A Proof of Classical Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the proof of the classical fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) and the challenges faced in deriving the expected value of position over time, specifically $$\langle x(t) \rangle$$. The initial steps leading to the probability density function and its perturbation effects are acknowledged as correct, but difficulties arise in evaluating the integral involving the conditional probability $$P(x,t|x',0)$$ and the initial distribution. There is also skepticism regarding the FDT's form presented in the Wikipedia article, particularly concerning the relationship between the autocorrelation function and the Fourier transform. The participant expresses a desire for alternative proofs or guidance on resolving the integral issue. Overall, the conversation highlights both the mathematical complexities involved and the need for clarification on the FDT's implications.
Twigg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
893
Reaction score
483
TL;DR Summary
Found a proof of the classical version of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, couldn't figure out one step. Involves classical transition probabilities for a stochastic, dissipative system. How does one evaluate the integral ##\int dx \text{ } x \int dx' P(x,t|x',0) W_0 (x') x'(0)##.
Sorry if there's latex errors. My internet connection is so bad I can't preview.

Here's the wikipedia proof I'm referring to. I'm fine with the steps up to $$W(x,0) = W_0 (x) [1 + \beta f_0 (x(0) - \langle x \rangle_0) ]$$ where ##W(x,t)## is the probability density of finding the system at state ##x## at time ##t##, ##f_0## is the magnitude of a perturbation ##f_0 << kT## on the Hamiltonian H of the form ##H = H_0 - x f_0 \Theta (-t) ## where ##\Theta (t)## is the heaviside step function, ##\langle \cdot \rangle_0## is expectation value in the unperturbed equilibrium distribution (called ##W_0 (x)##), and where ##\beta = \frac{1}{kT}##.

I was able to reproduce the approximate, first order perturbation expression for ##W(x,0)## just fine using taylor/binomial series. It's the next step, using this distribution to prove $$\langle x(t) \rangle = \langle x \rangle_0 + \beta f_0 A(t)$$ where ##A(t) = \langle [x(t) - \langle x \rangle_0][x(0) - \langle x \rangle_0] \rangle_0## is the autocorrelation function.

I'm confident that the general procedure is to write $$\langle x(t) \rangle = \int dx \text{ } x \int dx' P(x,t|x',0) W(x',0) $$ where ##P(x,t|x',0)## is the conditional probability for state x at time t given the system is in state x' at time 0. I can see why ##\int dx' P(x,t|x',0) W_0 (x') = W_0(x)## since ##W_0## is an equilibrium distribution. I also have a hunch that ##\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \int dx' P(x,t|x',0) W(x',0) = W_0(x)## for any initial distribution since it's a dissipative system and will reach equilibrium eventually.

However, given all this, what I get is $$\langle x(t) \rangle = \int dx \text{ } x \int dx' P(x,t|x',0) W_0 (x') [1 + \beta f_0 (x'(0) - \langle x \rangle_0) ] = \langle x \rangle_0 + \beta f_0 \left[ \int dx \text{ } x \int dx' P(x,t|x',0) W_0 (x') x'(0) - \int dx \text{ } x W_0(x) \langle x \rangle_0 \right] = \langle x \rangle_0 + \beta f_0 \left[ \int dx \text{ } x \int dx' P(x,t|x',0) W_0 (x') x'(0) - \langle x \rangle_0^2 \right]$$ It's the integral $$I = \int dx \text{ } x \int dx' P(x,t|x',0) W_0 (x') x'(0)$$ that gets me. I have no idea how to evaluate this, because the thing that ##P(x,t|x',0)## is multiplied by isn't a probability distribution. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Alternatively, if you have a different concise proof, I'm all ears. I was interested in this proof because it's (relatively) short and might be easier to remember.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Update: I'm having serious doubts with the form of the FDT stated in the wikipedia article. They claim $$S_x (\omega) = \frac{2kT}{\omega} \mathrm{Im}[\chi(\omega)]$$ However, for the vanilla Langevin equation $$m\ddot{x} = -\gamma \dot{x} + \eta$$ I am fairly confident that $$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \langle \dot{x}(t+\tau) \dot{x}(t) \rangle \propto e^{-\gamma \tau}$$ In other words $$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \langle \dot{x}(t+\tau) \dot{x}(t) \rangle \propto \chi(\tau)$$ and that's inconsistent with the wikipedia article's claim since the Fourier transform of ##e^{-\gamma \tau}## has non-zero real part.
 
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...

Similar threads

Back
Top