text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

Since the early work of Altaie (1978), the study of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in curved space has attracted the interest of many authors (Carvalho and Rosa 1980, Singh and Pathria 1984, Parker and Zhang 1991, Smith and Toms 1996, and Trucks 1998). This interest comes in the context of trying to understand the thermodynamics of the early universe and the role played by the finiteness of the space in determining the thermal behavior of bosons in the respective systems.

Most studies employ the static Einstein universe as the underlying geometry for the system, since the thermodynamic equilibrium in this universe can be defined without ambiguity (Altaie and Dowker 1978). In a time developing spacetime no such luxury is enjoyed, except for the Robertson-Walker spacetime which is conformally static (Kennedy 1978).

In an earlier work (Altaie 1978), we considered the cases of non-relativistic BEC of spin 0 and spin 1 bosons in an Einstein universe. We found that the finiteness of the system resulted in ”smoothing out” the singularities of the thermodynamic functions found in the infinite systems, the enhancement of the condensate fraction and the displacement of the specific-heat maximum toward higher temperatures.

Carvalho and Rosa (1980) considered the case of relativistic scalar field in an Einstein universe in an effort to show that the finite size effects are negligible in comparison with the relativistic effects. However, a close look at their work shows that this comparison was done at implicitly large value of the radius $`a`$ of the Einstein universe. And since finite size effects are proportional to $`1/a`$ the finite size effects were found to be negligible. Moreover, the consideration of relativistic and ultra-relativistic BEC should take into account the possibility of particle-antiparticle production, since at temperatures greater than the rest mass of the particles, quantum field theory requires the inclusion of such a process (Harber and Weldon 1981, 1982).

Singh and Pathria (1984) considered the BEC of a relativistic conformally coupled scalar field in the Einstein universe and found qualitative and quantitative agreement with Altaie (1978). Parker and Zhang (1991) considered the ultra-relativistic BEC of the minimally coupled scalar field in an Einstein universe in the limit of high temperatures. They showed, among other things that ultra-relativistic BEC can occur at very high temperature and densities in the Einstein universe, and by implication in the early stages of a dynamically changing universe. Parker and Zhang (1993) also showed that the Bose -Einstein condensate could act as a source for inflation leading to a de Sitter type universe.

Trucks (1998) repeated the calculations of Singh and Pathria but this time for the minimally coupled scalar field obtaining similar results. In fact performing the calculations for the minimally coupled scalar field amounts to substituting $`\overline{m}=(m^2+1/a^2)^{1/2}`$ where $`m`$ is the mass of the conformally coupled field. But as the calculations were effectively considered in the large radius region, the results come out to be identical with those of Singh and Pathria.

The importance of the study of BEC in curved spaces stems from the interest in understanding the thermodynamics of the very early universe and that such a phenomenon may shed some light on the problem of mass generation in the very early universe. Indeed the investigations of Toms (1992, 1993) have shown that a kind of symmetry breaking is possible.

In this paper we will consider the onset of BEC of the relativistic spin 1 particle-antiparticle system in an Einstein universe, a state which is surly relevant for the early stages of the universe at a point when the electromagnetic interactions decouple from the weak interactions. We will carry out the calculations in a similar fashion to that of Singh and Pathria and compare the results with our earlier non-relativistic case. Throughout this work we adopt the absolute system of units in which $`c=G=k=\mathrm{}=1`$.

## 2 The Charge Density

We consider an ideal relativistic Bose gas of spin 1 confined to the background geometry of the spatial section $`S^3`$ of an Einstein universe with radius $`a`$. Since we are considering a relativistic system, it is necessary to take in consideration the possibility of pair production. The system is taken to be formed of $`N_1`$ particles and $`N_2`$ antiparticles. The total number of particles $`Q=N_1N_2`$ is assumed to be conserved, though $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ may change. A chemical potential $`\mu `$ (is assigned for the particles and $`\mu `$ for the antiparticles (see Harber and Weldon 1981). Accordingly the particle and antiparticle distributions are given by,

$$N_1=\underset{n}{}d_n\left[e^{\beta \left(ϵ_n\mu \right)}1\right]^1,N_2=\underset{n}{}d_n\left[e^{\beta \left(ϵ_n+\mu \right)}1\right]^1,$$
(1)
where $`\beta =1/T`$, $`ϵ_n`$ are the eigen energies, and $`d_n`$ is the degeneracy of the $`n`$th level. The equation of motion of the spin 1 field in an Einstein universe was considered by Schrödinger (1938) and the solution yields the following energy spectrum,

$$ϵ_n=\frac{1}{a}\left(n^2+m^2a^2\right)^{1/2},$$
(2)
with degeneracy,

$$d_n=2(n^21),n=2,3,4,\mathrm{}$$
(3)
The charge density $`q`$ is then found to be,

$$q=\frac{Q}{V}=\frac{4}{V}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(n^21)\mathrm{sinh}(l\beta \mu )\mathrm{exp}\left[l\beta ^{}\left(m^2a^2+n^2\right)^{1/2}\right],$$
(4)
where $`V=2\pi ^2a^3`$ is the volume of the spatial section of the Einstein universe, and $`\beta ^{}=1/Ta`$. In order to carry out the summation over $`n`$ in (4) we apply the Poisson summation formula (see Titchmarsh 1948),

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f(n)+\frac{1}{2}f(0)=_0^{\mathrm{}}f(t)𝑑t+2\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}f(t)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi jt)𝑑t.$$
(5)
Accordingly,

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(n^21)\mathrm{exp}\left[l\beta ^{}\left(m^2a^2+n^2\right)^{1/2}\right]=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{exp}(l\beta m)+I_0+2\underset{j}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}I_j,$$
(6)
where,

$$I_0=_0^{\mathrm{}}(t^21)\mathrm{exp}\left[l\beta ^{}\left(m^2a^2+t^2\right)^{1/2}\right]𝑑t,$$
(7)
and

$$I_j=_0^{\mathrm{}}(t^21)\mathrm{exp}\left[l\beta ^{}\left(m^2a^2+t^2\right)^{1/2}\right]\mathrm{cos}(2\pi jt)𝑑t.$$
(8)
These integrals can be easily performed using (Gradshteyn and Ryzhik 1980)

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha \sqrt{\gamma ^2+x^2}\right]\mathrm{cos}(\lambda x)𝑑x=\frac{\gamma \alpha }{\sqrt{\lambda ^2+\alpha ^2}}K_1\left(\gamma \sqrt{\lambda ^2+\alpha ^2}\right),$$
(9)
where $`K_\nu `$ are the modified Bessel functions of the second kind.

Evaluating $`I_0`$ and $`I_j`$ and then substituting in (4) we find that the charge density can be written as,

$`q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2a^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m\mu )}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m+\mu )}1}}\right]`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\pi ^2a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}l\mathrm{sinh}(l\beta \mu )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(l\beta m)}{l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(\beta mz)}{z}}\right]`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{\pi ^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}l\mathrm{sinh}(l\beta \mu )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_2(\beta mz)}{z^2}}(\beta mj^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{K_3(\beta mz)}{z^3}}\right],`$ (12)
where

$$z=\sqrt{l^2+j_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{and}j^{}=(2\pi a/\beta )j.$$
(13)
The first term in (12) arises because the $`n=0`$ term in the summation over $`n`$ in (4) is non-zero. The second term arises because of the spin-curvature coupling, which is defined mathematically by the coefficient $`a_n`$ of the Schwinger-De Witt expansion (see, De Witt 1965). The third term is just twice that of the scalar case considered by Singh and Pathria (1984). Both the first and the second terms disappear in the limit $`a\mathrm{}`$. The bulk term is obtained in this limit assuming that $`q`$ remains constant, which is the known thermodynamic limit. This reduces to the $`j=0`$ contribution of the last term in (12) which gives,

$$q_B(\beta ,\mu )=\frac{2m^3}{\pi ^2}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(l\beta m)^1\mathrm{sinh}(l\beta \mu )K_2(l\beta m).$$
(14)
This is just twice the value obtained for the scalar case as would be expected. The summation over $`j`$ in (12) can be performed using the Poisson summation formula (5) again, where we obtain,

$`q=q_B(\beta ,\mu )+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m\mu )}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m+\mu )}1}}\right]`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\pi ^2a^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}l\mathrm{sinh}(l\beta \mu ^{})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(l\beta m)}{l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(\beta mz)}{z}}\right]𝑑j`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{\pi ^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}l\mathrm{sinh}(l\beta \mu ^{})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_2(\beta mz)}{z^2}}(\beta mj)^2{\displaystyle \frac{K_3(\beta mz)}{z^3}}\right]𝑑j,`$ (17)
where $`\mu ^{}=\mu +2\pi ip`$. The integrals in the above equation can be evaluated exactly using (see Singh and Pathria 1984),

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}j\mathrm{sinh}(jx)\frac{K_\nu \left[y(j^2+\xi ^2)^{1/2}\right]}{(j^2+\xi ^2)^{\nu /2}}𝑑j=\left(\frac{\pi \xi ^3}{2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{x(y^2x^2)^{\nu /23/4}}{(\xi y)^\nu }K_{\nu 3/2}\left[\xi (y^2x^2)^{1/2}\right].$$
(18)
Then using (see Gradshteyn and Ryzhik 1980),

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sinh}(ax)K_1(bx)𝑑x=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{a}{b\sqrt{b^2a^2}},$$
(19)
and the relation,

$$K_{1/2}(z)zK_{3/2}(z)=zK_{1/2}(z)=\left(\frac{\pi z}{2}\right)^{1/2}e^z,$$
(20)
we obtain

$`q=q_B(\beta ,\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2a^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m\mu )}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m+\mu )}1}}\right]`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi \beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mu ^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a^2\tau }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2\tau }}+\tau \right)e^{2\pi al\tau }\right],`$ (22)
where $`\tau =\sqrt{m^2\mu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$.

The summation over $`l`$ can be easily done, so the exact expression for the charge density becomes,

$`q=q_B(\beta ,\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2a^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m\mu )}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m+\mu )}1}}\right]`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi \beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mu ^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a^2\tau }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2\tau }}+\tau \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{2\pi a\tau }1}}\right].`$ (24)
Note that this form of the charge density is exact and no approximation whatsoever has been made through the calculation.

## 3 Bose-Einstein Condensation

We will adopt the microscopic criteria for marking the onset of the condensation (Altaie 1978), according to which the condensation region is defined such that a large number of particles is found occupying the ground state. This implies that the chemical potential $`\mu `$ of the system approaches the minimum single particle energy $`ϵ_2`$, not the single rest mass energy considered by Singh and Pathria (1984). This can be observed directly from (1). However the consideration of the criteria that $`\mu m`$ is justified only for the minimally coupled scalar field case where the minimum energy is $`m`$ (see Parker and Zhang 1991). In our case the chemical potential must satisfy the condition that

$$\left(m^2+\frac{4}{a^2}\right)^{1/2}<\mu <\left(m^2+\frac{4}{a^2}\right)^{1/2},$$
(25)
whereas in the conformally coupled spin 0 case the condition is,

$$\left(m^2+\frac{1}{a^2}\right)^{1/2}<\mu <\left(m^2+\frac{1}{a^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(26)
However, if $`m^2`$ is much larger than $`1/a^2`$ then it will be justified to take the limit $`\mu m`$, but this approximation may impose certain restrictions on the range of the region under consideration. We will follow Singh and Pathria and adopt such approximation in this work. In such a case the main contribution of the summation over $`p`$ in (24) comes from the $`p=0`$ term. Other terms are of order of $`e^{a\sqrt{m/\beta }}`$, i.e. $`O(e^{a/\lambda _T})`$ where $`\lambda _T=\sqrt{2\pi \beta /m}`$ is the mean thermal wavelength of the particle. The bulk term will reduce to (Singh and Pandita 1983),

$$q_B(\beta ,\mu )=q_B(\beta ,m)\frac{m}{\pi \beta }\left(m^2\mu ^2\right)^{1/2}+O(m^2\mu ^2).$$
(27)
Therefore we can write

$`q_B(\beta ,\mu )q_B(\beta ,m){\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi \beta }}\left(m^2\mu ^2\right)^{1/2}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{\pi \beta }}\left[(m^2\mu ^2)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}(m^2\mu ^2)^{1/2}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi a\sqrt{m^2\mu ^2}\right)1}}`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2a^3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m\mu )}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (m+\mu )}1}}\right].`$ (30)
If we define the thermogeometric parameter y as

$$y=\pi a(m^2\mu ^2)^{1/2},$$
(31)
then equation (30) becomes

$$qq_B(\beta ,m)\frac{m}{\pi \beta a}\left[\left(\frac{y}{\pi }+\frac{\pi }{y}\right)\mathrm{coth}y\frac{\pi }{y^2}\right].$$
(32)
From this equation the behavior of the thermogeometric parameter $`y`$ in the condensation region can be determined. It is clear that the second term in (32) defines the finite-size and spin-curvature effects.

## 4 The Condensate Fraction

The growth of the condensate fraction is studied here in comparison with the bulk case. This will show the finite-size and the spin-curvature effect in the range considered, i.e., $`ma1`$. The charge density in the ground state is obtained if we substitute $`n=2`$ in (1). This gives

$$q_0=\frac{6}{2\pi ^2a^3}\left[\left(e^{\beta (ϵ_2\mu )}1\right)^1\left(e^{\beta (ϵ_2+\mu )}1\right)^1\right].$$
(33)
In the condensation region $`\mu ϵ_2`$ , so that the main contribution to the charge density in the ground state comes from the first term in the square bracket. This means that

$$q_0\frac{3}{\pi ^2a^3\beta (ϵ_2\mu )}.$$
(34)
From (31) as $`\mu m`$ , we have

$$\mu m\left(1\frac{y^2}{2\pi ^2a^2m^2}\right).$$
(35)
On the same footing we can expand $`ϵ_2`$ as

$$ϵ_2m\left(1+\frac{2}{m^2a^2}\right).$$
(36)
So that (34) becomes

$$q_0\frac{6m}{a\beta (y^2+4\pi ^2)}.$$
(37)
This means that the macroscopic growth of the condensate will occur only when $`y^24\pi ^2`$, (i.e., $`y2\pi i`$). In order to see how this condensate compares with the bulk case we use the expansion:

$$\mathrm{coth}y=\frac{1}{y}+2y\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{y^2+\pi ^2k^2}.$$
(38)
So that,

$$\left(\frac{y}{\pi }+\frac{\pi }{y}\right)\mathrm{coth}y\frac{\pi }{y^2}=\frac{5}{\pi }\frac{6\pi }{y^2+4\pi ^2}+\frac{2}{\pi }(y^2+\pi ^2)\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{y^2+\pi ^2k^2}.$$
(39)
Substituting this in (32) and using (37) we get,

$$q_0=qq_B(\beta ,m)+\frac{2m}{\pi ^2\beta a}\left[\frac{5}{2}+(y^2+\pi ^2)\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{y^2+\pi ^2k^2}\right].$$
(40)
For the bulk system ($`a\mathrm{}`$) there exists a critical temperature, $`T=T_c`$ given by

$$q_B(\beta _c,m)=q.$$
(41)
This condition can be written as

$$q=q_B(\beta _c,m)=\frac{m^3}{\pi ^2}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(l\beta _cm)^1\mathrm{sinh}(l\beta _cm)K_2(l\beta _cm)=\frac{m^3}{2\pi ^2}W(\beta _c,m),$$
(42)
where

$$W(\beta ,\mu )=2\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(l\beta \mu )^1\mathrm{sinh}(l\beta \mu )K_2(l\beta \mu ).$$
(43)
Thus we can write the bulk condensate density as

$$(q_0)_B=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }T>T_c\hfill \\ q\left(1\frac{W(\beta ,m)}{W(\beta _c,m)}\right)\hfill & \text{for }T<T_c\hfill \end{array}.$$
(44)
For the case of the finite system under consideration the condensate density is given by

$$q_0=q\left[1\frac{W(\beta ,m)}{W(\beta _c,m)}\right]+\frac{2m}{\pi ^2\beta a}\left[\frac{5}{2}+(y^2+\pi ^2)\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{y^2+\pi ^2k^2}\right],$$
(45)
where the $`y`$ dependence on $`T`$ in the condensation region can now be determined explicitly by

$$\left(\frac{y}{\pi }+\frac{\pi }{y}\right)\mathrm{coth}y\frac{\pi }{y^2}=\frac{\pi \beta aq}{m}\left[1\frac{W(\beta ,m)}{W(\beta _c,m)}\right].$$
(46)
This equation can be solved numerically for the values of $`y`$ at different temperatures. However, we notice that at $`T=T_c`$ $`\left(W(\beta ,m)=W(\beta _c,m)\right)`$, the value of $`y`$ can be obtained by solving the equation,

$$\left(\frac{y_c}{\pi }+\frac{\pi }{y_c}\right)\mathrm{coth}y_c=\frac{\pi }{y_c^2},$$
(47)
which has a solution at $`y_c=4.859i`$.

## 5 Non-relativistic and Ultra-relativistic Limits

The non-relativistic limit is obtained by setting $`\beta m1`$. In this case we can use the asymptotic expansion of the Bessel functions of the second kind for large argument, where we have (see Abramowitz and Stegun 1968),

$$K_2(j\beta m)\left(\frac{\pi }{2j\beta m}\right)^{1/2}e^{j\beta m}\left[1+\frac{15}{8}\frac{1}{j\beta m}+\frac{105}{128}\frac{1}{(j\beta m)^2}+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(48)
So that

$$\left[W(\beta ,m)\right]_{NR}=\left(\frac{\pi }{2m^3}\right)^{1/2}\zeta (3/2)\beta ^{3/2}$$
(49)
and

$$\left[\frac{W(\beta ,m)}{W(\beta _c,m)}\right]_{NR}=\left(\frac{\beta _c}{\beta }\right)^{3/2}=\left(\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(50)
Therefore from (44) we have for the bulk system,

$$(q_0)_B=q\left[1\left(\frac{T}{T_c}\right)^{3/2}\right],T<T_c$$
(51)
In the non-relativistic limit (46) reduces to

$$2\left(\frac{y}{\pi }+\frac{\pi }{y}\right)\mathrm{coth}y\frac{2\pi }{y^2}=x^{1/2}\left[1x^{3/2}\right]\frac{a}{\overline{l}}\left[2\zeta (3/2)\right]^{2/3},$$
(52)
where $`x=T/T_c`$ and $`\overline{l}`$ is the mean inter-particle distance. Note that equation (52) is the corrected version of equation (62) of our earlier paper (Altaie 1978).

In the ultra-relativistic limit $`\beta m1`$, therefore, we use the expansion,

$$K_2(j\beta m)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)\left(\frac{1}{2}j\beta m\right)^2.$$
(53)
So that,

$$\left[W(\beta ,m)\right]_{UR}\frac{2\pi ^2}{3m^2}\beta ^2.$$
(54)
Accordingly the ultra-relativistic behavior of the bulk charge density given in (44) will be

$$(q_0)_B=q\left[1\frac{T^2}{T_c^2}\right].$$
(55)
However, substituting (54) in (42), the critical temperature for the bulk spin 1 particles is

$$T_c=\sqrt{\frac{3q}{2m}}.$$
(56)
This is the analogous result to that of the minimally coupled scalar field. This shows that the treatment of the problem using the large radius approximation as adopted by Singh and Pathria and in this work is equivalent to the high temperature expansion of Parker and Zhang (1991). This can be understood in the light of the fact that in the ultra-relativistic regime $`Ta^1`$, so that $`aT=`$constant. In the ultra-relativistic regime the thermogeometric parameter $`y`$ behaves according to

$$\left(\frac{y}{\pi }+\frac{\pi }{y}\right)\mathrm{coth}y=\frac{\pi aq}{mT_c}\left(x\frac{1}{x}\right)=\pi a\sqrt{\frac{2q}{3m}}\left(x\frac{1}{x}\right).$$
(57)
This equation can be solved for given values of $`a`$, $`q`$, and $`m`$. For illustrative purposes, figure 1 shows the behavior of the thermogeometric parameter $`y`$ (drawn as $`v=\sqrt{y^2+4\pi ^2}`$ versus the scale temperature $`x=T/T_c`$). It is clear that as $`a`$ increases the quantity $`\sqrt{y^2+4\pi ^2}`$ tends to a step function.

## 6 The Critical Radius

Although it is known that the universe as a whole is neutral or almost neutral, the observational limit on the net average charge density do not exclude the possibility that the charge density in the early universe was sufficient to produce relativistic Bose-Einstein condensation. Following the assumption that the charge is conserved we can write

$$q_i=\left(\frac{a_p}{a_i}\right)^3q_p,$$
(58)
where $`q_i`$ and $`q_p`$ are the initial and the present charge densities, respectively. If we consider $`Ta=C`$ and assume that $`C`$ remains constant throughout the development of the universe then from (56) we can allocate a critical radius for the universe $`a_c`$ below which the gas will be always in the condensate state. Parker and Zhang (1991) have already noted this. However for the spin 1 case this critical radius will be given by

$$a_c=\frac{3q_pa_p^3}{2mC^2}.$$
(59)
The estimated upper bound on the net average charge density of the universe at present is $`q<10^{24}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> (see Dolgov and Zeldovich 1981). If this upper bound on the present charge density is adopted, then an upper bound on the radius of the universe at which condensate starts can be deuced. Using a value of $`10^{28}`$ for $`C`$ (Trucks 1998) and $`a_p=10^{28}`$ cm, the critical radius for the onset of the condensation of the heavy gauge bosons $`W`$ can be calculated. This gives $`a_c<10^{11}`$ cm.

## 7 Discussion

In the previous sections we have investigated the behavior of an ideal relativistic spin-1 gas confined to the background geometry of an Einstein universe. The extension of the problem into the Robertson-Walker spacetime is straight forward and results will be similar to the ones obtained here apart from the fact that in the Robertson-Walker spacetime the radius $`a`$ is time-dependent, so $`aa(t)`$. On the other hand more accurate calculations may be needed in order to understand the behavior of bosons at very early stages of the development of the universe. In this context the problem of photon condensation will surely be of great interest, however some technical and conceptual problems hinders obtaining exact results.

## Acknowledgment

One of the authors M.B.A. would like to thank R.K. Pathria for useful discussions.

## References

Abramowitz M and Stegun I A 1968 Handbook of Mathematical Functions (new York:dover)
Altaie M B 1978 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 11 1603
Altaie M B and Dowker J S 1978 Phys. Rev. D 18 3557
Aragao de Carvalho C A and Goulart Rosa S Jr 1980 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 13 989
De Wit B S 1965 Dynamical Theory of Groups and Fields (New York: Gordon and Beach)
Dolgov A and Zeldovich Y 1981 Rev. Mod. Phys. 53 1
Gradshteyn I S and Ryzhik I M 1980 Tables of Integrals, Series and Products (New York: Academic Press)
Haber H E and Weldon H A 1981 Phys. Rev. Lett. 46 1497
——— 1982 Phys. Rev. D 25 502
Kennedy G 1978 J. Phys. A 11 L77
Parker L and Zhang Y 1991 Phys. Rev. D 44 2421
——— 1993 Phys. Rev. D 47 2483
Schrödinger E 1938 Comm. Pont. Acad. Sci. 2 321
Singh S and Pandita P N 1983 Phys. Rev. A 28 1752
Singh S and Pathria R K 1984 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 17 2983
Smith J D and Toms D 1996 Phys. Rev. D 53 5771
Titchmarsh E C 1948 Introduction to the Theory of Fourier Integrals (London:Oxford University Press)
Toms D J 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 1152
——— 1993 Phys. Rev. D 47 2483
Trucks M 1998 Phys. Lett. B 445 117


format: text

text:
# VLT observations of GRS 1915+105

## 1 Introduction

The X-ray transient GRS 1915+105 was first discovered by Castro-Tirado et al. (1992) using the WATCH all-sky monitor on board the Russian satellite GRANAT. Special attention to this source increased enormously a few years later when Mirabel & Rodríguez (1994) reported that GRS 1915+105 was producing repeated ejections with apparent superluminal motion. These events could be first followed at radio wavelengths thanks to the Very Large Array interferometer of NRAO and represented a phenomenon never observed before in the Galaxy. There are only two confirmed galactic superluminal sources known, the other one being GRO J1655$``$40 (Hjellming & Rupen 1995; Tingay et al. 1995). Both of them have been classified as ‘microquasar’ systems, i.e., a selected group of radio emitting X-ray binaries whose physics and external appearance is strongly reminiscent of quasars and active galactic nuclei. We refer the reader to the review by Mirabel & Rodríguez (1999) for an updated account.

Since the discovery of superluminal episodes in GRS 1915+105, this object has been under strong surveillance by several observers at different wavelengths. In spite of this work, the nature of the X-ray binary system in GRS 1915+105 is still a matter of debate. The strong interstellar absorption towards the source, that implies optical extinctions of $`A_V27`$ magnitudes (Chaty et al. 1996), appears as the main cause of this uncertainty. Therefore, it is not surprising that the best approaches to the problem have come from imaging and spectroscopic studies at infrared wavelengths, where the effects of extinction are much less severe ($`A_K3.0`$ mag). Infrared results, however, have not yet reached an unanimous consensus. GRS 1915+105 has been proposed to be a low-mass X-ray binary (LMXRB) by Castro-Tirado et al. (1996) and an high-mass X-ray binary (HMXRB) by Chaty et al. (1996) and Mirabel et al. (1997), who favour an Oe/Be spectral type. There is also a discussion on the reality of weak emission lines of He II, that have been marginally detected by Castro-Tirado et al. (1996) and Eikenberry et al. (1998a).

The existence, or not, of He II lines is relevant because they are naturally expected in LMXRBs as a result of excitation from the hard photons of the accretion disk. The prototypical LMXRB Sco X-1 is a good example of this statement (Bandyopadhyay et al. 1999). In contrast, He II is seldom observed in HMXRBs. In massive systems, accretion often proceeds directly from the stellar wind and photons from typical companion photospheres would not be energetic enough to ionize helium atoms. However, the He II criterion is not a reliable one to distinguish between high and low mass systems. Indeed, a few objects in the HMXRB group do exhibit He II lines in emission. The best representative is certainly A0538$``$66 (Charles et al. 1983) in the Large Magellanic Cloud. This B2 III-IV system has been observed to produce strong and variable He II 4648 Å emission when in outburst. An interesting property of some emission lines in A0538$``$66 (e.g. C IV and He II) is that they alternate between a P Cygni profile and a noticeable blue wing in emission when in quiescence and outburst, respectively. We advance here that the same behavior may be present in GRS 1915+105. Another case of massive He II emitter is the classical black hole candidate Cygnus X-1, whose spectrum displays He II 4846 Å emission believed to form in the stellar wind above the substellar point of the O9.7 Iab primary (Gies & Bolton 1986).

In this context, we present new infrared spectroscopic observations of GRS 1915+105 obtained with the first 8.2 m unit (Antu) of the Very Large Telescope (VLT) of the European Southern Observatory (ESO). The VLT spectra show, among others ones, possible evidence for He II and a newly detected doublet of Na I, both in emission. When taking all these features into account we find compelling evidence that a HMXRB scenario, with a surrounding envelope, provides a very likely interpretation for GRS 1915+105.

## 2 Observations and results

We observed GRS 1915+105, in service mode, on two different epochs using the ISAAC spectro-imager at the VLT (see Cuby 1999 for a description). The first epoch was on 1999 May 29 (JD 2451327.84) under good weather conditions. The second observation took place on 1999 July 04 (JD 2451363.77) under less favorable weather conditions. In both dates, we carried out low resolution ($`R450`$) spectroscopy with the SK filter and an integration time of 30 minutes. The $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ slit was selected, with position angle of $`90^{}`$ in order to avoid bright nearby stars. The frames were acquired with the detector integration time (DIT) set at the recommended value of 60 s. Each observing epoch consisted of acquiring a total of 30 of such frames. The usual technique of nodding the telescope was used, so that the target is placed at different slit positions in each frame.

The data were reduced using the IRAF package, including bias and dark current subtraction, flat field division and frame combination. The wavelength calibration was performed by means of the OH sky lines in the range 1.9-2.25 $`\mu `$m. The atmospheric absorption was corrected by observing the G4 V star HIP 99727, at an air mass as close as possible to that of GRS 1915+105. This star was observed by the telescope staff as a part of the ESO calibration plan. The final target spectrum was obtained as the ratio of the absorbed spectrum to that of the solar type star. The only intrinsic stellar absorption present in the $`K`$-band, namely Br $`\gamma `$, was adequately removed by interpolation of the nearby continuum prior to computing the ratio.

The main results of this paper are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. The absorption correction worked acceptably well for the first spectrum. The second one suffered from less good atmospheric conditions and a slight mismatch ($`\stackrel{<}{}`$0.1) of air masses between the target and HIP 99727. The absorption correction close to the $`2.0`$ $`\mu `$m region, with strong telluric features, was consequently difficult but we still consider it acceptable.

The vertical axes in the spectra of Figs. 1 and 2 are expressed in terms of relative flux plus an arbitrary offset. No absolute calibration could be performed. This is because HIP 99727 does not have yet $`K`$-band magnitudes available in the literature. Nevertheless, a relative comparison of the continuum level and line fluxes can actually be obtained. During the second epoch, the continuum was $`6`$% brighter than during the first one. This implies a photometric variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }K0`$$`\text{.}^m`$1, that may be consistent with zero. In contrast, the emission line parameters of GRS 1915+105 do seem to have varied significantly by a factor of $`2`$. We derived them by fitting a Gaussian profile and the corresponding results are also given in Table 1. The likely error of the fits is estimated to be less than 1 pixel ($`\stackrel{<}{}`$10 Å) in wavelength and $`10`$% in the relative flux, equivalent width (EW) and full width half maximum (FWHM), respectively. The following subsections are devoted to comment on the different emission lines listed and identified in Table 1.

### 2.1 Apparent P Cygni and asymmetric emission profiles in the He I and Br $`\gamma `$ lines

The infrared spectra for the two epochs in Fig. 1 confirm the detection of the He I (2.0587 $`\mu `$m) and Br $`\gamma `$ (2.1661 $`\mu `$m) emission lines, both without significant Doppler shifts. These lines have been reported before on different epochs by Castro-Tirado et al. (1996), Mirabel et al. (1997) and Eikenberry et al. (1998a). The line ratios He I/Br$`\gamma `$ seem to be often in the range 0.96-1.16 as derived from these previous detections. In both our two VLT spectra we find that He I/Br $`\gamma `$ is practically 0.9, i.e., a value not far from this range.

On the first epoch, He I appears to display a P Cygni profile corresponding to an expansion velocity of $`2000`$ km s-1. The same type of profile may also be present in Br $`\gamma `$, although it is not so obvious. In contrast, during the second epoch we find that the He I and Br $`\gamma `$ lines have changed their appearance to a noticeable asymmetric profile. The asymmetry is particularly evident in He I. A blue wing component in emission seems to have emerged in both lines also extending up to $`2000`$ km s-1. Hereafter, we will proceed under the assumption that this is a real effect because the two lines appear to show it. Furthermore, the skewness of the He I profile for 1999 May 29 is $`0.35\pm 0.27`$, consistent with no significant asymmetry, while that of 1999 July 04 gives a skewness of $`0.73\pm 0.14`$, indicating the presence of a blue asymmetry significant at the 5-$`\sigma `$ level. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to obtain future confirmation of it that safely rules out any possible small error when correcting for atmospheric transmission.

### 2.2 Confirmation of He II emission

In our first epoch spectrum, we detect a weak feature in emission close to 2.1891 $`\mu `$m. This is the expected wavelength of the He II 10-7 transition marginally detected by Castro-Tirado et al. (1996) and Eikenberry et al. (1998a). The plausible He II/Br $`\gamma `$ ratios derived from their spectra are about 0.53 and 0.23, respectively. We find this ratio in our case to be about 0.49, hence well within this range. The He II emission is, once more, detected at a marginal level. However, the fact that this is the third independent marginal detection gives us confidence about its reality.

### 2.3 Other emission lines

The two VLT spectra seem also to contain a feature in emission centered at 2.2087 $`\mu `$m. This could be consistent with the Na I doublet at the wavelengths of 2.206-9 $`\mu `$m. The significance of this detection improves noticeably if one averages the two individual spectra, as we show in Fig. 2. This combined plot also contains some possible evidence for the complex of He I lines located at 2.112-3 $`\mu `$m. At the resolution and signal-to-noise ratio of our spectra, it is difficult to discriminate if this marginal feature could also be due to N III at the nearby wavelength of 2.116 $`\mu `$m. Finally, an unidentified emission feature at 2.2817 $`\mu `$m is apparent in the 1999 July 04 spectrum.

## 3 Multi-wavelength behaviour of GRS 1915+105 during the VLT runs

It will be useful for discussion purposes to provide an overview of the X-ray and radio behaviour of GRS 1915+105 at the times of our VLT observations. This information is displayed in the panels of Fig. 3. From top to bottom, we plot here the 2.3 GHz, 1.5-12 keV and 20-100 keV light curves of GRS 1915+105. These multi-wavelength data have been obtained thanks to the public monitorings available from the Green Bank Interferometer (GBI), the All Sky Monitor (ASM) on board the Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) and the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on board the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO), respectively.

We see in Fig. 3 that the first epoch of observation was just prior to the onset of an ejection event, with a $`0.25`$ Jy amplitude in the radio, and a minor soft X-ray maximum. The second epoch was obtained soon after another strong ejection event had taken place. Its amplitude was similar to that of the May event and it also had a noticeable soft X-ray counterpart. The second run of VLT observations coincided with the early decay of the flare. It has been proposed that the ejections in GRS 1915+105 involve the destruction and ejection of the inner accretion disk and corona, as evidenced by previous multi-wavelength observations (Mirabel et al. 1998; Fender & Pooley 1998; Eikenberry et al. 1998b).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Interpretation of P Cygni and asymmetric wing emission profiles

The apparent P Cygni profile detected on 1999 May 29 (see Fig. 1) corresponds to an epoch when GRS 1915+105 was not yet in outburst. This profile is naturally understood in terms of an expanding shell or extended atmosphere around the companion, whose approaching (and therefore blueshifted) regions are seen in absorption against the stellar disk. It is appropriate to remind here that evidences of surrounding material around GRS 1915+105 have been reported in the past (Mirabel et al. 1996).

Several weeks later, the $`0.25`$ Jy outburst that peaked $`2`$ d before our second spectrum seems to have altered considerably the quiescent picture. The shell around GRS 1915+105 is likely to have experienced a considerable injection of energy from the outburst, with part of its material being blown out. It is this blown out material what we believe is producing the strong blue emission wing in the July 04 spectrum. The evolution from quiescent P Cygni profiles to blue emission wings is, in fact, not a new phenomenon in the context of X-ray binaries. The same behavior has been very well observed in other outbursts of different sources. As mentioned in the introduction, the B2 III-IV system A0538$``$66 is one of such cases (Charles et al. 1983). A more recent example can be found in the 1998 outburst of CI Cam, which has been classified as a B\[e\] HMXRB by Clark et al. (1999). Their $`K`$-band spectra of CI Cam in outburst clearly shows the blue wing effect, specially in the He I and Br $`\gamma `$ lines (see Fig. 2).

Further evidence of blue wing emission, with superimposed P Cygni profiles, is also present in the $`K`$-band spectrum of GRS 1915+105 by Mirabel et al. (1997) of 1995 September 4. The blue asymmetry in the He I line in Fig. 1 of this paper is even more pronounced. The GBI monitoring was not available at that time, but the contemporaneous BATSE light curve displays a sharp drop $`3`$ d before that date, and we know that the sudden drops in the BATSE flux are associated to major ejection events.

### 4.2 The HMXRB versus LMXRB scenarios

One of the important results provided by the VLT spectra is an independent confirmation of the weak He II emission line, at least on the first epoch spectrum. We do not have a reliable detection of He II on the second epoch, although this could be due either to line variability or to the lower quality of the night.

As mentioned before, the debate on the origin of the He II line has important consequences on the nature of the GRS 1915+105 companion. Since no ordinary star is able to generate it, Castro-Tirado et al. (1997) and Eikenberry et al. (1998a) attribute its detection to the accretion disk around the compact object rather than the atmosphere of a Be star or other massive companion. However, when doing so another interesting possibility is excluded. He II emission can actually be excited in the atmosphere of the hottest stars in the spectral sequence. For instance, the spectra of some O-type stars are well known to exhibit He II both in absorption and emission. There is actually a sequence between pure absorption O stars and stars with both He II and N III in emission, that are known as Of stars (Kaler 1989). Therefore, the detection of He II emission does not necessarily rule out that we are dealing with a HMXRB in GRS 1915+105 provided that the primary is of very early type.

The challenging HMXRB possibility, with an early type companion, fits nicely with the expanding envelope evidences based on P Cygni and asymmetric wing profiles. The idea also appears further supported when comparing our VLT spectra with those of massive stars (see Fig. 2). Excellent samples of spectra of luminous stars belonging to the classes of Of, Wolf-Rayet (WR), Be, B\[e\] and Luminous Blue Variables (LBV) can be found, e.g., in the works by Morris et al. (1996), Hanson et al. (1996) and Clark & Steele (1999). The discrimination between these different classes of stars on the basis of 2 $`\mu `$m spectroscopy is not always straightforward, because of significant overlap in their spectral morphology. Individual stars have also been observed to change their spectral morphology with time and move from one class to another on timescales of a few years. Our situation is further worsened here due to the low signal-to-noise ratio of the spectra. However, even with these limitations, it should be still possible to recognize the HMXRB nature of GRS 1915+105 and to provide a tentative spectral classification from comparison with spectral atlases of hot, luminous stars in the infrared.

With these cautions into account let us consider the contents of Table 8 in the Morris et al. (1996) paper, where the different spectral characteristics of massive stars in the $`K`$-band are listed. We find here that the observed properties of Br $`\gamma `$ emission with $`EW10`$ Å, as well as emission lines of He I at 2.112-3 $`\mu `$, N III at 2.116 $`\mu `$m, He II at 2.1891 $`\mu `$m and Na I at 2.206-9 $`\mu `$m are simultaneously present only for stars of the Of and WR nitrogen (WN) classes. Interestingly, this seems to be in good agreement with the most likely spectral features observed or suspected in our VLT spectra.

The presence of Na I implies that part of the stellar wind of the proposed Of/WN companion has to be shielded from direct stellar radiation because of the low ionization potential of sodium, perhaps in a cooler dusty region of the star atmosphere. Na I is also a typical feature in the related HMXRBs of the Be type (Everall et al. 1993). Concerning the strong He I line at 2.0587 $`\mu `$m, it is often excluded as a classification criterion because of several factors that make it unreliable (difficult telluric correction, optical depth variability, bad indicator to distinguish between OB and WR subtypes, etc.). He I in emission is believed to be related to luminosity class I, but this is a rule with several known exceptions.

Another issue that strengthens the relationship between GRS 1915+105 and massive luminous stars is again provided by the comparison of our spectra with those of CI Cam. As GRS 1915+105, CI Cam has been observed to undergo violent ejection events that are able to produce bipolar collimated jets with relativistic velocities (Hjellming & Mioduszewski 1998). The evidence so far available strongly suggests that CI Cam may be another member of the microquasar group. It is then appropriate to remind here that the B\[e\] stars in the infrared are sometimes hard to distinguish from the Of/WN status and viceversa, e.g., as discussed by Morris et al. (1996) in the cases of WR 85a and WR 122. With these thoughts in mind, the infrared spectrum of CI Cam by Clark et al. (1999) compares remarkably well with our GRS 1915+105 spectrum as evidenced in Fig. 2. All of them are coincident again at displaying emission from Br$`\gamma `$, He II 2.1891 $`\mu `$m, the Na I doublet and the He I 2.0587 $`\mu `$m line. From this comparison, it appears very plausible to us that both GRS 1915+105 and CI Cam are HMXRBs in closely related evolutionary stages.

### 4.3 The He II line and the accretion disk

The fact that a very massive early-type companion can produce the He II emission does not exclude the possibility that the accretion disk is also contributing to this feature. It is conceivable as well that the recurrent creation and disruption of the inner accretion disk during the ejection events is responsible for most of the observed variability of this line. The fact that we better detect enhanced He II emission on the first epoch could be understood considering that GRS 1915+105 was then prior to a strong ejection event (see Fig. 3). Therefore, the accretion disk at that time should be well extended up to the latest stable orbit. In contrast, the second epoch almost coincided with the peak of another ejection episode (see again Fig. 3). The inner accretion disk from which the ejecta is formed may have not been yet refilled, hence the lower He II emission.

### 4.4 HMXRBs among galactic radio jet sources

To complete our discussion, it is interesting to point out that there seems to be a majority of HMXRBs or intermediate mass systems among the list of confirmed radio jet sources in the Galaxy. This selected group includes with great confidence SS 433, Cyg X-3, Cir X-1 and GRO J1655$``$40. The first three of these objects are widely believed to be bona fide HMXRBs. The last one has been reported be a system of intermediate mass, with the optical companion being in the range 1.7-3.3 $`M_{}`$ (Shahbaz et al. 1999). Add the recently discovered massive jet source CI Cam and the idea of GRS 1915+105 being also a HMXRB does not come with great surprise.

However, given that GRS 1915+105 is a remarkable binary system with a very luminous accretion disk and relativistic ejections, other origins for the observed lines different from a massive companion cannot be strictly ruled out at present. In particular, the fast variability in the infrared emission lines observed by Eikenberry et al. (1998a) is difficult to explain with a normal stellar atmosphere, unless it is being directly affected by the X-ray flares and jets. Indeed, GRS 1915+105 is a complex object where interactions between the massive outflows from the companion star and relativistic ejections from the compact object are likely to occur. In any case, additional studies on the nature of the companion of the collapsed object should be pursued.

## 5 Conclusions

1. We have presented the first VLT infrared spectra of the superluminal source GRS 1915+105. The strong emission line of He I at 2.0587 $`\mu `$m provides suggestive evidence of a P Cygni profile evolving into a blue wing in emission when the system goes from quiescence to outburst. A similar trend is also likely to occur for Br $`\gamma `$. This behavior is consistent with what is observed during the outbursts of other HMXRBs and points towards the existence of an expanding shell or atmosphere around the GRS 1915+105 companion. We speculate that the appearance of such shell is changing depending on the state of activity of the high energy source.
2. The GRS 1915+105 companion is very likely to be a massive star. Not only the presence of an extended envelope is a clue of its HMXRB nature, but also the comparison of the GRS 1915+105 spectrum with infrared spectral atlas supports this interpretation. The newly discovered line features, specially Na I, as well as those previously detected show a strong resemblance with the spectra of such massive stars. We are also able to propose a tentative spectral classification of the primary as an Of/WN star.
3. In this context, the long discussed He II line should be excited by the photons of the massive and luminous companion star, although we cannot rule out completely that the accretion disk is also playing a role. In any case additional sensitive observations, in different states of activity of the source, would be very valuable to settle definitively this issue and to provide a more accurate spectral type.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are very grateful to P.A. Charles (Univ. of Oxford) for helpful discussions on the interpretation of our infrared spectra. We also thank F. Comerón (ESO) and R. Zamanov (National Rozhen Observatory) for advice in the reduction of the VLT data, and J.S. Clark (University of Sussex) for kindly providing the CI Cam comparison spectrum. J.M. acknowledges partial support by DGICYT (PB97-0903) and by Junta de Andalucía (Spain). S.C. acknowledges financial support from the Leverhulme foundation. This paper is partially based on quick-look results provided by the ASM/RXTE team and data obtained through the HEASARC Online Service of NASA/GSFC. The GBI is a facility of the USA National Science Foundation operated by NRAO in support of the NASA High Energy Astrophysics programs.


text:
# REFERENCES

Tuning the trip to KPZ asymptopia

The paradigmatic stochastic partial differential equation proposed by Kardar, Parisi and Zhang (KPZ) has, in the past decade, become the cornerstone in our understanding of kinetic roughening phenomena; mathematical links to directed polymers in random media (DPRM), a baby version version of the spin-glass problem exactly soluble in $`d=1,`$ as well as driven diffusive systems, doing much to intensify community interest in the strong-coupling, nonperturbative scaling behavior of this fundamental equation . Central to the KPZ dogma is the implicit assumption of universality; i.e., the equation provides a bare-bones, but catch-all continuum description that transcends all irrelevant microscopic details, particularly those associated with the lattice. Indeed, within the immediate context of nonequilibrium stochastic growth, the KPZ equation reigns supreme- its very broad universality has been numerically established well beyond characteristic scaling exponents, to include finite-size corrections, amplitude ratios and full probability distributions . This Comment arises from a recent dialog concerning the suggestion of possible KPZ nonuniversality, initiated by Newman and Swift , who numerically integrate the KPZ equation in the strong-coupling limit, where their prescription reduces to a zero-temperature DPRM analysis. For gaussian noise distributions, they readily retrieve accepted values for the KPZ energy fluctuation exponent $`\beta `$ in $`d=14`$. For bounded, symmetric, and innocuous distributions of the form: $`P(\epsilon )(1|\epsilon |)^a,`$ however, they notice increasingly greater deviations as $`a1.`$ In fact, the discrepancies grow more severe in higher dimensionalities. This behavior is easily seen as a consequence of the close blood relation between the DPRM and its near cousin, directed percolation (DP), as emphasized by several authors , who point out the important role of falling percolation thresholds with increasing dimensionality. Our purpose here is clarify the essential features of this tale, insuring that crucial bits of evidence remain atop the table. In this manner, one might hope to discover the optimal road to KPZ asymptopia.

Much can be gleaned, already, using truncated gaussian noise, restricting ourselves to either positive or negative bond energies, thereby breaking the symmetry intrinsic to the full distribution. Interestingly, these demi-gaussians yield strikingly different scaling behaviors in the zero-temperature DPRM global minimization procedure. For a positive-bond demi-gaussian, $`P(\epsilon >0)e^{\epsilon ^2/2}`$, we obtain an anomalous exponent that is much too small, though entirely reminiscent of Newman-Swift results; e.g., in a modest, but highly representative, simulation of the 2+1 dimensional DPRM, involving $`10^5`$ realizations of the random energy landscape and directed paths of length $`10^2`$ steps, the extracted fluctuation exponent, $`\beta 0.116,`$ is well below the accepted value $`0.24^+`$ . Naively, this result appears counterintuitive, since a positive demi-gaussian is strongly biased low, possessing a relatively high percentage of favorable, low energy bonds attractive to the directed polymer. Yet, it is precisely this abundance of riches which is responsible for a near ground-state degeneracy that greatly delays the DPRM’s true approach to asymptopia. By contrast, for a negative-bond demi-gaussian, $`P(\epsilon <0)e^{\epsilon ^2/2}`$, which is biased high, we retrieve excellent KPZ scaling; i.e., a simulation, otherwise identical to that just mentioned, now produces an exponent $`0.245`$, even for these rather short optimal paths! The relative scarcity of particularly favorable bonds permits, somewhat unexpectedly, an accelerated convergence to asymptopia. Surprisingly, a simulation employing the full gaussian actually fares less well, producing an exponent $`0.216`$ under the same conditions.

Splitting the Newman-Swift bimodal ($`a=1`$) distribution into two pieces unearths, of course, the very same pathology- an immediate DPRM vestigial link to directed percolation . Biasing high, with positive bond energies only, generates excellent KPZ scaling; as impressive, in fact, as the previous demi-gaussian! By contrast, biasing low yields a disasterously small effective exponent. The dangers inherent in the Newman-Swift class of distributions, although most apparent for $`a<0`$, are also clearly present for $`a0,`$ the essential difference being one of degree, rather than kind, since all such bare probability distributions lie within the DPRM basin of attraction, albeit at different distances from the inevitable fixed point function. Indeed, the kernel of the Newman-Swift numerical mystery well predates their paper, and can be found originally in the work of Kim, Bray and Moore , wherein it is revealed that a flat distribution ($`a=0`$), while the gaussian’s peer within the 1+1 DPRM context, seriously underperforms the latter in 2+1 dimensions, for which the DP threshold has fallen below one-half . Furthermore, earlier work of Derrida and Griffiths  had indicated that a sufficiently asymmetric, discrete bare probability distribution would land the model well outside the KPZ universality class, controlled by the DP fixed point. Problems inevitably arise whenever there is too much integrated weight in the low end of the chosen DPRM bond distribution . Such is the price paid for a surprising, but deep blood connection to directed percolation.

This research was supported via NSF DMR-9528071.

T. Halpin-Healy and Rocky Novoseller

Physics Department, Barnard College

New York, New York 10027-6598


text:
# Electron Spin Decoherence in Bulk and Quantum Well Zincblende Semiconductors

## Abstract

A theory for longitudinal ($`T_1`$) and transverse ($`T_2`$) electron spin coherence times in zincblende semiconductor quantum wells is developed based on a non-perturbative nanostructure model solved in a fourteen-band restricted basis set. Distinctly different dependences of coherence times on mobility, quantization energy, and temperature are found from previous calculations. Quantitative agreement between our calculations and measurements is found for GaAs/AlGaAs, InGaAs/InP, and GaSb/AlSb quantum wells.

The recent observation of long-lived ($`>100`$ ns) spatially extended ($`>100`$ $`\mu `$m) coherent spin states in semiconductors suggests the possibility of manipulating nonequilibrium electron coherence to an unprecedented degree in a solid. These spin states interact with light, and thus can be used to generate a host of novel dynamic nonlinear optical and electrical effects. The magnitude and persistence of such effects is governed partly by the spin coherence times $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$, describing the decay of longitudinal and transverse spin order, respectively. Ultrafast optical measurements have been performed of both $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$, although in different geometries .

To guide further efforts in the controllable manipulation of room-temperature spin coherence it is essential to have a quantitative theory of spin decoherence. Direct quantitative comparison of the current theory with experiment has been rare for quantum wells, for an independent measurement of the mobility of the quantum well is required. Recently such a comparison was made for room-temperature electron spin lifetimes in n-doped GaAs/AlGaAs multiple quantum wells (MQWs). In addition to measured $`T_1`$’s one order of magnitude longer than those predicted from current theory there were discrepancies in the power law dependences of $`T_1`$ on mobility and confinement energy.

This Letter provides the desired quantitatively accurate theory of spin decoherence for quantum wells and clarifies the relationship between $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ in these systems. Our results are in excellent agreement with experimental measurements on GaAs quantum wells, not only in the previously unexplained general trends, but also in the absolute magnitude. We also find excellent agreement with measurements on InGaAs/InP and GaSb/AlSb quantum wells, whereas previous calculations disagree by an order of magnitude. Finally we find unexpected trends in the spin coherence times with temperature which may explain other puzzling experimental results.

The mechanism of electron spin decoherence we consider occurs via the spin precession of carriers with finite crystal momentum k in the effective k-dependent crystal magnetic field of an inversion-asymmetric material. A signature of this mechanism is that in the “motional narrowing” regime, where orbital scattering times $`\tau `$ greatly exceed spin decoherence times, $`T_1\tau ^1`$. Thus cleaner samples have shorter spin coherence times. In III-V bulk and quantum well structures nanostructures this trend has been observed in samples of varying mobility at and near room temperature.

D’yakonov and Perel’ have developed a theory for $`T_1`$ based on this mechanism for bulk zincblende semiconductors, assuming orbital coherence is lost after each scattering event, and assuming a thermal distribution of electrons. This work was later extended (with further approximations) to quantum wells by D’yakonov and Kachorovskii (DK). Thus the two categories of approximation in DK theory are (1) the method of handling the orbital degrees of freedom and (2) the quantum well electronic structure. For example, if some orbital coherence or nonthermal occupation were maintained after each scattering event, then because the electron’s orbital degrees of freedom are entangled with its spin, only a nonequilibrium calculation of orbital degrees of freedom (e.g. Monte Carlo) would produce accurate results. We find, however, that the sources of error are the approximations pertaining to quantum well electronic structure, and thus simpler, quantitatively accurate calculations of spin coherence may be performed.

Our theory begins with the assumption of motional narrowing. In the motional narrowing regime the electronic spin system is subject to an effective time-dependent, randomly oriented magnetic field H which changes direction with a time $`\tau `$ that is much shorter than the precession time of either the constant applied field $`𝐇_𝐨`$ or the random field. The coherence times depend on the transverse ($`H_{}`$) and longitudinal ($`H_{}`$) components of the random field, according to

$`T_1^1`$ $``$ $`(H_{}^2)\tau ,`$ (1)
$`T_2^1`$ $``$ $`([H_{}^2]/2+H_{}^2)\tau ,`$ (2)
where the constant of proportionality is the same for Eqs. (1) and (2). In a crystal with inversion asymmetry and spin-orbit coupling there is a spin splitting described by the Hamiltonian $`H=\mathrm{}𝛀(𝐤)\sigma /2`$, where $`𝛀(𝐤)`$ is a momentum-dependent effective magnetic field. As the electron is scattered from $`𝐤`$ to $`𝐤^{}`$ via ordinary orbital (not spin-dependent) elastic scattering, the effective magnetic field changes direction with time. If the crystal is cubic, then $`H_x^2=H_y^2=H_z^2`$, so $`H_{}^2=2H_{}^2`$ and $`T_2=T_1`$. The relationship between $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ differs, however, for systems of lower symmetry, such as quantum wells. For a (001) grown quantum well the fluctuating field along the growth direction vanishes, and

$`T_1^1(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`T_1^1(\alpha =0)(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha )/2,`$ (3)
$`T_2^1(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`T_1^1(\alpha =0)(2+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha )/4,`$ (4)
where $`\alpha `$ is the direction between $`𝐇_𝐨`$ and the growth direction. Thus $`T_2`$ ranges from $`2T_1/3`$ to $`2T_1`$ depending on $`\alpha `$. In contrast, for (110) grown quantum wells the effective crystal magnetic field is entirely along the growth direction, and

$`T_1^1(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`T_2^1(\alpha =0)\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha ,`$ (5)
$`T_2^1(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`T_2^1(\alpha =0)(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha )/2.`$ (6)
Thus although $`T_1^1(\alpha =0)`$ vanishes, the same is not the case for $`T_2^1`$ for any $`\alpha `$.

Calculations of $`T_1`$ require knowledge of both $`\tau `$ and $`𝛀(𝐤)`$. The effective time for field reversal ($`\tau _{\mathrm{}}`$) depends on the angular index $`\mathrm{}`$ of the field component ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$). For example, an $`\mathrm{}=1`$ component ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$) requires a $`180^\mathrm{o}`$ change in the angle of $`𝐤`$ to change sign, whereas an $`\mathrm{}=3`$ component ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$) only requires a $`60^\mathrm{o}`$ change, so typically $`\tau _3<\tau _1`$. Thus

$$\frac{1}{T_1}=\frac{1}{n}D(E)f(E)[1f(E)]\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\tau _{\mathrm{}}(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^2(E)dE,$$
(7)
where $`f(E)`$ is the Fermi occupation function, $`D(E)`$ is the density of states, $`n`$ is the electron density, and the scattering rates $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^1(E)=_1^1\sigma (\theta ,E)(1P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ))d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ for bulk semiconductors and $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^1(E)=_0^{2\pi }\sigma (\theta ,E)(1\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{}\theta ])𝑑\theta `$ for (001) quantum wells. For both bulk and quantum wells the functional form of the scattering cross-section $`\sigma (\theta ,E)`$ is taken from standard expressions for ionized impurity (II), neutral impurity (NI — such as arises from quantum well interface roughness), or optical phonon (OP) scattering. The $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}`$’s differ for different mechanisms (e.g., for a quantum well $`\tau _1/\tau _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}^2`$ for II, $`\tau _1/\tau _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$ for OP, and $`\tau _1/\tau _{\mathrm{}}=1`$ for NI scattering). The magnitude of $`\sigma (\theta ,E)`$ is obtained from the mobility,

$$\mu =(e/mn)D(E)f(E)[1f(E)]\tau _1(E)E𝑑E.$$
(8)
We obtain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}(E)`$ from a non-perturbative calculation in a fourteen-band basis. This basis, which is the minimum required to generate spin splitting nonperturbatively, consists of two conduction antibonding $`s`$ states $`(\overline{s})`$, six valence (bonding) $`p`$ states, and six antibonding $`p`$ states $`(\overline{p})`$. Such a basis has, for example, been used to analyze spin-splitting in heterostructures. The Hamiltonian is well-known, and can be found in Refs. . The parameters that enter this Hamiltonian include the zone-center energies of the constituent bulk semiconductors and the momentum matrix elements between bands, which are obtained from the conduction band mass, the heavy-hole mass, and the $`g`$-factor. Time reversal invariance requires $`𝛀(𝐤)=𝛀(𝐤)`$, so $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ for even $`\mathrm{}`$.

For quantum wells the electronic structure is obtained by expressing the electronic states as spatially-dependent linear combinations of the fourteen states in the basis. The full Hamiltonian is projected onto this restricted basis set, which produces a set of fourteen coupled differential equations for the spatially-dependent coefficients of the basis states (generalized envelope functions). These equations are then solved in Fourier space in a similar method to that of Winkler and Rössler. Further details are available elsewhere.

For bulk semiconductors the relevant electronic states for spin decoherence are near the bulk band edge, and thus perturbative expressions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^2(E)`$ for these bulk semiconductors ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2(E)=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2(E)E^3`$) are identical to those obtained from a full fourteen-band calculation within numerical accuracy. Shown in Fig. 1 are calculated $`T_2`$’s for GaAs, InAs, and GaSb assuming II scattering. The agreement with experimental measurements for GaAs at the higher temperatures is quite good, whereas for low temperatures other spin relaxation mechanisms are expected to dominate. The smaller $`T_2`$’s in InAs and GaSb are due partly to the larger conduction spin splitting, which originates from a larger ratio of the spin-orbit coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the band gap $`E_g`$ (see Ref.  on perturbative expansions of spin splittings). The agreement between calculated and measured $`T_2`$’s in Fig. 1 indicates that the spin splitting of bulk GaAs is well described by our model.

We now contrast our results for quantum wells with those of DK theory. The DK theory for (001) quantum wells is derived as follows. First, negligible penetration of the electronic states into the barriers is assumed, so $`E_1\mathrm{\Delta }E_c`$, where $`E_1`$ is the confinement energy of the first quantum well state and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_c`$ is the conduction band offset. Then the perturbative expressions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2(E)E(4E_1E)^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2(E)E^3`$ are used. Furthermore the energies of relevant states are assumed to be $`E_1`$, and thus (i) the contribution from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3(E)`$ is ignored, and (ii) it is assumed that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2(E)E`$. It is not generally recognized that the conditions $`kTE_1\mathrm{\Delta }E_c`$ are quite restrictive and are difficult to satisfy at room temperature.

The resulting $`T_1^1`$ \[Eq. (7)\] under the DK assumptions is proportional to the mobility independent of the dominant scattering mechanism \[see Eq. (8)\]. In addition, $`T_1^1`$ is proportional to $`E_1^2`$. These trends are not supported by recent experimental measurements  on $`75`$Å n-doped GaAs/Al0.4Ga0.6As MQWs at 300K \[shown in Fig. 2(a,b) (filled circles)\]. In both cases the experimental trends are weaker than the predicted theoretical ones. Calculations are shown in Fig. 2(a,b) based on our more general theory using OP (solid line) and NI (dashed line) as the dominant process determining the mobility.

Our results agree with experiment if one assumes a shift from OP to NI scattering as the mobility drops — this is the origin of the unusual experimental dependence of $`T_1`$ on the mobility. The weaker dependence of $`T_1`$ on $`E_1`$ in our theory versus DK theory in Fig. 2(b) is due to wavefunction penetration into the barriers and non-perturbative effects. We emphasize as well the key role of temperature studies of the mobility in analyzing the temperature dependence of spin coherence. In Fig. 2(c) the calculated $`T_1`$ for one sample with a given room-temperature mobility is presented as a function of temperature for NI and OP scattering. In particular the OP results appear relatively insensitive to temperature from 100-250K — this is due to the rapid decrease in the mobility from OP scattering with increasing temperature. This may play a role in the weak temperature dependence seen in Ref. .

Figure 3 compares the energy dependence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2(E)`$ for several additional material systems. The cubic dependence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2(E)`$ for the three bulk semiconductors is confirmed in Fig. 3(a). Fig. 3(b), however, shows that for quantum wells $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2(E)`$ is only linear (short dashed line for the GaAs MQW) for a small energy range ($`20`$ meV) above the band edge before it begins to deviate. More energetic states than this certainly contribute to the spin coherence times at room temperature. The wider the well the lower the energy where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2(E)`$ deviates from linear behavior, as it approaches a bulk-like $`E^3`$ behavior. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2(E)`$ for these structures is shown in Fig. 3(c), and is comparable in magnitude to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2(E)`$. As the wells become narrower, even the perturbative expressions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ break down. Figure 3(d) shows $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2(E)`$ for a thin-layer InAs/GaSb superlattice, indicating very different behavior from the other structures, poorly reproduced by even the general forms of the perturbative expression.

Table I presents calculations and experimental measurements of $`T_1`$ for these material systems. The order of magnitude discrepancy between DK calculations and measurements occurs here as well. Given the uncertainty in experimental mobilities and densities, the agreement of our calculations with experiment for both NI and OP scattering is good for all systems, and is much better than DK theory. Note that OP and NI scattering calculations in the full theory differ from each other by factors of of up to 2 (due to differences in $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}(E)`$), whereas all scattering mechanisms produce the same result in DK theory. As expected, for several systems the $`T_1`$’s are much shorter at higher electron densities, for as the carrier distribution is spread further from zone center the effective crystal magnetic fields increase. The DK approximation (i) can be evaluated by comparing OP1 to OP and NI1 to NI, where calculations using all terms up to $`\mathrm{}`$ are designated OP and NI. The difference is up to 40%. Approximation (ii), however, produces a discrepancy between the DK result and both NI1 and OP1 which can greatly exceed an order of magnitude.

These calculations consider decoherence arising from the bulk inversion asymmetry (BIA) of the constituent materials. We have considered symmetric wells, so another source of inversion asymmetry, the structural inversion asymmetry (SIA), does not play a role. In other structures, such as single-interface heterostructures, SIA may dominate. Interface bonding asymmetry (native interface asymmetry, or NIA), which arises in non-common-atom structures, could play a role in systems II, IV, or V. The NIA spin splitting for perfect interfaces (imperfect interfaces reduce the NIA contribution) has been calculated for System II in Ref. . By comparing with Ref.  we find the spin splitting of this quantum well is dominated by BIA.

We have presented a quantitatively accurate non-perturbative nanostructure theory for electron spin relaxation in bulk and quantum well zincblende semiconductors based on a fourteen band model. The calculated electron spin lifetimes in III-V semiconductor bulk and quantum well materials are in agreement with experimental measurements, indicating the importance of accurate band structure calculations for zincblende type nanostructures.

We would like to acknowledge discussions with D. D. Awschalom, T. F. Boggess, J. M. Byers, J. M. Kikkawa, and A. Smirl. We would also like to thank D. D. Awschalom and J. M. Kikkawa for providing mobility data for the bulk GaAs sample of Ref. . This work was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research through Grant No. N00014-99-1-0379.


text:
# On area and entropy of a black hole

## Abstract

We consider a model of a black hole consisting of a number of elementary components. Examples of such models occur in the Ashtekar’s approach to canonical Quantum Gravity and in M-theory. We show that treating the elementary components as completely distinguishable leads to the area law for the black hole entropy. Contrary to previous results, we show that no Bose condensation occurs, the area has big local fluctuations and that in the framework of canonical Quantum Gravity the area of the black hole horizon is equidistantly quantized.

PACS-98: 04.70.Dy, 11.15.-q

In the framework of Quantum Gravity black holes are treated as quantum objects. As such, they are characterized by quantum numbers: mass, electric charge, angular momentum etc. For Schwarzschild black holes (neutral, nonrotating) the only quantum number which is left is the mass $`M`$. It is related to the area $`A`$ of the black hole horizon by formula, $`A=16\pi G^2M^2/c^4`$, where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. Important questions in black hole physics are what the spectrum of $`A`$ looks like and what the degeneracies of states are for a given value of $`A`$.

In the absence of a definitive Quantum Gravity theory, the answers to these questions depend on the model of a black hole. In several approaches one assumes that a black hole consists of elementary components contributing additively to its area. For instance, in the Ashtekar’s approach (see e.g. ) these are Wilson lines of the Ashtekar’s connection $`A_\mu ^a`$. In the $`M`$-theory approach  these are D0-branes. Each of the elementary components can be in a number of states. An elementary component in the state $`n`$ gives a contribution $`A_n`$ to the total area, and has a degeneracy $`g(n)`$. The eigenvalues of the area operator then acquire the form $`A=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}N_nA_n`$, where $`N_n`$ is the number of elementary components in the state $`n`$. The multiplicity of states with area $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ and its asymptotics when $`A`$ is macroscopically large defines the entropy of the black hole, $`S(A)=k\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$.

The spectrum of the area $`A`$ and the behaviour of the entropy $`S(A)`$ depend on the spectrum of the elementary area $`A_n`$, the elementary multiplicities $`g(n)`$ and the degree of distinguishability of the components. We will discuss the form of $`A_n`$ in the framework of canonical Quantum Gravity . The classical result in this field is that the index $`n`$ can be associated with a spin $`j`$ of an $`SU(2)`$ representation. Then, $`j`$ takes integer and half-integer values and according to  $`A_j=\sqrt{j(j+1)}`$ in some units. We argue that instead

$$A_j=j+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(1)
In particular, this implies that the spectrum of the area operator is equidistant. Such a situation was first considered by Bekenstein and Mukhanov . Their analysis shows that such a spectrum implies certain specific properties of the black hole radiation: there exists an energy quantum, $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, and the energy can be radiated only in integer multiples of this energy quantum.

Furthermore, we will consider the issue of black hole entropy. It will be seen that the area law $`SA`$ is to a large extent generic. A more subtle issue is what the statistically preferrable state of the system is. The analysis of  in the case of Ashtekar gravity and of  in the case of black holes composed of D0-branes showed that the most probable configuration has all the elementary components in the same multiplet. This can be viewed as Bose condensation. We show instead that for completely distinguishable elementary components one obtains a Gibbs distribution for the $`N_n`$’s with many of them nonvanishing in the most probable configuration. Our result implies that the area operator has strong fluctuations, $`\mathrm{\Delta }A\sqrt{A}`$, whereas in the case of Bose condensation the fluctuation of area would have been strongly suppressed.

Next we turn to the issue of the area spectrum in canonical Quantum Gravity. One of the virtues of Ashtekar’s formulation is that instead of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ one deals with the gauge field $`A_\mu ^a`$ . In the Euclidean gravity the gauge group is $`SU(2)`$ and the isotopic index $`a`$ takes values $`1,2,3`$ corresponding to three Pauli matrices. In the Hamiltonian formulation one uses the spatial components $`A_i^a`$ as generalized coordinates and the components of the electric field, $`E_i=_0A_i_iA_0[A_0,A_i]`$ as conjugate momenta. It is convenient to view the gauge field as a 1-form $`A=A_idx^i`$, and the conjugate momenta $`E_i`$ as components of a 2-form, $`E=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ijk}E_idx^jdx^k`$.

The physical Hilbert space is obtained by imposing the Gauss law constraint, the diffeomorphism constraint and the Hamiltonian constraint (the Wheeler-DeWitt equation). While constructing wave functionals which annihilate all those constraints proves to be a difficult task , one believes that the spectrum of the area operator is already captured by studying the ‘kinematical Hilbert space’ containing the Wilson lines ,

$$W_\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(A)=\mathrm{Tr}P\mathrm{exp}(_\mathrm{\Gamma }A^aT_j^a),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a closed contour, $`j`$ is a positive integer or half-integer and $`T_j^a`$ are generators of the Lie algebra $`su(2)`$ in the representation with spin $`j`$.

In terms of the Ashtekar’s variables, the area operator corresponding to the 2-dimensional surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ acquires the form ,

$$𝒜_\mathrm{\Sigma }=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2x\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}E^2},$$
(3)
where the integrand is the natural density which can be integrated over the 2-dimensional surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The Wilson lines $`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }^j`$ are eigenstates of the operators $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, at least when all the intersections of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are transversal. Moreover, each intersection gives a contribution $`A_j`$ which depends only on the spin $`j`$ of the Wilson line. It is our next task to compute the numbers $`A_j`$.

Canonical quantization suggests that in the $`A`$-representation the conjugate momentum $`E_i^a`$ act as derivatives, $`E_a^i(x)=i\delta /\delta A_a^i(x)`$. Ignoring the singularity arising from the coincident arguments in the expression $`\sqrt{E_i^a(x)E_i^a(x)}`$, one easily obtains

$$𝒜_\mathrm{\Sigma }W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)=\underset{p}{}\mathrm{Tr}\sqrt{T_j^aT_j^a}P\mathrm{exp}(_pA_i^aT_j^a𝑑x_i),$$

where $`p`$ are the intersection points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`_p`$ stands for the integration over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the starting point at $`p`$. The expression $`T_j^aT_j^a`$ is proportional to the unit matrix with coefficient the quadratic Casimir $`c_j=j(j+1)`$ of $`SU(2)`$. This observation led  to the conclusion that $`A_j=\sqrt{j(j+1)}`$. We shall show instead that formula (1) holds true.

The area operator $`(E_i^a(x)E_i^a(x))`$ contains a product of two fields $`E_a^i(x)`$ at the same point and potentially needs a regularization. The answer $`c_j=j(j+1)`$ is certainly correct to the leading order in $`j`$ which might be used as the parameter in the semi-classical expansion. However, there might be quantum corrections to this formula similar to the shift by $`\mathrm{}\omega /2`$ in the energy spectrum of the harmonic oscillator $`E_n=\mathrm{}\omega (n+\frac{1}{2})`$.

First, let us mention that the quantization problem for polynomials of commuting variables $`[t^a,t^b]=0`$ which after quantization $`t^aT^a`$ acquire Lie algebra commutation relations $`[T^a,T^b]=f_{abc}T_c`$ has a long history in mathematics. In fact, there is a universal quantization map $`𝒬`$ which was discovered by Harish-Chandra for semi-simple Lie algebras and then generalized by Duflo  to the case of arbitrary Lie algebras. The main property of $`𝒬`$ is that given two Casimir elements $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ (a particular example of a Casimir element is the quadratic Casimir $`T^aT^a`$) the product of quantizations $`𝒬(\alpha )𝒬(\beta )`$ coincides with the quantization of the product, $`𝒬(\alpha \beta )`$. In more detail,

$$𝒬(\alpha )=\mathrm{Sym}\left[\mathrm{det}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}(x)}{x}\right)_{x=T_{\mathrm{ad}}^a\frac{}{t^a}}\alpha (t)\right],$$

where $`T^a`$ are generators in the adjoint representation, and $`\mathrm{Sym}`$ stands for the symmetric quantization map, e.g. $`\mathrm{Sym}(t^at^b)=\frac{1}{2}(T^aT^b+T^bT^a)`$. For instance, in the case of the Lie algebra $`su(2)`$, $`𝒬=\mathrm{Sym}(1+\frac{1}{12}\frac{^2}{t^at^a}+\mathrm{})`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for the terms containing higher derivatives in $`t^a`$. When applying $`𝒬`$ to $`c=t^at^a`$ one obtains $`𝒬(c)=T^aT^a+\frac{1}{4}`$ with the eigenvalue $`𝒬(c)_j=(j+\frac{1}{2})^2`$ in the spin $`j`$ representation. Note that the minimal value of the Casimir corresponding to the (infinite-dimensional) representation of spin $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$ is equal to zero.

Second, instead of using the $`A`$-representation one can rewrite the wave functional $`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ in the $`E`$-representation by means of the functional Fourier transform,

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=𝒟Ae^{i{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{Tr}(EA)}}W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(A).$$
(4)
This expression can be simplified using the geometric quantization formula for the Wilson line ,

$$W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)=𝒟ge^{i_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{Tr}(\tau g^1_sgds+A(g\tau g^1))},$$
(5)
where the auxiliary field $`g`$ is a group valued function on the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\tau `$ is a constant diagonal matrix, and $`s`$ is a parameter along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The right hand side of (5) is well-defined only when the eigenvalues of $`p`$ are integers or half-integers . Putting together the functional Fourier transform (4) and the geometric quantization (5) yields,

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=𝑑g\delta (Eg\tau g^1\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }),$$
(6)
where $`\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ stands for the $`\delta `$-function supported on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Equation (6) suggests that $`E`$ vanishes outside $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. On the contour, we obtain $`\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}E^2}=\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}\tau ^2}\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Hence, the contribution to the area operator coming from the transversal intersection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given by $`A_j=\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}\tau ^2}`$. The relation between $`\tau `$ and $`j`$ depends on the regularization of the functional integral over $`g`$. Using the regularization of  one obtains $`A_j=j+\frac{1}{2}`$ (the regularization of  yields $`A_j=j`$).

Third, the same problem of regularization of the $`\mathrm{Tr}E^2`$ operator arises in 2-dimensional Yang-Mills theory as considered by Witten . There, the value of the regularized quadratic Casimir has an influence on the results for the volumes of the moduli spaces of flat connections on Riemann surfaces. The same volumes can be computed by a different mathematically rigorous procedure (see e.g. ). Once again, the correct regularization of the Casimir element is $`c_j=(j+\frac{1}{2})^2`$ .

Finally, upon proper use of the gauge constraints, the problem reduces to geodesic motion of a particle on the group manifold, in our case $`SU(2)`$. The operator Tr $`E^2`$ becomes the Hamiltonian of the particle. Quantum mechanically, for motion on a curved manifold, it is known that in addition to the Laplacian (which would reproduce the standard Casimir) a term proportional to the scalar curvature of the manifold should be added, with the coefficient fixed to $`\frac{1}{8}`$ in order to reproduce the right conformal properties. In our case, this term is a constant and contributes the extra $`\frac{1}{4}`$. Alternatively, one can reduce the system even further to the dynamics of the eigenvalues of the group element. It is known that these behave as free fermions on a circle, and the extra contribution is seen to be the ground state Fermi energy of the system.

We conclude that all the evidence is in favour of the formula (1) for the spectrum $`A_j`$ of the elementary objects. This implies the Bekenstein-Mukhanov type discrete spectrum of the black hole area, and the discrete spectrum of the black hole radiation.

We now turn to the black hole thermodynamics. We consider a quantum black hole as consisting of a large number of identical elementary components. Examples of such elementary components are the Wilson lines in the Ashtekar’s gravity and D0-branes in M-theory. Different viewpoints on the degree of distinguishability of these components will be discussed, and the entropy will be calculated in each case. Viewing the set of elementary components as the constituents of a grand canonical system, thermodynamics determines the entropy $`S`$ of the black hole, to be given by

$$S=k(A\beta +\mathrm{ln}Z),$$
(7)
where $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`A`$ is the conserved black hole area, $`\beta `$ is a temperature-like parameter dual to the area and $`Z`$ is the partition function,

$$Z=\underset{A}{}\mathrm{\Omega }(A)e^{\beta A}=\underset{A,N}{}\mathrm{\Omega }(A,N)e^{\beta A}.$$
(8)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ is the multiplicity of states of area A, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A,N)`$ is the multiplicity of state of area A and $`N`$ elementary components. The summation is over all possible areas and number of components.

To proceed, we will consider the elementary components as identical but completely distinguishable independent quantum systems. Then the partition function becomes

$$Z=\underset{N}{}Z_1^N=\frac{1}{1Z_1},$$
(9)
where $`Z_1=_A\mathrm{\Omega }(A,1)e^{\beta A}`$ is the partition function of a single component. The above expression for $`Z`$ implies that $`\beta `$ can never be less than the Hagedorn temperature parameter $`\beta _o`$, fixed by the relation $`Z_1(\beta _o)=1`$.

From equation (8) the area is related to the partition function by formula,

$$A=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z}{d\beta }=\frac{1}{1Z_1}\frac{dZ_1}{d\beta }.$$

Restricting our considerations to macroscopic areas $`A1`$ only, this relation implies that $`1Z_1\frac{1}{A}`$, and thus $`\beta \beta _o`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$ grows only as $`\mathrm{ln}A`$. The dominant contribution to the entropy will therefore be given by $`S=k\beta _oA`$. The entropy is always proportional to the area. This is a completely general result, valid for any system consisting of distinguishable components.

To fix the proportionality constant, we restrict our considerations to the case of the area spectrum given by equation (1),i.e. $`A_n=n`$, $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, and the degeneracy function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A,1)=\mathrm{\Omega }(n,1)=g(n)=n`$. Note that the states enumerated by the spin quantum number $`j`$, taking integer or half-integer values, are now enumerated by $`n=2j+1`$, a positive integer. We obtain $`Z_1=(2\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta }{2})^2`$. The partition function diverges at the Hagedorn temperature $`\beta =\beta _0=\mathrm{ln}\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}`$ and the area becomes macroscopic as $`\beta \beta _0`$. In that limit the entropy becomes

$$S=\frac{kA}{4\pi \gamma l_p^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}\right),$$
(10)
where we have acknowledged that the area is measured in units of $`4\pi \gamma l_p^2`$, where $`l_p`$ is the Planck length and $`\gamma `$ is the Immirzi parameter .

Equation (10) represents our final result for the entropy of a black hole. The validity of this derivation depends crucially on two important claims: that equation (1) gives the true area spectrum and that the area constituents, i.e. the edges in the Ashtekar’s gravity approach, are completely distinguishable. Attempts to justify the former claim have already been made. Let us now turn to the latter.

The elementary components of a black hole could a priori be either identical, partially distinguishable or completely distinguishable. Completely distinguishable components would mean that: (1) There is a difference between assigning two given spin values $`j_1`$ and $`j_2`$ to two different edges according to (edge 1, edge 2)$`=(j_1,j_2)`$ and (edge 1, edge 2)$`=(j_2,j_1)`$. (2) Even if $`j_1=j_2`$, there is a difference between assigning two different spin states $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ to the two different edges.

In calculating the entropy of equation (10), the edges were considered to be completely distinguishable, i.e. both claims (1) and (2) are imposed. Since the positions of different edges are determined by the spin network, which is formed by the way in which the edges are connected to each other and to the outside world, this viewpoint appears to be the one best describing the physical model, and as such, the one we should adopt (see also ).

In papers  a different view is adopted: The edges are partially distinguishable. Indeed, the multiplicity formula $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\{N_n\})=_ng(n)^{N_n}`$ applies if claim (1) above is not adopted while (2) still applies. Evaluating (8) with this counting of states we obtain

$$Z=\underset{\{N_n\}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }(\{N_n\})e^{\beta A}=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{1g(n)e^{\beta A(n)}}$$
(11)
If each edge does not have an exponentially increasing density of states (in which case it would be itself a macroscopic black hole) the only poles of the above expression are at $`e^{\beta A(n)}=g(n)`$. Calling $`\overline{\beta }_o`$ the lowest of these values of $`\beta `$, occuring for some $`n_o`$, we deduce that for macroscopic areas the model will exhibit Bose condensation at the spin $`j_o=(n_o1)/2`$ and the entropy will be $`S=\overline{\beta }_oA`$. For our area function (1) and the degeneracy function $`g(n)=n`$ this gives an entropy $`S=\frac{kA\gamma _0}{4l_p^2}`$ with $`\gamma _0=\frac{\mathrm{ln}3}{3\pi }`$. Bose condensation occurs at spin $`j=1`$. For Ashtekar’s choice of area function the result is instead $`\gamma _0=\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{\pi \sqrt{3}}`$, and Bose condensation occurs at $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$.

Finally, if the edges are identical we adopt neither claim (1) nor (2) and have the equivalent of a Bose-Einstein gas. Then, it turns out that the entropy is related to the area by $`SA^t`$, where the exponent satisfies $`t<1`$ if each edge does not have an exponential density of states. For the choices of area spectrum (1) and degeneracy function $`g(n)=n`$, the exponent acquires the value $`t=\frac{2}{3}`$. No Bose condensation occurs.

In conclusion, the area law $`S=\beta _oA`$ and the appearence of a Hagedorn temperature are the main results. These are extremely generic, requiring only some distinguishability of the elementary components. Since the Immirzi parameter is not fixed by the quantum theory , the different values of $`\beta _o`$ are of somewhat secondary importance. There is, however, a crucial physical difference between our result and the result of . While the latter suggest that Bose condensation occurs and area fluctuations are strongly suppressed, in our fully distinguishable case no Bose condensation occurs and the area within any solid angle of the black hole will exhibit fluctuations of order $`\sqrt{A}`$.

Acknowledgements. We thank J. Baez, V. Mukhanov and T. Strobl for useful discussions.