text:
# A lattice glass model with no tendency to crystallize

## Abstract

We study a lattice model with two body interactions that reproduces in three-dimensions many features of structural glasses, like cage effect and vanishing diffusivity. While having a crystalline state at low temperatures, it does not crystallize when quenched, even at the slowest cooling rate used, which makes it suitable to study the glass transition. We study the model on the Bethe lattice as well, and find a scenario typical of $`p`$-spin models, as in the Biroli Mézard model.

The glass transition is a phenomenon that is observed when a liquid is cooled well below its melting temperature, avoiding the crystallization of the system . The motion of the molecules is slowed down more and more by lowering the temperature, until at some point it becomes so slow that the liquid appears as a disordered solid, with the molecules vibrating around some equilibrium positions, but not diffusing anymore. Two fundamental approaches have been put forward in the study of this phenomenon, from the point of view of dynamics , and thermodynamics . A further insight in the understanding of the glass transition was achieved through the study of the $`p`$-spin glass , a mean field model with $`p`$-body interactions and quenched disorder, which reproduces many features of glass forming liquids. More recently, Biroli and Mézard have introduced a very interesting lattice glass model , where occupation variables interact via $`p`$-body potentials. The mean field solution on the Bethe lattice shows a scenario identical to $`p`$-spin models, and three dimension numerical simulations show a behavior typical of glass forming liquids. In order to reduce the tendency to crystallize, the authors considered a mixture of two types of particles. Further study of the model was done in . Another model with $`p`$-body interactions and without quenched disorder, that shows a similar behavior, was studied in .

In this paper we study a simple lattice gas model with only two body interactions. The model reproduces in mean field again the scenario typical of $`p`$-spin models, and three dimension numerical simulations show the same behavior typical of glass forming liquids, including cage effect and two step relaxation. Moreover, while having a crystalline phase at low temperatures, the model does not crystallize when cooled, even in the pure case (only one type of particles) and at extremely low cooling rates. This makes the model more suitable to study the glass transition, and allows to obtain very clear results.

The model is defined as follows. We partition the space in regular cells, such that not more than one particle can have its center of mass inside the cell. The position and orientation of the particle inside the cell is represented by a coarse grained discrete internal degree of freedom, that can assume a finite number $`q`$ of states, and the interaction between nearest neighbor particles depends explicitly from their position inside the cell. The model is therefore described by the following Hamiltonian

$$=\underset{ij}{}n_in_j\varphi _{ij}(\sigma _i,\sigma _j)\mu \underset{i}{}n_i$$
(1)
where $`n_i=0,1`$ whether the $`i`$-th cell is occupied by a particle or not, $`\sigma _i=1,\mathrm{},q`$ represents the internal position of the particle, and $`\varphi _{ij}(\sigma _i,\sigma _j)`$ is the interaction energy between two particles in cells $`i`$ and $`j`$ with internal positions $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\sigma _j`$.

It is clear that, by choosing a sufficiently large number $`q`$ of internal positions, and an opportune interaction matrix $`\varphi _{ij}(\sigma _i,\sigma _j)`$, one can approximate as closely as desired any model defined in the continuum, like for example a Lennard-Jones liquid. On the other hand, it is plausible that a few number of internal states may be enough to catch the fundamental characteristics of dynamics and thermodynamics of glass forming liquids.

Here, we study a particularly simple realization of the model (1). In two dimensions, we partition the space in square cells, and subdivide each cell into four internal positions. When a cell is occupied by a particle in a given position, a hard-core repulsion forbids the presence of another particle in some of the internal positions of the neighboring cells (see Fig. 1). Therefore in this case $`q=4`$, and the interaction $`\varphi _{ij}(\sigma _i,\sigma _j)`$ is zero if the positions $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\sigma _j`$ are “compatible”, infinite otherwise. The extension to three dimensions is straightforward. In that case one partitions the space in cubic cells, and considers six internal positions instead of four. For every spatial dimension $`d`$, the model has a crystalline ground state with density $`2d/(2d+1)`$, on lattices with sides multiples of $`2d+1`$ lattice spacings. For example, on a cubic lattice with periodic boundary conditions it can be found as follows: consider the cell with coordinates $`(x,y,z)`$, and evaluate the number $`a=(x+2y+3zmod7)`$: if $`a=0`$, leave the cell empty; if $`a=1,2,3`$ put a particle in the negative $`x`$, $`y`$ or $`z`$ direction, respectively; if $`a=4,5,6`$ put a particle in the positive $`z`$, $`y`$ or $`x`$ direction, respectively.

We have simulated the model in three dimensions, by means of grand-canonical and canonical dynamics. A compression experiment on a system of size $`28^3`$ is shown in Fig. 2. A simple Monte Carlo grand-canonical (variable density) dynamics is performed, and temperature is slowly decreased, starting from some high value. The results are shown as open circles in Fig. 2, for various cooling rates. The final high-density state is strongly dependent from the cooling rate, as observed in glass forming liquids. On the other hand, no tendency to crystallization is observed: even at the slowest cooling rate ($`\dot{T}/T=10^7`$) no transition to the crystalline state was observed. We have also computed the density in the crystalline state, starting from the ground state at very low temperature, and heating up slowly (diamonds in Fig. 2). This ordered state becomes unstable at $`T0.150\mu `$, where the system falls into the liquid phase.

After having equilibrated the system at a certain density in the liquid phase, we have switched to a canonical (fixed density) dynamics. These simulations are performed on lattices of size $`15^3`$. The mean square displacement $`r^2(t)`$ of the particles is show in Fig. 3a. This is defined taking in account also the position of the particle inside the cell, giving to each internal position a shift $`1/4`$ of a lattice spacing with respect to the center of the cell. In Fig. 3b instead we plot the self-overlap, defined as

$$q(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}n_i(t)n_i(0)𝝈_𝒊(t)𝝈_𝒊(0)$$
(2)
where $`𝝈_𝒊(t)`$ are unit length vectors, pointing in one of the six coordinate directions, representing the position of the particle inside the cell, and $`N`$ is the number of particles. As it happens in glass forming liquids, at high density a plateau develops both in the mean square displacement and in the self-overlap. This is the signature of the so called “cage effect”. Particles are trapped in cages formed by neighboring particles, and vibrate rapidly around some equilibrium position, giving rise to the first decay in correlation functions. Only after a long time they manage to escape from their cages, giving rise to the second final decay to equilibrium. While the time of the first step remains finite, the time of the slow relaxation diverges when the glass transition is approached. In Fig. 4a it is shown the diffusivity as a function of $`\rho \rho _c`$, with $`\rho _c=0.844`$. It can be fitted by a power law, with an exponent $`\gamma =3.45`$. In Fig. 4b it is shown the dynamical susceptibility $`\chi (t)=N(q(t)^2q(t)^2)`$, which shows a behavior typical of $`p`$-spin models, and observed also in a Lennard Jones binary mixture , with a peak at finite time that grows when approaching the glass transition, signaling the presence of dynamical heterogeneities.

We have then studied the model on the Bethe lattice, namely a random lattice with fixed connectivity . Each site of the lattice is subdivided in $`k+1`$ internal positions, and is connected to $`k+1`$ randomly chosen neighbors (see Fig. 5a). For large number of sites $`N`$, the lattice is locally treelike, but has loops of length of the order $`\mathrm{log}N`$. Consider a “branch” ending on site $`i`$, that is a graph in which site $`i`$ has only $`k`$ neighbors, and let $`Z_0^{(i)}`$, $`Z_{\text{ext}}^{(i)}`$ and $`Z_{\text{int}}^{(i)}`$ be the partition functions of the branch, restricted respectively to configurations where site $`i`$ is empty, occupied on the “external” position, and occupied on one of the $`k`$ “internal” positions (see Fig. 5b). We define the “local fields” $`a_i`$ and $`h_i`$ acting on the site $`i`$ by the relations $`e^{\beta h_i}=Z_{\text{int}}^{(i)}/Z_0^{(i)}`$, $`e^{\beta a_i}=(Z_{\text{ext}}^{(i)}+Z_{\text{int}}^{(i)})/Z_0^{(i)}`$. The branch can be seen as the result of the merging of the $`k`$ branches ending on the neighbor sites $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, which leads to a recursion relations for the local fields, and a free energy shift:

$`e^{\beta a_i}=e^{\beta \mu }\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{\beta h_j}}{1+e^{\beta a_j}}}\right)\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta h_j}}}\right)`$ (4)
$`e^{\beta h_i}=e^{\beta \mu }\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{\beta h_j}}{1+e^{\beta a_j}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta h_j}}}\right)`$ (5)
$`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }F}=Z_0^{(i)}/{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}Z_0^{(j)}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(1+e^{\beta a_j})`$ (6)
To evaluate the total free energy, one has to consider also the free energy shifts when merging $`k+1`$ branches on a new site, and when merging two branches, that are given respectively by

$`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }F^{(1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}}(1+e^{\beta a_j})+e^{\beta \mu }{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{jp}{}}(1+e^{\beta h_j})`$ (8)
$`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }F^{(2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+e^{\beta a_1}+e^{\beta a_2}+e^{\beta (h_1+h_2)}`$ (9)
The replica symmetric solution of the problem corresponds to the case in which there is only one pure state, and the fields do not fluctuate from site to site. In this case, the total free energy is given by $`F=\mathrm{\Delta }F^{(1)}(k+1)\mathrm{\Delta }F^{(2)}/2`$, from which one can find the specific volume and the entropy per site, that are shown as solid lines in Figs. 6 and 7 (in the case $`k=5`$). As it happens in the model studied by Biroli and Mézard , the entropy becomes negative for temperatures below some threshold. A similar behavior is observed for every $`k>1`$. One can also find a (replica symmetric) crystalline solution, where the fields do not fluctuate on the single site, but are different on different sites, and the merging of the branches is done preserving the crystalline structure. For $`k=5`$, this solution appears below $`T_{ms}=0.1633\mu `$, and becomes stable below the melting temperature $`T_m=0.1444\mu `$. The corresponding volume and entropy are shown as dashed lines in Figs. 6 and 7.

We have then looked for a solution at the level of 1-step replica symmetry breaking (RSB) . In this case, many pure states exist, and the local fields fluctuate also on the single site. We work in the so called “factorized case”, in which the probability distribution of the local fields $`P(a_i,h_i)`$ on the single site is the same on all the sites of the lattice. The self-consistency equation, when merging $`k`$ branches on a site $`i`$, now reads

$`P(a,h)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}da_jdh_jP(a_j,h_j)}`$ (11)
$`\times \delta (aa_i)\delta (hh_i)\mathrm{exp}(\beta m\mathrm{\Delta }F)`$
where $`a_i`$, $`h_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ are functions of $`a_j`$ and $`h_j`$ via the equations (A lattice glass model with no tendency to crystallize), $`m`$ is a real parameter, and the total free energy is

$`F=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta m}}\{\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}}da_jdh_jP(a_j,h_j)e^{\beta m\mathrm{\Delta }F^{(1)}}`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k+1}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}da_jdh_jP(a_j,h_j)e^{\beta m\mathrm{\Delta }F^{(2)}}\}`$
One then has to maximize the free energy with respect to the parameter $`m`$, in the interval $`0m1`$.

At temperature $`T=0`$ the solution of (11) is easily found. Indeed, in that case the fields $`a_i`$ and $`h_i`$ can only have the finite set of values

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_i& =& (1k)\mu ,\mathrm{},0,\mu \hfill \\ \hfill h_i& =& \text{}\{\begin{array}{cc}a_i\hfill & \text{if}a_i<\mu \hfill \\ \text{}0,\mu \hfill & \text{if}a_i=\mu \hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
The distribution $`P(a,h)`$ is then a sum of $`k+2`$ delta functions, and the integral equation (11) gives rise to $`k+2`$ algebraic equations for the weights of the delta functions. One has to give a finite value to the parameter $`\beta m\mu `$, and maximize the free energy with respect to it. For $`k=5`$, the maximum is $`F=0.8265\mu `$, for $`\beta m\mu =8.078`$. At temperature $`T>0`$ the solution of (11) can be found iteratively. We discretized the distribution $`P(a,h)`$ over a domain of the plane $`(a,h)`$, using a fine grid with spacings $`da=dh=\mu /1024`$, and starting from some initial distribution applied iteratively equation (11) until the procedure converged. Of course one must be careful that the chosen domain in the plane $`(a,h)`$ covers all the support of $`P(a,h)`$. To locate the maximum of the free energy as a function of $`m`$, it is useful to evaluate explicitly the derivative $`dF/dm`$ . The results for the volume and entropy, and for the parameter $`m`$, are shown as open circles in Figs. 6 and 7, in the case $`k=5`$. The 1-step RSB solution appears below $`T_D0.105\mu `$, and becomes stable below $`T_K0.087\mu `$, where $`m=1`$. Note that below $`T_K`$ the configurational entropy vanishes, and therefore the residual entropy, at low temperatures in the 1-step RSB solution, has to be interpreted as a “vibrational entropy”, due to the “rattling” of the particles inside their cages. This vibrational entropy is absent in the crystalline state.

In conclusion, we have studied a lattice glass model with two body interactions. On the Bethe lattice, it shows the same scenario of discontinuous spin glasses, and of other recently studied lattice models of glass. Moreover, it shows no tendency to crystallize when simulated in three dimension with a simple Monte Carlo dynamics, which avoids the need to introduce a mixture, as in many models of glass.

After this work was done, we learned about the work of Weigt and Hartmann, who have studied a lattice glass model that shows a similar behavior .

Acknowledgments – This work was partially supported by the European TMR Network-Fractals (Contract FMRXCT980183), MURST-PRIN-2000, INFM-PRA (HOP), and MIUR-FIRB-2002.


format: text

text:
# Migdal’s short range correlations in a covariant model

## Abstract

We construct a covariant model for short range correlations of a pion emerged in nuclear matter. Once the delta-hole contribution is considered an additional and so far neglected channel opens that leads to significant modifications in the vicinity of the kinematical region defined by $`\omega |\stackrel{}{q}|`$. We speculate that this novel effect should be important for the quantitative interpretation of charge exchange reactions like 12C(3He,t).

GSI-Preprint-2002-30

The pion plays a special role in nuclear physics. A large amount of work has been done to understand the many facets of nuclear pion dynamics . Nevertheless, there still exists quite a bit of ambiguity as to what is the quantitative form of the pion spectral function in cold nuclear matter. This problem reflects in part the fact that there are no commonly accepted Migdal parameters that describe the short range correlation effects. In particular $`g_{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}`$ are not too well determined (see e.g. ). In this short note we focus on the particular aspect how to treat short range correlations in a covariant manner. The latter are required to reduce the strength of the nucleon- and delta-hole contributions to the pion self energy. This avoids for instance a pion condensate at unreasonably small nuclear densities. Most works were performed in a non-relativistic framework with the exception of a series of works by Dmitriev . In the latter works it was demonstrated that a proper covariant treatment of the nucleon-hole term leads to a contribution proportional to $`\omega ^2\stackrel{}{q}^2`$ rather than to $`\stackrel{}{q}^2`$ as suggested by a non-relativistic treatment. Thus a faithful evaluation of the pion self energy in nuclear matter requires a relativistic treatment at least in the vicinity of $`\omega |\stackrel{}{q}|`$. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that previous works  did not completely succeed in constructing a covariant model for Migdal’s short range correlations. The shortcomings of these works will be overcome and a fully covariant generalization of Dmitriev’s model will be presented here. It turns out that the necessary modifications to Dmitriev’s model lead to significant effects in the pion self energy for $`\omega |\stackrel{}{q}|`$ missed so far.

Following Dmitriev’s original work  we consider the interaction of pions with nucleons and isobars in terms of the leading order vertices

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_N}{m_\pi }}\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }_\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{\Delta }}{m_\pi }}(\overline{\psi }^\mu \stackrel{}{T}\psi _\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }_\pi +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}),`$ (1)
as predicted by the chiral Lagrangian. We use $`T_i^{}T_j=\delta _{ij}\tau _i\tau _j/3`$ and $`f_N=0.988`$ and $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }=2f_N`$ in this work. The nucleon and isobar propagators are

$`S(p,u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/m_N+iϵ}}+\mathrm{\Delta }S(p,u),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }S(p,u)=2\pi i\mathrm{\Theta }(pu)\delta (p^2m_N^2)(p/+m_N)\mathrm{\Theta }(k_F^2+p^2(up)^2),`$
$`S_{\mu \nu }(p)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{p/m_\mathrm{\Delta }+iϵ}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2p_\mu p_\nu }{3m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mu p_\nu p_\mu \gamma _\nu }{3m_\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right),`$ (2)
where the time like four-vector $`u_\mu `$ specifies the nuclear matter frame. For symmetric nuclear matter at rest it follows $`u_\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{0})`$ and $`\rho =2k_F^3/(3\pi ^2)`$. In (2) we do not consider an additional structure in the isobar propagator which would modify the off-shell properties of the isobar only. This term is not relevant for the development of this work.

It is straight forward to write down the nucleon and delta-hole contributions to the pion self energy,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (q,u)=q^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(Nh)}(q,u)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}(q,u)\right)q^\nu ,`$ (3)
where we follow previous works and disregard vacuum polarization effects. This leads to loop functions of the form

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}(q,u)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}i\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{\Delta }S(p,u)S_{\mu \nu }(p+q)}+(q_\mu q_\mu ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(Nh)}(q,u)=2{\displaystyle \frac{f_N^2}{m_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}i\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Delta }S(p,u)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/+q/m_N}}\gamma _5\gamma _\nu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }S(p,u)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Delta }S(p+q)\gamma _5\gamma _\nu )+(q_\mu q_\mu ).`$ (4)
In order to arrive at realistic nucleon-hole and delta-hole contributions to the pion polarization in nuclear matter it is crucial to introduce short range correlation effects that significantly reduce the contributions of the nucleon-hole and delta-hole diagrams . Most authors would also argue that the loop functions (4) should be multiplied by a suitable form factor that reduces the strength of the loop function at large momenta. Since this would necessarily introduce some ambiguities we refrain from doing this here. The aim of this short note is not to provide a fully realistic pion self energy in nuclear matter rather we suggest to improve a frequently used model as to achieve consistency with covariance. We do, however, incorporate a reasonable spectral distribution of the isobar and fold the delta-hole loop function with a spectral function that describes the $`P_{33}`$ phase shift of pion-nucleon scattering. The specifics of the spectral function we use here can be found in  111There is a misprint in (131) of . Replace $`C^2m_\mathrm{\Delta }C^2`$ and use $`C=1.85`$..

A covariant from of the short range correlations was introduced explicitly by Nakano et al.

$`_{\mathrm{Migdal}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{11}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{f_N^2}{m_\pi ^2}}\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\psi \right)\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\psi \right)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`g_{22}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m_\pi ^2}}(\left(\overline{\psi }_\mu \stackrel{}{T}\psi \right)\left(\overline{\psi }\stackrel{}{T}\psi ^\mu \right)+(\left(\overline{\psi }_\mu \stackrel{}{T}\psi \right)\left(\overline{\psi }^\mu \stackrel{}{T}\psi \right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.))`$
$`+`$ $`g_{12}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{f_Nf_\mathrm{\Delta }}{m_\pi ^2}}\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }\psi \right)(\left(\overline{\psi }^\mu \stackrel{}{T}\psi \right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
where it is understood that the local vertices are to be used at the Hartree level. The Fock contribution can be cast into the form of a Hartee contribution by a simple Fierz transformation. Therefore it only renormalizes the coupling strength in (5) and can be omitted here. Note that the terms proportional to $`\overline{\psi }_\mu \overline{\psi }^\mu `$ and $`\psi _\mu \psi ^\mu `$ of (5) were missed in . They are required to recover the proper non relativistic limit of the short range correlations as introduced by Migdal.

In previous works  the short range correlation effects were introduced in the form,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(q,u)}{q^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{Nh}\left(q^2+g_{22}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Delta }h}\right)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Delta }h}\left(q^2+g_{11}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{Nh}\right)2g_{12}\mathrm{\Pi }_{Nh}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Delta }h}}{\left(q^2+g_{11}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{Nh}\right)\left(q^2+g_{22}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Delta }h}\right)g_{12}^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{Nh}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Delta }h}}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Delta }h}(q,u)=q^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}(q,u)q^\nu ,\mathrm{\Pi }_{Nh}(q,u)=q^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(Nh)}(q,u)q^\nu ,`$ (6)
with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(Nh)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}`$ taken from (4). As will be demonstrated explicitly below the result (6) is strictly speaking not correct and requires a generalization for

$$q^2(qu)^2.$$

The form of (6) was taken over from a corresponding expression obtained by Migdal  in the non-relativistic case, but not properly modified for the covariant vertices (1, 5).

It is evident that the expression (6) were correct if the generic loop functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(Nh)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}`$ had contributions proportional to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`q_\mu q_\nu `$ only. However, the most general decomposition of the loop functions involves additional structures proportional to $`u_\mu q_\nu `$ and $`q_\mu u_\nu `$. To derive the correct generalization of (6) we introduce a transverse projector, $`T^{\mu \nu }(q,u)`$ and a set of longitudinal projectors $`L_{ij}^{\mu \nu }(q,u)`$,

$`T_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}X_\mu X_\nu ,X_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{(qu)q_\mu q^2u_\mu }{\sqrt{q^2}\sqrt{q^2(qu)^2}}},`$
$`L_{11}^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu q^\nu }{q^2}},L_{12}^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{q^\mu X^\nu }{\sqrt{q^2}}},L_{21}^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{X^\mu q^\nu }{\sqrt{q^2}}},L_{22}^{\mu \nu }=X^\mu X^\nu ,`$
$`L_{ik}L_{lj}=\delta _{kl}L_{ij},L_{ij}T=0=TL_{ij},u^2=1,X^2=1,`$ (7)
that trivialize the solution of the Dyson equation in the presence of the structures $`q_\mu u_\nu `$ and $`u_\mu q_\mu `$. The loop functions are decomposed into the complete set of projectors,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(Nh)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(Nh)}L_{ij}^{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}L_{ij}^{\mu \nu },`$ (8)
where only the longitudinal projections are needed in this work. A corresponding decomposition of the Migdal interaction vertices,

$$\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\gamma _\mu =\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\gamma _\nu \left(T^{\mu \nu }+L_{11}^{\mu \nu }+L_{22}^{\mu \nu }\right),$$

implies a straight forward generalization of (6). The self energy can be cast into the form of a sum of $`11`$, $`33`$ and $`13`$, $`31`$ components of an appropriate 4$`\times `$4 matrix that incorporates the additional 2$`\times `$2 matrix structure introduced in (7,8),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{q^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(1JG\right)^1J\right]_{11}\left[\left(1JG\right)^1J\right]_{33}`$ (9)
$``$ $`\left[\left(1JG\right)^1J\right]_{13}\left[\left(1JG\right)^1J\right]_{31},`$
where the coupling matrix, $`G`$, and loop matrix, $`J`$, are

$`G=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}g_{11}^{}\hfill & 0\hfill & g_{12}^{}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & g_{11}^{}\hfill & 0\hfill & g_{12}^{}\hfill \\ g_{12}^{}\hfill & 0\hfill & g_{22}^{}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & g_{12}^{}\hfill & 0\hfill & g_{22}^{}\hfill \end{array}\right),J=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{(Nh)}\hfill & \mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(Nh)}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^{(Nh)}\hfill & \mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^{(Nh)}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \mathrm{\Pi }_{11}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}\hfill & \mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}\hfill & \mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (18)
It is evident that only matrix elements $`ij`$ with $`i,j=1,3`$ contribute to the self energy since the latter reflect the derivative coupling of the pion baryon vertex structure. In the particular case where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(Nh)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^{(Nh)}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}=0`$ holds the result (9) reproduces (6).

We proceed and derive explicit representations for the loop matrix $`J`$ for the standard case of nuclear matter at rest with $`u_\mu =(1,\stackrel{}{0})`$. The nucleon-hole functions read222The off-diagonal (diagonal) loop function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})=\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ must be anti-symmetrized (symmetrized) in $`\omega `$. This follows from the corresponding property of $`L_{ij}^{\mu \nu }`$. The resulting pion self energy is symmetric in $`\omega `$.,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(Nh)}(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{if_N^2}{m_\pi ^2}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{k_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{2p_0(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8K_{ij}^{(Nh)}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(|\stackrel{}{p}+\stackrel{}{q}|k_F\right)}{2pq+q^2+iϵ}}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(p_0+\omega \right)`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_N^2}{m_\pi ^2}}𝒫{\displaystyle _0^{k_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{2p_0(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8K_{ij}^{(Nh)}}{2pq+q^2+iϵ}}\pm (q_\mu q_\mu ),`$
where $`q_\mu =(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})`$, $`p_0=\sqrt{m_N^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2}`$ and

$`K_{11}^{(Nh)}=2m_N^2,K_{12}^{(Nh)}=K_{21}^{(Nh)}=0,`$
$`K_{22}^{(Nh)}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2\stackrel{}{q}^2}{\stackrel{}{q}^2}}\left(2\stackrel{}{p}^2+\omega p_0+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}\right).`$ (20)
Since the transition loop functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(Nh)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{21}^{(Nh)}=0`$ vanish identically it would be justified to ignore the coupled channel structure in the nucleon-hole channel if the delta-hole contributions were neglected all together. The loop function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^{(Nh)}0`$ will be relevant once the delta-hole channel is considered since in the latter channel $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}0`$ holds. The following result is derived,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})={\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{k_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{2p_0(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8K_{ij}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}\left(m_Nm_\mathrm{\Delta }+m_N^2+(pq)\right)}{2pq+q^2m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2+m_N^2+iϵ}}`$
$`\pm (q_\mu q_\mu ),`$
$`K_{11}^{\mathrm{\Delta }h}=1{\displaystyle \frac{(q^2+pq)^2}{q^2m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}},K_{22}^{\mathrm{\Delta }h}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega |\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p})|\stackrel{}{q}|p_0)^2}{m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2q^2}},`$
$`K_{12}^{\mathrm{\Delta }h}=K_{21}^{\mathrm{\Delta }h}=i{\displaystyle \frac{q^2+pq}{q^2m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\left(|\stackrel{}{q}|p_0\omega |\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p})\right).`$ (21)
We refrain from presenting analytic expressions for the final loop functions since the expressions are cumbersome and already published for the 11 components . Moreover it is more transparent to work directly with the representations (19, 20, 21).

In Fig. 1) we present the pion self energy (9) and (6) for the choice of parameters $`g_{11}=0.585`$ and $`g_{12}=0.191+0.051g_{22}`$ with $`g_{22}=0.6`$ as suggested in  and . We do not study here possible deviations from those values because this is not the point of this work. The figure clearly illustrates significant effects in certain kinematical regions as the result of a proper treatment of the coupled channels. Most striking is the enhancement by about a factor 5 found for the imaginary part of the pion self energy at $`\omega `$ 350 MeV and $`|\stackrel{}{q}|=300`$ MeV. The inclusion of the transition loop function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}`$ together with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}`$ is crucial here. From the form of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}`$ it follows directly that at $`\omega 0`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{q}|=0`$, the kinematical region probed by the quenching of the Gamow-Teller resonance , the coupled channel structure discussed here is superficial. In this case the use of the expression (6) is justified since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{12}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}=0`$ holds. A further interesting limit is $`\omega =0`$ with $`\stackrel{}{q}0`$ as is probed by a possible pion condensate. Here one would expect to recover the algebraic form of the non-relativistic scheme of Migdal for $`|\stackrel{}{q}|m_N`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{p}|m_N`$. This is indeed confirmed if the functions $`K_{ij}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}`$ are expanded in powers of

$$\frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|}{m_N},\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{m_N}.$$

Then the transition moment, $`K_{12}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}`$, is suppressed by the factor $`|\stackrel{}{q}|/m_N`$ as compared to the leading moment, $`K_{11}^{(\mathrm{\Delta }h)}`$. Therefore we expect only minor corrections when studying pion condensation phenomena within the generalized result (5). Particularly striking are, however, new effects close to the kinematical point $`\omega ^2\stackrel{}{q}^20`$ where the transition loop function can no longer be neglected. This kinematical domain is crucial for the peak structure  in the 12C(3He,t) transfer reaction .

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank E. Kolomeitsev, C. Korpa and D. Voskresenski for useful discussions.


text:
# The Diffusion of the Magnetization Profile in the 𝑋𝑋-model

## I Introduction

The anomalous properties of the state with current in one-dimensional integrable system has attracted considerable interests. Especially, the heat conduction in one-dimensional systems is a long -standing problem. It has been expected that the existence of conserved quantities implies anomalous conductivity of the heat current zotos1997 . A large number of numerical investigations have been done savin02

It is natural to consider the state with current as the non-equilibrium steady state (NESS), i.e., the state which is asymptotically realized from the inhomogeneous initial state rue:natu ,pil:non . In other words, the NESS is the state at the convergent point. There reported many works on the NESS itself. However, the relaxation process to the NESS is not much investigated. After a large but finite time, what kind of profile does the observable quantity show? In the previous paper yosi1 , stating from the inhomogeneous initial state (the temperatures of the left and the right are different), we obtained the homogeneous NESS for the transverse $`XX`$-model. Investigating the profiles in the intermediate time, we would obtain the diffusion of the temperature profile. Furthermore, in the integrable system, the existence of the conserved quantities may have a significant influence on the relaxation process.

In this paper, we investigate the profile at the large intermediate time using the transverse $`XX`$-model. The chain is initially divided to the left and the right, and kept at different temperatures. The problem of intermediate profile with inhomogeneous initial condition in the $`XX`$-model was first studied by Antal.et.al. in ant2 . They considered the magnetization profile in zero temperature with the reversed external field, the situation which makes the calculation simple. It was shown that the magnetization profile shows the scaling property, $`m(x,t)\mathrm{\Phi }(x/t)`$. They calculated the explicit form of the scaling function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which has the flat part around the origin. We investigate this problem with the aid of the $`C^{}`$-algebraic argument. Modifying the argument of Ho and Araki HA00 , we develop a method which is applicable to the present situation. The $`C^{}`$-algebraic argument makes the calculation much simpler, and enables us to consider the more general situation, including the finite temperature case.

We obtain the scaling limit $`m(x,t)\mathrm{\Phi }(x/t)`$. For the situation of Antal.et.al. ant2 , we reproduce the same result. We further consider the finite temperature case. In the finite temperature case, we obtain a remarkable dependence of the magnetization profile on the strength of the external field and the temperature. When the external field is large, or the difference of the temperature is small, the profile varies monotonically. On the other hand, when the external field is small and the difference of the temperature is large, the profile is not monotone and has two extremum points. This feature is absent at the zero-temperature. That is, this phenomenon is due to purely thermal effect. This can be explained by the velocity distribution. In section II,we represent the model and the initial condition. In section III, the scaling property of correlation function is derived. In section IV, we investigate the interesting property which the profile reveals.

## II The model

The Hamiltonian we shall consider has the form,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\sigma _n^x\sigma _{n+1}^x+\sigma _n^y\sigma _{n+1}^y\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sigma _n^z,`$ (1)
where $`\sigma _n^\alpha (\alpha =x,y,z)`$ is the $`\alpha `$-component of the Pauli matrix at the site $`n`$. This Hamiltonian is called the transverse $`XX`$-model. The Hamiltonian is written by the fermion operators using the Jordan-Wigner transformation lieb ;

$``$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[a_{n+1}^{}a_n+a_n^{}a_{n+1}\right]`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(2a_n^{}a_n1\right),`$
where $`a_n`$ and $`a_n^{}`$ are the fermionic annihilation and creation operators on the $`n`$th site.

Owing to the bilinear form of the Hamiltonian, the dynamics of the many body system can be written by the dynamics of the single particle. So, we only have to consider the dynamics of the linear combination of $`a_l^{}`$;

$`a^{}\left(f\right){\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f(l)a_l^{},{\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|f(l)|^2<\mathrm{}.`$ (3)
Here, $`l`$ denotes the $`l`$-th site. The summable sequence $`\{f(l)\}`$ can be interpreted as the wave function of the single particle which is living on the lattice. They construct the one particle Hilbert space, with the inner product

$`f|g={\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\overline{f(l)}g(l).`$
As usual, we define the norm of $`f`$ as

$`f=\left({\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|f(l)|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
In the one particle Hilbert space, the Fourier transformation is defined as

$`\widehat{f}(k){\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f(n)\mathrm{e}^{ink},f(n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }\widehat{f}(k)\mathrm{e}^{ink}.`$
By the Hamiltonian (2), $`a^{}(f)`$ evolves as

$`a^{}(f)a^{}(\mathrm{e}^{ith}f),`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{e}^{ith}`$ is the dynamics of the single particle, represented in the Fourier representation as

$`\widehat{\mathrm{e}^{ith}f}(k)=\mathrm{e}^{it(\mathrm{cos}k\gamma )}\widehat{f}(k).`$
Hence, in the coordinate representation, we have

$`(\mathrm{e}^{ith}f)(n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑k\mathrm{e}^{it(\mathrm{cos}k\gamma )}\mathrm{e}^{ink}\widehat{f}(k).`$ (5)
From now on, we use the following notations. Usually, the Heisenberg representation of the observable $`A`$ is

$`\mathrm{e}^{itH}A\mathrm{e}^{itH}.`$
In stead of this, we use the notation $`\alpha _t(A)`$;

$`\mathrm{e}^{itH}A\mathrm{e}^{itH}\alpha _t(A).`$
In this notation, the dynamics of the single particle 4 is written as

$`\alpha _t(a^{}(f))=a^{}(\mathrm{e}^{ith}f).`$
We also use the unusual notation about the states. Usually, the state is given by a density matrix $`\rho `$, and the expectation value of $`A`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{Tr}\rho A.`$
In stead of this, we use $`\omega `$;

$`\mathrm{Tr}\rho A\omega (A).`$
These notations are introduced because the usual notations are mathematically ill-defined in infinite system. However, there is no inconvenience in interpreting them in the usual sense.

The initial state $`\omega _0`$ we consider is inhomogeneous. To define it, we divide the chain to the left and the right. The left $`\left(n0\right)`$ side is in the equilibrium under magnetic field $`\gamma _{}`$ with inverse temperature $`\beta _{}`$. We denote the state by $`\omega _{}`$. On the other hand, the right $`\left(n1\right)`$ side is in the equilibrium under magnetic field $`\gamma _+`$ with inverse temperature $`\beta _+`$. We denote the state by $`\omega _+`$. The expectation value of $`a^{}(g)a(f)`$ in $`\omega _{},\omega _+`$ are expressed as

$`\omega _{}(a^{}(g)a(f))`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑k\rho _{}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}_{}(k)\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_{}(k),`$
$`\omega _+(a^{}(g)a(f))`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑k\rho _+(k)\stackrel{~}{g}_+(k)\overline{\stackrel{~}{f}}_+(k),`$ (6)
where $`\rho _\pm `$ is determined by the valuables $`\beta _\pm `$, and $`\gamma _\pm `$ as

$`\rho _r(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta _r\left(\mathrm{cos}\left(k\right)\gamma _r\right)}}}.`$
We used the Fourier-sine transform;

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{}(k)`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}}f(n)\mathrm{sin}((n1)k)k[0,\pi ],`$
$`f(n)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑k\stackrel{~}{f}_{}(k)\mathrm{sin}((n1)k)n0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_+(k)`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f(n)\mathrm{sin}(nk)k[0,\pi ],`$
$`f(n)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑k\stackrel{~}{f}_+(k)\mathrm{sin}(nk)n1.`$
Because of the quadratic form of the equilibrium states $`\omega _{}`$ and $`\omega _+`$, the expectation values are evaluated by use of the Wick product with the two-point function. The initial state has then the following product form;

$`\omega _0\left(A_{}A_+\right)=\omega _{}\left(A_{}\right)\omega _+\left(A_+\right),`$ (7)
where $`A_{}`$ and $`A_+`$ are arbitrary operators of the left part $`\left(n0\right)`$ and the right part $`\left(n1\right)`$ of the chain, respectively.

## III The Scaling Property

Now, we investigate the asymptotic profile of physical quantities. Let us consider $`X_n`$, some physical value localized in the neighborhood of site $`n`$. The expectation value of $`X_n`$ at the time $`t`$ is $`X(n,t)\omega _0(\alpha _t(X_n))`$, with the notation of the previous section. The scaling property means

$`X(n,t)\mathrm{\Phi }_X\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}\right),`$
i.e., for large $`t`$, the expectation value of $`X`$ at the site $`vt`$ is almost $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X(v)`$. Fig.1 shows the situation. Each figure is the snapshot of the profile of some $`X`$, at the time $`t_0`$, $`3t_0`$, $`10t_0`$. Note that the leaned area has the width $`t_0`$, $`3t_0`$, $`10t_0`$, respectively. It shows that the wave of the diffusion expand with the constant velocity $`1`$.They can be written as

$`X(n,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_X\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}\right),`$
Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X(v)`$ is the scaling function represented in Fig.2.

To show this scaling property, we have to prove the following convergence to the scaling function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_X`$;

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_X\left(v\right)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}X(vt,t)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _0(\alpha _t(X_{vt})).`$
As $`\omega _0`$ is determined by the Wick product of the two point function, we only have to derive the limit for $`X=a^{}(g)a(f)`$ case;

$`\omega _v(a^{}(g)a(f))\mathrm{\Phi }_{a^{}(g)a(f)}(v)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _0(\alpha _t(a^{}(S_{vt}g)a(S_{vt}f)))`$
where we used the $`m`$-sift operator $`S_m`$ on the one particle Hilbert space;

$`(S_mf)(n)f(nm).`$
For example, to derive the asymptotic profile of the magnetization $`m(v)`$, we calculate

$`m\left(v\right)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _0\left(\alpha _t\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _{vt}^z\right)\right)`$
$`=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _0\left(\alpha _t\left(a_{vt}^{}a_{vt}\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _0\left(\alpha _t\left(a^{}\left(S_{vt}\eta _0\right)a\left(S_{vt}\eta _0\right)\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`=\omega _v\left(a^{}\left(\eta _0\right)a\left(\eta _0\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$
with $`\eta _0`$, a wave function defined as

$`\eta _0(n)=\{\begin{array}{c}1n=0\\ 0n0.\end{array}`$
Using the $`C^{}`$-algebraic method, we can make the argument generic. As an advantage, we can treat the finite temperature case. The argument uses the result of Ho and Araki HA00 . They calculated the following decomposition of (5) with $`f`$:analitic function; for $`|n|<t(1\delta )`$, with $`\delta >0`$, we have

$`(\mathrm{e}^{ith}f)(n)=(T_tf)(n)+(Af)(n,t).`$
$`T_t`$ is the operator which is defined as

$`(T_tf)(n)`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{c}g(n,t)\mathrm{for}|n|<t(1\delta )\\ (\mathrm{e}^{ith}f)(n)\mathrm{for}|n|t(1\delta )\end{array}`$ (11)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}g(n,t)\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}t\sqrt{1\left(n/t\right)^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill \\ \hfill \times [\widehat{f}(\mathrm{sin}^1(n/t))\mathrm{e}^{in\mathrm{sin}^1(n/t)it\sqrt{1(n/t)^2}+i\pi /4}\\ \hfill +\widehat{f}(\pm \pi +\mathrm{sin}^1(n/t))\mathrm{e}^{in(\pm \pi +\mathrm{sin}^1(n/t))+it\sqrt{1(n/t)^2}i\pi /4}]\\ \hfill (+\mathrm{for}n0,\mathrm{for}n>0).\end{array}$$

This term corresponds to the contribution from the momentum $`k(n,t)`$ where the phase velocity

$`\varphi (k)=\mathrm{cos}k+\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{nk}{t}}`$
is stationary i.e.,

$`\varphi ^{}\left(k\right)=\mathrm{sin}k+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}=0`$
$`k(n,t)=\mathrm{sin}^1(n/t),\pm \pi +\mathrm{sin}^1(n/t)`$
$`+\mathrm{for}n0,\mathrm{for}n>0.`$ (12)
$`(Af)(n,t)`$ decay as

$`|(Af)(n,t)|{\displaystyle \frac{C^\delta }{t}}`$ (13)
with $`C^\delta `$, some constant which is independent of $`n`$. They also showed that the contribution to $`\mathrm{e}^{ith}f`$ from $`|n|>t(1\delta )`$;

$`B_\delta \underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{|n|>t(1\delta )}{}}|(\mathrm{e}^{ith}f)(n)|^20`$ (14)
goes to zero as $`\delta 0`$. (13), (14) ensures the following;

$`\mathrm{e}^{ith}fT_tf,`$ (15)
for large $`t`$. We can see from (11), this means that at the site $`n`$, there is only the particle at momentum $`k(n,t)`$.

Now, let us return to the current problem. First, we define projection operators on the one particle Hilbert space. The coordinate projections $`P_m^{},P_m^+`$ are

$`[P_m^{}f](n)`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}0n>m\\ f(n)nm\end{array}`$
$`[P_m^+f](n)`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}f(n)n>m\\ 0nm\end{array}`$
There is the following relation between $`S_m`$ and $`P_l^\pm `$;

$`S_mP_l^\pm =P_{m+l}^\pm S_m`$ (16)
The velocity projection $`\widehat{P}_v^{},\widehat{P}_v^+`$ are defined in the Fourier representation as

$`[\widehat{\widehat{P}_v^{}f}](k)`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}0kI_v\\ \widehat{f}(k)kI_v^c,\end{array}`$
$`[\widehat{\widehat{P}_v^+f}](k)`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{f}(k)kI_v\\ 0kI_v^c\end{array}`$
where

$`I_v\left\{k(\pi ,\pi ];v<\mathrm{sin}k\right\},`$
and $`I_v^c`$ is the complement of $`I_v`$. By the definition of $`T_t`$ (11), we have for $`|n|<t(1\delta )`$,

$`(T_t\widehat{P}_v^\pm f)(n)=(P_{vt}^{}T_tf)(n).`$ (17)
Next we calculate the asymptotic value of

$`\alpha _t(a^{}(S_{vt}f))=a^{}(\mathrm{e}^{ith}S_{vt}f).`$
We claim that

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}P_0^{}S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}f\widehat{P}_v^+S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}f=0`$
We have to calculate

$`(\mathrm{e}^{ith}S_{vt}f)(n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑k\mathrm{e}^{it(\mathrm{cos}k\gamma )}\mathrm{e}^{i(nvt)k}\widehat{f}(k),`$
which we obtain by replacing $`n`$ of (5), with $`nvt`$. Note that $`S_m`$ commutes with the dynamics $`\mathrm{e}^{ith}`$. Let us define $`[g]_t`$ as

$`\left[g\right]_t(n)\{\begin{array}{c}(S_{vt}T_tg)(n)|nvt|t(1\delta )\\ (S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g)(n)|nvt|>t(1\delta )\end{array}`$
Using the relation (16), (17), we have for $`|nvt|t(1\delta )`$,

$`\left[\widehat{P}_v^+g\right]_t(n)=(S_{vt}T_t\widehat{P}_v^+g)(n)`$ (18)
$`=(S_{vt}P_{vt}^{}T_tg)(n)=(P_0^{}S_{vt}T_tg)(n)=(P_0^{}\left[g\right]_t)(n).`$ (19)
Let us fix some $`\delta >0`$. Then, in the asymptotic limit $`t\mathrm{}`$, we have from (19),

$`P_0^{}[g]_t[P_v^+g]_t^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{|nvt|>t(1\delta )}{}}|(P_0^{}S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g(n)S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}\widehat{P}_v^+g(n)|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{|nvt|t(1\delta )}{}}|P_0^{}[g]_t(n)[\widehat{P}_v^+g]_t(n)|^2`$
$`2\left[{\displaystyle \underset{|n|>t(1\delta )}{}}|\mathrm{e}^{ith}g(n)|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{|n|>t(1\delta )}{}}|\mathrm{e}^{ith}\widehat{P}_v^+g(n)|^2\right]`$
$`2\left(B_\delta (g)+B_\delta \left(\widehat{P}_v^+g\right)\right).`$ (20)
We also have in $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit,

$`S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g\left[g\right]_t^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{|nvt|t(1\delta )}{}}|(S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g)(n)(S_{vt}T_tg)(n)|^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{|nvt|t(1\delta )}{}}|(\mathrm{e}^{ith}g)(nvt)(T_tg)(nvt)|^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{|n|t(1\delta )}{}}|(\mathrm{e}^{ith}g)(n)(T_tg)(n)|^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{|n|t(1\delta )}{}}|(Ag)(t,n)|^2{\displaystyle \underset{|n|t(1\delta )}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(C^\delta )^2}{t^2}}0`$ (21)
Hence, we have

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}P_0^{}S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g\widehat{P}_v^+S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g`$
$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}P_0^{}S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}gP_0^{}[g]_t`$
$`+\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}P_0^{}[g]_t[P_v^+g]_t+\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}[P_v^+g]_t\widehat{P}_v^+S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g`$
$`2(B_\delta (g)+B_\delta (\widehat{P}_v^+g)).`$
We used (20), (21) and the commutativity of $`\widehat{P}_v^+`$, $`S_{vt}`$, and $`\mathrm{e}^{ith}`$. Note that the first term $`lim_t\mathrm{}P_0^{}S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g\widehat{P}_v^+S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g`$ is $`\delta `$-independent. So, taking $`\delta 0`$, we have

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}P_0^{}S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g\widehat{P}_v^+S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g=0.`$ (22)
Similarly, we have

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}P_0^+S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g\widehat{P}_v^{}S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g=0.`$ (23)
Next, we substitute the above result to the initial state to derive the two point function $`\omega _v(a^{}(g)a(f))`$. For the purpose, we rewrite the initial state with the projection operators $`P_\pm `$. Note that

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{}(k)`$ $`=i{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}f_n\mathrm{sin}(n1)k`$
$`=i{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}f_n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i(n1)k}\mathrm{e}^{i(n1)k}}{2i}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\widehat{P_0^{}f}(k)\mathrm{e}^{ik}\widehat{P_0^{}f}(k)\mathrm{e}^{ik}\right]`$
Hence we have

$`\omega _{}(a^{}(g)a(f))`$ (24)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }dk[\overline{\widehat{P_0^{}f}}(k)\widehat{P_0^{}g}(k)+\overline{\widehat{P_0^{}f}}(k)\widehat{P_0^{}g}(k)`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{2ik}\overline{\widehat{P_0^{}f}}(k)\widehat{P_0^{}g}(k)\mathrm{e}^{2ik}\overline{\widehat{P_0^{}f}}(k)\widehat{P_0^{}g}(k)]\rho _{}(k)`$ (25)
We are now interested in $`\omega _{}(a^{}(g_t)a(f_t))`$, with $`g_t=S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g`$, $`f_t=S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}f`$. We can see from (25), that $`\omega _{}(a^{}(g_t)a(f_t))`$ is written with $`P_0^{}S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}g`$ and $`P_0^{}S_{vt}\mathrm{e}^{ith}f`$. Hence, we can apply the asymptotic form (22).
Applying the formula, we have

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _{}(a^{}(g_t)a(f_t))`$
$`=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }dk[2\widehat{P}_v^+(k)\overline{\widehat{f}}(k)\widehat{g}(k)`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{2ik}\widehat{P}_v^+(k)\widehat{P}_v^+(k)\mathrm{e}^{2ivtk}\overline{\widehat{f}}(k)\widehat{g}(k)`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{2ik}\widehat{P}_v^+(k)\widehat{P}_v^+(k)\mathrm{e}^{2ivtk}\overline{\widehat{f}}(k)\widehat{g}(k)]\rho _{}(k).`$
Here we used the fact that the Fourier representation of $`S_m`$ is

$`\widehat{S_mf}(k)=\mathrm{e}^{imk}\widehat{f}(k).`$
By the Riemann-Lebesgue Theorem, the second and the third term vanishes and we finally obtain

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _{}(a^{}(g_t)a(f_t))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{v<\mathrm{sin}k}}𝑑k\rho _{}(k)\overline{\widehat{f}}(k)\widehat{g}(k)`$
Similarly, we obtain

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega _+(a^{}(g_t)a(f_t))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{v\mathrm{sin}k}}𝑑k\rho _+(k)\overline{\widehat{f}}(k)\widehat{g}(k)`$
Hence, the explicit form of the two point function of $`\omega _v(a^{}(g)a(f))`$ is

$`\omega _v(a^{}(g)a(f))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{v<\mathrm{sin}k}}𝑑k\rho _{}(k)\overline{\widehat{f}}(k)\widehat{g}(k)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{v\mathrm{sin}k}}𝑑k\rho _+(k)\overline{\widehat{f}}(k)\widehat{g}(k).`$
Note that $`\omega _v(a^{}(g)a(f))`$ is translation invariant.

The velocity of the particle with momentum $`k`$ is $`\mathrm{sin}k`$. We see that only the particles at temperature $`1/\beta _{}`$ with velocity $`(v\mathrm{sin}k1)`$ contribute to the state $`\omega _v`$. This represents the situation that on the inertial system which moves with velocity $`v`$, quasi particles with velocity less than $`v`$ in the left part of the chain go to left infinity and do not appear in the correlation function $`\omega _v`$. This feature is also the case for the particles with temperature $`1/\beta _+`$

## IV The asymptotic profile

With the two-point function, we can calculate the asymptotic profile of physical quantities. The magnetization profile $`m(v)`$ is

$`m(v)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{v>\mathrm{sin}k}}𝑑k\rho _+(k)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{v\mathrm{sin}k}}𝑑k\rho _{}(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$
The magnetic current profile is defined by

$`J^M(v)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega (\alpha _t(J_{vt}^M)),`$
where $`J_n^M=S_n^yS_{n+1}^xS_n^xS_{n+1}^y`$ is the magnetic current at the site $`n`$. Similarly, $`J^M(v)`$ is calculated as

$`J^M(v)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{v>\mathrm{sin}k}}𝑑k\rho _+(k)\mathrm{sin}k`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{v\mathrm{sin}k}}𝑑k\rho _{}(k)\mathrm{sin}k`$
Let us consider the zero-temperature case: each side is in the ground state ($`\beta _+=\beta _{}=\mathrm{}`$) with magnetic field $`\gamma _+`$, $`\gamma _{}`$ respectively. We further assume $`\gamma \gamma _+=\gamma _{}`$. This is the situation that was considered in ant2 , and we confirm their results,

$`m(v)=m(v)=\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}v<\mathrm{cos}\pi m_0\\ m_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arccos}(v)}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\pi m_0v<1\\ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}v\end{array}`$
where $`\gamma =\mathrm{sin}\pi m_0`$.

$`J^M(v)=J^M(v)=\{\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{sin}\pi m_0\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}v<\mathrm{cos}\pi m_0\\ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\sqrt{1v^2}\mathrm{cos}\pi m_0v<1\\ \mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}v\end{array}`$
In the zero-temperature case, regardless of the strength of the external fields $`\gamma _+`$, $`\gamma _{}`$, we can show that the magnetization profile $`m(v)`$ is monotone. The situation is classified by the following conditions: (A) the absolute value of the external field: (i)$`|\gamma _{}|,|\gamma _+|1`$, (ii)$`|\gamma _{}|1,|\gamma _+|>1`$ or $`|\gamma _+|1,|\gamma _{}|>1`$, (iii)$`|\gamma _{}|,|\gamma _+|>1`$ and (B) the signs of the external field: (i)$`\mathrm{sign}(\gamma _+)=\mathrm{sign}(\gamma _{})`$, (ii)$`\mathrm{sign}(\gamma _+)=\mathrm{sign}(\gamma _{})`$. Hence, we have $`3\times 2=6`$ cases. By the explicit calculation, we can show that for all the situation, the magnetization profile $`m(v)`$ is monotone. Fig.3 shows the magnetization profile for each case. As seen in the following, the finiteness of the temperature destroies this monotonicity when the external field is small.

To concentrate on the thermal inhomogeneity, let us consider the situation $`\gamma \gamma _+=\gamma _{}0`$. Due to the non-zero $`\gamma `$, the spins have finite magnetization up to the value of the temperature. The left side of Fig.4 shows the profile of the magnetization for various values of the external field and temperature. Fig.(a) corresponds to the case $`\gamma =0.5,\beta _{}=10,\beta _+=1`$. It shows the non-monotone profile. As the magnetization profile is monotone in zero temperature $`\beta _{}=\beta _+=\mathrm{}`$, this is considered to be a purely thermal property. When we increase the strength of $`\gamma `$, the non-monotonicity is lost. Fig.(b) shows the $`\gamma =1`$ case with the same temperature: $`\beta _{}=10,\beta _+=1`$. We can see the monotone profile. On the other hand, decrease of the difference of the temperature also destroies the non-monotonicity. Fig.(c) show the $`\gamma =0.5`$ case with the different temperature: $`\beta _{}=2,\beta _+=1`$. The difference emerges also in the magnetic current. The right side of Fig.4 shows the profile of the magnetic current. In the case (a), the current takes the maximum value at two points. They corresponds to the two extremum point of the magnetization profiles. On the other hand, in the monotone case, the current takes the maximum at the origin $`v=0`$.

The property of the profile (monotone/non-monotone) can be explained by the velocity distribution. Firstly, recall that the velocity of the particle at momentum $`k`$ is $`\mathrm{sin}k`$. To see the dependence of the velocity distribution, let us consider the derivatives of $`m(v)`$ and $`J^M(v)`$ with $`v`$. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the case that both of $`\rho _{}(k)`$, $`\rho _+(k)`$ are continuous, i.e, the both sides are initially in finite temperature. In this case, we can differentiate $`m(v)`$ and $`J^M(v)`$ with $`v`$ for $`1<v<1`$. We have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dm(v)}{dv}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}\left[p_+(v)p_{}(v)\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ^M(v)}{dv}}={\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}\left[p_+(v)p_{}(v)\right],`$
where $`p_{}`$(resp.$`p_+`$) is the velocity distribution,

$`p_r(v){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta _r\left(\sqrt{1v^2}\gamma \right)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\beta _r\left(\sqrt{1v^2}\gamma \right)}}}\right]`$
From these expressions, we can see that the difference $`p_+(v)p_{}(v)`$ determines the monotone/non-monotone of $`m(v)`$ and $`j(v)`$; if, for example, there exists a point where $`p_+(v)>p_{}(v)`$ changes to $`p_+(v)<p_{}(v)`$, the profile is non-monotone. Fig.5 shows $`p_{}(v)`$, $`p_+(v)`$ for the above mentioned situation. We can see the crossing only for the case of non-monotone (a).

## V Discussion

We have investigated the profiles of the magnetization and the magnetic current, in the intermediate time towards the non-equilibrium steady state, using the transversed $`XX`$-model. We have found an interesting property: depending on the strength of the external fields and the values of initial temperature, the profile shows monotone/non-monotone property. This emerges as the result of the initial velocity distribution of the right and the left side. If there is a crossing between two distributions, the profile becomes non-monotone. This initial velocity dependence is due to a fact that the transverse $`XX`$-model preserves the one-particle mode. Each particle runs to the infinity with its own velocity. In this sense, the integrability affects the diffusion profile in an essential way.

The derivation of the asymptotic profile is carried out by showing the equation (22),(23). These equations are due to (17); the fact that for each site, there is only the particle with specific momentum. The specific momentum is the momentum where the phase velocity is stational (12). In other words, if the dynamics of free Fermion is asymptotically dominated by the stationary point, we would have the same property as in this paper, even if the dispersion is not cosine.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Prof.M.Wadati for valuable comments and critical reading of the manuscript, and also thank Dr.K.Saito for helpful discussions.