arxiv: v4 [math-ph] 29 Jan 2018

Transcription

1 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV arxiv: v4 [math-ph] 29 Jan 2018 Abstract. We examine the random process of multiple hard spheres, with their collisions suitably driven by a Poisson counting process. We find the exact statistical steady state of the system, and determine the form of its marginal distributions for a large number of spheres. We also find that the ullback Leibler entropy between a general statistical ensemble and the steady state is a nonincreasing function of time, although the conventional Boltzmann entropy can both increase or decrease in time. We compute the forward equation for the single-sphere marginal distribution, whose collision term is exact if the marginal is that of the steady state, and the number of spheres is large. For the impenetrable spheres those which collide with probability one upon contact, we arrive at the Enskog equation. We also examine the hydrodynamic limit of the resulting Enskog equation for constant-density spheres, and find that the corresponding fluid dynamics equations contain additional nonvanishing terms. Introduction In recent works [1, 2] we observed that the Boltzmann equation [11 13, 23, 24] can be obtained directly from a suitable random jump process. In the present work, we examine the hard sphere collision process in more detail from the same standpoint. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, we examine the deterministic collision dynamics of hard spheres. We attempt to construct the infinitesimal generator for such dynamics, but find that it leads to nonunique solutions. Upon further examination, we find that the algorithm of the collision of two hard spheres produces velocities which are not functions of time. In Section 2 we construct a random process of two colliding spheres modeled after the corresponding deterministic process, where the probability of collision of two spheres is regulated by the intensity of the underlying Poisson process. We derive the forward olmogorov equation of this random process and compute its steady state, which is uniform on the velocity sphere of zero momentum and constant energy. We find that, while the conventional Boltzmann entropy can both increase and decrease, depending on the solution, the ullback Leibler entropy [27] between the solution and the steady state is a nonincreasing function of time. It also becomes apparent that the process of deterministic collisions can be formally obtained from the random dynamics in the limit as the intensity of the underlying Poisson process becomes infinite. In Section 3 we extend the preceding results onto systems with many spheres. We examine the structure of the marginal distributions of the steady state in the limit of Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, 851 S. Morgan st., Chicago, IL address: abramov@uic.edu. 1

2 2 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV infinitely many spheres. In particular, we find that the joint marginal distribution of two spheres cannot be equal to the product of two single-sphere marginals, contrary to what is usually assumed in the literature [11 13]. In Section 4 we compute the forward equation for the one-sphere marginal distribution, under the assumption that the corresponding multi-sphere distribution is symmetric under the reordering of spheres. We find that, with the intensity of random jumps set at one jump per collision on average, this equation is what was previously thought to be the forward equation for deterministic hard spheres [11 13]. To close the forward equation, we relate the non-steady marginals in the same way as the steady marginals were found to be related in Section 3. We then find that in the limit as the intensity of the Poisson process increases to infinity, the Enskog equation [9, 18, 21, 28, 34] emerges. In Section 5 we examine the hydrodynamic limit of the previously obtained Enskog equation for constant-density spheres; that is, those whose mass is a constant multiple of their volume. Such limit appears to be physically plausible, and in fact more so than the standard Boltzmann-Grad limit [24], for the atoms of noble gases [15]. In this limit, we find that the resulting fluid dynamics equations acquire additional nonvanishing terms, which are not present in the conventional fluid dynamics equations originating from the Boltzmann equation [11 13, 23, 24]. 1. Deterministic colliding hard spheres We start with the examination of the process of deterministic colliding hard spheres. For the simplicity of presentation, we consider only two identical hard spheres of diameter σ. We denote by x and v the coordinate of the center and velocity of the first sphere, respectively, and by y and w the corresponding coordinate of the center and velocity of the second sphere. The mechanics of the collision of the two spheres are well known [11 13, 24]. In the absence of contact, the spheres maintain their constant velocities v and w, while their respective coordinates are given via their time derivatives, equated to the velocities: 1.1 dx dt = v, dy dt = w. Whenever the distance x y between the centers of the two spheres equals their diameter σ, their velocities are changed, at that instance of time, to 1.2a v x y = v + w v x y x y 2, 1.2b w x y = w + v w x y x y 2, where v and w are the new values of velocities. Such a transformation preserves the zero momentum and constant kinetic energy E of the system of the two spheres: 1.3 v + w = 0, E = 1 2 v 2 + w 2.

3 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 3 Here and below, we assume that the total momentum the sum of the velocities of all spheres is zero without loss of generality, as otherwise the momentum can be set to zero via a suitable Galilean shift. Observe that the transformation above in 1.2 is fully symmetric; indeed, subtracting the first relation from the second, we obtain 1.4 v w x y = v w + 2w v x y x y 2. Scalar-multiplying by x y/ x y on both sides, we further obtain 1.5 v w x y x y = v w x Substituting the above expression into 1.2, we arrive at y x y. 1.6a v = v + w v x y x y x y 2, 1.6b w = w + v w x y x y x y 2. It is also easy to see that the Jacobian of the change of variables v, w v, w is unity; indeed, observe that, for x y taken as a fixed parameter, v, w 1.7 det = 1, v, w which can be verified via the rank-one update lemma for determinants. For the robustness of the resulting dynamics, we will assume that it is permissible for the centers x and y of the spheres to be initially placed closer to each other than σ so that the spheres overlap; in such a case, the collision will not occur at x y = σ, and the spheres will separate uneventfully. In what follows, we focus on constructing the so-called infinitesimal generator L. The idea behind L is the following: let us assume that, for the initial condition x, y, v, w, there are the corresponding time series xt, yt, vt and wt. Then, let ψ be a function of both the coordinates and velocities of the two colliding spheres, and let ψt denote the time series 1.8 ψt = ψxt, yt, vt, wt. If we can find the operator L, which is necessarily independent of ψ, but may depend on the initial conditions x, y, v, w, so that ψt 1.9 t = Lψx, y, v, w, t=0 then the forward equation [6, 22, 31] for the corresponding probability density of the states which is also known as the olmogorov equation can be easily constructed with the help of the adjoint operator of L via integration by parts. One then can apply the Bogoliubov Born Green irkwood Yvon BBGY principle [13] to the forward equation, in order to obtain the fluid dynamics equations. As it is obvious that the velocity

4 4 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV time series vt and wt are discontinuous for the hard sphere collisions, the generator L should instead be expected to satisfy the integral identity 1.10 ψt = t 0 Lψxs, ys, vs, ws ds, where the integrand could be discontinuous at the collision points. For the dynamics of the hard spheres above, the time series of the velocities vt and wt are piecewise constants, while the coordinates xt and yt are continuous piecewise-linear functions of time. Thus, it is clear that the coordinate part of the infinitesimal generator L should consist of partial derivatives in x and y, scalar-multiplied by v and w, respectively. The velocity part of L should be arranged so that it replaces the old pre-collision value of ψ with the new post-collision value when the collision occurs, and does not contribute anything otherwise. The jump between the old and new values of ψ can be achieved via Dirac s delta-function, whose impulse must be situated at x y = σ, that is, when the spheres are one diameter apart from each other. Taking the above considerations into account, we arrive at the following form of the infinitesimal generator: 1.11 Lψ = v ψ x + w ψ y + ψv, w ψv, w Cδ x y σ, where C = Cx, y, v, w is the normalization function, which serves the following two purposes: a C is such that Cxs, ys, vs, wsδ xs ys σ ds = 1 across the collision point, which is to ensure that precisely the difference ψv, w ψv, w is added to ψ at the collision point, and not some arbitrary multiple of that; b C ensures that the collision does not happen when the spheres are overlapped prior to collision. In order to comply with the first condition, we observe the identity δgt g t dt = 1, which requires C to be equal to the absolute value of the time derivative of x y whenever a collision occurs. To comply with the second condition above, we observe that the collision only happens when the distance x y is diminishing prior to collision, which means that C must be zero when the time-derivative of xt yt is positive. Together, these two conditions set C to 1.12 C = x y x y w v Θ w v x y,

5 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 5 where Θ is the Heaviside step-function. The infinitesimal generator L is thus given via 1.13 Lψ = v ψ x + w ψ x y + δ x y σ w v y x y Θ w v x y ψv, w ψv, w. For the corresponding integral relation in 1.13, we thus arrive at t 1.14 ψt = v ψ x + w ψ x y + δ x y σ w v y x y 0 Θ w v x y ψv, w ψv, w ds The failure of the deterministic instantaneous collision. Observe that while the identity in 1.14 holds for the already known time series xt, yt, vt and wt, it cannot be used to compute these time series, due to the violation of conditions of the Picard Lindelöf theorem. Indeed, the standard theory [7, 16, 33] requires that, for a unique solution to exist in the vicinity of the starting point x, y, v, w, one should be able to rearrange 1.14 with ψ set to the solution xt, yt, vt, wt itself as a contraction mapping, so that Banach s fixed point theorem could subsequently be applied. The presence of the delta-function in 1.14 by itself does not necessarily preclude the uniqueness for example, the unique solution may generally exist if the delta-function is a part of an additive term which contains only known functions of time. However, in the present situation, the solution enters directly into the argument of the delta-function, which means that the occurrence of the delta-impulse is conditional upon what the solution is. In this case, it is impossible to find a finitely small neighborhood around the initial condition for a contraction mapping, as the jump if it occurs does not necessarily scale suitably with the size of such neighborhood. Thus, there seems to be a paradox: while the algorithm of computing the trajectories of the hard spheres is quite transparent and it is obvious that such trajectories must be unique for a given initial condition, there is an apparent difficulty in expressing it in the form of the solution of an impulse-driven ordinary differential equation. In order to understand where this difficulty comes from, let us look at how the algorithm of the hard sphere collision works. At the initial time t 0, the spheres are placed away from each other at locations x 0 and y 0, and assigned the initial velocities v 0 and w 0 which are the time rates of change for xt and yt. At any given moment of time t thereafter, the distance x y between the centers of the spheres is evaluated. If x y = σ, then the velocities v and w are assigned their new values v and w according to 1.2. The key observation here is that the new velocities v and w are assigned at the same time t as the collision is detected, which means that state of the system is already evaluated at t that is, xt, yt, as well as vt and wt are already computed. This means that the velocities of both spheres are not functions of t; indeed, they assume two different states simultaneously at the time of collision.

6 6 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV In order to fix such an unwanted behavior, one can be tempted to smooth out the delta-function in 1.13 via a finitely strong forcing, which changes the velocities continuously during a sufficiently short time window. However, this is exactly how the collisions of actual gas molecules occur in reality at short distances, they are repelled by the Lennard-Jones potential [29], instead of colliding instantaneously. The problem is that the resulting repelling force of the Lennard-Jones potential is so strong that the subsequent BBGY hierarchy leads to unbounded integrals. In fact, the very reason why one resorts to model the molecular interactions as instantaneous collisions is to mitigate the problems stemming from the continuously repelling strong force to begin with. For the collisions of spheres to happen instantaneously, and, at the same time, for v and w to exist as functions of t, the latter must be right-continuous functions with left limits, as the assignment of the new velocity values has to be done at a certain time t, whenever that happens. This, in turn, precludes the new velocity assignment precisely at the same time as the collision is detected. However, assigning the new velocities at a certain delay time t + t after the collision is detected precludes the Markovian form of such a process indeed, the knowledge of x, y, v and w at a certain time t is not sufficient to compute the future states of the system, as the prior state at t t must also be known. In such a case, the infinitesimal generator cannot have a simple local form such as the one in 1.13, which, in turn, precludes the trivial integration by parts to obtain its adjoint. As a result, even if the corresponding forward equation for such a process can be stated explicitly, it likely has a complicated form. The only sensible arrangement in this situation seems to be the randomization of the dynamical process. Once the collision conditions are detected, a suitable driver random process must be enabled, which subsequently performs the velocity jump by itself. Below we propose such an artificially crafted random process with the proper infinitesimal generator, whose form is modeled after Two random colliding spheres Despite the fact that above the deterministic hard sphere collision process was observed to be rather difficult to formulate in terms of a conventional ODE-based deterministic dynamical system, the observations made above in Section 1 will be quite helpful here. In particular, the formulation of the suitable random process of hard sphere collision will be based, in a significant part, upon the explicit form of the deterministic infinitesimal generator found in Just as in Section 1, here we first consider the special case of two colliding spheres, for which it is easy to build the appropriate random Markov process, and subsequently formulate the corresponding forward equation. Let the coordinates xt and yt of the centers of the two spheres be given via 1.1. Let nt be the Poisson counting process [22] with intensity λ. Let the corresponding velocities vt and wt be given via 2.1a vt = vt + nτ nτ wt vt x y x y x y 2, 2.1b wt = wt + nτ nτ vt wt x y x y x y 2,

7 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 7 where the notation t denotes the left-limit at t. Using the notations of stochastic differential equations, we can express the above relations as 2.2a dv = w v x y x y x y 2 dnτ, 2.2b dw = dv = v w x y x y x y 2 dnτ. Finally, let the nondecreasing function τt be given via 2.3 dτ dt = x y x y w v Θ x y w v δ ασ x y σ, where 0 < α 1 is a constant parameter, and δ α x denotes the following mollifier of the delta-function: { 2.4 δ α x = 1 x α φ, φx = ce x 2, x < 1, φx dx = 1, α 0, x 1, 1 where the constant parameter c ensures the proper normalization. For a function f we thus have 2.5 lim α 0 + f xδ α x dx = f 0, that is, δ α can serve as the delta-function in the limit α 0, while remaining smooth for finitely small α. We will denote the anti-derivative of δ α as α : x 0, x α, 2.6 α x = δ α y dy, α x = 1/2, x = 0, 1, x α. This particular form of the mollifier is not strictly required for what is to follow; however, the choice of the mollifier itself is entirely artificial, and thus we prefer the standard form in 2.4 for convenience. As we can see, τ is constant when x y is away from σ, so that the Poisson counting process is turned off. Once x y is close enough to σ, the mollifier δ ασ x y σ becomes greater than zero, and τ starts growing, so that the Poisson counting process is turned on. Then, there are two possibilities: A jump in the Poisson process arrives so that the spheres collide according to 2.2, and τ stops growing since the Heaviside function becomes zero; or A jump does not arrive, so that eventually δ ασ x y σ decays back to zero and τ becomes constant; in this case, the spheres pass through each other without interaction. In either scenario, the Poisson process becomes dormant until the spheres approach each other again. The reason why we use δ ασ as opposed to, say, δ α is to automatically keep

8 8 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV the width of the mollifier proportional to the diameter of the sphere, which will provide an additional convenience below. The important observation here is that 2.7 d dt ασ xt yt σ = δ ασ x y σ x y v w, x y which means that 2.3 can also be written as 2.8 dτ dt = Θ x y w v d dt ασσ xt yt. The relation above, among other things, indicates that the probability that the jump in the Poisson process does not arrive during the collision window is e λ, regardless of the values of σ or α. Clearly, to mimic the dynamics of hard deterministic spheres in Section 1, one eventually needs to find a way to take the Poisson intensity λ, so that the jump arrives with probability one whenever the spheres are in contact. The resulting càdlàg random process of hard sphere collisions consists of the deterministic jumps given by 1.2, which are driven by the random Poisson counting process with variable intensity given via λ multiplied by 2.3. This is a Lévy-type Feller process [6, 19], whose infinitesimal generator is given by 2.9 ψ Eψ = Lψ = v t x + w ψ y + λδ ασ x y σ x y w v x y Θ x y w v ψv, w ψv, w, where v and w are the functions of x, y, v and w given in 1.2. The general form of the infinitesimal generator above in 2.9 is established by Courrège s theorem [6, 17]. Observe that, for λ = 1, the infinitesimal generator in 2.9 is essentially identical to 1.13, except that the delta-function in 1.13 was replaced with the mollifier from 2.4. The next step is to obtain the corresponding forward equation for the probability density of the states of the system, which is easily achieved via the integration by parts. Let Ft, x, y, v, w be the corresponding probability distribution of the random process above. We can then integrate 2.9 against F and obtain 2.10 ψ F ψ ψ Fv + Fw t x y Fv, wλ ψv, w ψv, w x y x y w v Θ x y w v δ ασ x y σ dv 2 ds 2 = 0, where dv 2 is the volume element of the coordinate space, and ds 2 is the area element of the sphere of zero momentum and constant energy the subscript denotes the number of spheres in the system. Above, the terms with spatial derivatives in x and y can be integrated by parts, with the condition that the boundary effects are not present for example, we can assume that the coordinate space is periodic. For the part with ψv, w we can write, for fixed x

9 and y, 2.11 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 9 ψv, w Fv, w x y x y w v Θ x y w v ds 2 = = ψv, w Fv, w x y x y v w Θ x y v w ds 2 = = ψv, wfv, w x y x y w v Θ x y v w ds 2, where we used 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 note that v and w remain on the same zero momentum constant energy sphere, and in the last identity renamed v v, w w and vice versa, since the integral occurs over the same velocity sphere. As a result, we can recombine the terms as F 2.12 ψ t + v F x + w F y + λδ ασ x y σ x y w v x y [ Fv, w Θ x y v w + Fv, w Θ x y w v ] dv 2 ds 2 = 0. If F is continuously differentiable in all arguments, we can strip the integral over ψ and obtain the equation for F alone: 2.13 F t + v F x + w F y + λδ ασ x y σ x y w v x y [ Fv, w Θ x y v w + Fv, w Θ x y w v ] = 0. Note that symmetric solutions are admissible that is, if Ft, x, y, v, w = Ft, y, x, w, v, then it remains such for future times since 2.13 is invariant under renaming x, v y, w Steady solution. To find some steady solutions of 2.13, we use the method of characteristics. Namely, we treat the term 2.14 F t + v F x + w F y = 1, v, w F t, x, y as the ordinary, scalar spatial derivative in the direction of 1, v, w in the time-coordinate space, with v and w given as constant parameters. We denote the scalar directional parameter via s, so that the coordinates t, x, y are given via the straight line equation 2.15 ts, xs, ys = 0, x 0, y 0 + s1, v, w. Then, along the straight line 2.15 we have 2.16 d F Fts, xs, ys = 1, v, w ds t, x, y.

10 10 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV The corresponding differential equation along the straight line is subsequently given via 2.17 df ds + λδ ασ x y σ x y w v x y [ Fv, w Θ x y v w + Fv, w Θ x y w v ] = 0. The major inconvenience here is that even though v and w are constant parameters, v and w are functions of xs and ys, given via 1.2. It is not obvious how to find a general solution here; strictly put, the equation above is not even an ordinary differential equation, since F is computed at different velocities. However, it is easy to look for solutions with the property Fv, w = Fv, w. In such a situation, the Heaviside step-functions in 2.13 are multiplied by identical F s, and thus coalesce into 1. The equation for F on the chosen straight line 2.15 thus becomes 2.18 d ds F + λδ xs ys ασ xs ys σ w vf = 0. xs ys The equation above in 2.18 can obviously be integrated via separation of variables, but before we proceed with that, let us recall 2.7 and observe that the coefficient in front of F in 2.18 is by itself the time derivative of λ ασ. Then, the separation of variables yields the equation 2.19 d ds ln F = λ d ds ασσ xs ys, with the following solution on the straight line 2.15: 2.20 F = Gx 0, y 0, v, we λ ασσ x 0 y 0 +sv w. Above, G is an arbitrary function of the starting point x 0, y 0 and the fixed velocity vector v, w. To substitute the obtained F into 2.13, we change the notations back to the original variables: 2.21 Ft, x, y, v, w = G 2 x tv, y tw, v, w F 2 x y, where, as before, the subscript refers to the number of spheres in the system, and 2.22 F 2 x y = 1 e λ ασσ x y, Z 2 = e λ ασσ x y dv 2. Z 2 S 2 Above, S 2 is the area of the sphere of zero momentum and constant energy for the two spheres. Observe that F 2 is normalized to 1 and is thus a probability density by itself. Now, in order to satisfy the condition Fv, w = Fv, w, we need to have 2.23 G 2 x tv, y tw, v, w = G 2 x tv, y tw, v, w for all t, x, y, v and w, with v and w given via 1.2. Recalling that switching v, w v, w preserves the sum v + w and sum of the squares v 2 + w 2, we have to express

11 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 11 G 2 as a function of these two quantities, at the same time preserving the form in Apparently, the only form of G which is consistent with both conditions is given via x + y 2.24 G 2 = G 2 t v + w, v + w, v 2 + w 2, 2 2 where the division by 2 which is the number of spheres is included for convenience. It is not difficult to see that F of the form in 2.21 with G 2 being of the form 2.23 turns the forward equation 2.13 into an identity, and at the same time the condition Fv, w = Fv, w is satisfied. At this point we recall that v and w belong to the set of zero momentum, v + w = 0. This forces G 2 to lose the dependence on t and on the second argument, while the third argument becomes the constant energy E: x + y 2.25 G 2 = G 2, E 2 Thus, we find that any solution F with Fv, w = Fv, w is automatically a steady state of 2.13, uniform on the velocity sphere of zero momentum and constant energy. Apparently, there are infinitely many such steady states for a given system of hard spheres. However, observe that the form of G 2 above is uniquely determined by the initial condition of Indeed, observe that G 2 above in 2.25 is a function of the center of mass of the system of spheres, which is clearly invariant under the dynamics of 1.1, 2.2 and 2.3. Thus, G 2 becomes uniquely defined whenever the initial condition for 2.13 is specified. As it will become important later, observe that there is a family of initial conditions of 2.13 which has a uniform distribution of the center of mass of the spheres. For such a family of initial conditions, G 2 = 1, and we arrive at the steady solution which consists purely of F 2 in The structure of F 2 can be qualitatively described as follows: F 2 is constant outside the contact zone that is, for all x and y for which δ ασ xt yt σ = 0 and is given via the exponent of λ ασ inside the contact zone. Outside the contact zone, the following condition holds: F 2 x y <σ = e λ F 2 x y >σ, that is, the value of F 2 in the overlapped state is scaled by e λ as compared to the non-overlapped state. Below we will show that the state F 2 in 2.22 is the most likely candidate for a physical that is, statistically most common steady state for Observe, however, that there exist other steady states for which Fv, w = Fv, w ; for example, those which are not supported in the contact zones, such that the spheres do not interact at all Entropy inequality. For the two-sphere dynamics in 2.13, the conventional Boltzmann also Shannon [32] entropy is given via 2.27 EF = F ln F dv 2 ds 2.

12 12 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV Here we show that, while the conventional entropy E can both increase and decrease in time, its appropriate modification, given via F 2.28 PF, G 2 F 2 = F ln dv 2 ds 2 G 2 F 2 and known as the ullback Leibler entropy [4, 5, 26, 27, 30], is a nonincreasing function of time. P is invariant under arbitrary changes of variables, and is also nonnegative, that is, 2.29 PF 1, F 2 0, where the equality is achieved only when F 1 = F 2 or the difference between the two has zero volume measure on V 2 S 2. Let Ψ : R R be a differentiable function. Then, multiplying both sides of 2.13 by its derivative DΨ with F used for the argument, we obtain 2.30 t + v x + w y ΨF = λδ ασ x y σ x y v w x y DΨF [ Fv, w Θ x y v w + Fv, w Θ x y w v ]. Integrating over dv 2 ds 2, we obtain 2.31 ΨF dv 2 ds 2 = λ δ ασ x y σ x y v w t x y DΨF [ F Θ x y v w + F Θ x y w v ] dv 2 ds 2, where we denote F = Fv, w. Using 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7, we can write the first term in the right-hand side as 2.32 δ ασ x y σ x y x y v wdψff Θ x y v w dv 2 ds 2 = = δ ασ x y σ x y x y v w DΨF F Θ x y v w dv 2 ds 2 = = δ ασ x y σ x y x y w vdψf F Θ x y w v dv 2 ds 2, so that 2.33 t ΨF dv 2 ds 2 = λ For the entropy in 2.27, we substitute δ ασ x y σ x y w v x y Θ x y w v [ DΨF DΨF ] F dv 2 ds ΨF = F ln F, DΨF = 1 + ln F, and arrive at the following equation for E: 2.35 E t = λ δ ασ x y σ x y x y w v Θ x y w v F lnf/f dv 2 ds 2.

13 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 13 Now observe that 2.36 F lnf/f = F F F lnf/f F F F 1 = F F, which, upon substitution into 2.35, yields the following inequality: 2.37 E t λ δ ασ x y σ x y x y w v Θ x y w v F F dv 2 ds 2. For the part with F, we observe that 2.38 = δ ασ x y σ x y x y w v Θ x y w v F dv 2 ds 2 = δ ασ x y σ x y x y v w Θ x y v w F dv 2 ds 2 = = δ ασ x y σ x y x y w v Θ x y v w F dv 2 ds 2, which allows to coalesce the two Heaviside functions into 1 and results in E 2.39 t λ δ ασ x y σ x y x y w vf dv 2 ds 2. The right-hand side of 2.39 above can, in general, be negative, and, therefore, it is possible for the Boltzmann entropy of the system to decrease in general. As an example, consider the uniform initial condition in both coordinates and velocities, which, under the normalization constraint, maximizes the entropy over all possible states. However, this state is not a steady state of 2.13; indeed, the overlapped states states corresponding to the overlapped spheres will be drained, the solution will become non-uniform in coordinates, and the entropy will decrease as a result. To examine the ullback Leibler entropy in 2.28, let us look at the expression 2.40 v x + w F + λδ ασ x y σ lng 2 F 2 y t F lng 2 F 2 = lng 2 F 2 x y x y v w [ Fv, w Θ x y v w + Fv, w Θ x y w v ], where G 2 F 2 is the steady state from 2.22 and We can rearrange the terms above as 2.41 v F lng 2 F 2 + t F lng 2 F 2 = v + F G 2 F 2 x + w y x + w y G 2 F 2 + λδ ασ x y σ x y v w x y lng 2 F 2 [ Fv, w Θ x y v w + Fv, w Θ x y w v ].

14 14 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV Using 2.13 and the fact that G 2 F 2 is a steady state, we can write 2.42 v and thus obtain 2.43 x + w y t F lng 2 F 2 = G 2 F 2 = λδ ασ x y σ x y x y v wg 2 F 2, v x + w F lng 2 F 2 + y + λδ ασ x y σ x y x y v wf + λδ ασ x y σ x y v w x y lng 2 F 2 [ Fv, w Θ x y v w + Fv, w Θ x y w v ]. Upon the integration over dv 2 ds 2, the first and last terms in the right-hand side above disappear, and we arrive at 2.44 F lng 2 F 2 dv 2 ds 2 = λ δ ασ x y σ x y t x y v wf dv 2 ds 2. Adding 2.44 to the inequality in 2.39 and changing the sign on both sides, we arrive at 2.45 t PF, G 2 F 2 0, that is, the ullback Leibler entropy between a solution of 2.13 and the steady state in 2.22 and 2.25 is a nonincreasing function of time, bounded below by zero in which case F = G 2 F 2. The inequality in 2.45 is the analog of Boltzmann s H-theorem for Multiple random spheres Here we extend the previously formulated dynamics onto spheres, with the corresponding coordinates x i t and velocities v i t, 1 i. Observe that we have 1/2 possible pairs of spheres. In order to define their random interactions, we introduce 1/2 independent instances n ij t of the Poisson counting process with the same activity λ, each assigned to the corresponding pair of i-th and j-th spheres. We then define the random dynamical system for the pairwise collisions of all spheres via dx 3.1a i dt = v x i x j i, dv i = v j v i x i x j x j =i i x j 2 dn ijτ ij, 3.1b dτ ij dt = x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v j v i δ ασ x i x j σ. Observe that the above system is a direct extension of the dynamics of two spheres in 1.1, 2.2 and 2.3 onto multiple spheres the evolution of the coordinates is governed by the same equations, the evolution of τ ij is governed by the i-th and j-th spheres in the same exact way τ is given in 2.3, and the only substantial difference is that the equations for the velocities of each sphere are coupled to all other spheres via the Poisson processes n ij. In particular, there is no provision for a collision of more than two

15 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 15 spheres at once which is often discussed in the literature [11, 13]; however, given the fact that the collisions in the hard sphere model are instantaneous, we will assume that the event of a three-sphere collision is highly unlikely for a generic initial condition. The process above in 3.1 is also a Feller process [6, 19], which lives on the sphere of zero momentum and constant energy 3.2 v i = 0, E = 1 2 v i 2. As above in Section 2, we assume that the total momentum of the system is zero without loss of generality. The infinitesimal generator of such process is, apparently, given via 3.3 t Eψ = Lψ = v i ψ + x i 1 j=i+1 λ ψv i, v j ψ x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v j v i δ ασ x i x j σ, where the notation ψv i, v j specifies that all velocity arguments in ψ are set to the corresponding velocities v k, except for i-th and j-th, which are set, respectively, to v i and v j, given in 1.2. To obtain the corresponding forward equation, we follow the same principle as for the two spheres above in Section 2. First, we integrate 3.3 against the probability density F and obtain 3.4 ψ F t + ψ v i F F x i 1 j=i+1 λ ψv i, v j ψ x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v j v i δ ασ x i x j σ dv ds = 0, where dv is the volume element of the coordinate space of the spheres, ds is the area element of the corresponding velocity sphere of zero momentum and constant energy, and the term with the spatial derivatives is integrated by parts under the assumption that the boundary terms vanish. Now, for all terms with v i and v j, again observe that, for fixed coordinates, we have 3.5 Fv i, v j ψv i, v j x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v j v i ds = = Fv i, v j ψv i, v j x i x j = x i x j v i v j Θ x i x j v i v j ds = Fv i, v j ψv i, v j x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v i v j ds, where, as before, we used 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7, and observed that, for fixed coordinates, the variables v i and v j sample the same zero momentum and constant energy sphere

16 16 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV as do v i and v j. Finally, stripping the integral over ψ dv ds, we arrive at the forward olmogorov equation in the form 3.6 F t + v i F + x i 1 j=i+1 λδ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v j v i [ Fv i, v j Θ x i x j v i v j + F Θ x i x j v j v i ] = 0. Just as for the scenario with only two spheres above in Section 2, the equation 3.6 above admits solutions which are symmetric under the reordering of the spheres. These solutions are physical, that is, they correspond to real-world scenarios where it is impossible to statistically tell the spheres apart Steady states. The corresponding solutions, for which Fv i, v j = Fv i, v j for all pairs i, j, can be found by following the same procedure as above in Indeed, let us choose a direction 1, v 1,..., v in the time-coordinate space, and denote the scalar directional parameter via s, so that the coordinates t, x 1,..., x are given via the straight line equation 3.7 ts, x 1 s,..., x s = 0, x 1,..., x 0 + s1, v 1,..., v. Along this straight line we obviously have 3.8 which leads to d ds F + j=i+1 The general solution to 3.9 is given via 3.10 F = Gx 10,..., x 0, v 1,..., v exp df ds = F t + v i F, x i λδ ασ x i s x j s σ x is x j s x i s x j s v j v i F = 0. λ 1 j=i+1 ασ σ x i s x j s As in the case of two spheres in Section 2, G above is a function of the starting point x 10,..., x 0 and the fixed velocity vector v 1,..., v. We rewrite the solution above in the form 3.11 Ft, x 1,..., x, v 1,..., v = G x 1 tv 1,..., x tv, v 1,..., v F x 1,..., x, where 3.12a F x 1,..., x = 1 Z S exp 3.12b Z = exp λ 1 j=i+1 λ 1 j=i+1 ασ σ x i x j ασ σ x i x j dv.,.

17 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 17 Above, S is the area of the sphere of zero momentum and constant energy for spheres. Observe that F is normalized to 1 and is a probability density by itself. Just as above in Section 2 for the two spheres, to determine the form of G, we recall that G v i, v j = G v i, v j for all possible pairs v i, v j, and thus the velocity dependence in G must be such that G remains invariant if any pair v i, v j is flipped to v i, v j. Combining this requirement with the form of G that we already have in 3.11, and observing that only the momentum and energy are invariant under the above change of velocities, we arrive at 3.13 G = G 1 x i tv i, v i, v i 2 1 = G x i, E, that is, the solution is automatically the steady state of 3.6 which depends on the energy and the position of the center of mass of the system of spheres, and is uniform in velocities. As in Section 2, here we observed that the sum of v i is zero due to zero momentum, and one-half of the sum of v i 2 is the constant energy of the system, E. Just as in the system of two spheres, the initial distribution of the center of mass here is preserved by the dynamics of 3.6, and thus the form of G is determined uniquely by the initial condition to 3.6. As above in Section 2, here observe that, for all initial conditions with uniformly distributed centers of mass of the spheres, we have G = 1, such that the resulting steady state is given purely via Qualitatively, this -sphere steady state F x 1,..., x behaves as follows: F x 1,..., x is constant outside of contact zones, and its transitions within contact zones are given via the exponents of anti-derivatives of the mollifier in 2.4. Outside contact zones, the following condition holds: 3.14 F overlap = e λn 1 F non-overlap, where n is the number of the simultaneously overlapping spheres at a given point x 1,..., x. As in Section 2, we note that all preceding discussion inherently assumes that the steady state of the form in 3.12 and 3.13 is eventually reached for a given initial condition. It is, of course, possible to arrange the spheres initially in such a way that this does not happen for example, if the spheres never interact Entropy inequality. Here we proceed along the same steps as for the two spheres in Section 2. Denoting the Boltzmann entropy and the ullback Leibler entropy, respectively, via F 3.15 EF = F ln F dv ds, PF, G F = F ln dv ds, G F we find 3.16a 1 E t λ j=i+1 δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v j v i F dv ds,

18 18 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV 3.16b t PF, G F 0. Indeed, let, as in Section 2, Ψ : R R be a differentiable function. We multiply both sides of 3.6 by DΨF and arrive at 3.17 t + v i x i DΨF 1 ΨF = λ Integrating over dv ds, we obtain 3.18 t DΨF 1 ΨF dv ds = λ j=i+1 δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v i v j [ Fv i, v j Θ x i x j v i v j + F Θ x i x j v j v i ]. j=i+1 δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v i v j [ Fv i, v j Θ x i x j v i v j + F Θ x i x j v j v i ] dv ds. Using 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 we can, for any i and j, write the term with Fv i, v j in the right-hand side as 3.19 so that 3.20 t δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v i v j DΨFFv i, v j Θ x i x j v i v j dv ds = = δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v j v i DΨFFv i, v j Θ x i x j v j v i dv ds = = δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v j v i 1 ΨF dv ds = λ j=i+1 DΨFv i, v j F Θ x i x j v j v i dv ds, δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v j v i [ DΨFv i, v j DΨF ] F dv ds. Now we recall 2.27 and, substituting 2.34, arrive at E t = λ j=i+1 δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v j v i F F ln Fv i, v j dv ds.

19 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 19 Next, we substitute 2.36: E t λ j=i+1 δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v j v i F Fv i, v j dv ds. For the part with Fv i, v j, we observe that, for any i and j, we have 3.23 = δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v j v i Fv i, v j dv ds = δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v i v j Θ x i x j v i v j Fv i, v j dv ds = = δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v i v j F dv ds, which leads to 3.16a. Now let us look at the expression 3.24 t F lng F = lng F x i x j x i x j v i v j v i F 1 + λ x i j=i+1 δ ασ x i x j σ lng F [ Fv i, v j Θ x i x j v i v j + F Θ x i x j v j v i ], where G F is the steady state from 3.12 and We can rearrange the terms above as 3.25 t F lng F = 1 + λ lng F j=i+1 v i x i F lng F + F G F δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v i v j v i G F + x i [ Fv i, v j Θ x i x j v i v j + F Θ x i x j v j v i ]. Using 3.6 and the fact that G F is a steady state, we write 3.26 v i 1 G F = λ x i j=i+1 δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v i v j G F,

20 20 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV and, therefore, obtain 3.27 t F lng F = 1 + λ 1 + λ lng F j=i+1 j=i+1 v i x i F lng F + δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v i v j F+ δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v i v j [ Fv i, v j Θ x i x j v i v j + F Θ x i x j v j v i ]. As above in Section 2, the first and last terms in the right-hand side above disappear upon the integration over dv ds, and we arrive at 3.28 F lng F dv ds = t 1 = λ δ ασ x i x j σ x i x j x i x j v i v j F dv ds. j=i+1 Finally, adding the above identity to 3.16a and changing the sign, we obtain 3.16b The steady solution for a system with independently distributed initial states. Recall that the factor G in 3.13 is determined by the distribution of the center of mass of the spheres, which, in turn, is defined entirely by the corresponding initial condition for the forward equation 3.6. So far, we did not elaborate on the choice of the initial conditions, and thus G was presumed to be largely arbitrary. However, from the perspective of physics, some of the states are more physical, or realistic, while others are notably less so. As an example, from the perspective of mathematics, one can arrange the spheres initially so as no contact between any of them ever occurs, and they simply fly in straight lines. Equivalently, one could arrange the spheres along a straight line and endow them with the velocities which are collinear to this straight line, so that all dynamics becomes one-dimensional. On the other hand, in real-world systems, such as gases and liquids, we never encounter any of such states in practice, instead observing strongly chaotic motion of frequently colliding molecules. In this section, we attempt to formulate the most common steady state for a system with large number of spheres, based on a physical argument. Recall that we established above that the steady state of the system of spheres is related to the statistical distribution of the center of mass of the spheres, which, in turn, is invariant under the dynamics in 3.6 and thus is determined entirely via the initial condition. Thus, the question is: what would one consider a most likely initial distribution of the system of spheres in a typical physical scenario? In what follows, we assume that the spheres are initially distributed independently of each other. As below we focus primarily on the solutions which are invariant under the reordering of

21 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 21 the spheres, it follows that the spheres must also be distributed identically, although, as noted further, it is not a strict requirement. Let the distribution F 0 of the spheres in the system at the initial moment of time be given via the product of independent identical distributions f 0 for each sphere: 3.29 F 0 x 1,..., x, v 1,..., v = f 0 x i, v i. Let the position of the center of mass of the system be given via y: 3.30 y = 1 x i. Let us now express the first coordinate, x 1, through the position of the center of mass y, and the rest of the coordinates: 3.31 x 1 = y Then, the distribution of y is given via 3.32 gy = 3 f 0 y x i. i=2 x i, v 1 f 0 x i, v i dx 2... dx dv 1... dv = i=2 i=2 = 3 where f x 0 denotes the x-marginal of f 0: 3.33 f x 0 x = f x 0 y f 0 x, v dv. x i f0 xx i dx 2... dx, i=2 i=2 In what follows, we will assume that f0 x is nondegenerate, that is, its support is of the same dimension as that of the whole x-space. Now, let ˆf denote the characteristic function of f0 x, 3.34 ˆf k = e ik x f0 xx dx, f 0 xx = 1 2π 3 e ik x ˆf k dk. Clearly, ˆf 0 = 1, since f x 0 is a probability density. Additionally, due to the fact that f0 x is nondegenerate, ˆf k < 1 for k = 0. Indeed, observe that 3.35 ˆf k = e ik x f0 xx dx e ik x f0 x x dx = 1, where the strict identity is achieved only when 3.36 cosk x f x 0 x dx sink x f0 xx dx = 1 = = cos 2 k x f0 xx dx + sin 2 k x f0 x x dx.

22 22 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV Owing to the nondegeneracy of f0 x, the latter only holds when k = 0. Now let us express gy via the characteristic function of f0 x from 3.34: 3.37 gy = 3 2π 3 dk 1... dk ˆf k1... ˆf k e ik 1 y Recalling that, in the generalized sense, 3.38 e ik x dx = 2π 3 δk, we obtain 3.39 gy = 3 2π 3 e ik 1 k 2 x 2... e ik 1 k x dx 2... dx. e ik y ˆf k dk. Observing that e ik y ˆf k < 1 for k = 0, we find that, in the limit, the integrand approaches zero for all k = 0. Thus, as, gy loses its dependence on y and becomes the uniform distribution. We thus conclude that the uniform distribution of the center of mass of the system of spheres is the most physical one. The corresponding most physical steady state is thus given via G = 1 in 3.13, as, under F, any given state of the spheres is exactly as likely as its arbitrary parallel coordinate translation, and thus the center of mass of F alone is distributed uniformly. Observe that, in the preceding derivation, it is not required that all spheres are necessarily distributed identically that is, any i-th sphere can be distributed independently, but with its own distribution f 0i. What is then needed is that each corresponding characteristic function ˆf i of the x-marginal should be bounded above by some hk, 3.40 ˆf i k hk, h0 = 1, hk = 0 < 1, that is, the spheres should be distributed similarly, which is a reasonable requirement from the physical standpoint The structure of marginal distributions of the physical steady state. As it becomes important below, we need to discuss the structure of the marginal distributions of the physical steady state F x 1,..., x in 3.12, that is, the functions of the form 3.41 F n x 1,..., x n, v 1,..., v n = S n+1... v 1,..., v n F x 1,..., x dv n+1..., where S n+1... v 1,..., v n is the surface area of the subset of the constant energy sphere which corresponds to fixed velocities v 1,..., v n, and dv n+1... is the volume element of the subset of the volume which corresponds to fixed coordinates x 1,..., x n. The integral over dv n+1... in the right-hand side of 3.41 can be expressed in the form 3.42 F x 1,..., x dv n+1... = F n x 1,..., x n S n S R n x 1,..., x n.

23 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 23 Above, we introduce the spatial correlation function R n x 1,..., x n of the form 3.43 R n x 1,..., x n = Z n Z e λ ασσ x 1 x i ασ x n x i i=n+1 e λ ασσ x i x j dv n+1..., j=i+1 that is, the R n involves integration over all factors e λ ασσ x i x j which are part of F, but not F n. Observe that the following normalization conditions hold concurrently: 3.44a S n F n x 1,..., x n dv n = 1, 3.44b S n F n x 1,..., x n R n x 1,..., x n dv n = S F x 1,..., x dv = 1, does not vary too much throughout the domain, its magnitude should gen- so if R n erally be of order 1. In situations where the overlapped states take a very small part of the total volume which implies that the volume of the domain greatly exceeds the total volume of the spheres in it, the so-called dilute gas, the integrand of 3.43 equals 1 almost everywhere, and, therefore, R n 1. For the reasons which will become clear below, of particular importance are the special cases with n = 1 and n = 2. For n = 1, we claim 3.45 F 1 v = 1 S 2... v, V S where V is the volume of the coordinate space of a single sphere, and the independence on x follows from the fact that F depends only on the distances between the spheres, and not on their absolute positions. For the special case n = 2, we claim 3.46 R 2 x, y = R2 x y, which follows from the symmetry and isotropy considerations. Indeed, observe that, since F depends only on distances between different spheres, R 2 can depend neither on the absolute positions of its two spheres, nor on the direction of their mutual orientation, which leaves only the distance as a possible dependence. Taking into account 3.12, for the two-sphere marginal F 2 we, therefore, arrive at 3.47 F 2 x, y, v, w = 1 Z 2 e λ ασσ x y R 2 x y S 3...v, w S. Combining 3.45 and 3.47, we can express 3.48 F 2 V2 S x, y, v, w = S 3... v, w Z 2 S 2... vs 2... w e λ ασσ x y R 2 x y F 1 v F 1 w.

24 24 RAFAIL V. ABRAMOV 3.5. The marginal distributions in the limit of infinitely many spheres. In what follows, we are interested in situations where the number of spheres is large, which suggests to consider the limit of 3.48 as. In such a limit, first we observe that V lim = 1. Z 2 This happens due to the fact that the diameter σ must decay as 1/3, in order for the total volume of the spheres to be bounded to fit into the domain without overlapping. Therefore, the volume of the set of points where the integrand of Z 2 in 2.22 equals e λ is proportional to 1. This means that the ratio above behaves as V 2 /Z 2 = 1 + O 1, and thus approaches 1 in the limit as. Second, it can be shown via geometric arguments see [1, 3, 30] and references therein that, as, 3.50 lim S 2... v S = e v 2/2θ 2πθ 3/2, lim S 3... v, w S where θ is the temperature of the system of the spheres, which satisfies 3.51 E = 3 2 θ. The relations in 3.50 lead to 3.52 lim S S 3... v, w S 2... vs 2... w = 1. Combining 3.48, 3.49 and 3.52, we arrive, as, to = e v 2+ w 2/2θ 2πθ 3, 3.53 F 2 x, y, v, w = e λ ασσ x y R 2 x y F 1 v F 1 w, where we dropped the subscript from F 1, F 2 and R 2 to signify that these quantities are related to infinitely many spheres. 4. The forward equation for the marginal distribution of a single sphere Let us consider a nonsteady solution F of the forward equation in 3.6 which is invariant under the permutations of the spheres, and let us denote the two-sphere and one-sphere marginal distributions of F as 4.1 F 2 t, x, y, v, w = F dv 3... ds 3..., f t, x, v = F 2 dy dw, where the integral in w occurs over the remaining area of S for fixed v. Then, integrating 3.6 over all coordinate-velocity pairs x i, v i but one, we arrive at 4.2 f t + v f x = 1λ δ ασ x y σ x y v w x y [ F 2 x, y, v, w Θ x y v w + F 2 x, y, v, w Θ x y w v ] dy dw.

25 THE RANDOM GAS OF HARD SPHERES 25 To arrive at the above result in the collision term, observe that, for fixed x and y, we, with the help of 1.5 and 1.7 have, for i, j > 1, i = j: 4.3 Fv i, v j ψv i, v j x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v j v i ds 2... = = Fv i, v j ψv i, v j x i x j x i x j v i v j Θ x i x j v i v j ds 2... = = Fv i, v j ψv i, v j x i x j x i x j v j v i Θ x i x j v i v j ds 2..., which cancels out all terms in the collision which do not involve that particular sphere over which the integration does not occur. Next, since y is a dummy variable of integration over the coordinate volume, we can replace it with z = y x, which subsequently yields 4.4 f t + v f [ ] x = 1λ F 2 x, x + z, v, w F 2 x, x z, v, w z z w v Θ z w v δ ασ z σ dz dw, where, for convenience, we flipped the sign of the dummy variable z in the second non-primed term in the collision integral. Now let us switch to the spherical coordinate system, z = σrn, dz = σ 3 r 2 dr dn, where r is the nondimensional distance, n is the unit vector, and dn is the area element of the unit sphere. In the new variables, the identity in 1.2 becomes 4.5 v = v + w v n n, w = w + v w n n, and 4.4 becomes the first equation of the BBGY hierarchy for the forward equation in 3.6: f 4.6 t + v f [ ] = 1λσ2 F 2 x, x + σrn, v, w F 2 x, x σrn, v, w x n w v Θ n w v δ α r 1r 2 dr dn dw. It is interesting that for λ = 1 and in the limit α 0 the above equation becomes what is conventionally regarded as the corresponding forward equation for deterministic hard spheres [11 13]. However, it is clear at this point that for finite λ the equation in 4.6 cannot possibly describe deterministic collisions Approximating the two-sphere marginal via one-sphere marginals. Above in 4.6 we arrived at the ubiquitous closure problem of molecular dynamics the two-sphere marginal F 2 must somehow be approximated via the one-sphere marginal f in order to be able to consider 4.6 separately from the rest of the BBGY hierarchy. In the standard literature [11 13] it is assumed that F 2 t, x, y, v, w is simply the product of f t, x, v and f t, y, w. However, at this point we understand that such an assumption is incorrect indeed, the form of the steady state in 3.12 does not allow such factorization.