticle systems with arbitrary dispersion law and statistics, in particular, on such systems, in which it is impossible to define notation of a mass in its classical sense.

## VI Kihara approximation

In the previous sections I considered only the most physically interesting limiting cases. However, in practice the following problem can appear: How to calculate some dissipative coefficient more precisely in the intermediate case, i.e. when the considered limiting situations do not take a place. Of course, the most straightforward way is to compute it numerically using the formulae (34)–(48). In that case we are forced to restrict ourselves with some finite matrices in eq. (34). This is an analog of the Chapman–Cowling approximation in classical gaseous mixtures. In 1949 Kihara  proposed another approximation, which is in fact simpler than Chapman–Cowling approximation. He simply proposed to neglect the nondiagonal integral brackets (see Ref. 2), which is exact for Maxwell molecules. Unfortunately, this approximation is unproved until now and it can be partially justified only by experience in numerical calculations for classical gases. In our theory such an approximation can be introduced by neglecting all the nondiagonal matrix elements in (48). After this procedure the inverse matrix $`\left(+𝒮\right)^1`$ takes the form

$`\left(+𝒮\right)^1=`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}t_1^{(11)}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& t_2^{(11)}& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& t_1^{(22)}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),$$
(80)
where I introduced the diagonal characteristic times

$$t_j^{(\alpha \beta )}=\left[\nu _j^{(\alpha \beta )}+\omega _j^{(\alpha \beta )}\right]^1.$$
(81)
In view of eqs. (63) and (64) we can rewrite the result (29) in the following form

$`\tau _D^1\varphi _2|\widehat{𝒞}|\varphi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2|\widehat{𝒞}|\varphi _3\varphi _3|\widehat{𝒞}|\varphi _2}{\varphi _3|\widehat{𝒞}|\varphi _3}}`$ (82)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2|\widehat{𝒞}|\varphi _4\varphi _4|\widehat{𝒞}|\varphi _2}{\varphi _4|\widehat{𝒞}|\varphi _4}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (83)
The series expansion (83) gives the correction to the limiting result (53). In practice we should estimate numerically an appropriate radius of convergence in series (83) and keep necessary number of terms.

In general it is clear that the Kihara approximation works well when the momentum dependence of collision operators is weak enough. But sometimes the series like (65) have infinite radius of convergence. This indicates simply that it is better to start with the opposite limiting formula (45) as a zero order approximation.

## VII Conclusions

In the present work I present the general theory providing a possibility to investigate diffusion processes in two-component gas of quasiparticles with arbitrary statistics and dispersion. The obtained main equations of the theory are correct for both systems with conserved and not conserved number of quasiparticles, which is mathematically expressed in not equality or in equality of a chemical potential to zero, accordingly. The proposed theory can be generalized on the cases of classical and quantum gaseous mixtures with arbitrary number of components.

To solve the formulated problem I start with the system of kinetic equations (1) driving the evolution of corresponding distribution functions of components of a mixture. After a standard procedure of a linearization (7), (9) of a kinetic problem, I have chosen the basis in infinite-dimensional two-parameter Hilbert space with a scalar product (23) selected so that operator matrix of collision integrals (20)–(22) becomes Hermitian. As is known, the inverse matrix of collision integrals does not exist because of the moments of collision integrals. However, by projecting on the nucleus of an integral operator of collisions it is possible to define somewhat inverse matrix. In the present work this procedure has been made with the help of introducing of projection operator (27) corresponding to conservation of total momentum of a quasiparticle system. As an outcome it allowed me to obtain the general expression (34) for characteristic time (see also eq. (48)), determining speed of a diffusion relaxation in a system.

The obtained general result contains explicitly quantities responsible for interactions between both quasiparticles from different components and between identical quasiparticles. It allows to analyze qualitative difference between mechanisms of equilibration of a whole system in various limiting cases. So, if the relaxation inside each component of a system is instantaneous, the diffusion time is determined by an inverse average of collision operator, describing interaction between quasiparticles of different types. In the opposite limiting case, when the equilibrium in a system occurs infinitely longly, the diffusion time is equal to an average of the inverse collision operator. The principal difference between these two limiting results can be easily understood using an example of phonon thermal conductivity of solids. The thermal conductivity in this case is simply a diffusion of phonons in a system of fixed ”scatterers” (impurities, boundaries, defects etc.). If the phonons did not come yet to equilibrium with one another, the thermal conductivity is determined by average of inverse frequency of scattering of phonons on scatterers. In case of a long wavelength phonon, such frequency is proportional to the fourth degree of momentum (Rayleigh scattering). Therefore when averaging the integral simply diverges at zero momentum. That is the long wavelength phonon simply ”does not feel” the scatterer. On the contrary, in case when the phonons came in an equilibrium with one another, the magnitude of diffusion time appears to be finite, because now the frequency is averaged, instead of time. This corresponds to the so-called two-stage mechanism of a relaxation. At first an equilibrium in phonon gas appropriate to some stationary phonon flux is established. Then phonons scatter on scatterers. Just this process results in a finite heat flux.

The general results, obtained in the work, give correct expressions for diffusion coefficients of a light gas in a massive one (Lorentz gas) (74) and a massive gas in a light one (Rayleigh gas) (79). Earlier, these classical results were obtained only with use of artificial methods based on simplification of the initial kinetic equation. Furthermore these two most popular model systems can be easily generalized to describe quasiparticle systems as well as classical gases.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am deeply grateful to my colleagues Professor I. N. Adamenko and Dr. K. É. Nemchenko, collaboration with which had initiated solution of the given problem when we were working on the problems concerning dissipative processes in superfluids. I do appreciate their contribution to the formulation of the problem and discussion of the main obtained results.