SciPost Submission Page
Hydrodynamics of a relativistic charged fluid in the presence of a periodically modulated chemical potential
by Nicolas Chagnet, Koenraad Schalm
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Nicolas Chagnet |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202304_00008v2 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2024-01-08 |
| Date submitted: | 2023-12-14 12:39 |
| Submitted by: | Chagnet, Nicolas |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Theoretical, Computational |
Abstract
We study charged hydrodynamics in a periodic lattice background. Fluctuations are Bloch waves rather than single momentum Fourier modes. At boundaries of the unit cell where hydrodynamic fluctuations are formally degenerate with their Umklapped copy, level repulsion occurs. Novel mode mixings between charge, sound, and their Umklapped copies appear at finite chemical potential -- both at zero and finite momentum. We provide explicit examples for an ionic lattice, i.e. a periodic external chemical potential, and verify our results with numerical computations in fluid-gravity duality.
Author comments upon resubmission
We have edited the manuscript to reflect the discussions on the reports of the previous submission.
List of changes
- To address the referee's point, we have replace "The above constitutive relations also hold in a static equilibrium background. In a non-relativistic system, the static equilibrium is uniquely determined. In a relativistic system --- which we use in this paper --- it is convenient to choose the reference frame for which the fluid is at rest." by "The above constitutive relations also hold in a static equilibrium background. In a system with Galilean or relativistic Lorentz boost invariance --- which we use in this paper --- it is convenient to choose the reference frame for which the equilibrium fluid is at rest." in page 4.
- We edited a typo in Equation 59 here a power in the denominator was incorrect. The rest of the results were computed using the correct value and are left unchanged.
Published as SciPost Phys. 16, 028 (2024)