text:
# Dynamic Density Functional theory for steady currents: Application to colloidal particles in narrow channels

## I  Introduction

Microfluidics, or the manipulation of liquids at the pico-liter scale, is an emerging technology with very interesting perspectives microflu1 ; microflu2 . In particular, the construction of devices which might control colloidal fluxes at the level of single particles, even under the effects of strong correlations at high density and in confined geometries would be of great interest for many applications, and it is already within the range of experimental works PRLcha . A theoretical description, with quantitative prediction power, for these systems would allow the design of devices on a firmer basis, but such theoretical framework is well established only for the properties of systems at thermal equilibrium, mainly thought the applications of the density functional formalism (see e.g. DFF ). In this paper we explore the use of a particular extension of the density functional methods to describe some systems out of equilibrium, like fluxes produced by the time-dependent external forces in micro-pumps or turn-pikes which might control single colloidal particles in a flux.

The extension of the density functional formalism (DDF), from systems at thermodynamic equilibrium to the dynamics of systems out of equilibrium has been a very attractive target for workers in classical and quantum fluids during the last two decades. The goal is certainly ambitious and the success has been limited to some particular types of problems and levels of description. Thus, the modern theory of phase transitions dynamics gendyn  is based on quasi-local thermodynamic descriptions, which may be considered as an empirical extension of the squared gradients density functional approximation to study the dynamics of a ’coarse grained’ variable. The generic form for such descriptions, for a conserved ’coarse grained’ density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(𝐫,t)`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)}{t}}=\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t))\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]}{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)}}+V(x)\right)+\xi (x,t)\right],`$ (1)
where $`[\rho ]`$ is the intrinsic the Helmholtz free energy functional, approximated by

$`[\rho ]={\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(f(\rho (x))+\frac{b}{2}(\rho (x))^2\right)},`$ (2)
$`x`$ runs over all the space variables, $`f(\rho )`$ gives the free energy per unit volume for bulk systems of homogeneous density $`\rho `$, and the coefficient $`b`$ (which may be taken as a function of $`\rho (x)`$ itself) gives a measure of the free energy associated to the inhomogeneity of the density. $`V(x)`$ represents any external potential acting on the particles.

The density functional approximation (2) has been extensively used to describe equilibrium systems with smooth spatial inhomogeneities, like the liquid-vapor interfaces Evans1 ; Rowl , although it cannot describe systems with stronger modulations of the local density, like the layered structures of fluids near walls Evans2 . The use of this $`[\rho ]`$ for dynamics requires to specify two other empirical elements, the mobility $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ which relates the density current to the local gradient of the thermodynamic chemical potential, and the random noise term $`\xi (x,t)`$ usually taken as a gaussian (uncorrelated) stochastic field which allows the systems go over thermodynamic barriers, e.g. in the process of nucleation of liquid drops from oversaturated vapors. Both the mobility as a function of the coarse grained density, and the amplitude of the gaussian noise have to be taken as empirical mesoscopic parameters, which control the relaxation process of the coarse grained density, but without a direct connection to the molecular level. Therefore, and although equation (1) has been very useful to analyze different aspects of the phase transition dynamics gendyn , it cannot be used down to a molecular level of description, nor can it be extended to make use of the very accurate equilibrium density functional approximations Evans2  which go much beyond the simple functional form (2) in the description of equilibrium systems. Other approaches to define and use a DDF theory have used a more microscopic descriptions of the density distribution Kawa1 ; Dean ; Kawa2  but still keeping some coarse graining and a random noise term to overcome the energetic barriers of the coarse grained free-energy density functional.

A different DDF approach, which a clear connection between the molecular hamiltonian and a dynamic density functional equation may be obtained OurJCP ; OurJPCM  from the hypothesis of purely relaxative Langevin dynamics at molecular level; i.e. if the positions of the particles $`r_i(t)`$ (for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) evolve in time according to the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dr_i(t)}{dt}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_o_i𝒰(r_1,\mathrm{},r_N)+\xi _i,`$ (3)
where $`𝒰(r_1,\mathrm{},r_N)`$ is the potential energy which includes the interactions between the $`N`$ particles in the system, and also any external potential acting on them. The molecular mobility $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_o`$ gives the (assumed constant) ratio between the mean velocity of the particles under a constant external force. When the theory is applied to colloidal particles moving in a fluid, the constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_o`$ may be obtained by Stokes formula in terms of their radius and the viscosity of the fluid matrix. The second term in the bracket in (3), $`\xi _i`$ represents a random force acting on particle $`i`$, with may be interpreted as the zero-average stochastic effect of the fluid matrix molecules on the colloidal particles. This is taken as gaussian uncorrelated function for each particle, but contrary to the random noise $`\xi (x,t)`$ in (1), its amplitude is perfectly defined by Einstein relation, as twice the diffusion constant $`D=\mathrm{\Gamma }_ok_\text{B}T`$. The natural reduced units for the problem are $`k_\text{B}T1/\beta `$ for the energy, molecular diameter $`\sigma `$ for distance, $`\beta \sigma ^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_o`$ for time, and hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_ok_\text{B}T/\sigma `$ for the velocity.

Using the standard tools of stochastic analysis Gardiner  and the equilibrium density functional formalism is possible to transform (3) into a Dynamic Density Functional (DDF) equation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)}{t}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_o\left[\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]}{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)}}+V(x,t)\right)\right],`$ (4)
within the following assumptions:

i) The density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)`$, following the dynamics of the DDF equation (4), has to be interpreted as the average of the instantaneous density $`\widehat{\rho }(x,t)=_{i=1}^N\delta (xr_i(t)),`$ over an statistical ensemble of realizations for the random noise $`\xi (t)`$ for the integration of the Langevin equation, from given initial conditions $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,0)=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\text{inic}}(x)`$. The temperature $`T`$ is assumed constant and fixed by the bath.

ii) The correlations between the colloidal particles in the dynamical system, at any instant $`t`$, are assumed to be identical to those in the equilibrium systems, which would be obtained by applied the appropriate external field to the system so that its equilibrium density distribution, $`\rho _{\text{eq}}(x)`$ would be given precisely by the instantaneous value of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)`$. These equilibrium correlations are those given by the density functional giving the intrinsic equilibrium Helmholtz free energy of the fluid, $`[\rho ]`$. This equilibrium free energy functional, for classical fluids, has an explicit dependence from the ideal gas entropy contribution,

$$_{id}[\rho ]=k_bT𝑑x\rho (x)\left(log(\rho (x))1\right)$$

and a contribution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\rho ][\rho ]_{id}[\rho ]`$, from the particle interactions, which is known exactly only for a few systems; but approximations with increasing accuracy have been developed for others and give excellent results for the equilibrium properties in many cases.

Beside having a perfectly defined mobility factor, as the density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)`$ times the molecular mobility in the Langevin equation, instead of the generic function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t))`$ in (1); the main difference between that semi-empirical equation and the DDF equation (4) is the lack of any random noise term in later, which becomes a deterministic functional equation instead of the usual stochastic functional equation (1). The averaging over the random force term in the original Langevin equation (3), required to get $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)`$ with the interpretation $`i)`$ above, gives the classical ideal gas contribution, $`_{id}[\rho ]`$ to $`[\rho ]`$ in the functional derivative of (4), with the exact prefactor $`k_bT`$ from the precise amplitude of the random force $`\xi _i(t)`$; and any extra random noise term in (4) would produce the overestimation of the ideal gas entropy. The interactions between the particles, included in the derivative of $`𝒰`$ in (3) give the contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, to the intrinsic free energy functional $`[\rho ]`$ in (4), while the contribution to the potential energy from external fields appears explicitly as $`V(x,t)`$. We may expect that the accuracy of the approach to include the effects of the interactions would improve with the use of accurate forms of $`[\rho ]`$, which include the non-local functional dependence in a much better way than (2).

In particular, we may think of colloidal particles, interacting as hard-core molecules of diameter $`\sigma `$ and confined along a linear channel, as already explored experimentally PRLcha , which may be theoretically described as hard-rods in one dimension, for which the exact equilibrium free energy density functional is known Percus . The solution of (4) for hard-rods has already been studied for the relaxative dynamics under several static external potentials OurJCP . An important conclusion of that work was that the use of the exact $`[\rho ]`$ made unnecessary the inclusion of the random noise term in the DDF equation, since the exact free energy is always a convex functional, with only one minimum. The existence of activation barriers, between two different minima of the free energy, which should be overcome by the stochastic noise is an artifact of using an approximated form for $`[\rho ]`$. Thus, very long relaxation times which in the solution of (1) would be interpreted as typical of systems with a high free energy barrier between two minima, are recovered from the deterministic equation (4) without any free energy barrier, just from the particle correlations described through the exact free energy $`[\rho ]`$. In this context, if we take colloidal particles of size $`\sigma 10^7m`$, with mobility $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_o`$ given by Stokes law in water, at room temperature, the natural unit for velocity is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_ok_\text{B}T/\sigma 10^4m/s`$, in a reasonable range for potential barrier shifts in microfluidic devices.

In this paper we analyze the results of (4) for a different class of problems, hard-rods particles in time-dependent external potentials $`V(x,t)`$. In particular we start with systems in which the external potential moves with constant rate $`c`$ with respect to the static framework in which equation (3) applies. These problems would apply to colloidal particles moving along narrow channel under the force created by a moving electrical potential or optical twist; which may be used as a starting point for the design of more complex devices, like micropumps or turn-pikes. The plan of the paper is the following, in the next section we analyze the generic structure of the solutions of the DDF equation (4) for the stationary states with density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)=\stackrel{~}{\rho }(xct)`$ moving along the external potential $`V(x,t)=V(xct)`$. In section 3 we get an explicit solution for the ideal gas case, when the interaction term $`[\rho ]`$ may neglected; this solution helps to give a qualitative classification of the possible behaviour, in terms of the barriers of the external potential and the rate of displacement. In section 4 we explore, numerically the solutions of the DDF when the packing effects are important and described by the exact density functional at equilibrium for hard rods. We end with a general discussion on the observed qualitative behaviour and generic trend in the dependence with the physical parameters: the height and shape of the external potential barriers, the shift rate of these barriers with respect to the static framework for the relaxative dynamics and the effects of molecular packing.

## II Stationary solutions of the DDF

The generic DDF equation (4) may be interpreted as the exact continuity equation between the density of particles, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)`$ and their current $`j(x,t)`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)}{t}}=j(x,t),`$ (5)
together with the approximated DDF closure for the current,

$`j(x,t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_o\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]}{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)}}+V(x,t)\right),`$ (6)
in terms of the equilibrium free energy density functional.

In the presence of a shifting external potential $`V(x,t)=V(xct)`$ we look for stationary solutions of the form $`\rho (x,t)=\rho (xct)`$, and $`j(x,t)=j(xct)`$, so that the continuity equation (5) implies that $`c\rho (x,t)=j(x,t)`$, which for any problem in one dimension (1D) gives

$`j(x,t)=c\rho (x,t)\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (7)
with an arbitrary integration constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which gives the difference between the actual current and that which would be produce by the rigid shift of the density profile at the same velocity $`c`$ as the potential. This counter-drift term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ cannot be determined from the DDF equation (4), and it would be obtained only through the boundary conditions that we apply to the system.

Using now equations (6) and (7) we may obtain a closed functional equation for the stationary density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$, where we defined the variable $`\widehat{x}=xct`$, moving with the external potential $`V(x,t)V(\widehat{x})`$;

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]}{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})}}+V(\widehat{x})\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o}}.`$ (8)
In 1D problems this expression may be formally integrated to give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]}{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})}}+V(\widehat{x})+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o}}(\widehat{x}\widehat{x}_o){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{x}_o}^{\widehat{x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{x}^{}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x}^{})}}=\mu ,`$ (9)
where $`\mu `$ is the integration constant, linked to the arbitrary value of $`\widehat{x}_o`$ in the lower limit of the integral.

In the case of static external potentials, $`c=0`$, the stationary density becomes the equilibrium density, and current $`j`$ has to vanish everywhere, so that the counter-drift constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in (7) vanishes, and (9) becomes the usual Euler-Lagrange equation for the equilibrium density, $`\rho (x)=\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$, with the integration constant $`\mu `$ as the equilibrium chemical potential. Thus, in the dynamic case ($`c0`$) the integration constant $`\mu `$ in (9) will still be used to control the total number of particles in the system, since for a given external potential $`V(\widehat{x})`$ and drifting rate $`c`$, that functional equation should have different solutions representing dynamic systems with different mean densities. The presence of a second integration constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in (9) is characteristics of dynamic systems, as it has to vanish in the limit $`c=0`$. To determine the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we may consider a further symmetry assuming that the drifting potential $`V(\widehat{x})`$ and hence the stationary density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$ are periodic functions with spacial period $`L`$ (which imply a time period $`T=L/c`$). In that case, comparing the values of (9) for $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{x}+L`$ we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o}}L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{x}}^{L+\widehat{x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{x}^{}}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x}^{})}},`$ (10)
for any value of $`\widehat{x}`$, which implies

$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{c}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }^1}},`$ (11)
and the stationary current is

$`j(\widehat{x})=c\left(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }^1}}\right),`$ (12)
where the brackets represent the spacial average over a full period of the inverse local density. The last expression makes clear that for static periodic potential, $`c=0`$, the only stationary solution of (4) is the equilibrium state, with the current vanishing everywhere.

The stationary density distributions and currents created by any periodic external potentials moving with a constant rate $`c`$ may now be obtained from the solutions of (9) and (11), with the remaining integration constant $`\mu `$ playing the same role as in the Euler-Lagrange equation, to control the mean density of the system. Before including an explicit form for the interaction between the particles, i.e. for the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\rho ]`$ in free energy density functional, we may still get some generic analysis for particular limits. The case of a shifting external potential limited to a finite region of an infinite 1D system may be obtained as the $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit of the periodic case. In that case, unless $`V(\widehat{x})`$ includes infinite barriers where $`\rho (\widehat{x})=0`$ (as explored in section 2a below) we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }=c\rho _o`$, determined by the density $`\rho _o(\mu )`$ of the uniform system at chemical potential $`\mu `$, and equation (9) may be written as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]}{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})}}+V(\widehat{x})+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\widehat{x}}}𝑑\widehat{x}^{}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _o}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x}^{})}}\right)=\mu .`$ (13)
The current vanishes away from the region crossed by the external potential, and the integrated flow along the system becomes

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\widehat{x}j(\widehat{x})=c{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\widehat{x}(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})\rho _o)=c(NN_o),`$ (14)
i.e. c times the excess of particles generated by the shifting external potential, from the solution of (13). This expression is just an integrated form of the continuity equation since the total transport of molecules is precisely the steady shift of the stationary density perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})\rho _o`$.

### II.1  Complete drift limit

Let us consider a moving external potential which includes a periodic series of infinite barriers, where the density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$ which solves (8) has to become zero. Then the average of the inverse density becomes infinite, whatever values $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$ takes outside the barrier. The counter-drift term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanishes and the current becomes equal to the density times the velocity of the external potential $`c`$. This is a regime of complete drift, where all the fluid particles trapped between two consecutive barriers of the external potential have to follow the movement of these barriers, so that $`j(\widehat{x})=c\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$. Moreover, the functional equation (9) for the density distribution in that regime becomes equivalent to the equilibrium Euler-Lagrange equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta [\stackrel{~}{\rho }]}{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})}}+V_k(\widehat{x})=\mu ,`$ (15)
with a ’kinetic’ external potential $`V_k(\widehat{x})=V(\widehat{x})+c/\mathrm{\Gamma }_o\widehat{x}`$, i.e. with the true external potential plus a linear term proportional to $`c`$. In order to simplify the notation, we use a reduced drift rate with inverse length units, as $`\overline{c}=\beta c/\mathrm{\Gamma }_o`$.

The stationary density profile follows a variational principle equivalent to that of the equilibrium density functional formalism; i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(x,t)`$, described in terms of the drifted variable $`\widehat{x}=xct`$, is such that it minimizes the total ’kinetic’ grand potential energy of the system

$$\mathrm{\Omega }[\rho ]=[\rho ]+𝑑x\rho (x)(V_k(x)\mu ).$$

The constant slope $`c/\mathrm{\Gamma }_o`$ of the kinetic contribution to $`V_k(x)`$ includes the extra force to keep the particles moving with mean velocity $`c`$, according with their Langevin dynamics (3). The main advantage of this limit is that the solution of the DDF equation may be obtained with the well developed methods used for the equilibrium DFF, like conjugated gradients minimization of $`\mathrm{\Omega }[\rho ]`$.

When the periodic shifting potential $`V(\widehat{x})`$ has high (but not infinite) barriers, we may expect that the stationary profiles $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$ would still be very close to the solutions of the equivalent equilibrium equation (15), since everywhere outside the barriers $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})\stackrel{~}{\rho }^1^1`$ and the contribution from the integral in (9) would be nearly constant (and hence transferable to $`\mu `$). However, the contribution of that integral over a full period has to exactly cancel the contribution of the linear term $`\overline{c}\stackrel{~}{x}`$, to get a periodic equation, which is achieved by the integral giving a descending staircase shape, with smoothed steps at the barriers, and nearly planar plateau between them. Thus, with the appropriate choices of $`\mu `$ in each case, the solutions of (15) over a single period, would be similar to those of the DDF equation (9) everywhere except in the low density region at the high potential barriers, where the true stationary profile has to recover the periodicity. Only in the strict limit of infinite barriers the equivalent equation (15) may be regarded as exact, when used for the interval between point at consecutive barriers where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})=0`$, as the role the integral is only to provide a constant shift of the chemical potential between each period.

Moreover, even if the potential barriers of $`V(\widehat{x})`$ are apparently very high (on the $`k_bT`$ scale) the quasi-complete drift regime described above may be frustrated when the drift rate $`c`$ becomes too high, since the energy difference between the maximum and the minimum of $`V_k(\widehat{x})`$ diminishes with $`c`$, the effective barriers of the kinetic potential may become comparable with $`k_bT`$, and the counter-drift current grow. Thus, we expect a low velocity regime, in which the velocity of the particles $`v=j(\widehat{x})/\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$ is exactly $`c`$, and a saturation range in which further increase of $`c`$ does not produce the increase of $`v`$.

### II.2 Weak external potentials

We consider now the opposite limit when the external potential $`V(\widehat{x})`$ is very weak everywhere, so that it may be treated as a small perturbation over an otherwise uniform fluid. We may then expand the density around its mean value, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})=\rho _o+\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$, with $`\rho _o=\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$, so that $`1/\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})=\rho _o^1\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})^2/\rho _o^3+\mathrm{}`$; the current becomes now

$$j(\widehat{x})=c\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})+\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})^2}{\rho _o}+𝒪^3(\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho })\right),$$

and its average is $`j=c\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})^2/\rho _o+𝒪^3(\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho })`$. Thus, a shifting weak external potential $`V(xct)=V(\widehat{x})`$ cannot produce the drift of the bulk fluid, the local current is proportional to $`c`$ times the perturbation over the homogeneous fluid, with regions of positive and negative sign, and its average goes only as the density perturbation squared; i.e. the propagating waves in the density, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(xct)=\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$, produce a very small mean propagation of particles.

So far in this subsection, we have only used the continuity equation (5) and the requirement of having a periodic stationary density (10) of the DDF equation, to get the current in terms of the density perturbation. To get a relationship between the weak external potential, $`V(\widehat{x})`$, and the density perturbation $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$ we may use the expansion of the DDF equation (9) around $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})=\rho _o`$, as a generalization of the equilibrium linear response theory Evans1  to the dynamic case. In terms of the Fourier transform of the density perturbation $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(q)`$ and the external potential $`V(q)`$, the linear term of (9) gives,

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }(q)=\rho _o{\displaystyle \frac{\beta V(q)}{[S(q,\rho _o)]^1+i\widehat{c}/q}},`$ (16)
where $`S(q,\rho _o)`$ is the equilibrium structure factor of the homogeneous system, which is proportional to the response function of the system to external field, as given by the second functional derivative of $`[\rho ]`$, by the standard DF analysis Evans1 ; Hansen . In the long wavelength limit it is given by the isothermal compressibility , $`S(0,\rho _o)=kT\rho _o\chi _\text{T}(\rho _o)`$ while $`S(q,\rho _o)=1`$ in the short wave limit, $`q\mathrm{}`$. The second term in the denominator of (16) comes from the drift and counter-drift terms in (9), which give and imaginary part to the kinetic response function.

If we consider a weak external potential with the form of an harmonic propagating wave, $`V(xct)=V_qcos(q\widehat{x})`$, the density would be $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(xct)=\rho _o\rho _qcos(q\widehat{x}\theta )`$, with amplitude and phase shift,

$$\rho _q=\rho _o\frac{\beta V_q}{\left[[S(q,\rho _o)]^2+\left(\overline{c}/q\right)^2\right]^{1/2}}\text{and}\theta =tan^1\left(\frac{\overline{c}S(q,\rho _o)}{q}\right).$$

For low drift rates the density profile will be similar to that created by a static external potential, with the maximum density at the minima of $`V(\widehat{x})`$ and vice versa. When the external potential moves fast enough the effect of the imaginary part in the denominator of (16) puts the density perturbation out of phase with the external potential, and the maximum of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$ moves toward the region with maximum external force, with $`\theta \pi /2`$, but the amplitude decreases as $`\rho _q1/c`$ for large $`c`$.

The mean velocity of the particles, in same reduced units as $`\overline{c}`$, for any weak periodic potential may be written as a Fourier sum with the quadratic contributions of each Fourier component of the potential:

$`\overline{v}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta j}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o\rho _o}}=\overline{c}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta V(q))^2}{[S(q,\rho _o)]^2+\left(\overline{c}/q\right)^2}}.`$ (17)
The contribution of the short wavelength components, with $`\overline{c}S(q,\rho _o)q`$, is similar to the quasi-static limit ($`\theta 0`$), with $`\overline{v}`$ linear in $`c`$ and quadratic with the static response $`S(q,\rho _o)V(q)`$; in the opposite limit, $`\overline{c}S(q,\rho _o)q`$, the kinetic contribution dominates ($`\theta \pi /2`$) and the contribution to $`\overline{v}`$ is proportional to $`(V(q)q)^2/c`$, i.e. decays with $`c`$, is independently of static structure factor and goes proportional to the mean squared force $`(V^{}(x))^2`$, rather than to the mean squared potential. For each Fourier component of $`V(x)`$, the threshold between the linear growth, $`\overline{v}\overline{c}`$, for low $`\overline{c}`$ and the decay, $`\overline{v}1/\overline{c}`$, for large $`\overline{c}`$, would give the optimum shift rate $`\overline{c}_{\text{max }}q/S(q,\rho _o)`$ to get the maximum mean velocity. In the ideal gas limit, $`S(q,\rho _o)=1`$, this optimum value is $`\overline{c}=q`$, becoming very small in the long wavelength limit. For correlated systems, there would be a non monotonic dependence of the maximum $`\overline{v}`$ with $`c`$, depending on $`q`$ due to the static structure factor.

## III  Solution of the DDF equation for the ideal gas

In the previous section we have obtained some generic limiting behaviour for the solutions of the DDF equation. We turn now to explore the general solution of (9), first in absence of particle interactions, and in the following section including the effects of molecular packing as one dimension hard rods.

The ideal gas case corresponds to take $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\rho ]=0`$ and it should be the exact low density limit of any fluid system. Moreover, the assumptions to get (4) from (3) become irrelevant, and the DDF equation may be consider as an exact Fokker-Planck equation for the density distribution. The equation (8) becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})+\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})\left(\beta V(\widehat{x})+\overline{c}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o}}.`$ (18)
When $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is zero (i.e. in the static limit, $`c=0`$, or in the complete drift limit described above), the homogeneous linear differential equation is directly solved to give $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})=Aexp(\beta V_k(\widehat{x}))`$ in terms of the Boltzmann factor of the kinetic potential $`\beta V_k(\stackrel{~}{x})=\beta V(\stackrel{~}{x})+\overline{c}\stackrel{~}{x}`$. The arbitrary constant $`A`$ is the activity, playing the same role as the chemical potential $`\mu `$ in (9) to control the total number of particles.

The general solution of the inhomogeneous equation with $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ is obtained, by the usual Green function method. For periodic external potentials, with period $`L`$, it has the generic form,

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})=Ae^{\beta V_k(\widehat{x})}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\overline{c}L}1}{_0^L𝑑ye^{\beta V_k(y)}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\widehat{x}}}𝑑ye^{\beta V_k(y)}\right),`$ (19)
which may be evaluated in terms of single integrals of the inverse Boltzmann factor of $`V_k(x)`$. The counter-drift term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_oA/\beta `$ times the prefactor of the integral, inside the bracket.

The average velocity of the particles, defined as the ratio between the mean current $`j(\widehat{x})`$ and the mean density $`\rho (\widehat{x})`$, and in the same reduced units as $`\overline{c}`$ is

$`\overline{v}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta j(\widehat{x})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_o\rho (\widehat{x})}}=\overline{c}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (\overline{c})}{1+\xi (\overline{c})}},`$ (20)
with the dimensionless auxiliary function

$`\xi (\overline{c})={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{c}}{L}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑xe^{\overline{c}x}{\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑y\left(e^{\beta (V(y)V(x))}1\right)e^{\overline{c}y}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{c}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\overline{c}L}}{1e^{\overline{c}L}}}\left({\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑xe^{\beta V(x)\overline{c}x}\right)\left({\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑ye^{\beta V(y)+\overline{c}y}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1e^{\overline{c}L}}{\overline{c}L}}.`$ (21)
It is instructive to analyze the structure of this equation for potential barrier $`V(x)`$ which is zero outside an interval, taken as $`0xa`$, much shorter than the periodic length of the system $`L`$. When the maximum height of the potential barrier, $`\beta V(x)`$, is well above the maximum kinetic term $`\overline{c}L`$, the results of (19,20) is always within the quasi-complete drift regime described above, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }c\rho `$ and $`\overline{v}\overline{c}`$. For larger drifting rates, when $`\overline{c}L`$ becomes much larger than the maximum of $`\beta V(x)`$, the main contribution to $`\xi (\overline{c})`$ comes always from the first term in the right hand side of (21), with a delicate balance between the fast growing exponentials in the integrals.

The simplest case of a square barrier with $`V(x)=V_o`$ in an interval of width $`a`$ and $`V(x)=0`$ outside, may be solved analytically to give $`\xi (\overline{c})`$ and $`\overline{v}`$. For large drifting rates, $`\overline{c}min[a,(La)]1`$, we get

$`\overline{v}\overline{c}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta V_o}1}{\overline{c}L+e^{\beta V_o}1}}.`$ (22)
Therefore, a square potential barrier of height $`V_o`$ would be enough to produce the complete shift of the ideal particles up to (reduced) drifting rates $`\overline{c}`$ well below $`(e^{\beta V_o}1)/L`$. For $`\overline{c}`$ beyond this limit the mean velocity would saturate to a constant value $`\overline{v}e^{\beta V_o}/L`$ for $`\beta V_o1`$ and $`\overline{v}\beta V_o/L`$ for $`\beta V_o1`$. In Figure 1 we compare the values of $`\overline{v}`$ for square barriers, parabolic barriers, $`V(\widehat{x})=V_o(1(2\widehat{x}/w)^2)`$ for $`w/2\widehat{x}w/2`$, and gaussian barriers $`V(\widehat{x})=V_oexp[\widehat{x}^2/(2\alpha ^2)]`$. At low $`\overline{c}`$ the three barriers give similar results, with $`\overline{v}`$ proportional to $`\overline{c}`$ both for high barriers (Fig. 1(a)) and low barriers (Fig. 1(b)). The fortes case corresponds to the complete drift regime $`\overline{v}=\overline{c}`$, predicted in section 2(a) for large enough values of $`\beta V_o`$; while the second corresponds to the linear response result $`\overline{v}\overline{c}(\beta V_o)^2/L`$ predicted in section 2(b) for low $`\overline{c}`$. At higher values of the shifting rate $`\overline{c}`$, the results of the square barrier differ qualitatively from those of the parabolic and gaussian barriers. The two later reach a maximum value of the mean velocity, $`\overline{v}_{max}=\overline{v}(\overline{c}_{max})`$, and then decay as $`\overline{v}1/\overline{c}`$, while the square barrier produce a monotonous increase of $`\overline{v}`$ up to a constant value for large $`\overline{c}`$. The comparison of the results with different barrier shapes and parameters shows that the most relevant aspect of $`V(\widehat{x})`$ is the maximum slope, rather than the barrier width or the barrier height. Thus, reducing the width of a parabolic barrier, while keeping unchanged its maximum value $`V_o`$, increases rather than decreases the maximum value of the mean velocity, since it increases the maximum force acting on the particles. In this sense the square barrier model should be consider unphysical, since the infinite force acting at the barrier borders creates the saturation of $`\overline{v}`$ at large $`\overline{c}`$. Choosing the parameters of the parabolic and gaussian barriers to have similar maximum slopes, produces very similar results for $`\overline{v}(\overline{c})`$, as shown in Figure 1 for the empirical choice of $`w=5.5\alpha `$ and the same barriers height, $`V_o`$. This robustness of the results to the particular form of $`V(x)`$, as far as it does nor include unrealistic discontinuities, might help to eventual comparisons of the theory with experimental results.

The weak potential limit (17), integrated over the Fourier components of the different barriers $`V(\widehat{x})`$, may be compared with the exact results obtained from (20,21). The qualitative difference between the sharp square barrier and the gaussian or parabolic models is a consequence of the slow, $`V(q)1/q`$, decay of the external potential Fourier components for the discontinuous square barrier; while the first derivative discontinuity (i.e. $`V(q)1/q^2`$) for the parabolic barrier is already weak enough not to change the qualitative dependence of $`\overline{v}(\overline{c})`$ with respect to the smooth gaussian barrier. For the later, and assuming that the distance $`L`$ between barriers is large compared with the barrier width $`\alpha `$, we may perform the sum over Fourier components in (17) as an integral to get an analytic form for the mean velocity within the linear response approximation:

$$\overline{v}(\overline{c})=\frac{(\beta V_o)^2}{L}\alpha \overline{c}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\pi \alpha \overline{c}e^{\alpha \overline{c}}Erfc[\alpha \overline{c}]\right),$$

in terms of the complementary error function which leads to

$$\overline{v}(\overline{c})=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }(\beta V_o)^2}{L}\left(\frac{1}{2\alpha \overline{c}}\frac{3}{4(\alpha \overline{c})^2}+\mathrm{}\right),$$

for large $`\overline{c}`$ and

$$\overline{v}(\overline{c})=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }(\beta V_o)^2}{L}(\alpha \overline{c}\sqrt{\pi }(\alpha \overline{c})^2+3(\alpha \overline{c})^3+\mathrm{}.),$$

low $`\overline{c}`$; with a maximum $`\overline{v}_{max}=0.4346(\beta V_o)^2/L`$ at $`c_{max}=0.82132/\alpha `$.

The results in the inset of Figure 1(b), shown that for $`\beta V_o=1`$ the linear response approximation for $`\overline{v}(\overline{c})`$ is very similar to the exact result. In general, we may expect such good agreement for gaussian barriers up to barrier height $`\beta V_o(\alpha /L)^{1/2}`$, beyond this limit the linear response for low drifting rates would predict unphysical values of $`\overline{v}(\overline{c})>\overline{c}`$, beyond the complete drift limit; which would indicate the breakdown of such linear response analysis since would predict negative densities at the potential barrier. However, for large drifting rates, when $`\overline{v}1/\overline{c}`$, the predictions of the linear response approximation are quite good even for very large values of $`\beta V_o`$, as shown in the inset of Figure 1(a). The optimum value $`\overline{c}=\overline{c}_{max}`$ to get the maximum $`\overline{v}`$ would be independent of $`\beta V_o`$ in the linear response approach, while the exact result gives $`\overline{c}_{max}`$ growing roughly linearly with $`\beta V_o`$, as the indicated by the crossover between the regimes $`\overline{v}\overline{c}`$ and $`\overline{v}(\beta V_o)^2/(L\alpha \overline{c})`$, for low and high values of $`\overline{c}`$, respectively. However, the maximum value of $`\overline{v}`$ from the exact result remains rather close to the predicted by the linear response, even at barriers as high as $`\beta V_o=20`$, despite the different predictions for the value $`\overline{c}_{max}`$ at which that $`\overline{v}_{max}`$ is achieved. This behaviour is clearly shown in Figure 2, with logarithmic scales for both $`\beta V_o`$, $`\overline{v}_{max}`$, $`\overline{c}_{max}`$ and the slope of $`\overline{v}(\overline{c})`$ at $`\overline{c}=0`$, and it may be explained as the results of cancellations of two different effects: a tendency of the exact $`\overline{v}(c)`$ to grow faster with $`\beta V_o`$ than the prediction of the linear response, for low barriers, and the tendency of $`\overline{c}_{max}`$ to grow linearly with $`\beta V_o`$ at high barriers, leading to $`\overline{v}_{max}\overline{c}_{max}\beta V_o/\sqrt{\alpha L}`$ for very large $`\beta V_o`$. Similar results, with different analytic forms for $`\overline{v}(\overline{c})`$ may be obtained for the parabolic barriers or other parametric forms of the external potential.

In Figure 3 we present the density profiles and the steady currents for a smooth gaussian barrier of width $`\alpha =0.707\sigma `$, space period $`L=30\sigma `$, and two set of the barrier heights and the shifting rates. For $`\beta V_o=1`$ the results of the linear response theory gives a reasonably accurate description of the exact density profiles for the slowest shifting rate, $`\overline{c}=1\sigma ^1`$ in Fig. 3(a) and a very accurate results at $`\overline{c}=10\sigma ^1`$ in Fig. 3(b). The shape of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$, relative to the potential barrier (shown by the dot-filled gaussians) reflects the difference between the quasi-static behavior for $`\overline{c}=1\sigma ^1`$, and the strong effects of the kinetic effective potential $`V_k(\widehat{x})=V(\widehat{x})+\overline{c}\widehat{x}`$ at $`\overline{c}=10\sigma ^1`$, which pushes the maximum of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})`$ toward the maximum of $`V(\widehat{x})`$. The current, which may be represented by the same line with the appropriate changes in the vertical axis to get (7), has a positive contribution in front of the barrier partially cancel by the negative contribution across the barrier.

For higher barriers , $`\beta V_o=5`$, and low drift rate Figures 3(c), the system becomes close to the complete drift regime ($`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$), with a strong accumulation of particles in front of the advancing barrier, which decays exponentially $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{x})exp(\overline{c}\widehat{x})`$, so that for long distances $`L`$ between the periodic barriers the density at the receding side is extremely low compared with the density at the advancing side. The linear response results are quite out of the mark, predicting unphysical negative density at the barrier. At higher values of $`\overline{c}`$ Figures 3(d) the accumulation of particles at the barrier front is so large that the barrier becomes ineffective to keep the complete drift regime, the local chemical potential, $`\mu (\stackrel{~}{\rho })=\beta ^1log(\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ becomes comparable to $`V_o`$ and the particles jump over the barrier. The final effect is that the counter-drift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ grows and the total effective potential in (9) becomes much weaker that the external potential $`V(\widehat{x})`$. In this way, the current decreases and it becomes closer to the linear response result, with the limit of no density perturbation or steady current for very rapid displacements of the barrier ( i.e. $`\overline{c}\mathrm{}`$), for any smooth shape of the barrier.

## IV  Steady state for hard-rod particles

In the solution of the DDF equations for the ideal gas case the mean density of the system is irrelevant for the mean velocity $`\overline{v}`$, as both the density $`\rho (\widehat{x})`$ and the current $`j(\widehat{x})`$ have the common factor $`A`$ to include the constrain of fixed number of particles. In this section we explore the effects of molecular packing and correlations on the stationary currents created by the shifting external potentials $`V(xct)=V(\widehat{x})`$. For particles moving along a linear channel, the choice of hard-rods (with length $`\sigma `$) to model the interactions allows the use of the exact DF for the equilibrium free energy Percus . The functional derivative of the equilibrium free energy in (4) is

$$\frac{\delta \beta [\rho ]}{\delta \rho (x)}=log\left(\frac{\rho (x)}{1\eta (x)}\right)+_{x\sigma }^x𝑑x^{}\frac{\rho (x^{})}{1\eta (x^{})},$$
(23)
with the local packing fraction $`\eta (x)`$ defined as

$$\eta (x)=_x^{x+\sigma }𝑑x^{}\rho (x^{}).$$
(24)
The equation(9) for the stationary density becomes now an integral equation, to be solved with periodic boundary conditions and the the self-consistency requirement (11). The total number of particles in a period $`N=L\rho (\widehat{x})`$, should be controlled by the chemical potential $`\mu `$, with non-trivial dependence of $`\rho (\widehat{x})`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`j(\widehat{x})`$. Alternatively, we may solve dynamic equation (4) for $`\rho (x,t)`$, from a reasonable guess for the initial density distribution at $`t=0`$, and integrate in time until the stationary limit $`\rho (x,t)=\rho (xct)`$ is achieved. In that case, the number of particles is set with the initial guess (since equation (4) keeps constant $`N`$). We have checked that both procedures lead to the same stationary results, and the relative computational efficiency would depend on the characteristics of the external potential, and the choice of the initial profile.

For weak perturbations (weak external potentials or very large drifting rates) the linear response analysis (16), has to be applied with the hard-rods structure factor,

$$S(x,\rho )=\left[1+2\frac{\eta }{1\eta }\frac{sin(q\sigma )}{q\sigma }+2\left(\frac{\eta }{1\eta }\right)^2\frac{1cos(q\sigma )}{(q\sigma )^2}\right]^1,$$

with the packing fraction $`\eta =\sigma \rho _o`$. Near the complete packing limit $`\eta 1`$, the effect of a shifting oscillatory external potential $`V(x,t)=V_qcos(q(xct))`$, would depend strongly on the wave vector $`q\sigma `$; as shown in Figure 4(a) for constant value of $`V_q`$ (i.e. constant amplitude for the oscillation of the external potential), the optimal choice of $`q`$ to get maximum mean velocity $`\overline{v}`$, at low values of $`c`$, corresponds to $`q`$ at the first peak of the structure factor, just below $`q\sigma =2\pi `$, with a large enhancement over the velocity obtained in an ideal gas with the same external potential. For larger values of $`c`$ the maximum $`\overline{v}`$ is obtained for $`q`$ in the second or in the successive peaks of $`S(q,\rho _o)`$. The results in Figure 4(b) for constant $`qV_q`$ (i.e. constant amplitude of the oscillating force) indicate that the optimum choice in that case is always at the first peak of the structure factor, but the enhancement over the ideal gas is strongly reduced as $`c`$ increases.

For well separated periodic barriers, like gaussians of width $`\alpha `$ much larger than their period $`L`$, the main effects of the hard-rod interactions are to decrease the compressibility and to form layered structures on both sides of the barrier, as usual in the equilibrium density distributions of a hard-core fluid near a wall. In figure 5 we present the results for a dense system, with mean density $`N/L=0.8\sigma ^1`$, under the action of high gaussian barriers ($`\beta V_o=10.6`$ and width $`\alpha =0.707\sigma `$, separated by a distance $`L=30\sigma `$. At low shifting rate ($`\overline{c}=0.2\sigma ^1`$ in Fig. 5(a) ) the system is close to the complete drift limit, with very low density at the potential barrier. On both sides of the barrier here are strong oscillatory structures, around a nearly constant density. The amplitude of the oscillations is larger at the advancing side than at the receding side of the potential, but this may be understood in terms of the equilibrium density profiles for the effective kinetic potential $`V_k(\widehat{x})=V(\widehat{x})+\beta ^1\overline{c}\widehat{x}`$, which makes sharper the effective wall at one side and smoother at the opposite side.

Increasing $`\overline{c}`$, in Figures 5(b-c), produces an apparently weak effect on the density at the outside the barrier. For comparison we include the ideal gas results, for the same mean density and barrier $`\beta V_o=5`$, chosen to be equivalent to the effective barrier in the hard rod, with the recipe describe belong ,which have high peak densities at the advancing front with maximum values of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{max}=3.3\sigma ^1`$ for $`\overline{c}=1\sigma ^1`$ and$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{max}=7.5\sigma ^1`$ for $`\overline{c}=1.7\sigma ^1`$, with exponential decays toward a much lower on the receding edge of the next barrier. The low compressibility of the dense hard-rod fluid strongly reduces such accumulation of particles in front of the barrier and their sensibility to the value of $`\overline{c}`$; the main change between the results for hard-rods in Figures 5(a) and 5(b) is in the increase of the minimum density , near the barrier maximum, which indicates that the local chemical potential may get easily over $`V_o`$ with very weak changes in the local density, as the compressibility of the system $`(\beta \rho )^1d\rho /d\mu =(1\eta )^2`$ produces strong changes in $`\mu `$ with small changes in $`\eta `$, and the particles start jumping over the barrier without building up the high local densities of the ideal gas. Only for the largest value of the shifting rate, $`\overline{c}=10\sigma ^1`$ in Fig. 5(d), we start to see a clear accumulation of particles at the advancing front, but still being a small fraction of the total number of particles in the system. The oscillatory structures become damped, with respect to their shapes for lower $`\overline{c}`$ and this effect is stronger on the advancing than on the receding front, as a signature that the effect of term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the effective potential of the Euler-Lagrange equation (9) is getting over linear kinetic contribution $`\overline{c}\widehat{x}`$. The linear response results, presented as the dotted lines in Figures 5, are quite different from the full DDF calculations, as could be expected for such a high barrier, except for the largest value of $`\overline{c}=10\sigma ^1`$. However, even in that case the linear response fails to reproduce the layering structure.

Finally, we present in Figure 6, the mean velocities produced by gaussian barriers, as functions of the shifting rate, in system of different mean density. The results for the ideal gas with a barrier height of $`\beta V_o=5`$ are compared with those for mean densities of $`\rho _o=N/L=0.2`$, $`0.4`$, $`0.6`$ and $`0.8\sigma ^1`$, with barrier heights adjusted to give the same effective barrier, $`V_o\mathrm{\Delta }\mu (\rho _o)`$, in terms of the excess chemical potential over the ideal gas, at each mean density. This semi-empirical recipe is effective to give similar values of $`\overline{v}`$ for different $`\rho _o`$, while keeping the same absolute barrier height produces a rapid decrease of $`\overline{v}`$ with the mean density. In all the cases the qualitative shape of $`\overline{v}(\overline{c})`$ is similar to that of the ideal gas, with a linear growth, $`\overline{v}\overline{c}`$ in the quasi-complete drift regime, followed by a maximum mean velocity and a decrease $`\overline{v}1/\overline{c}`$ at large shifting rates. The particular values of $`\overline{v}_{max}`$ are tied to our empirical choice of the values of $`\beta V_o`$ at each mean density, but the optimal rate $`\overline{c}_{max}`$ at which it is achieved, and the generic shape of the curve are roughly independent of the barrier height. In this respect, the main effect of the hard-core interactions seems to be the broadening of the maxima which becomes much less sensitive to the value of $`\overline{c}`$ than for ideal gas systems. For very large shifting rates the linear response analysis becomes valid again, as for ideal gas systems, and it becomes independent of $`S(q,\rho )`$ and hence equal to that for the ideal gas. This may be interpreted, in physical terms, as the result of a very rapid series of of pushing and pulling forces, acting on the particles as the potential barriers go over them, with a time period much shorter than the typical collision time between particles; so that the later become irrelevant.

## V  Conclusions

We have applied the dynamic density functional (DDF) theory to study the relaxative dynamic of particles moving along one-dimensional channels, under the action of external potential shifting at constant rate. Our results could be of interest for systems of colloidal particles, with typical sizes of $`\sigma 10^7m`$, following brownian motion on water at room temperature. In that case the relevant values of the shifting rates of the external potential would be around $`10^4m/s`$, which could be achieved by the the dielectric force created on the colloidal particles by a moving laser beam or the force created on surface charged colloidal particles by a moving electric potential. Although strongly simplified with respect to the complexities of real micro-fluidic devices, we may hope that the model and its theoretical treatment contains the essential features of real systems. In principle the model could be studied directly from the stochastic equation for the brownian motion of the particles, without relaying on the equilibrium density functional formalism and its approximate application to the description of systems out of equilibrium. For the ideal gas case the results should be identical, but the DDF theory allows a direct extension to interacting systems, which we have considered here as pure repulsive interactions treating the colloidal particles in a narrow channel as hard rods particles in one dimension.

Under the effects of a periodic external potential shifted at constant rate $`c`$, the systems would achieve a steady state, with density distributions and local currents following the shift of the external potential. These are the only problems analyzed in this paper, leaving for future works the analysis of the transient evolutions to achieve such steady state from arbitrary initial conditions. The steady states are particularly appropriate to be studied within the DDF, since the structure of the relevant equations becomes similar to that of the usual density functional formalism for the equilibrium properties. Thus, the generic equation (9) is equivalent to an Euler-Lagrange equation for the equilibrium density distribution but including two extra terms as external potentials. The first one, which we have called the kinetic contribution, is just a linear potential, proportional to the shifting rate $`c`$ which breaks the symmetry between the advancing and the receding front of a shifting potential barrier. The second contribution to the effective external potential is a self-consistent term which depends on the integral of the inverse density distribution over the system, and it is proportional to the second integration constant, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which (together with the chemical potential $`\mu `$) is required to get the general solution of the integro-differential Euler-Lagrange equation for the problem. For external potentials made of periodic barriers, we have given an intuitive interpretation to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as the counter-drift current, associated to those particles which jump over the barriers and so reduce the mean current in the system, with respect to the complete-drift regime in which the full density is shifted at the same rate as the barriers, and the density distribution may be obtained as the equilibrium profiles for the fluid in presence of the external plus kinetic potentials. This regime would appear, and hence the integration constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ would vanish, whenever the potential barriers are large enough, compared with the kinetic effective potential. In the opposite limit, for very weak shifting external potentials, we have extended to the DDF the usual linear response analysis of the equilibrium density functional formalism. The range of application for such analysis is in fact enlarged with respect to the equilibrium case, since strong external potentials moving at very large rate would produce much weaker effect than the same external potentials at rest. In that limit, opposite to the complete-drift, the self-consistent contribution to the effective potentials cancels out most of the linear kinetic term and a good part of the external potential, so that the density distribution is much smoother as a function of the position that the static equilibrium density profile. Only for discontinuous external potentials, like square barriers, there would be a remnant effect of the shifting external potential in the limit of $`c\mathrm{}`$, and it should be considered as an artifact of the infinite forces acting on the particles at the jumps of $`V(x)`$.

Although we have used periodic potential barriers in our analytical and numerical solution of DDF problems, we have also considered the case of single potential barriers as the $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit of the periodic potentials. In that case, the integration constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ goes to the shifting rate $`c`$ times the bulk density of the fluid, $`\rho _o`$ far away from the moving external potential. This is the requirement to get null current away from the external perturbation as the only possible solution for the stationary density distribution in an infinite one-dimensional system with a shifting potential acting on a finite region. Any solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation with $`\mathrm{\Delta }c\rho _o`$ would imply the accumulation of particles at the advancing front of the potential barrier and the depletion of the density behind it, so that the system would not be at any stationary state. In any realistic problem, like possible devices to control the flow of colloidal particles along channels, the finite length of the channels would probably produce typical density distributions and currents closer to those analyzed here for periodic systems than to those predicted for infinite long channels.

For the periodic systems studied here, we have found that the mean velocity of the particles may be maximized by the appropriate choice of the shifting rate. The hard core interactions among the particles reduces the optimal value of $`\overline{v}_{max}`$, but makes this mean velocity a broader function of the shifting rate. At high packing fractions, $`\overline{v}_{max}`$ has a strong and non-monotonic dependence on the period of the external potential, as a results of the correlations between particles. Such effect could be used to design more effective micro-pumps or turn-pikes, in which the flow of colloidal particles would be controlled by the oscillatory external potential. The particular models studied here, ideal gas and hard-rods, under the action of gaussian potential barriers or harmonic periodic potentials, have been chosen to explore the main regimes and generic properties of stationary flows in one-dimension. There are obviously many open questions to answer and different models to be explored. The application of the density functional techniques to these systems is still at its beginnings, and it would take time to ascertain its full capabilities. However, the generic theoretical requirements: the absence of hydrodynamic effects and the similarity between the particle correlations in the dynamic and in the equivalent equilibrium systems, seem likely to be reasonable assumptions in systems of colloidal particles moving at rates of the order of microns per second, under the effects of controlled external potentials. The application of the DDF techniques to systems in higher dimensions and to non-stationary problems would hopefully benefit from what we have learned with our simpler models and problems. The design of practical micro-fluiditic devices could also be supported by the generic principles developed with these simple models, and the experimental realization of these systems appears to be within the range of the present technologies.

## VI Acknowledgments

We acknowledge financial support by the Dirección General de Investigación, MCyT, under grant number BFM2001-1679-C03-02 and by a FPU-grant number AP2001-0074 from the MECD of Spain.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since the advent of M(atrix) theory by BFSS , there has been a strong desire to construct a manifestly Lorentz covariant M(atrix) theory, but no one has succeeded in constructing such a theory thus far.

Although M(atrix) theory has been derived from the low-energy effective action of D-particles which is obtained via the dimensional reduction from the maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in ten dimensions, this theory can be also interpreted as a regularized supermembrane theory in the light-cone gauge . Then, it is natural to start with the supermembrane action in eleven dimensions and quantize it in a covariant manner in order to obtain the covariant M(atrix) theory. However, as is well known, the fermionic kappa symmetry, which is used to reduce the number of fermionic degrees of freedom by half, has given us a difficulty in covariant quantization of the supermembrane action.

Recently, there has been an interesting progress by Berkovits in the covariant quantization of the Green-Schwarz superstrings  using the pure spinors . One of the key ingredients in the Berkovits approach is the existence of the BRST charge $`Q_{BRST}=\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$ where $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ are pure spinors satisfying the pure spinor equations $`\lambda ^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^m\lambda ^\beta =0`$ and $`d_\alpha 0`$ are the fermionic constraints associated with the kappa symmetry. It is remarkable that this approach provides us the same cohomology as the BRST charge of the Neveu-Schwarz-Ramond formalism  and the correct tree amplitudes of superstrings with keeping the Lorentz covariance of the theory. Afterwards, the Berkovits approach has been investigated from various different viewpoints . In particular, more recently, the generalization of this approach to supermembrane has be done by Berkovits .

Combining the above-mentioned two observations, we are naturally led to think that we could make use of the Berkovits pure spinor formalism to construct a covariant M(atrix) theory since the covariant quantization of supermembrane has been made and the difficulty of the quantization associated with the kappa symmetry has been resolved in the pure spinor formalism. Actually, Berkovits has proposed such an interesting idea in the conference of Strings 2002 , but it is a pity that this work has not been completed so far as long as I know.

In this paper, we pursue this idea and attempt to construct a covariant M(atrix) theory by using the pure spinor formalism of supermembrane . However, we will see that the construction of a covariant M(atrix) theory is rather difficult owing to the existence of the BRST invariance $`Q_{BRST}`$ which is now promoted to a matrix symmetry (like a local gauge symmetry) in the matrix model. In this paper, we will explain in detail why it is difficult to apply the Berkovits formalism to the construction of the covariant M(atrix) model.

Thus, instead of constructing a covariant M(atrix) theory, we present how to construct a covariant matrix model of superparticle in eleven dimensions  which in some sense corresponds to a particle limit of a covariant M(atrix) theory.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, as a warmup, we construct a bosonic M(atrix) theory by starting with the first-order formalism of bosonic membrane. In section 3, we generalize the method to supermembrane and attempt to construct a covariant M(atrix) theory from the pure spinor formalism of supermembrane by Berkovits. Here we find a difficulty of constructing M(atrix) theory which is invariant under the BRST symmetry. Hence, instead we turn to the construction of a covariant matrix model of superparticle invariant under both the supersymmetry and the BRST symmetry. Furthermore, in section 4, we calculate the one loop effective potential and show that our matrix model is a free theory owing to the lack of the potential term. The final section is devoted to the conclusion.

## 2 Bosonic M(atrix) theory

In this section, we shall construct a bosonic M(atrix) theory since this construction gives us a good exercise in attempting to construct a M(atrix) theory of supermembrane based on the pure spinor formalism. In addition, we can clearly understand the difference of the construction of a matrix model between the bosonic theory and the supersymmetric one. A similar analysis has been thus far done from various different contexts .

We begin with the well-known Nambu-Goto action of the bosonic membrane in eleven dimensions in a flat space-time:

$`S_{NG}=T{\displaystyle d^3\sigma \sqrt{g}},`$ (1)
where $`T`$ is the membrane tension with dimension $`(mass)^3`$. And the induced metric and its determinant are respectively given by $`g_{ij}=_ix^a_jx^b\eta _{ab}`$, and $`g=detg_{ij}`$. We take the Minkowskian metric signature $`(,+,+,\mathrm{},+)`$. Moreover, the indices indicate $`i,j=0,1,2`$ and $`a,b,c=1,2,\mathrm{},11`$. We follow the notations and conventions of the Berkovits’ paper .

Let us perform the canonical quantization of the action (1). The canonical conjugate momenta of $`x^a`$ are derived as

$`P_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_{NG}}{\dot{x}^a}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`T\sqrt{g}g^{0j}_jx_a`$
$`=`$ $`T\sqrt{g}(g^{00}_0x_a+g^{0I}_Ix_a),`$
where we have defined as $`\dot{x}^a=_0x^a`$ and $`I,J=1,2`$. From this expression, we have the primary constraints which generate the world-volume reparametrization invariance as follows:

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}P_aP^a+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}h0,`$
$`_I`$ $`=`$ $`P_a_Ix^a0,`$ (3)
where $`h_{IJ}=_Ix^a_Jx^b\eta _{ab}`$ and $`h=deth_{IJ}`$. Given the Poisson brackets

$`\{P_a(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),x^b(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})\}=\delta _a^b\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{}),`$ (4)
it is easy to show that the constraints constitute of the first-class constraints as required:

$`\{_0(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),_0(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[_I(\stackrel{}{\sigma })h(\stackrel{}{\sigma })h^{IJ}(\stackrel{}{\sigma })+_I(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})h(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})h^{IJ}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})\right]_J\delta (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{}),`$
$`\{_0(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),_I(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[_0(\stackrel{}{\sigma })+_0(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})\right]_I\delta (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{}),`$
$`\{_I(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),_J(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`_J(\stackrel{}{\sigma })_I\delta (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})+_I(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})_J\delta (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{}).`$ (5)
Since the Hamiltonian vanishes weakly, we can introduce the extended Hamiltonian which is purely proportional to the constraints

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{\sigma }\left[e^0_0+e^I_I\right]}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\stackrel{}{\sigma }\left[e^0(\frac{1}{2T}P_aP^a+\frac{T}{2}h)+e^IP_a_Ix^a\right]},`$
where $`e^0`$ and $`e^I`$ are the Lagrange multiplier fields. Via the Legendre transformation, we can obtain the first-order action:

$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3\sigma P_a_0x^a}{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma ^0H}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3\sigma \left[P_a_0x^ae^0\left(\frac{1}{2T}P_aP^a+\frac{T}{2}h\right)e^IP_a_Ix^a\right]}.`$
Note that this action is very similar to the bosonic part of the Berkovits action of supermembrane  in that both the actions are in the first-order Hamiltonian form and invariant under only the world-volume reparametrizations as local symmetries, so it is worthwhile to construct a bosonic matrix model from this action. Actually, we will see that the construction of M(atrix) theory follows a very similar path to the present bosonic formalism.

In order to construct a matrix model, we first perform the integration over $`P_a`$ whose result is given by

$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3\sigma \left[\frac{1}{e^0}\left(_0x^ae^I_Ix^a\right)^2e^0h\right]}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3\sigma \left[\frac{1}{e^0}\left(_0x^ae^I_Ix^a\right)^2\frac{1}{2}e^0\{x^a,x^b\}^2\right]},`$
where in the second equation we have introduced the Lie bracket defined as

$`\{X,Y\}=\epsilon ^{IJ}_IX_JY.`$ (9)
Here let us try to understand the geometrical meaning of the Lagrange multiplier fields, which can be done by comparing the above action with the Polyakov action (which is at least classically equivalent to the Nambu-Goto action (1))

$`S_P=T{\displaystyle d^3\sigma \left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}g^{ij}_ix^a_jx^b\eta _{ab}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}\right)}.`$ (10)
Then we can express the metric tensor in terms of the Lagrange multiplier fields

$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^Ie^Jh_{IJ}(e^0)^2h& h_{JK}e^K\\ h_{IL}e^L& h_{IJ}\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
$`g^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{(e^0)^2h}& \frac{e^J}{(e^0)^2h}\\ \frac{e^I}{(e^0)^2h}& h^{IJ}\frac{e^Ie^J}{(e^0)^2h}\end{array}\right).`$ (16)
Next we will fix the reparametrization invariance by two gauge conditions 222For comparison with the case of supermembrane in the next section, we will not take the light-cone gauge explicitly in what follows. . The first choice of the gauge conditions is given by

$`e^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}},e^I=0,`$ (17)
or equivalently, from (16),

$`g_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& h_{IJ}\end{array}\right).`$ (20)
With the gauge conditions (17), the action (8) reduces to

$`S_0={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma ^0d^2\sigma \sqrt{h}\left[\left(_0x^a\right)^2\frac{1}{2h}\{x^a,x^b\}^2\right]}.`$ (21)
Finally, we make the following replacements

$`{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \sqrt{h}}`$ $``$ $`Tr,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}}\{x^a,x^b\}`$ $``$ $`i[x^a,x^b].`$ (22)
Consequently, we arrive at a matrix model of the bosonic membrane

$`S_0={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau Tr\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(_\tau x^a\right)^2+\frac{1}{4}[x^a,x^b]^2\right\}},`$ (23)
where we have set $`T=1`$ and $`\sigma ^0=\tau `$. This matrix model describes a matrix model of the bosonic membrane.

We can also select another form of the gauge conditions $`e^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}`$ and $`e^I=\frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}\epsilon ^{IJ}_JA_0`$. Then, the action (8) takes the form

$`S_0={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma ^0d^2\sigma \sqrt{h}\left[\left(_0x^a+\frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}\{A_0,x^a\}\right)^2\frac{1}{2h}\{x^a,x^b\}^2\right]}.`$ (24)
With the replacements (22), we have a matrix model

$`S_0={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau Tr\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(D_\tau x^a\right)^2+\frac{1}{4}[x^a,x^b]^2\right\}},`$ (25)
where $`D_\tau x^a=_\tau x^a+i[A_\tau ,x^a]`$ and $`A_\tau A_0`$. This matrix model is obviously invariant under the $`SU(N)`$ gauge symmetry

$`x^a`$ $``$ $`x^a=U^1x^aU,`$
$`A_\tau `$ $``$ $`A_\tau ^{}=U^1A_\tau UiU^1_\tau U.`$ (26)
With the gauge condition $`A_\tau =0`$, this matrix model reduces to the previous matrix model (23). Note that if we selected the light-cone gauge, the matrix model (25) would become equivalent to the bosonic part of M(atrix) theory by BFSS except irrelevant dimensional factors and numerical constants  333M(atrix) theory manifestly depends on the background flat metric, so it is not a background independent formalism. See  for the pioneering works of the background independent matrix models. . In this way, we can obtain the bosonic M(atrix) theory by starting with the bosonic membrane action and utilizing the first-order Hamiltonian formalism.

## 3 A covariant matrix model of 11D superparticle

We now turn our attention to an attempt of the construction of a covariant M(atrix) theory of supermembrane in the pure spinor formalism and point out a difficulty of it. Then we construct a new matrix model of superparticle in the pure spinor formalism.

Before doing so, let us start by reviewing the pure spinor formalism of supermembrane . From now on, we consider only the flat membrane such as toroidal membrane where the scalar density $`\sqrt{h}`$ can be set to unity.

The first-order Hamiltonian action of supermembrane reads

$`S={\displaystyle d^3\sigma \left[P_c\mathrm{\Pi }_0^c+L_{WZ}+e^0\left(P_cP^c+det\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_I^c\mathrm{\Pi }_{Jc}\right)\right)+e^IP_c\mathrm{\Pi }_I^c\right]},`$ (27)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^c=_ix^c+\frac{i}{2}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^c_i\theta `$ and $`L_{WZ}`$ denotes the Wess-Zumino term whose concrete expression takes the form

$`L_{WZ}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\epsilon ^{ijk}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{cd}_i\theta \left(\mathrm{\Pi }_j^c\mathrm{\Pi }_k^d{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_j^c\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^d_k\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^c_j\theta \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^d_k\theta \right),`$ (28)
where we define as $`\epsilon _{012}=\epsilon ^{012}=+1`$ and $`\epsilon ^{0IJ}=\epsilon ^{IJ}`$. This action is invariant under the kappa symmetry and the global space-time supersymmetry as well as the world-volume reparametrizations. The primary constraints consisting of 16 first-class and 16 second-class constraints appear when we evaluate the canonical conjugate momenta $`p_\alpha `$ of the spinor fields $`\theta ^\alpha `$, which are given by

$`d_\alpha `$ $``$ $`p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{^RS}{\dot{\theta }^\alpha }}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}P^c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\theta )_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\epsilon ^{IJ}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cd}\theta )_\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Pi }_I^c\mathrm{\Pi }_J^d{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_I^c\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^d_J\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^c_I\theta \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^d_J\theta \right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\epsilon ^{IJ}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{cd}_I\theta \left(\mathrm{\Pi }_J^d{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^d_J\theta \right)(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\theta )_\alpha `$
$``$ $`0,`$
where the superscript $`R`$ on $`\frac{^RS}{\dot{\theta }^\alpha }`$ denotes the right differentiation. These constraints satisfy the following Poisson bracket

$`\{d_\alpha (\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),d_\beta (\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})\}=\left[iP_c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^c+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\epsilon ^{IJ}\mathrm{\Pi }_{Ic}\mathrm{\Pi }_{Jd}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{cd}\right]\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{}).`$ (30)
In deriving this equation, we need to use the eleven dimensional Fierz identity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(\alpha \beta }^b\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \delta )}^{cd}\eta _{bc}=0`$ and the Poisson brackets

$`\{\stackrel{~}{P}_c(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),x^d(\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _c^d\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{}),`$
$`\{p_\alpha (\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\theta ^\beta (\sigma ^0,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\alpha ^\beta \delta ^2(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{}),`$ (31)
where $`\stackrel{~}{P}_c`$, the conjugate momenta of $`x^c`$, are defined as

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_c`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\dot{x}^c}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`P_c+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\epsilon ^{IJ}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{cd}_I\theta \left(\mathrm{\Pi }_J^d{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^d_J\theta \right).`$
Since we cannot quantize the action (27) covariantly owing to the kappa symmetry, Berkovits has proposed a pure spinor action, which is of form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3\sigma [P_c\mathrm{\Pi }_0^c+L_{WZ}+d_\alpha _0\theta ^\alpha +w_\alpha _0\lambda ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_cP^c+det\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_I^c\mathrm{\Pi }_{Jc}\right))`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`(d\mathrm{\Gamma }_c_I\theta )\mathrm{\Pi }_J^c\epsilon ^{IJ}+(w\mathrm{\Gamma }_c_I\lambda )\mathrm{\Pi }_J^c\epsilon ^{IJ}i\epsilon ^{IJ}(w\mathrm{\Gamma }_c_I\theta )(\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^c_J\theta )+i\epsilon ^{IJ}(w_\alpha _I\theta ^\alpha )(\lambda _\beta _J\theta ^\beta )`$
$`+`$ $`e^I(P_c\mathrm{\Pi }_I^c+d_\alpha _I\theta ^\alpha +w_\alpha _I\lambda ^\alpha )],`$
where $`d_\alpha `$ is defined as in (29). In this action, the kappa symmetry has been already gauge-fixed covariantly, whereas the shift symmetries of the world-volume reparametrizations are still remained. (The lapse symmetry is gauge-fixed to $`e^0=\frac{1}{2}`$.) This action is invariant under the BRST transformation $`Q_B=d^2\sigma \lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$. As a peculiar feature of supermembrane, additional constraints

$`\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^c\lambda =0,(\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd}\lambda )\mathrm{\Pi }_{Jc}=0,\lambda _\alpha _J\lambda ^\alpha =0`$ (34)
are required to guarantee the BRST invariance of the action and the nilpotence of the BRST transformation. Note that the constraints (34) break the covariance on the world-volume explicitly.

Note that the bosonic part in the pure spinor action (33) of supermembrane shares the same form as in the bosonic membrane argued in the previous section, so as in the bosonic membrane, let us proceed to integrate over $`P_c`$ and choose the gauge conditions $`e^I=\epsilon ^{IJ}_JA_0`$ 444Comparing (7) and (33), we notice that the definition of $`e^0`$ and $`e^I`$ in supermembrane differs from that in the bosonic membrane by the minus sign.. As a result, the action (33) reduces to the form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3\sigma [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_0x^c+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^cD_0\theta )^2+L_{WZ}+d_\alpha D_0\theta ^\alpha +w_\alpha D_0\lambda ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}det\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_I^c\mathrm{\Pi }_{Jc}\right)`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`(d\mathrm{\Gamma }_c_I\theta )\mathrm{\Pi }_J^c\epsilon ^{IJ}+(w\mathrm{\Gamma }_c_I\lambda )\mathrm{\Pi }_J^c\epsilon ^{IJ}i\epsilon ^{IJ}(w\mathrm{\Gamma }_c_I\theta )(\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^c_J\theta )`$
$`+`$ $`i\epsilon ^{IJ}(w_\alpha _I\theta ^\alpha )(\lambda _\beta _J\theta ^\beta )],`$
where we have defined as $`D_0=_0\epsilon ^{IJ}_JA_0_I`$.

Via the replacements (22) (recall that we have set $`h=1`$) from the continuum theory to the matrix model, we obtain a covariant matrix model corresponding to the pure spinor action of supermembrane:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\tau Tr\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\tau x^c+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}(\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^cD_\tau \theta D_\tau \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^c\theta ))^2+d_\alpha D_\tau \theta ^\alpha +w_\alpha D_\tau \lambda ^\alpha `$ (36)
$``$ $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_cd)_\alpha \left(i[x^c,\theta ^\alpha ]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\theta )_\beta \{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta \}\right)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_cw)_\alpha \left(i[x^c,\lambda ^\alpha ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\theta )_\beta [\lambda ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta ]\right)`$
$``$ $`(w_\alpha \lambda _\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_cw)_\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\lambda )_\beta )\{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta \}+L_{WZ}+L_{det\pi ^2}\},`$
where we have defined the covariant derivative as $`D_\tau x^c=_\tau x^c+i[A_\tau ,x^c]`$ as before, and the curly bracket $`\{,\}`$ denotes the anti-commutator whereas the square bracket $`[,]`$ denotes the commutator. The last two terms $`L_{WZ}`$ and $`L_{det\pi ^2}`$ come from the Wess-Zumino term and $`\frac{1}{2}det\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_I^c\mathrm{\Pi }_{Jc}\right)`$, respectively, and involve the complicated expression. Note that in moving the continuum theory to the matrix theory we must pay attention to how to order various terms (in particular, in $`L_{WZ}`$ and $`L_{det\pi ^2}`$). Our guiding principle is to order the terms in order to keep symmetries of the theory as much as possible.

At this stage, compared with the bosonic membrane in the previous section, we further have to impose the requirements of the supersymmetry and the BRST invariance on the matrix model (36). First, let us consider the supersymmetry. This symmetry is a global symmetry, so the matrix extension can be given by

$`\delta x^c={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^cϵ,\delta \theta ^\alpha =ϵ^\alpha ,`$ (37)
where the parameter $`ϵ`$ is not a matrix but a mere number. We have checked that under this supersymmetry the matrix model (36) is invariant except the Wess-Zumino term $`L_{WZ}`$. To do so, we need to define $`L_{det\pi ^2}`$ in an appropriately ordered form:

$`L_{det\pi ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[x^a,x^b]^2{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[x^a,x^b](\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\theta )_\alpha [x_b,\theta ^\alpha ]`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[x^a,x^b](\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\theta )_\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\theta )_\beta \{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta \}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\theta )_\alpha [x^b,\theta ^\alpha ](\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\theta )_\beta [x_b,\theta ^\beta ]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\theta )_\alpha [x^b,\theta ^\alpha ](\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\theta )_\beta [x^a,\theta ^\beta ]+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\theta )_\alpha [x^b,\theta ^\alpha ](\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[b}\theta )_\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a]}\theta )_\rho \{\theta ^\beta ,\theta ^\rho \}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[a}\theta )_\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b]}\theta )_\beta \{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta \}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\theta )_\rho (\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\theta )_\sigma \{\theta ^\rho ,\theta ^\sigma \},`$
where we have used the notation like $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[a}\theta )_\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b]}\theta )_\beta \frac{1}{2}\left((\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\theta )_\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\theta )_\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\theta )_\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\theta )_\beta \right)`$. The reason why the Wess-Zumino term is not invariant under the supersymmetry might be related to the fact that this term breaks the $`SU(N)`$ gauge symmetry since it includes not the covariant derivative $`D_\tau `$ but the ordinary derivative $`_\tau `$. Since the supersymmetry is an essential ingredient of our formalism, we stick to keep this symmetry and drop the Wess-Zumino term $`L_{WZ}`$ from the matrix theory.

Furthermore, in case of supermembrane in the pure spinor formalism, we must respect the BRST symmetry. The Berkovits’ BRST symmetry is simply given by $`Q_B=d^2\sigma \lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$. Thus, using Eq. (22) the matrix extension must take the form of $`Q_B=Tr\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$. Since we have dropped the Wess-Zumino term, $`d_\alpha `$ is now simply given by

$`d_\alpha =p_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(P_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\theta )_\alpha +(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\theta )_\alpha P_c\right).`$ (39)
Then we have the following BRST transformation

$`Q_B\theta ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^\alpha ,`$
$`Q_Bx^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\left(\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^c\lambda +\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }^c\theta \right),`$
$`Q_Bd_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(P_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\lambda )_\alpha +(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\lambda )_\alpha P_c\right),`$
$`Q_Bw_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d_\alpha .`$ (40)
Although this BRST symmetry has a rather simple form (essentially is of the same form as in superparticle), this symmetry constrains the form of the action severely since all the fields are now promoted to matrices. Actually we can check that the BRST-invariant matrix model must take the form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau Tr\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(D_\tau x^c+\frac{i}{4}(\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^cD_\tau \theta D_\tau \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^c\theta )\right)^2+d_\alpha D_\tau \theta ^\alpha +w_\alpha D_\tau \lambda ^\alpha \right\}}.`$ (41)
It is also worthwhile to notice that the BRST transformation is nilpotent up to the ’gauge’ transformations

$`\delta _Gd_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[(D_\tau \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_c\lambda +\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_cD_\tau \theta )(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\lambda )_\alpha +(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\lambda )_\alpha (D_\tau \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_c\lambda +\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_cD_\tau \theta )\right],`$
$`\delta _Gw_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left[P_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\lambda )_\alpha +(\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\lambda )_\alpha P_c\right],`$ (42)
which are indeed symmetry of the matrix model (41). Let us notice that this matrix model is nothing but the matrix model which can be obtained from the pure spinor formalism of the 11D superparticle  by generalizing all the local fields to matrices.

We shall finally make comments on some features of matrix model (41). First of all, this matrix model is not only invariant under the space-time supersymmetry and the Berkovits’ BRST transformation but also manifestly covariant under $`SO(1,10)`$ Lorentz group, which is the most appealing point of the model at hand. However, the matrix model does not have the potential term given by $`([x^a,x^b])^2`$ (which exists in $`L_{det\pi ^2}`$) as in the BFSS M(atrix) model so the physical properties of the both models are quite different as shown in the next section.

## 4 The one loop effective potential

In this section, we wish to clarify the physical properties of our new matrix model of 11D superparticle. It is well known that the superparticle action in the continuum theory  is the zero-slope limit of the superstring theory , so it might hopefully shed some light on the underlying structure of space-time. However, as shown below by evaluating the one-loop effective potential the matrix theory of superparticle in the pure spinor formalism is a free theory, so scattering amplitudes should be calculated by determining the vertex operators and inserting them in the path integral.

In order to evaluate the one-loop effective potential, we take the gauge condition $`A_\tau =0`$ and introduce the FP ghosts $`(\overline{C},C)`$ 555See  for calculations of the effective action in M(atrix) theory.. After integrating over $`A_\tau `$, we obtain the gauge-fixed, BRST-invariant action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau Tr\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(_\tau x^c+\frac{i}{4}(\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^c_\tau \theta _\tau \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^c\theta )\right)^2+d_\alpha _\tau \theta ^\alpha +w_\alpha _\tau \lambda ^\alpha \overline{C}_\tau C\right\}}.`$ (43)
As a background, we select a non-trivial classical solution

$`x_{(0)}^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}v\tau & 0\\ 0& v\tau \end{array}\right),x_{(0)}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& 0\\ 0& b\end{array}\right),`$ (48)
which describes two particles moving with velocities $`v/2`$ and $`v/2`$ and separated by the distance $`b`$ along the $`x^2`$-th axis. Around this background, we expand $`x^c`$ by $`x^c=x_{(0)}^c+y^c`$ where the fluctuation $`y^c`$ takes the off-diagonal form

$`y^c=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& y^c\\ y^c& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (51)
Similarly, $`C`$, $`\overline{C}`$, $`w_\alpha `$, $`\lambda ^\alpha `$, $`p_\alpha `$ and $`\theta ^\alpha `$ are expanded in the off-diagonal form like $`y^c`$. (For convenience, we have used the same letters as the original fields for expressing the off-diagonal matrix elements.)

After inserting these equations into the action (41) and taking the quadratic terms with respect to the fluctuations, we obtain the following action:

$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d\tau Tr(y_c^{}_\tau ^2y^c+p_\alpha _\tau \theta ^\alpha +p_\alpha ^{}_\tau \theta ^\alpha +w_\alpha _\tau \lambda ^\alpha +w_\alpha ^{}_\tau \lambda ^\alpha `$ (52)
$``$ $`\overline{C}_\tau C^{}\overline{C}^{}_\tau C).`$
In deriving this quadratic action, we have used the fact that in the one-loop approximation, we can put $`P^c=_\tau x_{(0)}^c`$. Then the partition function is given by

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟X\text{e}^{S_2}}`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`(det_\tau ^2)^{11}(det_\tau )^{46}(det_\tau )^{64}(det_\tau )^2(det_\tau )^2`$
$`=`$ $`(det_\tau )^{2246+64+2+2}`$
$`=`$ $`1,`$
where we have symbolically denoted the integration measure by $`𝒟X`$ and taken account of the contribution from the missing ghosts $`(b,c)`$  in the pure spinor formalism. The result shows that at least in the one-loop level the theory is trivial, in other words, two particles do not interact with each other 666One subtle point of the above calculation is that we have taken the ’axial’ gauge $`A_\tau =0`$. It is known that the effective potential in general depends on the gauge conditions whereas the S-matrix does not depend on the gauge. To have the gauge-invariant effective action, we usually take the background field-dependent gauges as in , which guarantees the gauge invariance at all the stage of calculations. Our result obtained above, however, is manifestly gauge-invariant so it is free from the problem of the gauge dependence.. Recall that in M(atrix) theory by BFSS the similar calculation leads to the phase shift of D-particles in the eikonal approximation . Our matrix theory therefore seems to be a free theory owing to the lack of the potential term $`([x^a,x^b])^2`$. Thus, in order to have non-trivial physical scattering amplitudes we must evaluate the expectation values of the vertex operators even in the matrix theory.

Finally, let us ask ourselves why we have obtained the matrix model (41) which is quite different from the BFSS matrix model. First, we should notice that the transformation law of the supersymmetry is completely different in both the formalisms. That is, our law (37) is purely from supermembrane whereas their law is from super Yang-Mills theory

$`\delta X^i`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ^T\gamma ^i\theta ,`$
$`\delta \theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(D_tX^i\gamma _i+\gamma _{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[X^i,X^j]\gamma _{ij}\right)ϵ+ϵ^{}`$
$`\delta A_0`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ^T\theta ,`$ (54)
where $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$ are two independent 16 component constant parameters. (Note that $`A_0`$ is needed to make the algebra of supersymmetry close.) Second, the Berkovits’ BRST invariance plays a role similar to a local symmetry in the matrix model, thereby strongly restricting the form of the action of the matrix model. In particular, the non-trivial potential $`([x^a,x^b])^2`$ in M(atrix) theory, which is also present in the $`L_{det\pi ^2}`$ in Eq. (38), is not allowed to satisfy the matrix version of the Berkovits’ BRST symmetry. In any case, since the symmetries in both the present matrix model and the BFSS M(atrix) theory are different so that the two theories belong to different universality classes, it is natural to obtain the different theories in the both approaches.

## 5 Conclusion

In this article, we have investigated the possibility of making use of the Berkovits pure spinor formalism in order to make a Lorentz covariant M(atrix) theory. We have clarified that the naive expectation of it does not work well since symmetries in the Berkovits pure spinor formalism and the BFSS M(atrix) theory are different. Moreover, we have pointed out that the Berkovits’ BRST symmetry excludes the presence of the potential $`([x^a,x^b])^2`$ which not only leads to an interesting interpretation of space-time relevant to the non-commutative geometry but also produces the non-trivial interaction of 11D supergravitons in M(atrix) theory. Instead, we have constructed a matrix model of 11D superparticle which is in a sense a particle limit of M(atrix) theory.

Obviously we have many remaining future works to be investigated. For instance, we have not constructed the vertex operators which should be also invariant under the Berkovits’ BRST transformation. Related to this work, there is a computation of scattering amplitude using superparticle in the continuum theory  where the amplitude leads to a divergent result and the coefficient is fixed by using the duality of superstring theory. We think that once the vertex operators are constructed in the present formalism, the scattering amplitude can be calculated and gives rise to a finite result. This study is under investigation and we wish to report the results in future publication.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to N. Berkovits and M. Tonin for valuable discussions and would like to thank Dipartimento di Fisica, Universita degli Studi di Padova for its kind hospitality. This work has been partially supported by the grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, No. 14540277.