SciPost Submission Page
Eulerscale dynamical correlations in integrable systems with fluid motion
by Frederik S. Møller, Gabriele Perfetto, Benjamin Doyon, Jörg Schmiedmayer
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
Authors (as registered SciPost users):  Frederik Skovbo Møller · Gabriele Perfetto · Jörg Schmiedmayer 
Submission information  

Preprint Link:  https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00527v2 (pdf) 
Date submitted:  20200703 02:00 
Submitted by:  Møller, Frederik Skovbo 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics Core 
Ontological classification  

Academic field:  Physics 
Specialties: 

Approaches:  Theoretical, Computational 
Abstract
We devise an iterative scheme for numerically calculating dynamical twopoint correlation functions in integrable manybody systems, in the Eulerian scaling limit. Expressions for these were originally derived in Ref. [1] by combining the fluctuationdissipation principle with generalized hydrodynamics. Crucially, the scheme is able to address nonstationarity, inhomogeneous situations, when motion occurs at the Euler scale of hydrodynamics. Using our scheme, we study the spreading of correlations in several integrable models from inhomogeneous initial states. For the classical hard rod model we compare our results with MonteCarlo simulations and observe excellent agreement at long time scales, thus providing the first demonstration of validity for the expressions derived in Ref. [1]. We also observe the onset of the Eulerscale limit for the dynamical correlations.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2020813 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2007.00527v2, delivered 20200813, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1917
Report
The manuscript describes applications of a numerical method for calculation of dynamical twopoint correlations to several integrable models. The paper can be interesting and useful for specialists in the field. However, I have several remarks. After proper revision, the paper can meet the acceptance criteria.
As the Euler scale is one of the most important concepts used in the paper, it should be defined and discussed in the introduction for the reader’s convenience.
The statement of the lack of thermalization in integrable systems may be misleading and requires more comprehensive discussion. Integrable systems do relax, but the final state is described by the generalized Gibbs ensemble rather than the Gibbs one. Moreover, there exist also incompletelychaotic systems (see [PRL 106, 025303]), which relax to a state between the initial one and thermal equilibrium. The Authors also should include a discussion of the basic method of description of integrable systems  the coordinate Bethe ansatz, which can provide both correlation functions (see the review [Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. vol. 55, 61]) and nonequilibrium dynamics (see, e.g., [PRL 119, 220401 (2017)]).
The relativistic sinhGordon model is considered only in Appendix B, although application of the method to this model is mentioned in the introduction. I don’t see a reason why the Authors decided don’t present the content of this appendix as a section in the main part.
P. 7: Probably, “which much be chosen” should be “ which must be chosen”
P. 10: A reference to the definition of the Lambert W function should be included. E.g., it can be dlmf.nist.gov if the Author’s definition is indeed the same.
Sec. 4.2: The Authors demonstrate only the examples where the approximation is working perfectly. It would be instructive to present also the examples when the approximation starts to fall, showing to the readers the applicability limits of the approximation.
Sec. 4.2: The direct and indirect correlations are undefined (these terms are also used previously, but I didn't find the definition). Probably, this means the contributions of the direct and indirect propagation, but the terms should be defined unambiguously.
Author: Frederik Skovbo Møller on 20201105 [id 1033]
(in reply to Report 1 on 20200813)We thank the Referee for the careful reading of our manuscript. In the following, we addressher/his report.
We thank the Referee for pointing out this point about the Euler scale. Indeed, the latter concept was not properly introduced in the manuscript despite its fundamental importance for the results presented. We have corrected this issue by first introducing the Euler scale in the introduction. In Sec. 2, after Eq. (6), we have explicitly stated in Eq. (7) how the Euler scaling limit is defined for onepoint functions. At the beginning of Sec. 3, in Eq. (12), we have eventually defined the Euler scaling limit for twopoint correlation functions.
We agree with the Referee that the discussion in the original version of the manuscript about the “lack of thermalization” in integrable models was misleading and imprecise. We have revised the introduction by discussing more extensively how the concept of the generalized Gibbs ensemble (GGE) emerges in homogeneous quantum quenches in integrable models and we have emphasized that the relaxation to the GGE in integrable systems can be understood as a “generalized thermalization”, as pointed out, e.g., in Ref. [23], which we have added in the revised version of the paper. In addition, we have also included Refs.[15,16,19,20,22] regarding the GGE and homogeneous quantum quenches in integrable models. Moreover, as suggested by the Referee, we have included Ref. [20], where the coordinate Bethe ansatz is employed to study the dynamics of the onedimensional interacting Bose gas after a quench of the interaction coupling, and Ref. [40], which contains applications of the coordinate Bethe ansatz to the calculation of correlation functions; see also Ref. [77], where the Bethe ansatz techniques are also used to study the nonequilibrium dynamics.
We have, however, not discussed in details the coordinate Bethe ansatz since our results are based on the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz (TBA) only, which has much wider applicability. For instance, there is no coordinate Bethe ansatz for the classical hardrod model, which we study in this paper, while the TBA fully applies to this model, as explained in the cited literature. For the same reason, albeit very interesting, we have not included the discussion of incompletely chaotic systems, in PRL 106, 025303 suggested by the Referee, since our results rely solely on the GGE description via the TBA. We also mention that, as far as we are aware, it is not possible, in general, to obtain reliable Eulerscale correlation functions in moving nonzeroentropy fluids by coordinate Bethe ansatz techniques, such as those reproduced numerically here using the Monte Carlo technique in the hardrod gas. These are obtained at scales of space and time which are not reachable by modernday computers using the coordinate Bethe ansatz. This is one of the main reasons for the power of the GHD results based on TBA, which we here review, implement algorithmically and check numerically.
We thank the Referee for pointing out this inconsistency in the way the results were presented in the manuscript. We have corrected it in the revised version of the manuscript by moving the Subsection “Comparing light cones of different models” from the Appendix to the main text(it is Subsection 4.3 of the revised manuscript).
We thank the Referee for pointing out this misprint, which we have corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.
We have added Ref. [91] right after Eq. (27) of the revised manuscript to make explicit that W(z) denotes the principal branch of the Lambert W function.
We thank the Referee for raising this question, which is fundamental to understand the results presented in the manuscript. We remark that the Eulerscale results in Eqs. (18)(21) have to be understood as asymptotic expressions for the correlation functions valid in the limit of larges pacetime scales and variation length z of the inhomogeneous and nonstationary state,as commented after Eq. (7) and (12). Our numerical results in Fig. (2) and (5) confirm, indeed, this expectation since for short timescales deviations from the hydrodynamic limit of the twopoint correlation functions in Eqs. (18)(21) are clearly visible and quantified by the errorσ.The plots for times t= 15 and 30 in Figs. (2) and (5) therefore already provide an example where the hydrodynamic approximation at the basis of Eqs. (18)(21) does not apply. This is caused by the fact that for short times generalized thermalization in the fluid cells at the various spacetime points (x,t) is not reached and therefore Eq. (7) approximate only poorly the actual dynamics of the correlations. For short times one should account for the large, but finite, variation length z of the initial inhomogeneous state and therefore one should look at the first correction beyond the Euler scaling limit in Eq. (7). In the revised manuscript, both around Eq. (28) and in the Appendix after Fig. (5), we have commented about this point and we have emphasized that the hydrodynamic approximation fails at short times for the description of twopoint correlation functions. Furthermore, in the final part of the Appendix C, we have commented about the applicability of the hydrodynamic expressions in Eqs. (18)(21) for small values of z. In particular, we have run simulations of the hardrod dynamics from the twobump initial state for smaller values of z= 60 compared to the ones considered in the main text and in the Appendix C (z= 120 and z= 200). Also in the case of z= 60 we have found an excellent agreement between Eqs. (18)(21) and the MonteCarlo simulations in a similar way as in Fig.(5). This shows that for the hardrod gas the hydrodynamic approximation applies fairly well even for initial inhomogeneities varying on length scales z relatively small.
We have explicitly defined both the direct and indirect correlations after Eq. (18) in the revised version of the manuscript. In this way it is clear, as the Referee correctly suggests, that the direct correlations correspond to the contribution of the direct propagator, first line of the r.h.s.of Eq. (18), and the indirect correlations to the contribution of the indirect propagator, second line of the r.h.s. of Eq. (18). At various places in the manuscript, including in the abstract, introduction and in Section3 (in addition to the analysis which was already present in Section 4, e.g., Fig. 2), we have also emphasised the subtle effects due to indirect correlations – by contrast to those directly due to hydrodynamic modes comoving with the fluid – in inhomogeneous, nonstationary, interacting fluids. Verifying their presence and the correctness of the indirect propagator, as confirmed by our numerical Monte Carlo results, was indeed one of the goals of this paper.