text:
# Non-uniqueness of the 𝜆Φ⁴-vacuum

## I Introduction

Various quantum field theories supposed to describe fundamental interactions in physics are scale invariant, for instance gauge field theories describing the electromagnetic and the strong interaction. In many cases, however, one may observe a scale dependence of observables, i.e. vacuum expectation values of suitable operators. In order to elucidate the origin of this scale it might be important to examine the corresponding vacuum states. The properties of the vacuum state of self-interacting theories could provide a deeper understanding of the origin of inherent scales. To start investigations in this direction it seems legitimate to consider at first a simple but generic model scenario. As an instructive example we focus on the massless, neutral $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory.

The $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory was studied extensively in the framework of perturbation theory. This approach is based on the vacuum state of the free theory, which is scale invariant in the massless case and independent of the interaction. A modification of the vacuum state due to symmetry breaking induced by the self-interaction is not attainable in perturbation theory. The ground state of the non-interacting Hamiltonian is unique and coincides with the free vacuum state. However, the interacting Hamiltonian does not necessarily possess a unique ground state and thus an analogous identification with the exact vacuum state of the interacting theory does not hold in general. In order to specify this vacuum state it is essential to employ an appropriate non-perturbative treatment of the interaction.

During the last decades non-perturbative techniques have become increasingly important owing to their relevance to QCD. Special attention was devoted to the non-trivial structure of the vacuum. Especially, there are indications for a vacuum degeneracy in the non-Abelian SU(2)-gauge theory . As another example one may investigate the non-linear Liouville model , which does not possess a translationally invariant vacuum.

In this paper we would like to advocate ideas along this line of reasonings. It is our main intention to prove a clear assertion concerning the vacuum state in the special case of the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory. For this purpose we employ the axiomatic approach of Wightman, cf. .

This article is organized as follows: The Wightman axioms summarized in the appendix are utilized to deduce a proof of the non-uniqueness of the vacuum state of the scale invariant $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory in Section II. In Section III we introduce the non-perturbative vacuum via breaking scale invariance and evaluate the corresponding expectation values. Finally we address some implications of our results.

## II Proof of non-uniqueness

In this Section we provide a general proof for the non-existence of a unique vacuum in the case of the massless and neutral $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory. For this purpose we construct the rather general form of the corresponding two-point Wightman function. Utilizing the non-linear equation of motion we derive expectation values of higher powers of the fields. If we assume that a unique vacuum exists, these expectation values have to vanish. In view of the postulated cyclicity of the vacuum (see the appendix) this zero results in a contradiction for the non-vanishing self-interaction. Consequently, a unique vacuum cannot exist.

### A Classical $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory

The action of a massless neutral scalar field possessing a $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ self-coupling is given by

$`𝒜={\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })(^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })\frac{\lambda }{4!}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right)}.`$ (1)
This theory exhibits two important symmetries. As every realistic field theory it obeys Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ invariance

$`x^\mu L_\nu ^\mu x^\nu +a^\mu .`$ (2)
On the other hand the action remains unchanged under transformations of the following form

$`x^\mu `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1x^\mu ,`$ (3)
$`_\mu `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (5)
This scale invariance of the action is a result of the dimensionless coupling constant $`\lambda `$. The latter property is also essential for the renormalizability of the corresponding perturbation theory. By means of Legendre transformation we derive the Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle d^3r\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^2+(\mathrm{\Phi })^2\right)+\frac{\lambda }{4!}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right)},`$ (6)
which is non-negative for $`\lambda 0`$. In situations, where the Hamiltonian is unbounded from below – e.g. for $`\lambda <0`$ – no ground state exists at all. As another example we mention the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^3`$-theory where the occurrence of arbitrarily negative energies is already present on the classical level. As proven in Ref. , this instability persists for the quantized theory. In the case of the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory the classical ground state is (for $`\lambda >0`$) simply given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$. Turning to the quantum prescription the situation becomes less clear.

### B The exact quantum vacuum

The main intention of this article is to show that the quantization of the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory described above is not unique, i.e. it does not maintain all the symmetries of the classical theory. In particular, the vacuum state and thereby the Hilbert space constructed out of it (see the appendix) cannot be scale invariant. In order to prove this assertion, we assume that a unique and hence scale invariant vacuum exists and show that this assumption leads to a contradiction. This (fictitious) state is denoted by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ to indicate the dependence on the coupling strength $`\lambda `$.

If we assume that the vacuum would be unique, i.e. scale and Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ invariant, it would remain unchanged by the unitary scale transformation $`\widehat{S}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, which is defined by (see Eq. (3))

$`\widehat{S}(\mathrm{\Omega })^1\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})\widehat{S}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x}/\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (7)
i.e. $`\widehat{S}(\mathrm{\Omega })|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda =|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$. Otherwise there exists a different vacuum, which can be derived via $`\widehat{S}(\mathrm{\Omega })|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$. Since the scale transformation $`\widehat{S}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ represents a symmetry of the classical action, the two distinct vacuum states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ and $`\widehat{S}(\mathrm{\Omega })|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ correspond to two equivalent quantum representations of the classical theory in this situation.

It should be noted here that an anomalous scale dimension (see e.g. ) of the fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ – inducing a symmetry transformation with other powers in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ than the one in Eq. (7) – already prevents the theory from being scale-invariant (see also Section II E). But since the proof of this assertion is exactly the aim of this Section we do not assume an anomalous scale dimension a priori.

### C Dyson argument

As it is well known, the necessity of introducing a scale already occurs within perturbation theory (renormalization scale). This observation can be interpreted as a hint for the non-uniqueness of the quantization of the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory. Perturbation theory is a very powerful method that allows the very precise calculation of many observables within quantum field theory for small couplings $`\lambda `$, e.g. cross sections, etc. However, properties of the exact vacuum state for finite values of the coupling, e.g. $`\lambda =1`$, cannot be obtained rigorously within the framework of perturbation theory. The main argument can be traced back to Dyson  who applied it to QED; we shall present in the following a modified version of the proof regarding the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory.

Within perturbation theory one performs a Taylor expansion with respect to the coupling, in our case $`\lambda `$. Especially, the expansion of the exact vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ would read

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\lambda ^n|\mathrm{\Psi }_n.`$ (8)
The equal sign above is correct if and only if the infinite summation converges (to the exact quantity). But if this sum converges for some non-vanishing coupling $`\lambda _0`$ then it converges for all (possibly complex) values of $`\lambda `$ which satisfy $`|\lambda |<\lambda _0`$ as well. Accordingly, the expansion above describes an analytic function within the circle of convergence. But in this situation the exact vacuum could be analytically continued to negative values of the coupling $`\lambda `$, where the Hamiltonian is (even classically) unbounded from below. However, in such a highly unstable scenario a (translationally invariant, in particular stationary) vacuum cannot exist. This contradiction leads to the conclusion that the Taylor expansion, i.e. the perturbative approach, does not represent an analytic but an asymptotic expansion.

Therefore, perturbation theory is applicable in a sufficiently small vicinity of the origin $`\lambda =0`$ – but not for finite $`\lambda `$ such as $`\lambda =1`$. Consequently, the fact that the scale invariance is broken in perturbation theory does not necessarily imply that it is broken for the exact vacuum state corresponding to finite $`\lambda `$. Instead one might imagine that the vacuum could be scale invariant at all fixed points, lets say at $`\lambda =1`$ and $`\lambda =0`$. Within perturbation theory one cannot exclude this possibility – instead one is led to search for non-perturbative methods.

### D Wightman function

Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ and scale invariance of the vacuum state impose strong restrictions on the corresponding Wightman functions. Due to the translational symmetry they may depend on the difference of the coordinates $`(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})`$ only. If we restrict ourselves to a region away from the light-cone $`(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^20`$ Lorentz invariance implies, that merely the scalar $`(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^2`$ enters the Wightman function. Taking into account the scale invariance $`W(\mathrm{\Omega }^1\underset{¯}{x},\mathrm{\Omega }^1\underset{¯}{x}^{})=\mathrm{\Omega }^2W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})`$ the two-point function has to adopt the following form

$`W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{const}}{(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^2}}`$ (9)
for $`(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^20`$. By inspection we observe that the action of the d’Alembert operator $`\mathrm{}=_\mu ^\mu `$ on this function yields zero. At first this holds away from the light cone.

To examine additional contributions on the light cone such as $`\delta [(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^2]`$ we investigate the Fourier transform

$`\stackrel{~}{W}`$. Every positive $`L_+^{}`$-invariant distribution $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ with support in the closed forward cone $`\mathrm{supp}(\stackrel{~}{\zeta })\overline{V_+}`$ has to take the form (see  and , Theorem IX.33)

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(\underset{¯}{k})=a\delta ^4(\underset{¯}{k})+\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\mu (\underset{¯}{k}^2)$$
(10)
with $`a0`$ and a positive measure $`\mu 0`$ with $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu )\overline{_+}`$. In view of the Wightman axioms the Fourier transform of the Wightman function $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ has to be represented by a special choice of $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(\underset{¯}{k})`$. The above theorem allows for the Källén-Lehmann spectral representation  of the Wightman function

$`W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})=a+{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (m^2)W^{\mathrm{free}}(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{},m^2)}`$ (11)
where $`W^{\mathrm{free}}(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{},m^2)`$ denotes the Wightman function of a free scalar field with mass $`m`$, cf.  and , Theorem IX.34. The imposed scale invariance of the Wightman function $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{\Omega }^2\underset{¯}{k}^2)=\stackrel{~}{W}(\underset{¯}{k}^2)/\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ implies $`a=0`$ and $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }^2\chi )=\mu (\chi )/\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. As a consequence, if $`\mu `$ contributes for positive $`\chi `$ then it has to behave (for $`\chi >0`$) like $`\mu (\chi )=b/\chi `$ with $`b0`$. However, the resulting quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }(\underset{¯}{k})=\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(\underset{¯}{k}^2)b/\underset{¯}{k}^2`$ does not represent a well-defined distribution owing to the singularity at $`\underset{¯}{k}^2=0`$ together with the Heaviside step-function $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Equivalently it does not possess a Fourier transform. This can easily be verified by considering

$$\mathrm{}\zeta (\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})=b\left(\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(\underset{¯}{k}^2)\right)=\frac{8\pi b}{(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^4}$$
(12)
which yields for $`(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^2>0`$. But no scale invariant distribution exists which generates the r.h.s. of the above equation when the d’Alembert operator is applied to. On the contrary – as we have observed in Eq. (9) – the action of the d’Alembert operator on the Wightman function yields zero – at least for $`(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^20`$. As a result, the support of the measure $`\mu `$ can merely contain the point $`\chi =0`$. There exists only one positive distribution with support at the origin – the Dirac $`\delta `$-function. Ergo, the remaining possibility for the Fourier transform of the Wightman function is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{W}(\underset{¯}{k})=\mathrm{\Theta }(k_0)\delta (\underset{¯}{k}^2)\mathrm{const}.`$ (13)
This quantity indeed obeys scale invariance. In conclusion assuming a unique vacuum the d’Alembert operator acting on the Wightman function vanishes everywhere

$`\underset{¯}{k}^2\stackrel{~}{W}(\underset{¯}{k})=0\mathrm{}W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})=0.`$ (14)
and in particular on the light cone.

### E Equation of motion

The variation of the action $`\delta 𝒜=0`$ leads to the non-linear equation

$`\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3!}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3.`$ (15)
The field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})`$ is represented by an operator-valued distribution. However, the product of two or more distributions with the same argument, for example $`[\delta (x)]^3`$ is not well-defined in general. Consequently, the source term on the r.h.s. of the equation above $`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})]^3`$ has at first glance no definite meaning. Strictly speaking, we have to define the non-linear source term $`\widehat{j}=\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\lambda \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3/3!`$ as a local operator-valued tempered distribution. By virtue of the equation of motion it has to obey the following relation under rescaling, see Eq. (7)

$`\widehat{S}(\mathrm{\Omega })^1\widehat{j}(\underset{¯}{x})\widehat{S}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }^3\widehat{j}(\underset{¯}{x}/\mathrm{\Omega }).`$ (16)
As already discussed in Section II B, the occurrence of an anomalous scale dimension of the fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})`$ or – more generally – the introduction of a renormalization scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{R}`$ in order to define $`\widehat{j}`$, i.e. $`\widehat{j}=\widehat{j}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{R})`$, violate this condition. But in this case the proof of the non-uniqueness of the exact vacuum state is already complete at this stage: In this situation the vacuum has to depend on this renormalization scale as well. Otherwise the difference of two source terms corresponding to different scales acting on the vacuum (supposed to be invariant) yields zero

$`\left(\widehat{j}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{R})\widehat{j}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{R}^{})\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda =0`$ (17)
according to the equation of motion (15). With the same arguments as used at the end of the next Section this implies $`\widehat{j}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{R})\widehat{j}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{R}^{})=0`$, which contradicts the assumption of a scale dependent source. In summary, the eventual necessity of introducing a renormalization scale in order to define $`\widehat{j}`$ would result in a dependence of the vacuum on this scale.

### F Federbush-Johnson theorem

As shown in Sec. II D assuming the existence of a unique vacuum the two-point Wightman function equals (up to an irrelevant pre-factor) the two-point function of the free field. On the other hand, we may now exploit the following trivialization theorem, which is sometimes called the Federbush-Johnson theorem: If the two-point function coincides with its free-field analogue then the theory is free, see .

In the following we sketch a proof of this theorem: If the action of the d’Alembert operator on the two-point Wightman function yields zero we may utilize the equation of motion via

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \left|\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})\mathrm{}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x}^{})\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3!}}\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \left|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3(\underset{¯}{x})\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3(\underset{¯}{x}^{})\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ (19)
$`=`$ $`0.`$ (20)
This equality holds for all $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{x}^{}`$ and especially for $`\underset{¯}{x}=\underset{¯}{x}^{}`$. Accordingly, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \left|[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3(\underset{¯}{x})]^2\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda =0`$, which implies $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3(\underset{¯}{x})|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda =0`$. The last conclusion was possible because the Hilbert space $``$ possesses a positive definite scalar product, for a Fock space with an indefinite metric additional considerations are necessary.

Now we may exploit the postulated cyclicity $`𝔄|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda =`$ of the vacuum (see the appendix). This property implies that all states of the Hilbert space can be approximated by polynomials of fields (smeared with test functions) acting on the vacuum. Utilizing analyticity arguments (theorem of identity for holomorphic functions) it can be shown that it is sufficient to employ test functions with support in an arbitrary small open domain $`𝒪`$. This fact is known as Reeh-Schlieder  theorem: $`\overline{𝔄(𝒪)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda }=`$. One consequence of this theorem is the fact that if a local operator annihilates the vacuum, it is the zero operator, cf.  and . As a result the annihilation of the vacuum $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3(\underset{¯}{x})|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda =0`$ again implies $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3=0`$, i.e. a free theory.

In a similar way one can also show that the field does not only satisfy the equation of motion but also the commutation relations of a free field . This can be demonstrated via considering the quantity

$`\widehat{𝔊}(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})=[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x}),\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x}^{})]\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \left|[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x}),\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x}^{})]\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ (21)
and an argumentation similar to the one above, see  and .

The proof by Federbush and Johnson in Ref.  employs canonical commutation relations and analyticity arguments but it does not refer to the Reeh-Schlieder property, which was established later.

A completely different argument indicating the unphysical consequences of the annihilation of the vacuum by the source term is based on the natural assumption that the free theory should be recovered in the limit $`\lambda 0`$. Hence, the independence of the identity $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3(\underset{¯}{x})|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda =0`$ of the coupling $`\lambda `$ is in conflict to the fact, that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3|0=0`$ is not valid in the non-interacting situation.

In summary, these contradictions lead to two alternatives: Either the self-interaction vanishes or the vacuum is not unique. In the former case the vacuum is Poincaré and scale invariant, but the theory is trivial, see e.g. . Assuming a non-trivial self-interacting $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory (latter case) no unique vacuum exists.

## III Symmetry breaking

As we have shown in the previous Section a regular state that obeys all symmetries of the considered theory does not exist. Accordingly, the only possibility to define a vacuum is to break at least one of the symmetries. Certainly one agrees that the Poincaré invariance in fundamental field theories on a Minkowski space-time should not be broken. Without this symmetry it is by no means obvious how to distinguish the vacuum from all other states. As a consequence, we have to break the only symmetry left, i.e. the scale invariance. Even though the action exhibits no specific scale, the introduced vacuum now displays a scale-dependence. We denote the scale of the symmetry breaking by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the vacuum accordingly by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In the following we are going to analyze the consequences of this Ansatz. To investigate the relation of the vacuum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the ground state of the theory we have to evaluate the renormalized expectation value of the energy density, i.e. the $`00`$-component of the energy-momentum tensor. In conjunction with the Wightman formalism it is most convenient to employ the powerful point-splitting renormalization technique , which is well-established in quantum field theory on curved space-times. With this tool we are able to calculate the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor and the phionic and scalar condensates.

### A Point-splitting

Several interesting observables, e.g. the energy-momentum tensor, contain two or more fields at equal space-time points $`\widehat{A}(\underset{¯}{x})\widehat{B}(\underset{¯}{x})`$. Due to the singular character of the product of two distributions with the same argument such quantities usually diverge $`\widehat{A}(\underset{¯}{x})\widehat{B}(\underset{¯}{x})=\mathrm{}`$. This necessitates an appropriate regularization and renormalization scheme. Having at hand merely the Wightman functions as input information the only well-known procedure, which can be applied directly, is the point-splitting method.

Accordingly, one at first considers the fields at distinct space-time points $`\widehat{A}(\underset{¯}{x}^{})\widehat{B}(\underset{¯}{x})<\mathrm{}`$ and takes the coincidence limit afterwards – a method called point-splitting regularization. In order to generate physical reasonable, i.e. finite (renormalized) results, those terms, which become singular in the limit $`\underset{¯}{x}^{}\underset{¯}{x}`$, have to be discarded.

The physical meaning of the renormalization scheme described above can be understood by considering a physical reasonable measurement process. Realistic detectors always produce finite results. Due to the fact, that those detectors are not point-like, but exhibit a finite extension the corresponding expectation values are finite as well. A linear detector (in the free field example a one-particle detector) can be described by the product of two fields smeared with the test functions $`F`$ and $`G`$, see Eq. (50). The response of that detector is given by the (finite) expectation value $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(F)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(G)`$. In order to consider a divergent expectation value – for instance $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ – as a limiting case of responses of suitable detectors one may proceed as follows: At first the space-time supports of the test functions $`F`$ and $`G`$ shrink to non-coinciding points $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x}^{})`$. The associated expectation value is still finite. Then one considers the coincidence limit $`\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{}`$, where the expectation value diverges. Accordingly, this idealization of a physical detector exactly corresponds to the point-splitting procedure.

The mechanism described above can be elucidated by a simple example. Let us consider the following Ansatz for the exact two-point Wightman function:

$`W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}+\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}a_n(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F})\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^{2n}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}^{2n+2}`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}b_n(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F})\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^{2n}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}^{2n+2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}^2\right|.`$
(For reasons of simplicity we restrict ourselves to space-like separations.) This expansion is correct for a sufficiently well-behaving spectral measure $`\mu (m^2)`$ in the Källén-Lehmann representation in Eq. (11). For more complicated measures further terms such as $`\mathrm{ln}^2\left|\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}^2\right|`$ may appear and create additional singularities without altering the following considerations. Owing to the occurrence of the logarithmic terms we had to introduce a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}`$. As a variation of this scale induces a transfer of contributions from the $`b_n`$ to the $`a_n`$ terms these coefficients may dependent explicitly on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}`$. This scale characterizes the way of distinguishing the different contributions to the response of the detector. For the moment it is completely determined by the observer and should not be confused with the scale of symmetry breaking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which is a property of the vacuum.

Having at hand the explicit expression for the Wightman function we are now able to derive the renormalized expectation value of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$. To this end one keeps only those terms of the above equation, which are finite in the coincidence limit, i.e. one obtains

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2_{\mathrm{ren}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}}=a_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}).`$ (25)
Note, that the renormalized expectation values may depend on the the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}`$ as well.

### B Operator product expansion

In order to elucidate the physical meaning of the introduced scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we examine their relation to an important and powerful tool in quantum field theory – the operator product expansion . Considering the expectation value of a product of two operators at distinct space-time points as non-local quantity it is possible to perform an expansion into a sum of local operators with non-local coefficients

$`\widehat{A}(\underset{¯}{x}+\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}/2)\widehat{B}(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}/2)=`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}C_n(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F})\widehat{O}_n(\underset{¯}{x},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}).`$ (27)
Within the framework of the operator product expansion $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}`$ is denoted as the factorization scale. Considering the most simple example $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{B}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ leads us back to the Wightman function in Eq. (23). The operator corresponding to $`(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^2)^{n=0}=\mathrm{const}`$ exactly represents the second-order scalar condensate $`\widehat{O}_0=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2_{\mathrm{ren}}`$. Calculating the expectation values of the local operators $`\widehat{O}_n`$ in the vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which possesses the symmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, this scale obviously enters the local quantities $`\widehat{O}_n`$ as well. By inspection we observe that for small distances $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^21`$ the lowest-order term is most relevant. This contribution describes the short range behavior of the theory. On the other hand for large distances $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^2=𝒪(1)`$ higher-order contributions become more and more relevant. Accordingly, the long range features – mediated via the operators $`\widehat{O}_n`$ – usually dominate in this situation. Evidently, the symmetry breaking scale can be envisaged as the natural scale of factorization, which distinguishes between the long and short range behavior $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{F}`$.

### C Observables

In analogy to the second-order scalar condensate $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2_{\mathrm{ren}}=a_0`$ we may derive further renormalized expectation values by means of an appropriately chosen differential operator acting on the Wightman function in Eq. (23). The contributions which are finite in the coincidence limit read

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{ren}}=4\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^4(2a_1+3b_1).`$ (28)
By virtue of Poincaré invariance we can deduce

$`_\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\nu \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{ren}}=g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^4(2a_1+3b_1).`$ (29)
Utilizing the equation of motion (15) we derive from Eq. (28) the fourth-order scalar condensate

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^4_{\mathrm{ren}}={\displaystyle \frac{4!}{\lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^4(2a_1+3b_1),`$ (30)
where we have used the definition $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^4=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^3\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ that is consistent with the equation of motion and the Heisenberg representation. The factor $`1/\lambda `$ indicates that our non-perturbative results cannot be obtained using elementary perturbation theory. The expectation value of the Lagrangian density corresponding to the phionic condensate yields

$`\widehat{}_{\mathrm{ren}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^4(2a_1+3b_1).`$ (31)
These ingredients enable us to achieve one of our main intentions – the derivation of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }g_{\mu \nu }`$. We observe the exact cancellation of the above contributions

$`\widehat{T}_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{ren}}=0.`$ (32)
Note, that for deriving this equation we merely need Poincaré invariance (together with the point-splitting technique). As a counter-example one may remember the Casimir effect where $`\widehat{T}_{00}_{\mathrm{ren}}<0`$ holds, even for $`\lambda =0`$.

The above result indeed confirms the identification of the vacuum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with a ground state. Because of $`\widehat{H}=d^3r\widehat{T}_{00}`$ it follows $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ren}}=0`$ from the equation above. (The spectral condition explained in the appendix together with the scale invariance implies $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{ren}}0`$.) Ergo, any of the introduced vacua $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ characterized by a positive value of the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may be identified as ground states of the theory (which are therefore not unique).

It should be emphasized, that the zero expectation value in Eq. (32) is rather non-trivial. Considering a massless scalar field with a $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^n`$-coupling in a $`D`$-dimensional space-time one arrives at

$$T_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{ren}}g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^n\left(1\frac{D}{2}+\frac{D}{n}\right).$$
(33)
Cancellations similar to the situation discussed above occur exactly in those cases, where the theory is scale invariant, i.e. for $`2(n+D)=nD`$. In addition to the absence of any mass terms the scale invariance implies a dimensionless coupling constant.

## IV Conclusions

### A Summary

Utilizing the Wightman axioms we have shown for the scalar, massless, neutral, and self-interacting $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory that no state exists, which preserves Poincaré as well as scale invariance, i.e., all the symmetries of the Lagrangian. Accordingly, we are lead to introduce the non-perturbative vacuum state by breaking the scale invariance. Consistent with the Wightman approach we employed the point-splitting technique, which allows for an explicit evaluation of renormalized expectation values. Within this formalism we calculated the scalar as well as the phionic condensate. The renormalized vacuum expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor vanishes, which implies that all vacua $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are ground states.

### B Discussion

Raising the question about the existence of a unique vacuum state in a field theory including a non-trivial interaction term we focused on the real and massless $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory. Perturbation theory is based on the vacuum of the free theory, which can be uniquely determined and coincides with the ground state of the corresponding free Hamiltonian. It is evident from the beginning that a unique vacuum state should respect all the symmetries of the underlying theory, i.e. that of the Lagrangian. Since the vacuum state is defined via the free theory in perturbation theory, this property of the vacuum is established by brute force and is independent of the form of the interaction term in the Lagrangian.

In the framework of non-perturbative methods there is a need for the definition of a corresponding exact vacuum state of the interacting theory. Naively this state should again respect all the symmetries of the underlying Lagrangian but now incorporating the interaction term. The latter will in general have some impact on the vacuum state. As indicated below the structure of the exact vacuum state becomes rather complex in comparison with the free (perturbative) vacuum.

As a generic example we checked, whether such a non-perturbative vacuum state can be found in the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory. To this end we started with the definition of a vacuum state as a state, which preserves all the symmetries of the Lagrangian: Poincaré and scale invariance. However, it turned out that the conjectured vacuum state does not allow for the generation of all other states in the self-interacting theory by means of field operators, and thus it is inconsistent with the property of cyclicity of vacuum states. Therefore the vacuum cannot be unique.

We conclude that the only reasonable way to define a vacuum of $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory is to break scale invariance. As a consequence, the vacuum state of the theory now depends on a new scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We were able to interpret this scale in the framework of operator product expansion (OPE), where the expectation value of a field product is decomposed into a sum of products consisting of two parts describing the long range and short range behavior, respectively. Here the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is to be identified with the factorization scale of OPE, i.e. with the scale separating the components of long and short distances. This is of considerable importance in theories with asymptotic freedom for which the short distance dependent part may be calculated perturbatively. However, this is not the case for the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory because of its QED-like asymptotic behavior (Landau pole).

Finally we were investigating possible consequences of the new scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and its appearance in observable quantities of the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory. Starting from a very general structure for the two-point Wightman function, we found that the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor vanishes non-trivially. Non-trivially means an exact cancellation of the scale dependence in both terms contributing to the energy momentum tensor which occurs for scale invariant Lagrangians only. This zero result confirms the notion of the scale dependent vacuum state as a ground state of the theory.

This result may also be compared to corresponding results obtained in the framework of perturbation theory and one may ask about the relation of our zero result to the known trace anomalies . In Ref.  the following expression for the trace anomaly has been derived

$`T_\mu ^\mu _{\mathrm{ren}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4!}}\mathrm{\Phi }^4_{\mathrm{ren}}.`$ (34)
One should be aware that within renormalization theory perturbative results keep the same form independently of the momentum flow through the corresponding Feynman diagrams. Actually, in this paper we calculated the vacuum expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor. Owing to the translation invariance of the vacuum the Fourier transform of every local expectation value contributes only at vanishing momentum. In order to compare our result in Eq. (32) with Eq. (34) we have to evaluate the quantities there – especially the $`\beta `$-function – at zero momentum. Since the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory obeys an infra-red fixed point ($`\beta =0`$) our zero-result $`T_\mu ^\mu _{\mathrm{ren}}=0`$ for the energy-momentum tensor is in accordance with the calculations within perturbation theory – even though $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4_{\mathrm{ren}}0`$. Nevertheless one should be careful in comparing perturbative and non-perturbative results, as one cannot expect in general that a non-perturbative result has a relation to any finite order perturbative calculation. In addition the comparison of results obtained within different renormalization procedures (i.e. dimensional and point-splitting) is a delicate task.

To elucidate the properties and the complex nature of the non-perturbative vacuum, we may analyze this state by considering e.g. its content of free particles $`\widehat{N}_\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{free}}`$. Applying this number operator to the free vacuum yields zero and it diagonalizes the free Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}(\lambda =0)=\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{free}}=d^3r\widehat{T}_{00}^{\mathrm{free}}`$. The simultaneous ground state of all these non-negative operators $`\widehat{N}_\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{free}}`$ is unique and coincides with the free vacuum. To calculate their expectation values it is sufficient to know the two-point function. Owing to the deviation of the exact Wightman function of the interacting theory from the free (scale invariant) two-point function (as proved in Section II) at least one expectation value differs from zero

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }\left|\widehat{N}_\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{free}}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ (35)
indicating that the non-perturbative vacuum contains a non-vanishing amount of ”free” scalar particles. This provides another hint for the non-triviality of the zero result in Eq. (32). The non-perturbative vacuum contains exactly such an amount of free particles that the contributions to the energy-momentum tensor of the interacting theory cancel.

Traditional scattering theory is based on asymptotically free particles in the in- and out-states. For energy ranges where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }\left|\widehat{N}_\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{free}}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ yields significant contributions the naive application of the above formalism is not obviously justified. Instead the propagation of the particles is similar to that in a medium.

The necessity of breaking the scale symmetry in a non-perturbative approach has consequences to the application of the path-integral formalism. The generating functional

$`W[J]={\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left(id^4x+J\mathrm{\Phi }\right)},`$ (36)
if it exists beyond perturbation theory with the usual regular measure $`𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is scale invariant per definition. So are all expectation values deduced of it. Usually these expectation values may be identified with the vacuum expectation values, which are then scale invariant as well. But this is inconsistent with the scale dependence of the exact vacuum state. It follows that the usual scale invariant path-integral formalism is not naively applicable to non-perturbative analytical calculations in the case of the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory. Of course, the argument presented above does not apply to lattice calculations where the lattice spacing induces a scale which may be connected with the intrinsic scale of the vacuum.

In summary the results obtained so far motivate further examinations concerning the relation of the presented non-perturbative approach to other formalisms. Furthermore, it might be interesting to extend the method for the explicit non-perturbative evaluation of expectation values – as presented in this article – to other observables.

### C Outline

We expect that the non-uniqueness of the vacuum state is a more general feature, which holds true in other scale invariant field theories as well. This may especially be the case for the gauge sector of QCD – a statement which is currently under consideration . If so, our assertion may have consequences for the current efforts to find a treatable approach in QCD in the medium energy range of some $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The Lagrangian governing the dynamics of the gluons $`=G_{\mu \nu }^aG_a^{\mu \nu }/4`$ is scale invariant as the Lagrangian of the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory. In contrast to the latter case further difficulties arise. The character of this field theory as a gauge field theory implies primary and secondary constraints. The equations of motion are more involved and contain terms linear and quadratic in the coupling $`g`$. On the other hand there is an additional $`SU(3)`$-color symmetry.

In QCD the expectation value of the Lagrangian density of the gluonic sector $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^a\widehat{G}_a^{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{ren}}`$ represents the gluonic condensate. The calculation of this quantity in analogy to Sec. III C might provide some interesting insights owing to its considerable relevance in QCD sum rules (see e.g. ) and more generally for OPE.

The energy-momentum tensor of the pure gluonic sector is traceless at the classical level. Then Poincaré invariance would imply the vanishing of its renormalized vacuum expectation value

$`\widehat{T}_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{ren}}=0.`$ (37)
Nevertheless, in analogy to the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory  the phenomenon of a trace anomaly occurs in QCD as well . Since the Yang-Mills theory possesses a low momentum behavior, which is different from the $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory the arguments presented in Sec. IV B do not necessarily apply in this case. This may result in a non-vanishing expectation value.

## V Appendix: The Wightman axioms

For the free field there exist two different options to define the vacuum, firstly as the ground state of the Hamiltonian and secondly as the state which is Poincaré invariant. For the interacting field the former possibility does not apply in general. In the following we recapitulate an axiomatic approach to quantum field theory based on the Wightman  formalism that utilizes Poincaré invariance. The quantum field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is represented by an operator-valued tempered distribution acting on a separable Hilbert space $``$. The convolution of operator-valued tempered distributions with smooth test functions of compact support yields regular operators which generate an algebra $`𝔄`$. Poincaré transformations are mediated via unitary operators $`\widehat{U}(\underset{¯}{L},\underset{¯}{a})`$

$`\widehat{U}(\underset{¯}{L},\underset{¯}{a})^1\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})\widehat{U}(\underset{¯}{L},\underset{¯}{a})=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{Lx}+\underset{¯}{a}).`$ (38)
The Hilbert space $``$ possesses a cyclic and Poincaré invariant $`\widehat{U}(\underset{¯}{L},\underset{¯}{a})|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ which is called the vacuum. Per definition of cyclicity, all other states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of the Hilbert space $``$ can be created by acting an appropriate functional $`F_\mathrm{\Psi }[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]`$ on the vacuum

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`F_\mathrm{\Psi }[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,`$ (39)
$``$ $`=`$ $`𝔄|\mathrm{\Psi }_0.`$ (40)
As a consequence, the expectation values of all observables in all states can be expressed in terms of vacuum expectation values of field operators – the Wightman functions (reconstruction theorem). In order to represent a realistic field theory the Wightman functions have to fulfill certain properties. These axioms are presented in the following for the example of the two-point function for a neutral scalar field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, see e.g. .

### A Definition

To ensure the character of the quantum field as an operator-valued tempered distribution the two-point Wightman function

$`W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }_0\left|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x}^{})\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (41)
has to be a tempered bi-distribution. The property of neutral fields to be described by hermitian operators implies

$`W^{}(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})=W(\underset{¯}{x}^{},\underset{¯}{x}).`$ (42)
### B Covariance

In order to generate a Poincaré invariant vacuum the Wightman functions must exhibit the same feature

$`W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})=W(\underset{¯}{L}\underset{¯}{x}+\underset{¯}{a},\underset{¯}{L}\underset{¯}{x}^{}+\underset{¯}{a})`$ (43)
for all translations $`\underset{¯}{a}`$ and all rotations $`\underset{¯}{L}`$ of the restricted Lorentz group $`L_+^{}=\{\underset{¯}{L}:\mathrm{det}\underset{¯}{L}=1,L_0^0>0\}`$, which contains all transformations connected continuously to the identity, i.e. no time and/or space inversion. Translation invariance implies the Wightman function to depend on the difference of the coordinates $`\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{}`$ only. Inside of each light cone merely $`(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^2`$ enters the Wightman functions due to rotational symmetry. However, they may differ in their values inside the future and the past light cone, respectively.

### C Spectral condition

The properties listed above allow for the Fourier transformation of the Wightman function according to

$`W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{W}\right)`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4k\stackrel{~}{W}(\underset{¯}{k})\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{¯}{k}(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})\right)}.`$ (45)
It should be stated that all considerations employ the Minkowski metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(+1,1,1,1)`$. To ensure the stability of the theory the support of this Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\underset{¯}{k})`$ has to be contained in the closed forward cone $`\overline{V_+}=\{\underset{¯}{k}:\underset{¯}{k}^20,k_00\}`$

$`k_0<0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\underset{¯}{k})=0`$ (47)
$`\underset{¯}{k}^2<0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\underset{¯}{k})=0.`$ (48)
$`k_0`$ is related to the energy and thus, the first condition $`k_00`$ prevents the system from collapsing. Poincaré symmetry implies the vanishing of the Fourier transform in the whole space-like region.

### D Locality

By means of Einstein causality space-like separated events cannot interfere. As a result we require the fields to commute at space-like distances and therefore the Wightman functions to be symmetric in this case

$`(\underset{¯}{x}\underset{¯}{x}^{})^2<0W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})=W(\underset{¯}{x}^{},\underset{¯}{x}).`$ (49)
For neutral fields the Wightman functions are therefore completely real at space-like distances.

### E Positivity

Smearing the (hermitian) operator-valued distributions $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})`$ with smooth test functions of compact support $`G(\underset{¯}{x})`$ one acquires regular operators

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(G)={\displaystyle d^4x\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\underset{¯}{x})G(\underset{¯}{x})}.`$ (50)
The absolute value squared of an operator $`|\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(G)|^2=[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(G)]^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(G)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(G^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(G)`$ and thereby also its expectation value are non-negative. Therefore the Wightman functions have to obey the following positivity condition for all test functions $`G`$

$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4x^{}G^{}(\underset{¯}{x})W(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{x}^{})G(\underset{¯}{x}^{})}0.`$ (51)
Applying the Fourier transformation on this inequality the positivity requirement takes the very simple form in terms of the Fourier transform of the Wightman function

$`\stackrel{~}{W}(\underset{¯}{k})0.`$ (52)
### F Cluster property

The existence of a unique translationally invariant state (i.e. the vacuum) $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is used (cf. ) to deduce the cluster property of quantum field theories

$`\underset{\underset{¯}{s}^2\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Psi }_0\left|\widehat{A}(\underset{¯}{x}+\underset{¯}{s})\widehat{B}(\underset{¯}{x}^{})\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (53)
$`=\mathrm{\Psi }_0\left|\widehat{A}(\underset{¯}{x})\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0\left|\widehat{B}(\underset{¯}{x}^{})\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,`$ (54)
where $`\widehat{A},\widehat{B}`$ are operators composed out of fields. This property is crucial for defining the S-matrix . The existence of more than one translationally invariant state in the Hilbert space $``$ would imply that the cluster property does not hold in general. However, for operators associated with physically meaningful events the cluster property should remain valid, because events at large space-like distances are asymptotically uncorrelated. Recalling the scale-dependence and thereby non-uniqueness of the vacuum of the considered $`\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory one is lead to the question whether the cluster property is satisfied in this case. Since the Hilbert space is constructed starting from the cyclic vacuum $`(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi })=𝔄|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ it may also depend on the scale. The remaining question is, whether different vacuum states corresponding to different scales belong to the same Hilbert space or not, i.e. whether

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ^\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}).`$ (55)
Indeed, it is possible that different values of the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ correspond to distinct Hilbert spaces $`(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$, which are not connected by local excitations. Such a situation, where different global features generate distinct Hilbert space representations (super-selection sectors), occurs for example in field theories at different values of the temperature. If the physically realized vacuum state coincides with such a vacuum state – which generates a Hilbert space containing only one translationally invariant state – then the cluster property still holds.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to H. Araki, D. Diakonov, R. Jackiw, F. Krauss and D. J. Schwarz for valuable conversations and kind comments. R. S., R. K., and G. P. acknowledge fruitful discussions with K. Sailer and Z. Schram during their stay at the Department of Theoretical Physics at the University of Debrecen, Hungary. This visit was supported by MÖB and DAAD. Financial support from BMBF, DFG and GSI is gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Protectorates in the Cuprate Superconductors

## 1 Introduction

In seeking a theoretical understanding of the cuprate superconductors, a key question from the outset has been the relevance of attempts to deduce their behavior from first principles. As Laughlin and I have recently argued , ab-initio computations have failed completely to explain their phenomenology; indeed it would appear that not only has deduction from microscopics not been able to explain the wealth of crossover behavior found in the underdoped cuprates, but that as a matter of principle it probably cannot explain it, much less calculate the high transition temperatures found at optimal doping. We concluded that a more appropriate starting point would be to focus on the results of experiments on the low energy properties of the novel states of matter found in the cuprates in the hope of identifying the corresponding quantum protectorates–stable states of matter whose generic low energy properties, insensitive to microscopics, are determined by a higher organizing principle and nothing else. To the extent one has correctly identified the quantum protectorate, one would then hope that microscopic protectorate-based toy model calculations might be relevant for understanding experiment. From this perspective, in conventional superconductors one observes a transition from a Landau Fermi liquid protectorate to the BCS s-wave protectorate; each protectorate can be characterized by a small number of parameters, which can be determined experimentally, but which are, in general, impossible to calcuate from first principles.

In the cuprate superconductors both the normal state and the superconducting state protectorates differ dramatically from their conventional superconductor counterparts. There is now a consensus that the superconducting protectorate is a BCS d-wave protectorate, but no consensus has been reached on the nature of the novel normal state phases. Candidate protectorates that have been proposed include Luttinger liquids, nearly antiferromagnetic Fermi liquids, nearly charge-ordered Fermi liquids, mesoscopically ordered phases (stripes), and quantum critical behavior.In this talk I will present the case for one of these, the nearly antiferromagnetic Fermi liquid (NAFL) protectorate.

## 2 Experimental evidence for the NAFL protectorate and dynamical scaling

For over a decade it has been known from NMR measurements that a single spin component is responsible for the planar 63Cu and 17O spin-lattice relaxation rates and Knight shifts, and that a quantitative account of these experiments, as well as the more recent experiments on the 63Cu spin-echo decay time, may be obtained with the generic low energy dynamic magnetic susceptibility appropriate for a commensurate almost antiferromagnetic protectorate ,

$$\chi (𝐪,\omega )=\frac{\alpha \xi ^2}{1+\xi ^2(𝐪𝐐)^2i\omega _{sf}/\omega }$$
(1)
where $`Q=(\pi ,\pi )`$ is the commensurate wavevector, $`\xi `$ is the antiferromagnetic correlation length, $`\omega _{sf}`$ is the frequency of the relaxational mode, and $`\alpha `$ is the scale factor that relates the static commensurate susceptibility, $`\chi _Q`$, to the square of the correlation length, $`\chi _Q=\alpha \xi ^2`$. For the optimally-doped 1-2-3 system,near $`T_c`$, $`\xi `$ twice the lattice constant, a, $`\alpha `$ is $`15`$ states/eV, so $`\chi _Q`$ is some 60 states/ev, large indeed compared to the expected Landau Fermi liquid value of $`1`$ state/ev; the corresponding value of $`\omega _{sf}`$ is some 15 meV, small compared to the Landau Fermi liquid value of $`1`$ eV. Still larger values of $`\chi _Q`$ and $`\xi `$, and smaller values of $`\omega _{sf}`$ are encountered as one goes to the underdoped materials.

As sample quality and the range of experiments improved, it became possible for Barzykin and Pines  to construct the generic magnetic phase diagram for 1-2-3, Bi-based, and Hg-based materials shown in Fig. 1 and subsequently confirmed in the NMR experiments of Curro et al  on YBa2Cu4O8 and Aeppli *et al*   on nearly optimally doped 2-1-4. For magnetically underdoped materials,those that exhibit a maximum in the uniform temperature-dependent susceptibility at some temperature $`T_{cr}`$, experiment shows that at $`T_{cr}`$, $`\xi `$ is $`2`$,and the system crosses over from mean field $`z=2`$ behavior to a $`z=1`$ dynamical scaling regime. The corresponding weak pseudogap behavior persists until a second crossover in the normal state takes place at $`T_{}`$, the temperature at which 63Cu $`T_1`$T is minimum; in this strong pseudogap regime, one no longer has $`z=1`$ scaling, while ARPES experiments show that an energy gap develops for the quasiparticles near $`(\pi ,0)`$. In the 2-1-4 system, there is little or no evidence from spin-lattice relaxation rates for a crossover to strong pseudogap behavior. Magnetically overdoped materials do not exhibit any crossover behavior in the normal state; the af correlations never become strong enough to bring about the weak pseudogap behavior associated with nascent spin density wave formation and $`z=1`$ dynamical scaling, and one finds a direct transition from normal state mean field behavior to superconductifvity.

## 3 Theoretical support for the NAFL protectorate

Since transport and specific heat measurements suggested that planar quasiparticles of some kind were determining the properties of the normal state, our theoretical group in Urbana was led to ask what might be the properties of a Fermi liquid which exhibits nearly antiferromagnetic behavior. We carried out microscopic calculations for a relevant toy model– quasiparticles, whose spectra were characterized by nearest neighbor and next-nearest neighbor hopping terms, interacting through spin-fluctuation exchange, with an effective interaction that is proportional to the dynamic magnetic susceptibility and hence reflects the near approach to antiferromagnetism required by the NMR experiments,

$$V_{eff}=g^2\chi (𝐪,\omega )$$
(2)
where $`g`$ is an arbitrary coupling constant.

Weak coupling numerical calculations  of the consequences of this experiment-based highly anisotropic quasiparticle interaction (note that only quasiparticles in the vicinity of the ”hot spots”, regions of the Fermi surface separated by Q, feel the full effects of the interaction) showed that the resulting resistivity would be roughly linear in temperature, and that for modest values of the coupling constant one could easily get a transition at high temperatures to a superconducting state with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ pairing. Subsequent strong coupling (Eliashberg) calculations  showed that for a coupling constant which yielded quantitative agreement with experiment for the magnitude and temperature dependence of the resistivity of optimally-doped 1-2-3, a transition to the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ state took place at $`100`$K. Armed with this ”proof of concept” for the candidate NAFL protectorate, Monthoux and I predicted that over time experimentalists would find our calculated pairing state, which indeed proved to be the case within the next few years. (Had they not done so we were prepared to abandon our NAFL approach.) A second prediction was highly anisotropic quasiparticle behavior as one moves around the Fermi surface; the calculated frequency and temperature dependent self-energy of the hot quasiparticles located near $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ was highly anomalous, with an imaginary part which was proportional to the maximum of $`\omega `$ or $`T`$, while that of the cold quasiparticles, those near the diagonals from $`(0,0)`$ to $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ that feel little of the NAFL interaction, was Landau-Fermi-liquid like. a prediction that was borne out by subsequent ARPES experiments on overdoped materials.

This highly anisotropic quasiparticle behavior of hot and cold quasiparticles was shown by Stojkovic  to provide a natural explanation for the measured anomalous Hall transport and optical behavior of the overdoped materials. Using a Boltzmann equation approach, Stojkovic found that the ctn of the Hall angle was determined almost entirely by the cold quasiparticles, and so would necessarily exhibit $`T^2`$ behavior for a wide range of dopings, while both hot and cold quasiparticles contribute to the conductivity in such a way as to yield the familiar linear in T behavior of the resistivity. Stojkovic obtained quantitative agreement with experiments on the conductivity, Hall conductivity, optical conductivity, magnetotransport, and thermoelectric behavior of the overdoped and underdoped systems. Subsequent detailed calculations by Monthoux  have shown that as long as one is in the mean-field regime, vertex corrections to the Eliashberg calculations are small, and do not bring about an appreciable change in the mean field calculations of transport properties,

The success of these calculations makes a very strong case for the proposition that in magnetically overdoped systems the normal state is an NAFL protectorate with a dynamic magnetic susceptibilty which exhibits $`z=2`$ dynamical scaling behavior. Matters are otherwise for magnetically underdoped systems, where (see Fig. 1) weak pseudogap behavior is found at temperatures below $`T_{cr}`$, where the dynamic magnetic susceptibility exhibits $`z=1`$ dynamical scaling behavior, while at still lower temperatures one finds a second crossover at $`T_{}`$ to strong pseudogap behavior. Still it proved possible to extend the NAFL toy model calculations to cover the weak pseudogap regime ($`T_{}<T<T_{cr}`$) where Schmalian *et al*  have shown that in the classical limit of temperatures large compared to the spin fluctuation energy,$`\omega _{sf}`$, one can sum all the relevant diagrams in a perturbation-theoretic treatment of the interaction, Eq. (2); they find, in agreement with experiment, a substantial transfer of spectral weight from low to high frequencies for the hot quasiparticles, a cross-over from $`z=2`$ to $`z=1`$ scaling behavior at $`\xi 2a`$, and a uniform susceptibility that decreases as the temperature decreases, and show that all these phenomena are associated with the nascent spin density wave formation anticipated for longer AF correlation lengths. They found the renormalized spin fluctuation-quasiparticle coupling is enhanced at low frequencies by vertex corrections, contrary to an argument presented by Schrieffer, but that at high frequencies it is reduced, in agreement with Schrieffer. Finally, Schmalian  has developed an RG approach to the NAFL which takes into account the damping of spin waves by quasiparticle-quasihole pairs. He finds the crossovers from quantum disordered to $`z=1`$ quantum critical to mean field behavior that are seen experimentally, while his calculated temperature dependence of the AF correlation length agrees with that obtained by Aeppli *et al*  in their INS experiments on near-optimally-doped 2-1-4.

## 4 Open questions

Despite the evident success of theoretical calculations based on the NAFL protectorate, there remain a number of open issues and questions. Foremost, what is the protectorate in the strong pseudogap regime? Experiment tells us that the leading edge gap measured for the hot quasiparticles in this regime develops rapidly as the temperature is lowered below $`T_{}`$, while its doping dependence is anomalous, increasing with decreasing doping. This gap thus has a markedly different doping dependence than that found for the cold quasiparticles; the latter tracks $`T_c`$, which decreases as the doping is reduced. Until one understands this protectorate no model calculation of the superconducting transition temperature for the underdoped cuprates is possible. A second question, for the 2-1-4 system, is the origin of the incipient, and typically dynamic, mesoscopic ordering of spin and charge inferred from the appearance of incommensurate peaks in the INS measurements of spin fluctuations. Is this ordering related to the failure to find any magnetic evidence for strong pseudogap behavior in these materials? Clearly for this system one needs to sort out the consequences, including quantum critical behavior, of the competition between antiferromagnetism, superconductivity, and stripe formation. Why, for similar doping levels, do the 2-1-4 materials have substantially lower superconducting transition temperatures than the 1-2-3, Bi-based, or Hg-based systems? Does their greater tendency toward mesoscopic ordering inhibit superconductity? But why do they possess this greater tendency? And why do INS and NMR experiments exhibit no sign of strong pseudogap behavior (where is the $`T_{}`$?).

In summary, it can reasonably be argued that we have been able to identify the protectorates associated with two of the three normal state phases found in magnetically underdoped superconductors–the $`z=2`$ NAFL mean field protectorate found above $`T_{cr}`$ and the $`z=1`$ NAFL protectorate found between $`T_{cr}`$ and $`T_{}`$, and to demonstrate that for these protectorates there is no spin-charge separation. But the issue of the strong pseudogap protectorate remains open, and until it is solved, and the above questions answered, we will be far from possessing a complete understanding of these remarkable systems.


text:
# ISO observations of the reflection nebula Ced 201: evolution of carbonaceous dust Based on observations at the Cal Tech submillimeter observatory (CSO) and with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA member states (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA.

## 1 Introduction

The mid–infrared emission bands at 3.3, 6.2, 7.7, 8.6, 11.3 and 12.7 $`\mu `$m are ubiquitous in the interstellar medium (ISM). The coincidence of these bands with characteristic wavelengths of aromatic molecules and attached functional groups (see e.g. Allamandola et al. Allamandola89 (1989)) is sufficiently convincing to call them Aromatic Infrared Bands (AIBs). Other, more neutral designations are Unidentified Infrared Bands (UIBs) or Infrared Emission Features (IEFs). The designation should stabilize in the future. Their carriers are very small grains (or big molecules) heated transiently by the absorption of a single UV (Sellgren et al. Sellgren83 (1983)) or visible (Uchida et al. Uchida98 (1998); Pagani et al. Pagani99 (1999)) photon. They are often identified with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Léger & Puget Leger (1984), Allamandola et al. Allamandola85 (1985)). Duley & Williams (Duley88 (1988)) and Duley et al. (Duley93 (1993)) have proposed an alternative interpretation in which the carriers of the AIBs are not free particles but “graphitic islands” (i.e. akin to PAHs) loosely attached to each other so that the heat conductivity is small. Then their thermal behaviour is comparable to that of free particles. Similar models have been also proposed by others. The carriers could also be 3–D very small particles. In this Letter, we will not enter into this debate and will simply call them the AIB carriers.

The origin of the AIB carriers is still unclear. The idea that they are formed in the envelopes of carbon stars is not supported by observation and meets with theoretical difficulties (e.g. Cherchneff et al. Cherchneff (1992)). They might be formed outside carbon star envelopes from carbonaceous particles condensed previously in these envelopes. Schnaiter et al. (Schnaiter99 (1999)) and others have proposed such an evolutionary scheme from carbon stars to planetary nebulae. However the AIB carriers formed in this way might not survive the strong UV field of planetary nebulae. For example, Cox et al. (Cox (1998)) find no AIB in the Helix nebula, an old carbon–rich planetary nebula. Another possibility is that they are formed in the ISM from carbonaceous grains or carbonaceous mantles covering silicate nuclei. Boulanger et al. (Boulanger (1990)) and Gry et al. (Gry (1998)) have suggested that the strong variations in the IRAS 12 $`\mu `$m/100 $`\mu `$m interstellar flux ratio are due to the release of transiently heated particles (emitting at 12 $`\mu `$m) by bigger particles, respectively due to UV irradiation or to shattering by shocks. Thanks to the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO), we know now that in the general ISM the emission in the IRAS 12 $`\mu `$m band is dominated by AIBs. Variations in the ratio of AIB carriers to big grains are thus confirmed. Laboratory experiments shed some light on this process. Scott et al. (Scott97 (1997)) have observed the release of aromatic carbon clusters containing in excess of 30 carbon atoms by solid hydrogenated amorphous carbon (HAC) irradiated by a strong UV laser pulse. The energy deposited by the laser pulse per unit target area is similar to the energy of a central collision between two grains of 10 nm radius at a velocity of 10 km s-1. This is an indication for a possible release of AIB carriers in interstellar shocks.

ISO has also shown the existence of variations of AIB spectra that may be related to a transformation of carbonaceous grains. Recently, Uchida et al. (Uchida00 (2000)) have observed a broadening of the 6.2, 7.7 and 8.6 $`\mu `$m AIBs when going from strong to weak radiation field in the reflection nebula vdB 17 = NGC 1333. They also notice an increase of the flux ratio $`I`$(5.50–9.75 $`\mu `$m)/$`I`$(10.25–14.0 $`\mu `$m) with increasing radiation field in several reflection nebulae.

We present mid–IR spectrophotometric and CO(2–1) line observations of another reflection nebula, Ced 201, that shed light into this transformation. Section 2 describes briefly the observations and reductions. Sect. 3 describes the results, and Sect. 4 contains a discussion and the conclusions.

## 2 ISO observations and data reduction

The observations have been made with the 32$`\times `$32 element mid-infrared camera (ISOCAM) on board of ISO, with the Circular Variable Filters (CVFs) (see Cesarsky et al. 1996a  for a complete description). The observations employed a 6″/pixel magnification, yielding a field of view of about 3′$`\times `$3′. Full scans of the two CVFs in the long-wave channel of the camera have been performed, covering a wavelength range from 5.15 to 17 $`\mu `$m. 10 exposures of 2.1s each were added for each step of the CVF, and 20 extra exposures were added at the beginning of each scan in order to limit the effect of the transient response of the detectors. The total observing time was about 1 hour. The raw data were processed as described in Cesarsky et al. (1996b ) using the CIA software111CIA is a joint development by the ESA Astrophysics Division and the ISOCAM Consortium led by the ISOCAM PI, C. Cesarsky. (Starck et al. Starck (1999)). However, the new transient correction described by Coulais & Abergel (Coulais (1999)) has been applied, yielding considerable improvements with respect to previous methods.

## 3 Results

The reflection nebula Ced 201 is a rather compact object at a distance of 420 pc (Casey Casey (1991)), on the edge of a molecular cloud. It is excited by the B9.5 V star BD +691231. Witt et al. (Witt (1987)) notice that the radial velocity of this star differs from that of the molecular cloud by 11.7 $`\pm `$ 3.0 km s-1 so that Ced 201 is probably the result of an accidental encounter of the star with the molecular cloud, while for most other reflection nebulae the exciting star was born in situ. An arc-like structure located between the star and the denser parts of the cloud to the north and the north-east at about 18″ from the star might represent a shock due to the supersonic motion of the star. It is not very clearly visible on Fig. 1 but is well visible on the red POSS1 image delivered by ALADIN (http://aladin.u-strasbg.fr).

Our CVF observation shows a small source surrounded by a faint extended emission (Fig. 1). The absolute positioning of the ISOCAM images is uncertain due to the lens wheel not always returning to its nominal position (the maximum error is 2 times the Pixel Field of View, viz. 12 arcsec here) and the images have to be recentered on known objects when possible. Since we see on the spectra of the pixels corresponding to the strong source a continuum between 5.15 and 5.5 $`\mu `$m that we attribute to the photospheric emission of the exciting star (see Fig. 3), we have recentered the CVF image at these wavelengths on the nominal SIMBAD position of BD +691231 ($`\alpha `$(J2000) = 22h 13m 27s, $`\delta `$(J2000) = 70 15′ 18″). This resulted in Fig. 1. Unfortunately the astrometry of BD +691231 is itself somewhat problematic due to the surrounding bright nebulosity and the location of the CVF image on the optical image is correspondingly uncertain. Also, the proper motion of the star from the original BD position is unknown.

Fig. 2 presents a set of CO(2–1) spectra of the molecular cloud obtained by us at the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory with 30″ HPBW and 30″ sampling. These observations are better sampled than the CO(2–1) map of Kemper et al. (Kemper (1999); 21″ HPBW, 60″ sampling) but are in good agreement. The line intensity peaks in the direction of the star, probably due to local excitation of CO. The higher–resolution 13CO(2–1) map of Kemper et al. (Kemper (1999); 21″ HPBW, 20″ sampling) shows that this is not the position of maximum column density which peaks well to the NE of the star, confirming this conclusion. The 12CO profiles are double peaked in this area, in particular towards the arc, and this makes difficult the search for line wings which would be a signature of a shock. There is however some suggestion of a negative–velocity wing near the star, in the same sense as the radial velocity of this star.

Fig. 3 displays a set of 7$`\times `$7 CVF spectra on a grid with 6″$`\times `$6″ spacing centered on the exciting star. One sees typical AIB spectra near the emission peak evolving towards fainter, different spectra 12–18 arcseconds away. The spectra near the peak show not only the classical AIBs, but also the S(3) rotation line of H2 at 9.6 $`\mu `$m and the S(5) line at 6.91 $`\mu `$m or the line of \[Ar ii\] at 6.98 $`\mu `$m, which cannot be separated at our resolution. The 12.7 $`\mu `$m AIB might be contaminated by the \[Ne ii\] 12.8 $`\mu `$m line. These spectra are typical for a low–excitation photodissociation region (PDR). The AIBs are superimposed on a continuum rising towards long wavelengths. This could be the continuum emission of 3–D very small grains (VSGs). The AIBs are broader and much fainter relative to the continuum. The 11.3 $`\mu `$m AIB is now the strongest one at this location. The 7.7 and 8.6 $`\mu `$m AIBs are merged into a single broad band. The most striking feature is the strong emission plateau extending from 11 to 14 $`\mu `$m. These spectra resemble Class B spectra (Tokunaga Tokunaga97 (1997)) (Class A spectra are the usual AIB spectra).

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

Fig. 3 shows a behaviour of the spectrum with radiation field similar to that observed by Uchida et al. (Uchida00 (2000)) in some other reflection nebulae. We find a trend for the 7.7 $`\mu `$m AIBs to become broader at fainter radiation fields away from the exciting star, Fig. 4. The trend is not clear for the other bands, but we should not forget that there is contamination by the AIBs from foreground and background material. We suggests that some carbonaceous material that emits the continuum and broad bands far from the star is processed through the effect of the star that moves through the molecular cloud, producing AIB carriers: the continuum is only 2 times fainter 12″ from the star than close to the star, demonstrating the partial disappearance of its carriers near the star while the AIBs become very strong. The very appearance at relatively large distances from the star (at least 18″) of a continuum rising towards long wavelengths is surprising.

This continuum must be emitted by VSGs heated by single (visible) photons. These grains must be quite smaller than the “classical” VSGs which require a strong radiation field to emit in the wavelength range of ISOCAM (Contursi et al. Contursi (1998)). The spectra seen far from the star remind strongly of Class B spectra seen in carbon–rich proto–planetary nebulae (Guillois et al. Guillois96 (1996)). In the laboratory, such spectra are produced (in absorption) by natural coals rich in aromatic cycles (Guillois et al. Guillois96 (1996)) or by a-C:H materials produced by laser pyrolysis of hydrocarbons (Herlin et al. Herlin98 (1998); Schnaiter et al. Schnaiter99 (1999)). In Ced 201, these carbonaceous grains must be very small (radius of the order of 1 nm) since they are heated transiently by visible photons to the temperatures of $``$ 250 K necessary to emit the observed mid–IR features. Since this is also the approximate size of the classical AIB carriers it would not be appropriate to say that these particles release these carriers. One should invoke instead chemi–physical transformations like aromatization (Ryter Ryter (1991)). In any case, these small grains were already present before the star penetrated the molecular cloud. They are expected to be present elsewhere in the ISM.

We find that assuming spherical symmetry the total emissivity per unit volume in the CVF spectral range (5.15 to 17 $`\mu `$m) decreases approximately as the inverse square root of the distance to the star, independently of the shape of the spectrum. We base the following calculation on the light diffusion model of Witt et al. (Witt (1987)), who postulate a uniform density that we find equal to n(H) = 2n(H2) = 1800 cm-3. This density corresponds to a visual extinction of only 0.02 mag. per 6″ angular distance. Since the integrated mid–IR emission is proportional to the stellar radiation density, we can derive an energy conversion efficiency, $`\eta `$ = 7.5 % (emitted in 4$`\pi `$ steradians). Knowing the density, the radiation field of the B9.5 V star, and adopting an absorption cross–section per carbon atom of $`3\times 10^{18}`$ cm-2 (Allamandola et al. Allamandola89 (1989)) and an interstellar carbon abundance C/H=$`2.3\times 10^4`$ (Snow & Witt Snow95 (1989); see also Andrievsky et al. Andrievsky (1999) for carbon abundance in B stars), we find that the fraction of carbon locked in the very small particles emitting in the mid–IR is 15% . This is in agreement with the independent analysis of Kemper et al. (Kemper (1999)) who find that 10% of the gas–phase carbon is locked in particles smaller than 1.5 nm. The absorption by these particles contributes to 1/4 of the extinction in the visible, a considerable fraction.

We have examined the ratio of the strength of the 6.2$`\mu `$m (a vibration of the aromatic skeleton) and of the 11.3$`\mu `$m AIB features (a C–H bending mode) as a function of distance to the exciting star. No variation has been seen in this ratio within our rather large (30 %) errors.

It is interesting to note that Witt et al. (Witt (1987)) find from UV–visible scattering studies of Ced 201 that the grains responsible for the visible scattering have a narrow size distribution skewed towards big, wavelength–sized grains. This is mostly seen within about 20″ from the star. On the other hand the very strong 2175 Å extinction band suggests the presence of many smaller carbon grains. All this is evidence for grain processing by the radiation of the star, or/and by shattering of grains by a shock wave associated with its motion. The very small carbonaceous grains we see in Ced 201 through their mid–IR emission might be responsible for the 2175 Å band.

In summary, we have shown the existence of transformations near a star of very small, 3–D hydrogenated carbonaceous grains which are probably present everywhere in the ISM. This transformation of carbonaceous grains into AIB carriers might be due either to the radiation of a B9.5V star, or to a shock induced by the supersonic motion of the star through the molecular cloud. Although the existence of a shock is indicated by an optical arc visible 18″ from the star (and also suspected from our CO observations), there is no obvious sign of it in the spectra shown in Fig. 3 and it may not be the cause of the transformation. The very small grains as well as the AIB carriers formed from them are excited by the light of the star. The conversion efficiency between received excitation energy and mid–IR emitted energy is of the order of 7.5% for both kinds of particles, and the fraction of carbon locked in these particles is approximately 15%.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Cecile Reynaud and Olivier Guillois for interesting discussions, Kris Sellgren for suggesting Fig. 4 and the referee Adolf N. Witt for his useful remarks. The CSO is funded by NSF contract AST 96-15025.


text:
# References

During the past few years, remarkable progress has been made in cosmology, both observational and theoretical. One of the outcomes of these rapid developments is the increased confidence that most of the energy density of the observable universe is of an unusual form, i.e., not made up of the ordinary matter (baryons and electrons) that we see around us in our everyday world.

There are convincing arguments for the existence of a large amount of non-luminous, i.e., dark, matter. The matter content of the universe is at least a factor of 5 higher than the maximum amount of baryonic matter implied by big bang nucleosynthesis. This dark matter is thus highly likely to be “exotic”, i.e, non-baryonic.

There are also indications, although still not entirely conclusive, of the existence of vacuum energy, corresponding to the famous “cosmological constant” that Einstein introduced but later rejected (although without very good reasons) in his theory of general relativity. This possibility has recently been given increased attention due to results from Type Ia supernova surveys . (For a recent review of the observational status of dark matter and dark energy, see .)

It may be interesting to investigate possible consequences of the cosmological constant besides its influence on the geometry of the universe, and the redshift-dependence of the luminosity-distance relation for standard candles . This is the subject of the present paper. We find disagreement with a recent paper  where the cosmological constant was claimed to influence the rotation curves of galaxies strongly. However, some small effects on the dynamcis of galaxy clusters do not seem excluded.

Let us first set our conventions. Einstein’s equations read

$$R^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_NT^{\mu \nu }.$$
(1)
The energy density in the form of a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be conveniently written in units of the density scaled to the critical density,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}},$$
(2)
where

$$\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G_N}$$
(3)
with $`G_N=1/m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$ (the numerical value of the Planck mass is $`m_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1.210^{19}`$ GeV) and the present value of the critical density

$$\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}=\frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G_N}.$$
(4)
Thus,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H_0^2}.$$
(5)
Writing $`H_0=100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 (with $`h0.6\pm 0.1`$ from observations), the present numerical value of the critical density is

$$\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}810^{47}h^2\mathrm{GeV}^4.$$
(6)
This was derived using particle physics units ($`c=\mathrm{}=1`$). Expressed in $`cgs`$ units, the presently observationally favoured value  $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7\pm 0.2`$ then translates to

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{obs}}10^{56}\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(7)
In a recent preprint , an attempt was made to explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies as being due to the effect of a cosmological constant instead of the “traditional” explanation in terms of dark matter. However, values some three to four orders of magnitude larger than that in (7) were needed, something which is clearly in extreme disagreement with observations. In fact, there seems to be a further mistake, a sign error, in . A positive cosmological constant, as favored by the observations, will tend to accelerate the expansion of the universe and, if anything, make matter in the outer regions of galaxies less rather than more bound.

While the effects of a cosmological constant thus are negligible on the length scale of galaxies, one might expect observable consequences for galaxy clusters. As a first attempt to see such an effect, we will consider the fate of circular orbits in a flat, expanding universe with a cosmological constant. To do this we start with the equation of motion for a particle in an expanding universe with an additional gravitational potential,

$$\ddot{\overline{\chi }}+\frac{2\dot{a}}{a}\overline{\chi }=\frac{\overline{g}}{a},$$

where $`\overline{\chi }`$ is the comoving coordinate and $`a`$ is the scale factor. In terms of physical distances, $`\overline{R}=a\overline{\chi }`$, one finds

$$\ddot{\overline{R}}\overline{R}\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\overline{g}.$$

As an example we consider the de Sitter case with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, i.e. a universe totally dominated by the cosmological constant. We then use

$$a(t)=e^{Ht}$$

where $`H=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}`$ is constant, to obtain

$$\frac{v^2}{R}=\frac{G_Nm}{R^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}R.$$
(8)
for an object in orbit around a central mass $`m`$. One might note that the same result may be obtained by starting with the static form of the de Sitter metric, i.e.

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2G_Nm}{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}r^2\right)dt^2\frac{dr^2}{\left(1\frac{2G_Nm}{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}r^2\right)}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$

and using a Newtonian analysis. This form of the metric is related to the cosmological form through a coordinate transformation. Equation (8) shows that for large enough $`R,`$ i.e.

$$R>\left(\frac{3G_Nm}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{1/3},$$

there are no longer bound orbits. Does this have observable consequences? Unfortunately it is easy to see that the effect becomes important only for orbits that are such that they have periods of the order of the age of the universe. Furthermore, the effect of the cosmological constant decreases rapidly for smaller orbits. Hence the concept of a rotation curve loses its meaning and we had better look elsewhere for a better approach to the possible effect of a cosmological constant. One possibility is the way clusters and superclusters of galaxies form.

As a first step, one may consider the infall of matter onto a galaxy cluster in the regime where linear perturbation theory is valid. This has in fact been treated by Peebles , in the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ (i.e. zero curvature) which is the natural case in view of inflation, and which, incidentally, is now also indicated by the recent balloon measurements of the cosmic microwave background . Peebles showed that, unfortunately, the dependence of the infall peculiar velocity $`v`$ for a cluster of proper radius $`R`$ and overdensity $`\delta `$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is quite weak, being well parametrized by

$$v=0.3H_0R\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_M^{0.6}$$
(9)
for $`0.03<\mathrm{\Omega }_M<0.3`$ and $`1<\delta <3`$, essentially independent of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This formula was generalized to arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in .

In the non-linear, collapsing phase, we may obtain an estimate of the influence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by adapting the simple constant density, spherical collapse model  to the situation when the cosmological constant is present. We thus look at the situation when an overdense region expands to a maximal radius $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and then contracts to a viral radius $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}`$.

To analyse this situation, we use the equation for the energy per unit mass (*cf.* , Eq. (20) or our equation (8)) of a mass shell of proper radius $`R(t)`$ containing a fixed mass $`m`$:

$$E=\frac{\dot{R}^2}{2}\frac{G_Nm}{R}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }R^2}{6},$$
(10)
where the three terms correspond to the kinetic energy, Newtonian gravitational energy, and vacuum energy, respectively. As in the standard analysis , we may employ the virial theorem relating the average value of the kinetic energy $`T`$ to the potential energy $`V`$

$$2T=\stackrel{}{r}\frac{V}{\stackrel{}{r}}.$$
(11)
Taking the average over a sphere of constant density of the energy equation (at the turn-around radius $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ the kinetic energy is zero)

$$E=T_{\mathrm{vir}}+V_{\mathrm{vir}}^G+V_{\mathrm{vir}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }=V_{\mathrm{max}}^G+V_{\mathrm{max}}^\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(12)
utilizing

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2=\frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{R^3}_0^Rr^4𝑑r=\frac{3R^2}{5}$$
(13)
and

$$G_NM(r)r^1=\frac{3G_NM}{R^6}_0^Rr^4𝑑r=\frac{3G_NM}{5R}$$
(14)
we recover in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ the well-known result

$$\frac{3G_NM}{5R_{\mathrm{max}}}=\frac{3G_NM}{10R_{\mathrm{vir}}},$$
(15)
i.e., $`R_{\mathrm{vir}}=R_{\mathrm{max}}/2`$. For a non-vanishing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the corresponding equation is

$$\frac{3G_NM}{5R_{\mathrm{max}}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{10}R_{\mathrm{max}}^2=\frac{3G_NM}{10R_{\mathrm{vir}}}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{5}R_{\mathrm{vir}}^2.$$
(16)
Suppose that the mass overdensity contrast compared to the cosmological average mass density at the maximal (turn-around) radius is $`\omega `$ ($`=5.6`$ in the standard case), and assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. Then we can write $`M=4\pi R_{\mathrm{max}}^3\omega \rho _M/3`$, and this inserted into (16) gives, by use of (3)

$$1+\kappa =\frac{1}{2\mu }+2\kappa \mu ^2$$
(17)
where we have introduced $`\mu =R_{\mathrm{vir}}/R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ ($`=0.5`$ in the standard case) and

$$\kappa =\frac{1}{\omega }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })(1+z)^3}.$$

This result is written in a somewhat different form than, but agrees with, Eq. (26) of . If we assume as a first approximation $`\omega =5.6`$ as in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, we find by solving (17) numerically for $`z=0`$ that $`\mu `$ has decreased from 0.5 to around 0.39.

This means that the virialized radius is smaller, which is not unreasonable, since for a given mass, only more compact clusters can “survive” the repulsive force from a positive cosmological constant.

We can improve this analysis somewhat by taking into account the fact that $`\omega `$ also depends on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It can be seen that this has the effect of increasing $`\omega `$ at intermediate redshifts. This increase causes an increase in $`\mu `$, meaning that we have overestimated the effect of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ above. The effect is, however, small. One can also estimate what the final density contrast of the cluster will be. To do this we have obtained an expression comparing the density at maximum expansion with the density of the universe today. This is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\frac{9\pi ^2}{16}\frac{1}{f(a)^2}\frac{1}{(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })}$$
(18)
with

$$f(a)=\frac{3}{2}_0^a\frac{da}{\sqrt{(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })/a+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2}}.$$
(19)
The result is a further net relative compression of the clusters due to the cosmological constant above the one given by $`\mu `$.

Since we have been dealing with an imagined situation where one can compare between a “standard” scenario without a cosmological constant, and one where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, and found only small effects on cluster scales, it seems difficult, but maybe not excluded, to draw conclusions about the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the real universe where observational uncertainties have to be taken into account. The effect to search for, is a tendency for virialized clusters to get smaller and more overdense for a positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

It seems clear, however, that the effects on galactic scales are extremely tiny and negligible for rotation curves.

Acknowledgements We wish to thank H. Rubinstein for discussions, and P. Lilje and M. Rees for informing us about reference . This work was supported in part by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council (NFR).