# Acoustic Energy and Momentum in a Moving Medium

## I Introduction

Many discussions of the “energy” and “momentum” associated with waves propagating through moving fluids can be found in the physics, engineering, and mathematical fluid mechanics literature . Various definitions are proposed, some of which lead to conserved quantities, and some to quantities that are not conserved but instead exchanged between the wave and the mean flow. In part the multiplicity of definitions is due to difficulty in deciding what fraction of the energy or momentum of the system properly belongs to the wave and what fraction should be associated with the moving medium. It is also often unclear how to divide equations expressing conservation laws into terms relating to the conserved quantity, and terms acting as sources for this quantity. Related to these primarily cosmetic problems are more fundamental issues as to whether the “energy” or “momentum” under discussion is the true newtonian energy or momentum, or instead pseudo-energy and pseudomomentum. Thus we have the question “what is the momentum of a sound wave” raised by Sir Rudolf Peierls in his book Surprises in Theoretical Physics , and the salutary polemic “On the ‘Wave Momentum’ Myth” by M. E. McIntyre .

The most extensive analyses of conserved wave properties have been carried out by the fluid mechanics community . Typically these papers adopt a lagrangian (following individual particles in the flow) or mixed lagrangian-eulerian approach, as opposed to the purely eulerian (describing the flow in terms of a velocity field) approach which would be most familiar to a physicist. In addition a physicist reading this literature feels the lack of a general organising principle behind the definition and derivation of the conservation laws. The present paper is intended to remedy some of these problems — at least for the special case of sound waves propagating through an irrotational homentropic flow. Although rather a restricted class of motions, this is still one of considerable interest in condensed matter physics. It includes phonon propagation in a bose condensate, and therefore lies at the heart of the two fluid model of superfluids. By exploiting W. Unruh’s ingenious identification  of the wave equation for sound waves in such a flow with the equation for a scalar field propagating in a background gravitational field, I extract the conservation laws from the principle of general covariance. Deriving the conservation laws in this way may seem like a case of taking a sledge-hammer to crack a nut, but the formalism is familar to most physicists, automatic in application, and the ambiguities in defining the conserved quantities turn out to lie in the choice of whether to identify the energy-momentum tensor as $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ or as $`T_\nu ^\mu `$. Also, when quantities are not conserved, as is the case of the wave momentum in a shear flow, their sources arise naturally from the connection terms in the covariant derivative.

In section two I discuss the action describing the irrotational motion of an homentropic fluid. In section three I derive Unruh’s equation from the action principle. In section four I explain why we often need information beyond the solutions of linearized wave equation, and in section five derive the conservation equations that follow from the linearized equation. Section six interprets these equations in terms of the motion of phonons. The discussion section repeats the warnings from  that the appearance of quantum quasi-particles in any argument is a sure sign that the we are considering pseudomomentum and not the actual momentum of the system.

The work reported here was motivated by a desire to understand better the role of acoustic radiation stress in the two-fluid model of a superfluid. It may be relevent to the recent controversy over the Iordanskii force acting on a vortex moving with respect to the normal fluid component. The use of the Unruh formalism in this context was suggested by Volovik.

## II The Action Priciple

The most straight forward way of deriving conservation laws starts from an action principle. Noether’s theorem then provides us with an explicit formula for a conserved quantity corresponding to each symmetry of the action. In fluid mechanics, unfortunately, at least when we restrict ourselves to an eulerian decription of the flow field, action principles are in short supply. Of course there must exist some action principle because ultimately the fluid can be treated as a system of particles. A particle-based action, however, requires a lagrangian description of the flow. When it is re-expressed in eulerian terms constraints appear, and these limit its utility.

If we restrict ourselves to flows that are both irrotational and homentropic — the latter term meaning in practice that we assume the pressure to be a function of the fluid density only — then the number of degrees of freedom available to the fluid is dramatically reduced. In this case the eulerian equations of motion are derivable from the action

$$S=d^4x\left\{\rho \dot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{2}\rho (\varphi )^2+u(\rho )\right\}.$$
(1)   
Here $`\rho `$ is the mass density, $`\varphi `$ the velocity potential, and the overdot denotes differentiation with respect to time. The function $`u`$ may be identified with the internal energy density.

Equating to zero the variation of $`S`$ with respect to $`\varphi `$ yields the continuity equation

$$\dot{\rho }+(\rho 𝐯)=0,$$
(2)   
where $`𝐯\varphi `$. Varying $`\rho `$ gives Bernoulli’s equation

$$\dot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{2}𝐯^2+\mu (\rho )=0,$$
(3)   
where $`\mu (\rho )=du/d\rho `$. In most applications $`\mu `$ would be identified with the specific enthalpy. For a superfluid condensate the entropy density, $`s`$, is identically zero and $`\mu `$ is the local chemical potential.

It is worth noting that our action could not have arisen from some rewriting of the action for the motion of a system of individual particles. We are allowing variations of $`\rho `$ without requiring simultaneous variations of $`\varphi `$, and such variations conjure new matter out of nothing.

The gradient of the Bernoulli equation is Euler’s equation of motion for the fluid. Combining this with the continuity equation yields a momentum conservation law

$$_t(\rho v_i)+_j(\rho v_jv_i)+\rho _i\mu =0.$$
(4)   
We simplify (4) by introducing the pressure, $`P`$, which is related to $`\mu `$ by $`P(\rho )=\rho 𝑑\mu `$. Then we can write

$$_t(\rho v_i)+_j\mathrm{\Pi }_{ji}=0,$$
(5)   
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=\rho v_iv_j+\delta _{ij}P.$$
(6)   
This is the usual form of the momentum flux tensor in fluid mechanics.

The relations $`\mu =du/d\rho `$ and $`\rho =dP/d\mu `$ show that $`P`$ and $`u`$ are related by a Legendre transformation, $`P=\rho \mu u(\rho )`$. From this and the Bernoulli equation we see that the pressure is equal to minus the action density,

$$P=\rho \dot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{2}\rho (\varphi )^2+u(\rho ).$$
(7)   
Consequently we can write

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=\rho _i\varphi _j\varphi \delta _{ij}\left\{\rho \dot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{2}\rho (\varphi )^2+u(\rho )\right\}.$$
(8)   
This is the flux tensor that would appear were we to use Noether’s theorem to derive a law of momentum conservation directly from the invariance of the action under the translation $`\varphi (𝐫)\varphi (𝐫𝐚)`$, $`\rho (𝐫)\rho (𝐫𝐚)`$. This is not a trivial point because there are at two similar, but distinct, notions of “momentum”. True momentum is associated with the symmetry of the action under a simultaneous translation all the particles in the system. Its conservation requires an absence of external forces. Pseudomomentum is the quantity that is preserved when the action is left invariant when the disturbance in the medium is relocated, but the reference position of each individual particle is left unchanged. Conservation of pseudomomentum requires homogeneity of the medium rather than of space. Replacing the field $`\varphi (𝐫)`$ by $`\varphi (𝐫𝐚)`$ would normally correspond to the latter symmetry, but, because of the absence of explicit particles, at this point in our discussion the two concepts coincide.

## III The Unruh Metric

We now obtain the linearized wave equation for the propagation of sound waves in a background mean flow. Let

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{(0)}+\varphi _{(1)}`$ (9)   
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{(0)}+\rho _{(1)}.`$ (10)   
Here $`\varphi _{(0)}`$ and $`\rho _{(0)}`$ define the mean flow. We assume that they obey the equations of motion. The quantities $`\varphi _{(1)}`$ and $`\rho _{(1)}`$ represent small amplitude perturbations. Expanding $`S`$ to quadratic order in these perturbations gives

$$S=S_0+d^4x\left\{\rho _{(1)}\dot{\varphi }_{(1)}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{c^2}{\rho _{(0)}}\right)\rho _{(1)}^2+\frac{1}{2}\rho _{(0)}(\varphi _{(1)})^2+\rho _{(1)}𝐯\varphi _{(1)}\right\}.$$
(11)   
Here $`𝐯𝐯_{(0)}=\varphi _{(0)}`$. The speed of sound, $`c`$, is defined by

$$\frac{c^2}{\rho _{(0)}}=\frac{d\mu }{d\rho }|_{\rho _{(0)}},$$
(12)   
or more familiarly

$$c^2=\frac{dP}{d\rho }.$$
(13)   
The terms linear in the perturbations vanish because of our assumption that the zeroth-order variables obey the equation of motion.

The equation of motion for $`\rho _{(1)}`$ derived from (11) is

$$\rho _{(1)}=\frac{\rho _{(0)}}{c^2}\{\dot{\varphi }_{(1)}+𝐯\varphi _{(1)}\}.$$
(14)   
In general we are not allowed to substitute a consequence of an equation of motion back into the action integral. Here however, because $`\rho _{(1)}`$ occurs quadratically, we may use (14) to eliminate it and obtain an effective action for the potential $`\varphi _{(1)}`$ only

$$S_{(2)}=d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}\rho _{(0)}(\varphi _{(1)})^2\frac{\rho _{(0)}}{2c^2}(\dot{\varphi }_{(1)}+𝐯\varphi _{(1)})^2\right\}.$$
(15)   
The resultant equation of motion for $`\varphi _{(1)}`$ is 

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+𝐯\right)\frac{\rho _{(0)}}{c^2}\left(\frac{}{t}+𝐯\right)\varphi _{(1)}=(\rho _{(0)}\varphi _{(1)}).$$
(16)   
Note that in deriving this equation we have not assumed that the background flow $`𝐯`$ is steady, only that it satisfies the equations of motion. Naturally, in order for our waves to be distinguishable from the background flow, the latter should be slowly changing and have a longer length scale than the wave motion.

Now (16) is equivalent to a perhaps more familiar equation 

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+𝐯\right)\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{}{t}+𝐯\right)\varphi _{(1)}=\frac{1}{\rho _{(0)}}(\rho _{(0)}\varphi _{(1)}),$$
(17)   
as can be seen by using the mass conservation equation $`_t\rho _{(0)}+\rho _{(0)}𝐯=0`$, but the form (16) has the advantage that it can be written as<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*I use the convention that greek letters run over four space-time indices $`0,1,2,3`$ with $`0t`$, while roman indices refer to the three space components.

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \varphi _{(1)}=0,$$
(18)   
where

$$\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\rho _{(0)}}{c^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1,& 𝐯^T\\ 𝐯,& \mathrm{𝐯𝐯}^Tc^2\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right).$$
(19)   
This is perhaps most easily seen by observing that the action (15) is equal to $`S`$ where

$$S=d^4x\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _{(1)}_\nu \varphi _{(1)}=d^4x\sqrt{g}L.$$
(20)   
Equation (18) has the same form as that of a scalar wave propagating in a gravitational field with Riemann metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. The idea of writing the acoustic wave equation in this way, as well as the general relativity analogy, is due to Unruh . I will therefore refer to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ as the Unruh metric.

The $`4`$-volume measure $`\sqrt{g}`$ is equal to $`\rho _{(0)}^2/c`$, and the covariant components of the metric are

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{\rho _{(0)}}{c}\left(\begin{array}{cc}c^2v^2,& 𝐯^T\\ 𝐯,& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right).$$
(21)   
The associated space-time interval is therefore

$$ds^2=\frac{\rho _{(0)}}{c}\left\{c^2dt^2\delta _{ij}(dx^iv^idt)(dx^jv^jdt)\right\}.$$
(22)   
Metrics of this form, although without the overall conformal factor $`\rho _{(0)}/c`$, appear in the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) formalism of general relativity. There $`c`$ and $`v^i`$ are refered to as the lapse function and shift vector repectively. They serve to glue successive three-dimensional time slices together to form a four dimensional space-time. In our present case, provided $`\rho _{(0)}/c`$ can be regarded as a constant, each $`3`$-space is ordinary flat $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ equipped with the rectangular cartesian metric $`g_{ij}^{(space)}=\delta _{ij}`$ — but the resultant space-time is in general curved, the curvature depending on the degree of inhomogeneity of the mean flow $`𝐯`$.

In the geometric acoustics limit sound will travel along the null geodesics defined by $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. Even in the presence of spatially varying $`\rho _{(0)}`$ we would expect the ray paths to depend only on the local values of $`c`$ and $`𝐯`$, so it is perhaps a bit surprising to see the density entering the expression for the Unruh metric. However an overall conformal factor does not affect null geodesics, and thus variations in $`\rho _{(0)}`$ do not influence the ray tracing. For steady flow, and in the case that only $`𝐯`$ is varying, it is shown in the appendix that the null geodesics coincide with the ray paths obtained by applying Hamilton’s equations for rays

$$\dot{x}^i=\frac{\omega }{k_i},\dot{k}_i=\frac{\omega }{x^i},$$
(23)   
to the appropriate Doppler shifted frequency

$$\omega (𝐱,𝐤)=c|𝐤|+𝐯𝐤.$$
(24)   
When $`𝐯`$ is in the $`x`$ direction only, we can also rewrite $`ds^2`$ as

$$ds^2=\frac{\rho _{(0)}}{c}\left\{\left(dx(v+c)dt\right)\left(dx(vc)dt\right)dy^2dz^2\right\}.$$
(25)   
This shows that the $`xt`$ plane null geodesics coincide with the expected characteristics of the wave equation in the background flow.

## IV Momentum Flux

The fluid in a sound wave has average velocity zero, but since the fluid is compressed in the half cycle when it is moving in the direction of propagation and rarefied when it is moving backwards there is a net mass current (and hence a momentum density) which is of second order in the sound wave amplitude $`a_0`$. This becomes clearer if one solves the equation

$$\frac{dx}{dt}=v(x)=a_0\mathrm{cos}(kx\omega t)$$
(26)   
for the trajectory $`x(t)`$ of a fluid particle. This equation is non-linear ($`x`$ appears inside the cosine), and solving perturbatively one finds a secular drift at second order in $`a_0`$.

$$x(t)=x(0)+\text{oscillations}+\frac{1}{2}a_0^2\left(\frac{k}{\omega }\right)t+\mathrm{}.$$
(27)   
Although the time average of the eulerian fluid velocity, $`v`$, is zero, the time average of the lagrangian velocity, $`v_L=\dot{x}`$, is not. The difference beweeen the two average velocities is the Stokes drift. The Stokes drift is $`O(a_0^2)`$ while the wave equation is accurate only to $`O(a_0)`$, so care is necessary before using its solutions to evaluate the mass current. Similar problems occur in defining the energy density and energy and momentum fluxes which also require second order accuracy.

We can expand the velocity field as

$$𝐯=𝐯+𝐯_{(1)}+𝐯_{(2)}+\mathrm{},$$
(28)   
where the second-order correction $`𝐯_{(2)}`$ arises as as consequence of the nonlinearities in the equations of motion. This correction will possess both oscillating and steady components. The oscillatory components arise because a strictly harmonic wave with frequency $`\omega _0`$ will gradually develop higher frequency components due to the progressive distortion of the wave as it propagates. (A plane wave eventually degenerates into a sequence of shocks.). These distortions are usually not significant in considerations of energy and momentum balance. The steady terms, however, represent $`O(a_0^2)`$ alterations to the mean flow caused by the sound waves, and these often possess energy and momentum comparable to that of the sound field.

Even if we temporarily ignore these effects and retain only $`𝐯_{(1)}`$ as determined from the linearized wave equation, the density and pressure will still have expansions

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{(0)}+\rho _{(1)}+\rho _{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$ (29)   
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`P_{(0)}+P_{(1)}+P_{(2)}+\mathrm{}.`$ (30)   
As before, the grading $`(n)`$ refers to the number of powers of the sound wave amplitude in an expression. The small parameter in these expansions is the Mach number given by a typical value of $`v_{(1)}`$ divided by the local speed of sound.

Consider for example the momentum density $`\rho 𝐯`$ and the momentum flux

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=\rho v_iv_j+\delta _{ij}P.$$
(31)   
It is reasonable to define the momentum density and the momentum flux tensor associated with the sound field as the second order terms

$$𝐣^{(\mathrm{phonon})}=\rho 𝐯=\rho _{(1)}𝐯_{(1)}+𝐯\rho _{(2)},$$
(32)   
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^{(\mathrm{phonon})}=\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}v_{(1)j}+v_i\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)j}+v_j\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)i}+\delta _{ij}P_{(2)}+v_iv_j\rho _{(2)}.$$
(33)   
(The angular brackets indicate that we should take a time average over a sound wave period. There is no need to consider terms first order in the amplitude because these average to zero.) We see that to compute them we need to consider the second order contributions to both $`P`$ and $`\rho `$.

We can compute $`P_{(2)}`$ in terms of first order quantities from

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P=\frac{dP}{d\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }\mu +\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2P}{d\mu ^2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )^2+O((\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )^3)$$
(34)   
and Bernoulli’s equation in the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\dot{\varphi }_{(1)}\frac{1}{2}(\varphi _{(1)})^2𝐯\varphi _{(1)},$$
(35)   
together with

$$\frac{dP}{d\mu }=\rho ,\frac{d^2P}{d\mu ^2}=\frac{d\rho }{d\mu }=\frac{\rho }{c^2}.$$
(36)   
Expanding out and grouping terms of appropriate orders gives

$$P_{(1)}=\rho _{(0)}(\dot{\varphi }_{(1)}+𝐯\varphi _{(1)})=c^2\rho _{(1)},$$
(37)   
which we already knew, and

$$P_{(2)}=\rho _{(0)}\frac{1}{2}(\varphi _{(1)})^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho _{(0)}}{c^2}(\dot{\varphi }_{(1)}+𝐯\varphi _{(1)})^2.$$
(38)   
We see that $`P_{(2)}=\sqrt{g}L`$ where $`L`$ is the Lagrangian density for our sound wave equation.

To extract $`\rho _{(2)}`$ in this manner we need more information about the equation of state of the fluid than is used in the linearized theory. This information is most conveniently parameterized by the logarithmic derivative of the speed of sound with pressure (a fluid-state physics analogue of the Grüneisen parameter). Using this together with the previous results for $`P_{(2)}`$, we find that

$$\rho _{(2)}=\frac{1}{c^2}P_{(2)}\frac{1}{\rho _{(0)}}\rho _{(1)}^2\frac{d\mathrm{ln}c}{d\mathrm{ln}\rho }|_{\rho _{(0)}}.$$
(39)   
## V Conservation Laws

While we cannot compute the “true” energy and momentum densities and fluxes without including non-linear corrections to the motion, it is often more useful find closely related quantities whose conservation laws are a consequence of the linearized wave equation, and which therefore provide information about the solutions of this equation. Our “general relativistic” formalism provides a sytematic way of finding such conserved quantities. It is well known  that any action $`S`$ automatically provides us with a covariantly conserved and symmetric energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ defined by

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}.$$
(40)   
The functional derivative is here defined by

$$\delta S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}\delta g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(41)   
It follows from the equations of motion derived from $`S`$ that

$$D_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(42)   
where $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative. For example

$$D_\alpha A_\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=_\alpha A_\sigma ^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \gamma }^\mu A_\sigma ^{\gamma \nu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \gamma }^\nu A_\sigma ^{\mu \gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \sigma }^\gamma A_\gamma ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(43)   
The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha `$ are the components of the Levi-Civita connection compatable with the Unruh metric, viz.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha =g^{\alpha \rho }[\beta \gamma ,\rho ],$$
(44)   
where

$$[\beta \gamma ,\rho ]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g_{\gamma \rho }}{x^\beta }+\frac{g_{\beta \rho }}{x^\gamma }\frac{g_{\beta \gamma }}{x^\rho }\right).$$
(45)   
For our scalar field

$$T^{\mu \nu }=^\mu \varphi _{(1)}^\nu \varphi _{(1)}g^{\mu \nu }\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _{(1)}_\beta \varphi _{(1)}\right).$$
(46)   
The derivatives with raised indices in (46) are defined by

$$^0\varphi _{(1)}=g^{0\mu }_\mu \varphi _{(1)}=\frac{1}{\rho _{(0)}c}(\dot{\varphi }_{(1)}+𝐯\varphi _{(1)}),$$
(47)   
and

$$^i\varphi _{(1)}=g^{i\mu }_\mu \varphi _{(1)}=\frac{1}{\rho _{(0)}c}\left(v_i(\dot{\varphi }_{(1)}+𝐯\varphi _{(1)})c^2_i\varphi _{(1)}\right).$$
(48)   
Thus

$`T^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _{(0)}^3}}\left(\rho _{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi _{(1)})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{(0)}}{c^2}}(\dot{\varphi }_{(1)}+𝐯\varphi _{(1)})^2\right)`$ (49)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\rho _{(0)}^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{W_r}{c^2}}\right)`$ (50)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\rho _{(0)}^3}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}.`$ (51)   
The last two equalities serve as a definition of $`W_r`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}`$. The quantity $`W_r`$ is often decribed as the acoustic energy density relative to the frame moving with the local fluid velocity. Because its conservation law will depend on the steadiness of the flow rather than the absence of time-dependent external forces, it is more correctly a pseudo-energy density.

Using (37), and (38) in the form

$$\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _{(1)}_\beta \varphi _{(1)}=\frac{c}{\rho _{(0)}^2}P_{(2)},$$
(52)   
we can express the other components of (46) in terms of physical quantities. We find that

$`T^{i0}=T^{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\rho _{(0)}^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}(P_{(1)}v_{(1)i}+v_iW_r)\right)`$ (53)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\rho _{(0)}^3}}\left(\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)i}+v_i\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}\right).`$ (54)   
The first line in this expression shows that, up to an overall factor, $`T^{i0}`$ is the energy flux – the first term being the rate of working by a fluid element on its neigbour, and the second the advected energy. The second line is written so as to suggest the usual relativistic identification of (energy-flux)$`/c^2`$ with the density of momentum. This interpretation, however, requires that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}`$ be the second order correction to the density, which it is not.

Similarly

$$T^{ij}=\frac{c^2}{\rho _{(0)}^3}\left(\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}v_{(1)j}+v_i\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)j}+v_j\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)i}+\delta _{ij}P_{(2)}+v_iv_j\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}\right).$$
(55)   
We again see that if we identify $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}`$ with $`\rho _{(2)}`$ then $`T^{ij}`$ has the exactly the form as we expect for the second order momentum flux tensor.

The reason why the linear theory makes the erroneous identification of $`\rho _{(2)}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}`$ is best seen if we set $`𝐯=const.`$ Then the equation

$$_tT^{00}+_iT^{i0}=0,$$
(56)   
holds. This reads

$$\frac{c^2}{\rho _{(0)}^3}\left(_t\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}+_i(\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)i}+v_i\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)})\right)=0,$$
(57)   
and looks very much like the second order continuity equation

$$_t\rho _{(2)}+_i(v_{(2)}\rho _{(0)}+\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)i}+v_i\rho _{(2)})=0,$$
(58)   
once we ignore $`𝐯_{(2)}`$. When we go beyond the linear theory (58) provides a source or sink term in the mass conservation equation for $`𝐯_{(2)}`$ , and is not an equation determining $`\rho _{(2)}`$.

We can also write the mixed co- and contra-variant components of the energy momentum tensor $`T_\nu ^\mu =T^{\mu \lambda }g_{\lambda \nu }`$ in terms of physical quantities. This mixed tensor turns out to be more useful than the doubly contravariant tensor. Because we no longer enforce a symmetry between the indices $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$, the quantity $`W_r`$ is no longer required to perform double duty as both an energy and a density. We find

$`T_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\rho _{(0)}^2}}\left(W_r+\rho _{(1)}𝐯_{(1)}𝐯\right)`$ (59)   
$`T_0^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\rho _{(0)}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_{(1)}}{\rho _{(0)}}}+𝐯𝐯_{(1)}\right)(\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}+\rho _{(1)}v_{(0)i}),`$ (60)   
and

$`T_i^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\rho _{(0)}^2}}\rho _{(1)}𝐯_{(1)i}`$ (61)   
$`T_j^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\rho _{(0)}^2}}\left(\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}v_{(1)j}+v_i\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)j}+\delta _{ij}P_{(2)}\right).`$ (62)   
We see that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}`$ does not appear here, and all these terms may be identified with physical quantities which are reliably computed from solutions of the linearized wave equation.

The covariant conservation law can be written as either $`D_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$ or as $`D_\mu T_\nu ^\mu =0`$. The two equations are consistent with each other because the covariant derivative is defined so that$`D_\lambda g_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }D_\lambda `$. To extract the physical meaning of these equations we need to evaluate the the connection forms $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu `$.

In what follows I will consider only a steady background flow, and further one for which $`\rho _0`$, $`c`$, and hence $`\sqrt{g}=\rho _{(0)}^2/c`$ can be treated as constant. To increase the readabilty of some expressions I will also choose units so that $`\rho _0`$ and $`c`$ become unity and no longer appear as overall factors in the metric or the four dimensional energy-momentum tensors. I will however reintroduce them when they are required for dimensional correctness in expressions such as $`\rho _{(0)}𝐯_{(1)}`$ or $`W_r/c^2`$.

From the Unruh metric we find

$`[ij,k]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (63)   
$`[ij,0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_iv_j+_jv_i)`$ (64)   
$`[i0,j]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_iv_j_jv_i)`$ (65)   
$`[0i,0]`$ $`=`$ $`[i0,0]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i|v|^2`$ (66)   
$`[00,i]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i|v|^2`$ (67)   
$`[00,0]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (68)   
I have retained the expression $`\frac{1}{2}(_iv_j_jv_i)`$ in $`[i0,j]`$, since it is possible that our wave equation has greater generality than its derivation.

We therefore find

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐯)|v|^2`$ (69)   
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i0}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i|v|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_j(_iv_j_jv_i)`$ (70)   
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_i(𝐯)|v|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i|v|^2`$ (71)   
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_iv_j+_jv_i)`$ (72)   
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j0}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_i_j|v|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_jv_k_kv_j)(v_kv_ic^2\delta _{ik})`$ (73)   
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_i(_jv_k+_kv_j).`$ (74)   
From (45) we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \beta }^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\sqrt{g}}{x^\beta },$$
(75)   
so, with $`\sqrt{g}=const.`$, the trace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \beta }^\mu `$ is zero. One may verify that the above expressions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu `$ obey this identity.

We now evaluate

$`D_\mu T^{\mu 0}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu T^{\mu 0}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \gamma }^\mu T^{\gamma 0}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^0T^{\mu \nu }`$ (76)   
$`=`$ $`_\mu T^{\mu 0}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^0T^{\mu \nu }.`$ (77)   
After a little algebra we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^0T^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}(_iv_j+_jv_i)(\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}v_{(1)j}+\delta _{ij}P_{(2)}).$$
(78)   
Note the non-appearence of $`\rho _{(1)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}`$ in the final expression — even though both quantities appear in $`T^{\mu \nu }`$.

The conservation law therefore becomes

$$_tW_r+_i(P_{(1)}v_{(1)i}+v_iW_r)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}(_iv_j+_jv_i)=0,$$
(79)   
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}=\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}v_{(1)j}+\delta _{ij}P_{(2)}.$$
(80)   
This is an example of the general form of energy law derived by Longuet-Higgins and Stuart, originally in the context of ocean waves. (See also  for a slightly earlier, but less general, case.) The relative energy density, $`W_rT^{00}`$, is not conserved. Instead an observer moving with the fluid sees the waves acquiring energy from the mean flow at a rate given by the product of a radiation stress $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}`$ with the mean-flow rate of strain. Such non-conservation is not surprising. Seen from the viewpoint of the moving frame the flow is no longer steady, while (pseudo) energy conservation requires a time-independent medium.

Notice that, since we are assuming that $`\rho _{(0)}`$ is a constant, we should for consistency require $`𝐯=0`$. Thus the isotropic part of the radiation stress (the part $`\delta _{ij}`$) does no work. This is fortunate because the non-linear theory shows that the isotropic radiation stress contains a part dependent on $`\mathrm{ln}c/\mathrm{ln}\rho `$ which is missed by the linear approximation. (see however,)

We now examine the energy conservation law coming from the zeroth component of the mixed energy-momentum tensor. We need

$`D_\mu T_0^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu T_0^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu 0}^\rho T_\rho ^\mu `$ (81)   
$`=`$ $`_\mu T_0^\mu [\mu 0,\rho ]T^{\mu \rho }`$ (82)   
$`=`$ $`_\mu T_0^\mu [i0,0]T^{i0}[00,i]T^{0i}[i0,j]T^{ij}.`$ (83)   
We now observe that $`T^{i0}=T^{0i}`$ while $`[00,i]=[i0,0]`$, and that $`[i0,j]=[j0,i]`$, while $`T^{ij}=T^{ji}`$. Thus the connection contribution vanishes. This form of the energy conservation law is therefore

$$_t\left(W_r+\rho _{(1)}𝐯_{(1)}𝐯\right)+_i\left((\frac{P_{(1)}}{\rho _{(0)}}+𝐯𝐯_{(1)})(\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}+\rho _{(1)}v_{(0)i})\right)=0.$$
(84)   
Here we see that the combination $`W_r+\rho _{(1)}𝐯_{(1)}𝐯`$ does  correspond to a conserved energy. This conservation law was originally derived by Blokhintsev for slowly varying flows, and more generally by Cantrell and Hart in their study of the acoustic stability of rocket engines. See also reference , and  eq. (5.18).

Now we turn to the equation for momentum conservation. Working similarly to the energy law we find

$`D_\mu T_j^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu T_j^\mu [\mu j,\rho ]T^{\mu \rho }`$ (85)   
$`=`$ $`_\mu T_j^\mu [0j,0]T^{00}[ij,0]T^{i0}[0j,i]T^{0i}`$ (86)   
$`=`$ $`_\mu T_j^\mu \rho _{(1)}v_{(1)i}_jv_i.`$ (87)   
Again notice the cancellation of the terms containing $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{(2)}`$.

The covariant conservation equation $`D_\mu T_j^\mu =0`$ therefore reads

$$_t\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)j}+_i\left(\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}v_{(1)j}+v_i\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)j}+\delta _{ij}P_{(2)}\right)+\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)i}_jv_i=0.$$
(88)   
The connection terms have provided a source term for the momentum density. Thus, in an inhomogeneous flow field, momentum is exchanged beween the waves and the mean flow.

## VI Phonons and Conservation of Wave Action

If the mean flow changes only slowly over many wavelengths, the sound field can locally be approximated by a plane wave

$$\varphi (x,t)=a_0\mathrm{cos}(𝐤𝐱\omega t).$$
(89)   
The frequency $`\omega `$ and the wave-vector $`𝐤`$ are here related by the Doppler-shifted dispersion relation $`\omega =\omega _r+𝐤𝐯,`$ where the relative frequency, $`\omega _r=c|k|`$, is that measured in the frame moving with the fluid. A packet of such waves moves at the group velocity

$$𝐔=\dot{𝐱}=c\frac{𝐤}{|k|}+𝐯.$$
(90)   
As the wave progresses through regions of varying $`𝐯`$, the parameters $`𝐤`$ and $`a_0`$ will slowly evolve. The change in $`𝐤`$ is given by the ray tracing formula (A17)

$$\frac{dk_j}{dt}=k_i\frac{v_j}{x^j},$$
(91)   
where the time derivative is taken along the ray

$$\frac{d}{dt}=\frac{}{t}+𝐔.$$
(92)   
The evolution of the amplitude $`a_0`$ is linked with that of the energy density, $`W_r`$ through

$$W_r=\frac{1}{2}a_0^2\rho _{(0)}\frac{\omega _r^2}{c^2}.$$
(93)   
Now for a homogeneous stationary fluid we would expect our macroscopic plane wave to correspond to a quantum coherent state whose energy is given in terms of the (quantum) average phonon density $`\overline{N}`$ as

$$E_{tot}=(\text{Volume})W_r=(\text{Volume})\overline{N}\mathrm{}\omega _r.$$
(94)   
Since it is a density of “particles”, $`\overline{N}`$ should remain the same when viewed from any frame, consequently the relation

$$\overline{N}\mathrm{}=\frac{W_r}{\omega _r}$$
(95)   
should hold true generally. In classical fluid mechanics the quantity $`W_r/\omega _r`$ is called the wave action.

The time averages of other components of the energy momentum tensor may be also expressed in terms of $`\overline{N}`$. For the mixed tensor we have

$`T_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`W_r+𝐯\rho _{(1)}𝐯_{(1)}=\overline{N}\mathrm{}\omega `$ (96)   
$`T_0^i`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{P_{(1)}}{\rho _{(0)}}}+𝐯𝐯_{(1)})(\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}+\rho _{(1)}v_i)=\overline{N}\mathrm{}\omega U_i`$ (97)   
$`T_i^0`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)i}=\overline{N}\mathrm{}k_i`$ (98)   
$`T_j^i`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{(0)}v_{(1)i}v_{(1)j}+v_i\rho _{(1)}v_{(1)j}+\delta _{ij}P_{(2)}=\overline{N}\mathrm{}k_jU_i.`$ (99)   
The last result uses the fact that $`P_{(2)}=0`$ for a plane progressive wave.

Inserting these approximate expressions for the time averages into the Blokhintsev energy conservation law (84) we find that

$$\frac{\overline{N}\mathrm{}\omega }{t}+(\overline{N}\mathrm{}\omega 𝐔)=0.$$
(100)   
We can write this as

$$\overline{N}\mathrm{}\left(\frac{\omega }{t}+𝐔\omega \right)+\mathrm{}\omega \left(\frac{\overline{N}}{t}+(\overline{N}𝐔)\right)=0.$$
(101)   
The first term is equal to $`d\omega /dt`$ along the rays and vanishes for a steady mean flow as a consequence of the hamiltonian nature of the ray tracing equations. The second term must therefore also vanish. This represents the conservation of phonons, or in classical language, the conservation of wave-action.

In a similar manner the time average of (87) may be written

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{N}k_j}{t}}+(\overline{N}k_j𝐔)+\overline{N}k_i{\displaystyle \frac{v_i}{x^j}}`$ (102)   
$`=`$ $`\overline{N}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_j}{t}}+𝐔k_j+k_i{\displaystyle \frac{v_i}{x^j}}\right)+k_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{N}}{t}}+(\overline{N}𝐔)\right).`$ (103)   
We see therefore that the momentum law is equivalent to phonon-number conservation combined with the ray tracing equation (A17).

## VII Discussion

The possibilty of interpreting the time average of our momentum conservation law in terms of quantum quasi-particles should warn us that we are dealing with pseudomomentum and not with newtonian momentum. Nonetheless the quantity $`\rho _{(1)}𝐯_{(1)}=\overline{N}\mathrm{}𝐤`$ is reliably computed from the linearized wave equation, and is part of the true momentum. It is simply not all of it. Even in the absence of a mean flow with its $`\rho _{(2)}𝐯`$ contribution we still have to contend with $`\rho _{(0)}𝐯_{(2)}`$, and this can be important. As an example , consider a closed cylinder filled with fluid. At one end of the cylinder a piston is driven so as to generate plane sound waves which completely span the cross section of the tube. At the other end a second piston is driven at the same frequency with its phase adjusted so as to absorb the sound waves without reflection. It easy to see that an extra pressure equal to $`W_r`$ is exerted on the ends of the tube over and above whatever isotropic pressure acts on the ends and sides equally. It is “obvious” that this is the force per unit area $`\overline{N}\mathrm{}𝐤c`$ required to generate and absorb the phonon beam “momentum”. Unfortunately for this simple idea, it is equally obvious that the time average center-of-mass velocity of the fluid in the tube vanishes, so the true momentum density in the beam is exactly zero. The $`\rho _{(1)}𝐯_{(1)}`$ contribution to the momentum density is exactly cancelled by a $`\rho _{(0)}𝐯_2`$ counterflow. This eulerian streaming is driven by the fluid source term for $`𝐯_{(2)}`$ implicit in (58) . (In a lagrangian description the particles merely oscillate back and forth with no secular drift). The momentum flux however is exactly the same as if (the italics are from ) there was no medium and the phonons were particles possessing momentum $`\mathrm{}𝐤`$. This is frequently true: the flux of pseudomomentum is often equal to the flux of true momentum to $`O(a^2)`$ accuracy. Pseudomomentum flux can therefore be used to compute forces. On the other hand the density of true momentum in the fluid and the density of pseudomomentum are usually unrelatedThis does not mean that the attribution of momentum to a phonon in the two-fluid model for a superfluid is incorrect. In superfluid hydrodynamics the $`\rho _{(0)}𝐯_2`$ counterflow is accounted for separately from the $`\rho _{(1)}𝐯_{(1)}=\overline{N}h\overline{𝐤}`$ normal-component mass flux. The counterflow is included in the supercurrent needed to enforce $`(\rho _n𝐯_n+\rho _s𝐯_s)=0`$..

It should be said that the $`\rho _{(0)}𝐯_2`$ counterflow will not always cancel the $`\rho _{(1)}𝐯_1`$ wave pseudomomentum. The $`𝐯_2`$ flow depends the geometry. It is found from the source equation (58) and from the force the sound field applies to the fluid. The latter will be small when there is no dissipation, as is the case in a superfluid, and for an isolated sound beam source in an infinite medium $`𝐯_2`$ will consist of a flow directed radially inwards towards the transducer of sufficient magnitude to supply the mass flowing out along the sound beam. In the presence of dissipation the force becomes important, leading to acoustic streaming.

Consider our closed cylinder further. From (39) we see that in a system with fixed $`P`$, and in the presence of the sound wave, the mean density of the fluid will be reduced by

$$\rho _{(2)}=\frac{W_r}{c^2}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}c}{d\mathrm{ln}\rho }|_{\rho _{(0)}}.$$
(104)   
Since our cylinder has fixed volume, this density reduction cannot take place. Instead it is opposed by a pressure on the cylinder wall

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P=W_r\frac{d\mathrm{ln}c}{d\mathrm{ln}\rho }|_{\rho _{(0)}},$$
(105)   
that must be added to the isotropic pressure in the absence of the sound wave. The complete radiation stress tensor is therefore

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}=W_r\left(\frac{k_ik_j}{k^2}+\delta _{ij}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}c}{d\mathrm{ln}\rho }\right).$$
(106)   
This result goes back to Brillouin. The true radiation stress therefore differs from the pseudomomentum flux tensor in its isotropic part. Forces computed from pseudomomentum flux will therefore be incorrect if this pressure gradient is important. Usually it is not. See  for examples.

## VIII Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grant NSF-DMR-98-17941. I would like to thank Edouard Sonin, David Thouless, and Ping Ao for many discussions, and Stefan Llewellyn-Smith for useful e-mail.

## A Geodesics and Hamiltonian Flows

In this appendix we show that the null geodesics of the Unruh metric coincide with conventional hamiltonian optics ray tracing. The usual ray tracing equations are derived from $`\omega (𝐤,𝐱)`$ as

$$\dot{𝐱}=\frac{\omega }{𝐤},\dot{𝐤}=\frac{\omega }{𝐱}.$$
(A1)   
In our case $`\omega (𝐤,𝐱)=c|k|+𝐯𝐤`$. Thus

$$\frac{dx^i}{dt}=v_i+c\frac{k_i}{|k|},\frac{dk_i}{dt}=\frac{v_j}{x^i}k_j.$$
(A2)   
We begin by noting that geodesics with an affine parameter $`\tau `$ are stationary paths for the lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }\frac{dx^\nu }{d\tau }.$$
(A3)   
To make connection with the ray tracing formalism we consider the corresponding hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu ,$$
(A4)   
and write down Hamilton’s equations with $`\tau `$ playing the role of time

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_\mu }}=g^{\mu \nu }p_\nu `$ (A5)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_\mu }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x^\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{\alpha \beta }}{x^\mu }}p_\alpha p_\beta .`$ (A6)   
Combining these gives

$$\frac{d^2x^\mu }{d\tau ^2}=\frac{g^{\mu \beta }}{x^\alpha }\frac{dx^\alpha }{d\tau }p_\mu +g^{\mu \nu }\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{g^{\alpha \beta }}{x^\nu }\right)p_\alpha p_\beta .$$
(A7)   
Now for matrices $`𝐠`$ we have

$$d𝐠^1=𝐠^1(d𝐠)𝐠^1,$$
(A8)   
so with $`(𝐠)_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`(𝐠^1)_{\alpha \beta }=g^{\alpha \beta }`$ we can write

$$\frac{d^2x^\mu }{d\tau ^2}+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\left(\frac{g_{\nu \alpha }}{x^\beta }+\frac{g_{\nu \beta }}{x^\alpha }\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{x^\nu }\right)\frac{dx^\alpha }{d\tau }\frac{dx^\beta }{d\tau }=0,$$
(A9)   
which is the geodesic equation.

We now examine these equations for the particular case of the Unruh metric. We define a $`4`$-vector $`p_\mu =(\omega ,k_i)`$ so that $`p_\mu x^\mu =\omega t𝐤𝐱`$. Then

$$H=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu =\frac{1}{2}\left((\omega 𝐯𝐤)^2c^2|k|^2\right).$$
(A10)   
Hamilton’s equations become

$$\frac{dx^0}{d\tau }=\frac{dt}{d\tau }=\frac{H}{\omega }=\omega 𝐯𝐤,$$
(A11)   
and

$$\frac{dx^i}{d\tau }=\frac{H}{k_i}=v_i(\omega 𝐯𝐤)+c^2k_i.$$
(A12)   
For null geodesics $`(\omega 𝐯𝐤)^2c^2|k|^2=0`$, or $`(\omega 𝐯𝐤)=c|k|`$. Thus

$$\frac{dx^i}{dt}=v_i+\frac{c^2k_i}{(\omega 𝐯𝐤)},$$
(A13)   
or

$$\frac{dx^i}{dt}=v_i+c\frac{k_i}{|k|},$$
(A14)   
which is the group velocity equation. We also find

$$\frac{d\omega }{d\tau }=\frac{H}{t}=0$$
(A15)   
if the flow is steady, and

$$\frac{dk_i}{d\tau }=\frac{H}{x^i}=(\omega 𝐯𝐤)\frac{v_j}{x^i}k_j,$$
(A16)   
which is equivalent to the momentum evolution equation

$$\frac{dk_i}{dt}=\frac{v_j}{x^i}k_j.$$
(A17)