text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A complete theory of quantum gravity currently remains a most formidable obstacle. Yet, much has been ascertained by considering gravitational effects in a semi-classical regime. At the forefront of such research has been the remarkable analogy between black hole mechanics and thermodynamic systems. Certainly, black hole analogies to the zeroth, first and second laws of thermodynamics have been well established with the appropriate identifications: the surface area of the black hole horizon with entropy  and the surface gravity at the horizon with temperature . However, a third law of black hole thermodynamics, although technically formulated , is still in need of much clarification before the thermodynamic analogy can be considered complete .

It is worth reviewing the third law as it applies to “conventional” systems. There are actually two formulations of this law; both of which can be attributed to Nernst . Firstly, there is a formulation stating that the entropy of a system approaches a constant (which must be independent of all macroscopic parameters of the system) as the temperature approaches absolute zero. Typically, this constant is taken to be zero. Secondly, there is a formulation stating that it is impossible to reach absolute zero by a finite number of reversible processes. For ordinary thermodynamic systems, it is easy to show that these are equivalent statements. However, this is not the case for black holes as we shall soon see.

For sake of illustration, let us consider a Reissner-Nordstrom black hole (i.e., charged, spherically symmetric black hole in 4-dimensional spacetime) with mass $`M`$ and charge $`Q`$. Examining the so-called extremal limit of $`M^2Q^2`$, we know that the surface gravity (i.e., temperature) goes as $`\kappa \sqrt{M^2Q^2}`$, while the surface area (i.e., entropy) is given by $`A=4\pi (M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2})^2`$ (with all fundamental constants set to unity). It is immediately clear that the Hawking temperature vanishes in the extremal limit, so one would expect that the corresponding entropy would either vanish or approach a constant parameter. Alas, this is not the case, as the extremal value of entropy clearly depends on a macroscopic parameter; namely, the mass $`M`$ of the black hole.

Given the ambiguous nature of the extremal-limiting case, one is forced to choose between two possible revisions of the third law as applied to black hole thermodynamics. Either that the “enthropic” formulation of the third law holds in a weakened form (i.e., the zero-temperature limit does not coincide with a vanishing entropy) or there must be a discontinuity occurring near the zero-temperature limit (i.e., zero temperature may yield a state of vanishing entropy, but such a state can not be viewed as limiting case of a finite-temperature system). This dilemma has resulted in two very different schools of thought regarding the interpretation of extremal black holes.

On one hand, an extremal black hole is often interpreted as being a well-defined (zero-temperature) limit of its non-extremal counterpart. The most compelling argument on behalf of this viewpoint has come from string-theory calculations of black hole entropy. More specifically, Strominger and others  have considered certain classes of weakly coupled string theory for which massive string states can be represented by extremal black holes. In these works, a statistical procedure has been used to generate the Bekenstein-Hawking area law (i.e., entropy is equal to one quarter of the surface area), precisely. If such a result is valid, then clearly the extremal limit must be well-defined with entropy being a non-vanishing, mass-dependent quantity in this limit.

On the other hand, it has been conjectured that extremal black holes and non-extremal black holes are qualitatively distinct entities, with no chance of one continuously deforming into the other. In this picture, extremal black holes are indeed assigned zero entropy, assuming that they can exist at all. Support for this point of view has come from various sources. Here, we take note of studies that closely examined the following issues: topological differences between non-extremal and extremal geometries , extremal breakdowns occurring at perturbative order , infinitley long time periods required to achieve extremality , non-thermal behavior of an “incipient” extremal black hole  and violations in the second law for finite-entropy extremal black holes .

Suffice it to say, given these two conflicting viewpoints, there is still no consensus on the subject of extremal thermodynamics.

Let us now consider a recent paper, of relevance to this subject, by Fabbri, Navarro and Navarro-Salas . These authors demonstrated a direct correspondence between the near-horizon behavior of near-extremal Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) black holes and a static geometry in AdS2 (i.e., 2-dimensional anti-de Sitter spacetime).111This dual behavior originates, quite naturally, by way of the AdS2/CFT1 correspondence . What is particularly interesting about this correspondence is that it implies a duality between near-extremal RN black holes and near-massless black holes in Jackiw-Teitelboim (JT) theory . Such a duality has intriguing ramifications regarding the third law of thermodynamics for the following reason. Massless JT black holes have both a vanishing temperature and a vanishing entropy. That is, with regard to JT theory, the third law of thermodynamics holds naturally in both of Nernst’s formulations. Given the eternal vagueness of what constitutes the “true physical picture” of any given system, this duality should be taken seriously as supporting the viewpoint of a well-defined extremal limit.

Fabbri et al.  continued on in their paper with an analysis of back-reaction effects due to the presence of minimally coupled scalar fields. On this perturbative level, their rigorous analysis supported a well-defined extremal limit. However, here, we have to take issue with one point. The matter fields were assumed to be minimally coupled with regard to the JT black hole theory. Since the JT action, in this context, has its origins in a 4-dimensional theory, we feel that any matter fields should be subjected to the same criteria. That is, it can be argued that the matter fields should be, for instance, minimally coupled in the original 4-dimensional theory. In this case, the form of coupling in the dual 2-dimensional theory can only be ascertained after implementing the same dimensional-reduction ansatz as applied to the classical action. An investigation into this very matter is the topic of the current paper.

The content of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the correspondence that was found between near-extremal RN black holes and near-massless JT black holes . Then, in Section 3, we consider quantum back-reaction effects to first-perturbative order. (The philosophy that underlies our approach is based on a study by Anderson, Hiscock and Taylor .) In particular, the quantum-corrected form of the surface gravity (or, equivalently, temperature) is calculated. After which, we determine if a massless black hole complies with a non-negative surface gravity; a necessary condition for any black hole thermodynamic system to have physical meaning. With an eye to completeness, this analysis is carried out for both a matter field that is minimally coupled in the effective 2-dimensional theory and in the original 4-dimensional theory. Note that, for the sake of brevity, much of the technical details of this section have been left to previously published papers by Kunstatter and this author . Finally, Section 4 closes with a summary and discussion of the results.

## 2 Near-Extremal Reissner-Nordstrom Black Holes

Fabbri, Navarro and Navarro-Salas  have recently demonstrated an explicit correspondence between near-extremal Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) black holes and near-massless black holes of 2-dimensional AdS gravity. In this section, we review this duality, as it is essential to the later analysis of this paper.

Let us begin with the 4-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell action:222For the duration of the paper, we work in units such that the speed of light and Boltzmann’s constant are set equal to unity.

$$I^{(4)}=\frac{1}{16\pi G}d^4x\sqrt{g^{(4)}}\left[R^{(4)}F^{AB}F_{AB}\right],$$
(1)
where $`G`$ is the 4-dimensional Newton constant and $`F_{AB}`$ is the Abelian field-strength tensor ($`A,B=0,1,2,3`$).

The unique static and spherically symmetric solution of this action can be described by the well-known RN metric:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2GM}{r}+\frac{GQ^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2GM}{r}+\frac{GQ^2}{r^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(2)
where $`M`$ and $`Q`$ represent the conserved quantities of black hole mass and black hole charge (respectively). If $`M^2G^2>GQ^2`$, this is the solution for a charged, non-extremal black hole with two distinct horizons. These are given by:

$$r_\pm =GM\pm \sqrt{G^2M^2GQ^2}.$$
(3)
The thermodynamic properties of non-extremal, highly symmetric black holes are well established . In the RN case, the associated entropy and temperature are respectively found to be:

$$S_{BH}=\frac{A_+}{4\mathrm{}G}=\frac{\pi r_+^2}{\mathrm{}G},$$
(4)
$$T_H=\frac{\mathrm{}\kappa _+}{2\pi }=\mathrm{}\frac{r_+r_{}}{4\pi r_+^2},$$
(5)
where $`A_+`$ is the surface area and $`\kappa _+`$ is the surface gravity with respect to the outermost horizon.

For the case of extremal black holes (i.e., when $`G^2M^2=GQ^2`$ or $`r_{}=r_+`$), the associated thermodynamic properties remain an open issue (as discussed in Section 1). However, we can still safely consider a “near-extremal regime” by setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=MM_o`$, where $`M_o^2=Q^2/G`$ (with the charge $`Q`$ assumed to be a fixed quantity). Then to leading order in $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }M}`$:

$$r_+=GM_o+G\sqrt{2M_o\mathrm{\Delta }M},$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_{BH}S_{BH}(M,Q)S_{BH}(M_o)=\frac{4\pi GM_o}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{M_o\mathrm{\Delta }M}{2}}$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }T_HT_H(M,Q)T_H(M_o)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi GM_o^2}\sqrt{2M_o\mathrm{\Delta }M},$$
(8)
where $`S_BH(M_o)=\pi GM_o^2/\mathrm{}`$ and $`T_H(M_o)=0`$.

It is well known that imposing spherical symmetry on 4-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell gravity leads to a 2-dimensional effective theory.333For futher discussion on the various aspects of 2-dimensional gravity, one should consult the series of papers in Ref. (and references therein). After this procedure, the dimensionally reduced action can be expressed as follows (see, for example, refs.):

$$I=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{\varphi ^2}{4l^2}R+\frac{1}{2l^2}(\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{2l^2}\frac{Q^2}{2\varphi ^2}\right],$$
(9)
where the “dilaton” $`\varphi `$ is identifiable with the radius of the symmetric two-sphere, $`l^2=G`$, the conserved charge is (still) given by $`Q`$, and all geometric quantities have been defined with respect to the resultant 1+1-dimensional manifold.

It is convenient to eliminate the kinetic term in Eq.(9) by way of the following field reparametrization :

$$\overline{\varphi }=\frac{\varphi ^2}{4l^2},$$
(10)
$$\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{\overline{\varphi }}g_{\mu \nu }.$$
(11)
The reparametrized action then takes on the following form:

$$I=d^2x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\left[\overline{\varphi }R(\overline{g})+\frac{1}{l^2}\overline{V}_Q(\overline{\varphi })\right],$$
(12)
where:

$$\overline{V}_Q(\overline{\varphi })=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\overline{\varphi }}}\left[1\frac{Q^2}{4\overline{\varphi }}\right].$$
(13)
It is pertinent to this analysis that the extremal configuration (i.e., the extremal RN limit assuming its existence) can be recovered when the “potential” $`\overline{V}_Q(\overline{\varphi })`$ vanishes. That is, when:

$$\overline{\varphi }=\overline{\varphi }_o\frac{Q^2}{4}.$$
(14)
With this in mind, let us now define $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\overline{\varphi }\overline{\varphi }_o`$ and expand the action (12) about the extremal configuration. To first order in $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, the following is obtained:

$$I=d^2x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }R(\overline{g})+\frac{1}{l^2}\stackrel{~}{V}_Q(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\right],$$
(15)
where:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_Q(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=\frac{d\overline{V}_Q}{d\overline{\varphi }}|_{\overline{\varphi }_o}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{4}{|Q|^3}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.$$
(16)
Henceforth, we drop the tildes and bars; thus considering the following action:

$$I=d^2x\sqrt{g}\varphi \left[R(g)+2\frac{\lambda }{l^2}\right],$$
(17)
where $`\lambda =2/|Q|^3`$. This is simply the action for 2-dimensional AdS gravity for which black hole solutions are known and commonly referred to as Jackiw-Teitelboim (JT) black holes .

It can be readily shown that, for a static gauge, the general solution of the JT action (17) is expressible as follows:

$$ds^2=(\lambda \frac{x^2}{l^2}ml)dt^2+(\lambda \frac{x^2}{l^2}ml)^1dx^2,$$
(18)
$$\varphi =\frac{x}{l},$$
(19)
where $`m`$ represents the conserved mass of the JT black hole. Moreover, with straightforward application of Ref. (applicable to a generic 2-dimensional dilaton theory), we are able to identify the following thermodynamic properties:

$$S_{JT}=\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{}}\varphi _+,$$
(20)
$$T_{JT}=\frac{\mathrm{}\lambda }{2\pi l}\varphi _+,$$
(21)
where $`\varphi _+=x_+/l=\sqrt{lm/\lambda }`$ is the horizon value of the dilaton field.

Recalling that $`\lambda =2/|Q|^3`$, $`l^2=G`$ and $`Q^2=GM_o^2`$, and also identifying $`m`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, we can easily show the following:

$$S_{JT}=\frac{4\pi GM_o}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{\frac{M_o\mathrm{\Delta }M}{2}},$$
(22)
$$T_{JT}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi GM_o^2}\sqrt{2M_o\mathrm{\Delta }M}.$$
(23)
A direct comparison of these outcomes with Eqs.(7,8) yields a couple of intriguing identifications:

$$S_{JT}=\mathrm{\Delta }S_{BH},$$
(24)
$$T_{JT}=\mathrm{\Delta }T_H.$$
(25)
That is, the thermodynamic properties of a near-extremal black hole coincide with JT thermodynamics.

The massless ($`m0`$) limit in the JT sector appears to be a well-defined limiting procedure. Moreover, in this massless limit, $`S_{JT}0`$ as $`T_{JT}0`$; so the enthropic formulation of the third law of thermodynamics has been explicitly realized. With these observations, as well as the observed duality, it is tempting to conclude that extremal RN black holes can be interpreted as a limiting case of non-extremal solutions. However, such a conclusion is premature until back-reaction effects have properly been accounted for.

## 3 Perturbed Jackiw-Teitelboim Black Holes

### 3.1 General Setup

Generally speaking, the emission of Hawking radiation is expected to have repercussions on the underlying black hole geometry. This effect should be of particular importance near the extremal (or, for JT theory, massless) limit, where even the smallest changes in black hole mass can significantly deform the background geometry. To investigate the implications of such back-reaction effects, we will suitably adapt an approach suggested by Anderson et al. .

Let us begin here by considering a JT black hole in a state of thermal equilibrium with a quantized matter field. This equilibrium state ensures that the perturbed geometry continues to be static and, hence, can be generically expressed in the following manner:

$$ds^2=e^{2\omega (x)}\left[\lambda \frac{x^2}{l^2}mll\mu (x)\right]dt^2+\left[\lambda \frac{x^2}{l^2}mll\mu (x)\right]^1dx^2.$$
(26)
With this ansatz, the quantum corrections are expressed in terms of a “mass correction” $`\mu (x)`$ and another function $`\omega (x)`$; both of which are required to vanish in the classical ($`\mathrm{}0`$) limit. For future convenience, we will introduce a perturbative parameter $`ϵ\mathrm{}<<1`$ and write:

$$\mu (x)=ϵ\mu _1(x)+𝒪(ϵ^2),$$
(27)
$$e^{2\omega (x)}=1+2ϵ\omega _1(x)+𝒪(ϵ^2).$$
(28)
Let us next consider the semi-classical Einstein equation:

$$G_\nu ^\mu =<T_\nu ^\mu >.$$
(29)
Using the quantum-corrected metric (26) to describe the Einstein tensor ($`G_\nu ^\mu `$), one finds the following to first order in $`ϵ`$ (see, for example, Ref.):

$$ϵ\mu _1^{}=<T_t^t>,$$
(30)
$$ϵ\omega _1^{}=\frac{l^3}{2(\lambda x^2l^3m)}\left[<T_x^x><T_t^t>\right],$$
(31)
where primes indicate differentiation with respect to $`x`$.

To check the consistency of the perturbed solution when near extremality, it is useful to consider the quantum-corrected surface gravity. The premise being that black hole thermodynamics can only have physical meaning when the surface gravity (or, equivalently, the temperature) maintains a non-negative value. Using standard calculational procedures , we have:

$$\kappa =\frac{e^\omega }{2}\left[\lambda \frac{x^2}{l^2}lml\mu \right]^{}|_{x=x_++q},$$
(32)
where $`x_+=\sqrt{l^3m/\lambda }`$ is the classical horizon and $`q`$ is its quantum deformation. Up to first order in $`ϵ`$, this expression can be written:

$$\kappa =\left[1ϵ\omega _1(x_+)\right]\frac{\lambda }{l^2}x_++ϵ\frac{\lambda }{l^2}q_1ϵ\frac{l}{2}\mu _1^{}(x_+),$$
(33)
where $`q=ϵq_1+𝒪(ϵ^2)`$.

In principle, $`\mu _1`$ and $`\omega _1`$ can be directly obtained from Eqs.(30,31), while the one-loop horizon shift can be expressed as:444The relation follows from a Taylor expansion of the defining relation: $`l^2\lambda (x_++q)^2lml\mu =0`$.

$$q_1=\frac{l^3}{2\lambda x_+}\mu _1(x_+).$$
(34)
### 3.2 Minimal Coupling in 2-D

If we are to proceed with an explicit calculation, it is necessary to make some assumptions regarding the nature of the quantized matter field. Let us begin with the simple choice of a massless scalar field ($`f`$) that is minimally coupled in the 2-dimensional theory. The revised (total) action thus becomes:

$$I_{TOT}=I_{JT}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}d^2x\sqrt{g}(f)^2,$$
(35)
where $`I_{JT}`$ is the action of Eq.(17). After integrating out the matter field and then taking the vacuum limit, one is known to obtain a quantum effective action of the following form :

$$I_{TOT}=I_{JT}\frac{\mathrm{}}{96\pi }d^2xR\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}R.$$
(36)
At this point, we defer the details of the stress-tensor calculation (and related quantities) to Ref.. In this prior study, first-order quantum corrections to the JT model were explicitly calculated for the case of minimally coupled scalar fields. The following results, which are of pertinence to the current study, were found:555There is a minor modification to the prior results due to the extra factor of $`\lambda `$ in the cosmological-constant term. This additional consideration only trivially affects the calculations.

$$ϵ\mu _1^{}(x_+)=\frac{\mathrm{}\lambda }{24\pi l^2},$$
(37)
$$ϵ\omega _1(x_+)=0+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{L}\right),$$
(38)
$$ϵq_1=\frac{\mathrm{}l}{48\pi }.$$
(39)
Here, $`L`$ is the extent of the system’s outer boundary, which (for our purposes) can be taken to infinity.666Since we are considering a black hole in thermal equilibrium, it is necessary to enclose the system in a “box” . 777One might anticipate a similar box contribution arising in the calculation of $`\mu _1(x_+)`$ and (hence) $`q_1`$. However, in this case, we have assumed the constant of integration to be absorbed into the “renormalized” zeroth-order mass ($`m`$). Substituting these results into Eq.(33) for the first-order surface gravity, we have:

$$\kappa =\frac{\lambda }{l^2}x_+=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda m}{l}}.$$
(40)
To review, we have considered the case of a minimally coupled scalar field; that is, minimally coupled with regard to the 2-dimensional JT theory. We find that the surface gravity does indeed remain non-negative, even in the massless limit, when first-order perturbative effects are considered. However, as priorly discussed, this is not necessarily an appropriate form for the coupling. In Section 1, we have argued that the matter fields should have some sort of 4-dimensional pedigree. One simple, sensible choice is the condition of a minimally coupled scalar in the 4-dimensional model. In this case, the coupling in the 2-dimensional theory would be fixed by the dimensional-reduction process and would, presumably, no longer be minimal. We consider this scenario next.

### 3.3 Minimal Coupling in 4-D

Let us now consider a massless scalar field ($`f`$) that is minimally coupled in the 4-dimensional theory. The revised (total) action for the four dimensional theory can then be written:

$$I_{TOT}^{(4)}=I^{(4)}\frac{\mathrm{}}{16\pi G}d^4x\sqrt{g^{(4)}}(^{(4)}f)^2,$$
(41)
where $`I^{(4)}`$ is the Einstein-Maxwell action of Eq.(1). Again imposing spherical symmetry, we obtain a dimensionally reduced form:

$$I_{TOT}=I\frac{\mathrm{}}{2l^2}d^2x\sqrt{g}\varphi ^2(f)^2,$$
(42)
where $`I`$ is the reduced action of Eq.(9).

Following the same pattern of field reparametrization and expansion as in Section 2, we eventually find:

$$I_{TOT}=I_{JT}2\mathrm{}d^2x\sqrt{\overline{g}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\overline{}f)^2,$$
(43)
where $`I_{JT}`$ is the JT action of Eq.(15) (or Eq.(17)) and we have explicitly shown the tilde and bar notation for the sake of clarity. Notably, the dilaton-matter coupling is precisely that obtained in the dimensional reduction (from three to two dimensions) of a BTZ black hole, assuming minimal coupling in the higher-dimensional theory . Hence, we can treat this model as a dimensionally reduced (non-rotating) BTZ black hole.

After integrating out the matter field and then taking the vacuum limit, one can exploit the 2-dimensional trace conformal anomaly 888It has been pointed out  that some of the referenced literature contains calculational errors. However, the demonstrated techniques are still of considerable interest. to obtain the following action :

$$I_{TOT}=I_{JT}\frac{\mathrm{}}{96\pi }d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[R\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}R\frac{3}{\varphi ^2}(\varphi )^2\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}R\mathrm{ln}\eta ^2\right)6\mathrm{ln}(\varphi )R\right],$$
(44)
with tildes and bars again being suppressed. Note that $`\eta `$ is an arbitrary parameter that arises out of the renormalization procedure .

A brief aside. It would be remiss of us not to point out that such a reduction process has recently been criticized. In particular, it has been shown that the procedures of quantization and reduction do not necessarily commute . Also, the reduced form of the action may be missing non-local terms that originate from the conformally invariant part of the action . However, it remains uncertain as to what (if any) effect these considerations would have on the qualitative features of a first-order, semi-classical analysis.

Now let us return our attentions to the non-local action of Eq.(44). At this point, one can proceed by first re-expressing this action in an equivalent localized form. (See, for instance, Refs..) This should be followed by the careful imposition of boundary conditions (which must be suitable for a black hole in thermal equilibrium). After which, the first-order stress tensor can be evaluated in a straightforward manner. We again defer to Refs. for the intricate details of this calculation (it would also be useful to consult Refs.) and simply quote the pertinent results:

$$ϵ\mu _1^{}(x_+)=\frac{\mathrm{}\lambda }{6\pi l^2},$$
(45)
$$ϵ\omega _1(x_+)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{32\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\lambda }{lm}}\mathrm{ln}(4lm)+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{L}\right),$$
(46)
$$ϵq_1=\frac{\mathrm{}l}{96\pi }\left[3\mathrm{ln}(4lm)1\right].$$
(47)
Note that the arbitrary (renormalization) constant $`\eta `$ has been suitably fixed to eliminate it from the field equations.

Substituting the above results into Eq.(33), we obtain the following revision to the first-order surface gravity:

$$\kappa =\sqrt{\frac{\lambda m}{l}}+\frac{\mathrm{}\lambda }{16\pi l}\mathrm{ln}(4lm)\frac{3}{32}\frac{\mathrm{}\lambda }{\pi l}.$$
(48)
We now recall the criteria that $`\kappa `$ be non-negative for a legitimate black hole solution. Thus, from the above result, it is immediately apparent that some sort of lower bound must be imposed on the zeroth-order (but renormalized) mass $`m`$. (Notice that $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$ as $`m0`$.) For illustrative purposes, let us assume that the lower bound on mass ($`m_b`$) occurs when $`4lm1`$. It thus follows that:

$`\sqrt{m_b}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{}}{32\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{l}}}`$ (49)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{}}{32\pi GM_o^2}}\sqrt{2M_o},`$
where the lower line has been expressed in terms of the 4-dimensional parameters of $`M_o`$ (the mass of the black hole at theoretical extremality) and $`G`$ (the Newton gravitational constant).

Let us further recall that the JT black hole mass ($`m`$) has been identified with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$; that is, the mass deviation from extremality in the RN black hole. Hence, the lower bound on $`m`$ directly implies that the RN black hole can not reach an extremal state. Furthermore, we can apply our quantitative result for $`m_b`$ to determine lower bounds on the RN entropy and temperature (cf. Eqs.(7,8)):

$$S_{BH}(M,Q)S_{BH}(M_o)+\frac{3}{8},$$
(50)
$$T_H(M,Q)\frac{3}{32\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{G^2M_o^3}.$$
(51)
The situation is, of course, more complex than this on account of the neglected logarithmic term in Eq.(48). (Not to mention the considerations of Refs..) However, the qualitative implications of this analysis remain quite clear. A non-extremal black hole can not continuously evolve to a state of extremality. Rather, the quantum back reaction will hinder the evaporation process; with the black hole ultimately “freezing” at some non-zero temperature that is related to the Planck scale. One might go so far as to say that back-reaction effects intrinsically protect the third law of thermodynamics.

## 4 Conclusion

In the previous paper, we have considered near-extremal Reissner-Nordstrom black holes. To begin the analysis, we reviewed a duality  that exists between the near-extremal RN sector and Jackiw-Teitelboim theory . This correspondence was established by a process of dimensional reduction, followed by an appropriate conformal transformation of the metric (along with a redefinition of the dilaton field that arises out of the reduction ansatz). With a series of identifications, it was demonstrated that the thermodynamic properties of the JT black hole are indeed equivalent to deviations (from extremality) in the original RN theory. Also of note, the massless limit in the JT solution effectively describes the extremal limit of the RN black hole.

At a first glance, the massless JT black hole appears to be at the terminus of a well-defined limiting procedure. This is certainly a valid assessment from a classical viewpoint; however, we felt it was necessary to clarify the situation with regard to quantum-perturbative effects. In particular, we incorporated a (massless) quantum scalar field and then considered first-order deformations to the JT geometry. With the assumption of a minimally coupled matter field in two dimensions, we found that the well-defined massless limit remains intact. However, the underlying assumption is decidedly incompatible with the 4-dimensional origins of the theory. With this in mind, we also examined the case of a minimal coupling in 4-dimensions; thus giving the matter field a 4-dimensional pedigree.

To begin the revised first-order analysis, we considered Einstein-Maxwell theory minimally coupled to a quantum scalar field. After repeating the procedures of dimensional reduction and field reparametrization, we found that the total action effectively mimics that of a dimensionally reduced (non-rotating) BTZ model . With this realization, we were able to directly apply the results of a prior study  and calculate the first-order corrections to the JT geometry.

Guided by a related paper , we invoked a condition of non-negative surface gravity (or, equivalently, temperature) as an appropriate litmus test for the validity of a low-mass JT solution. In this manner, we were able to establish a finite lower bound on the JT black hole mass. For values of mass falling below this bound, first-order perturbative effects drive the surface gravity below zero, leading to physically unacceptable solutions. Given the RN-JT duality (existing in the near-extremal RN sector), the lower bound on JT mass directly implies a finite lower bound on the temperature of a RN black hole. That is, because of back-reaction effects, the RN black hole will be prohibited from attaining an extremal state. Moreover, The RN black hole can not even come arbitrarily close to an extremal solution; rather, it will “freeze” at a finite temperature that is related to the Planck scale.

Given the distinct topological differences that exist between the extremal and non-extremal sectors , as well as the third law of thermodynamics, it is not surprising that a discontinuity exists between the two solutions. What may be more of a revelation is the finite “separation”; that is, a non-extremal black hole can not come arbitrarily close to extremality. In defense of this notion, we point out a recent investigation into the physical spectra of charged black holes . In this study, it was generically shown that extremal black holes can not be achieved (at the quantum level) due to vacuum fluctuations in the horizon. With the presumption that such fluctuations are of Planck-scale order, this result coincides nicely with our findings.

In spite of our conclusions and similar ones elsewhere in the literature, there remain many open questions with regard to the status of extremal black holes. For instance, can they exist, and (if so) can they be understood as thermodynamic systems. The definitive answers may have to await a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity.

## 5 Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank V.P. Frolov for helpful conversations.


format: text

text:
# A uniform analysis of the Ly-𝛼 forest at 𝑧=0-5: IV. The clustering and evolution of clouds at 𝑧≤1.7.

## 1 Introduction

This paper is a continuation of the project of the analysis of Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorption lines covering the range of redshifts, $`z=05`$. The first two papers in this series (Scott, Bechtold, & Dobrzycki 2000; Scott et al. 2000; hereafter Papers I and II) presented the analysis of intermediate resolution ground based data. This and accompanying papers (Bechtold et al. 2001, Paper III; Scott et al. 2001, Paper V) report the analysis of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS; Ford & Hartig 1990) archival spectra.

Paper III describes the FOS data reductions, absorption line analysis, and line identification procedure. In this paper we present the distribution and clustering properties of the Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorption lines.

All data analyzed in this and other papers from this series can be accessed from our web pages:
`http://lithops.as.arizona.edu/~jill/QuasarSpectra/`
or
`http://hea-www.harvard.edu/QEDT/QuasarSpectra/`.

## 2 The Lyman $`\alpha `$ absorption line sample

From data presented in Paper III, we selected all spectra suitable for the analysis of the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest. We excluded spectra observed with A-1 aperture before installation of COSTAR, broad-absorption line quasars, and quasars observed in spectropolarimetry mode (see Paper III). In cases where two images of a gravitationally lensed quasar were observed, or a close pair of quasars or grouping of quasars were observed, we included only one line-of-sight, choosing the spectra with the highest signal-to-noise.

For detailed discussion on the detection significance and completeness in our sample, and on the identification of metal lines, see Sec. 2 of Paper III.

In total, the sample analyzed in this paper contains spectra of 165 quasars (Table 1). The spectral resolution of all the data is 230–280 km s-1 FWHM. Of those 165 quasars, 63 were analyzed by Weymann et al. (1988) as part of the HST Quasar Absorption Line Key Project (Bahcall et al. 1993, 1996; Schneider et al. 1993, Jannuzi et al. 1998, Weymann et al. 1998). The sixty fourth object in Weymann et al. sample, PG 2302+029, is a broad absorption line quasar (Jannuzi et al. 1996) and was excluded from our sample (as well as from Samples 6–10 in Weymann et al.).

We selected the sample of the absorption lines for further analysis using the following criteria:

1. The detection significance for the line has to be greater than 5$`\sigma `$.

2. A line cannot be identified as a heavy element absorption feature. Regions within 300 km s-1 of the centers of metal absorption lines were excluded from the analysis.

3. Whenever a Ly-$`\alpha `$ “forest” sample was called for, we excluded Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines identified as members of heavy element systems and regions within 300 km s-1 from such lines.

4. We excluded lines lying bluewards from the location of the Ly-$`\beta `$ emission line, to avoid confusion with the Ly-$`\beta `$ lines from higher redshift Ly-$`\alpha `$ systems.

Please note that these criteria are more conservative than those of the HST Key Project. The sample contains 1298 lines if all Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines (forest and metal systems) are selected, and 1157 Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest lines. Figure 1 shows the rest equivalent width, $`W_{\lambda _0}`$, defined as $`W_{\lambda _0}=W_{\lambda (\mathrm{obs})}/(1+z)`$, of all Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines versus redshift, $`z`$. Equivalent widths were measured from gaussian fits to significant absorption features (see Paper III). This plot has not been corrected for the relative sensitivity for detection at each redshift and is only intended to show the redshift distribution of the sample.

Figure 2 shows the histogram of rest equivalent widths of lines in the full Ly-$`\alpha `$ sample. The shaded area shows the Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines with detected metal absorption. Figure 2 clearly shows that lines associated with metal systems begin to compose a significant part of the sample for rest equivalent widths greater than $``$1 Å. We cannot rule out the possibility that some of the lines in our sample are in fact unidentified metal system lines. However, we found that the exclusion from the analysis of all lines with $`W_{\lambda _0}>1`$ Å — which, in view of Fig. 2, are the prime suspects for being unrecognized metal lines — produced negligible differences in the number density evolution results.

Figure 3 shows the comparison of redshift coverage in our sample with the Weymann et al. (1998) sample. The upper panel shows the combined path length available for study in both samples as a function of redshift, while the lower panel shows the number of available lines. The notable differences are that (1) our sample extends to $`z1.8`$, while the Key Project sample effectively ends at $`z1.5`$, (2) our sample contains considerably more lines in the $`z=1.01.5`$ range, and (3) our sample by definition excludes lines below Ly-$`\beta `$ emission line, while the Key Project sample does not.

We note that did not attempt to remove the flat field features in the FOS spectra, which the Key Project went to great lengths to do (Schneider et al. 1993, Jannuzi et al. 1998). We identify 38 of their 141 confirmed flat field features as lines with significance greater than 5$`\sigma `$ (Paper III). However, only nine of those features lie in the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest. Simple extrapolation of those numbers to the sample analyzed here would indicate that roughly 24 lines out of our total sample of 1298, or less than 2%, are spurious. However, even this low number is likely overestimated, since majority of redshift path in our sample that is added to the Key Project sample (see Fig. 3) is in regions covered by G130H and G270H gratings, which have less (none in the case of G130H, actually) identified flat field features than grating G190H (Jannuzi et al. 1998). Those should have a negligible effect on our results.

## 3 Properties of Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorbers at $`z1.7`$

We parameterized the distribution of individual clouds using:

$$\frac{^2𝒩}{zW_{\lambda _0}}=𝒜_0W_{}^1\left(1+z\right)^\gamma \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{W_{\lambda _0}}{W_{}}\right)$$
(1)
where $`𝒜_0`$, $`\gamma `$, and $`W_{}`$ are the distribution parameters. For a non-evolving population of clouds $`1/2\gamma 1`$, depending on the value of $`q_0`$ (Peterson 1978). It is well-established that $`\gamma `$ is significantly greater than 1 at $`z1.7`$, indicating strong evolution (e.g. Bajtlik, Duncan, & Ostriker 1988; Lu, Wolfe, & Turnshek 1991; Bechtold 1994; Kim et al. 1997; Paper I). However, the HST Quasar Absorption Line Key Project and other studies showed that $`\gamma `$ is less then 1 at $`z1.7`$, consistent with the no evolution case (Bahcall et al. 1993, 1996; Weymann et al. 1998; Vanden Berk et al. 1999; Impey, Petry, & Flint 1999).

The proximity effect (Bajtlik, Duncan & Ostriker 1988; Bechtold 1994; Paper II) at high redshift causes the derived value of $`\gamma `$ to depend strongly on the inclusion or exclusion of lines with $`z_{\mathrm{abs}}z_{\mathrm{em}}`$. However, the proximity effect is not expected to influence the results as significantly at low redshift for a few reasons. First, the overall number density of absorbers per unit redshift is smaller than at high redshift, and so the expected number of lines affected will also be small. Second, the quasars used at low redshift are intrinsically fainter on average than the quasars observed at high $`z`$, and thus it is expected that their influence at their environment will also be less prominent (see Paper V). We determined the distribution parameters both including and excluding lines with “ejection velocity” $`V_{\mathrm{ej}}`$, velocity displacement from the emission redshift of the quasar, greater than 3000 km s-1. A detailed analysis of the proximity effect is presented in Paper V.

### 3.1 The method

We estimated the parameters $`𝒜_0`$, $`\gamma `$, and $`W_{}`$ from Eq. (1) for the whole FOS sample and several subsamples. We developed and utilized a computer code, based on the algorithm from Murdoch et al. (1986; their equations \[A2a\] and \[A8a\] corrected), modified so that the integral in Eq. (A2) of Murdoch et al., which cannot be calculated analytically in the case of variable threshold, is derived numerically. The Murdoch et al. method consists of solving for $`\gamma `$ and $`W_{}`$ by finding the roots of the derivatives of the log of the likelihood function describing Equation (1) with respect to $`\gamma `$ and $`W_{}`$. Uncertainties in each parameter are found from a parabolic fit to $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ such that 1$`\sigma `$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{ln}L=\mathrm{ln}L_{\mathrm{max}}1/2`$. The normalization, $`𝒜_0`$, is calculated by dividing the total number of lines by the sum of the integral of Equation (1) over the redshift paths in all quasars:

$$𝒜_0=𝒩\times \left[\underset{q}{}\underset{z_{\mathrm{min}}^q}{\overset{z_{\mathrm{max}}^q}{}}\left(1+z\right)^\gamma 𝑑z\right]^1.$$
(2)
for the considered sample. For each run of our program, we tested the goodness-of-fit of the outcome using Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test.

This treatment of the normalization differs slightly from that of the HST Key Project. We and the Key Project both solve for $`\gamma `$ and $`W_{}`$ using all lines above some rest equivalent width that is either fixed to some constant value or varied according to the signal-to-noise ratio in each spectral region. Weymann et al. (1998) determine the normalization, denoted $`dN/dz`$ in their Table 2, explicitly in the maximum likelihood solution rather than by using Eq. (2). Each $`dN/dz`$ value listed in their table is the local line density relative to the local density of lines above 0.24 Å, regardless of the limiting equivalent width of the sample used. In our software, this relative scaling is not done. In other words, we always normalize to the stated constant rest equivalent width limit and do not quote a value of $`𝒜_0`$ for the case of a variable rest equivalent width limit.

### 3.2 Results

#### 3.2.1 Number density evolution

Table 2 presents a summary of our estimates of the parameters from Eq. (1) in several subsamples of the data set. The main result, seen clearly in Table 2, is that in all cases the value of the evolution index, $`\gamma `$, is within few tenths of 0.5, significantly lower than the value estimated from ground-based samples of Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest lines at redshifts greater than $``$1.7. Our values are consistent with the “no evolution” expectations. We show the results for the $`W_{\lambda _0}0.24`$ Å, $`V_{\mathrm{ej}}3000`$ km s-1 sample in Figure 4. The values of the K-S probability show that the power law is an excellent approximation of the distribution of lines at the redshift range covered in our sample. Note that this disagrees with the result of Kim, Cristiani, & D’Odorico (2001), who found that the break in $`d𝒩/dz`$ slope occurred around $`z1.2`$.

The results appear to depend only weakly on whether the Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines from metal systems are included in the sample. Also, it can be seen in Table 2 that taking the proximity effect into account — by excluding the lines with $`V_{\mathrm{ej}}<3000`$ km s-1 — results in an insignificant change in the estimates of the number density evolution index; the difference is of the order of 1$`\sigma `$ or less.

#### 3.2.2 Comparison with HST QSOAL Key Project

The results agree qualitatively with the findings of the HST QSOAL Key Project. Weymann et al. (1998) have analyzed the complete Key Project Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorption line sample and also found that the evolution index, $`\gamma `$, is smaller than the one found for high-redshift samples. However, their values of $`\gamma `$ for various Ly-$`\alpha `$ subsamples range from $`0.03`$ to $`+0.26`$ with uncertainties of $`0.20`$. The values of $`\gamma `$ that we find from our total FOS sample are larger than those found by the Key Project by $``$1.9$`\sigma `$ in the case of the constant, 0.24 Å equivalent width threshold and by $``$4.5$`\sigma `$ in the case of a variable equivalent width threshold

A comparison of these two results is shown in Figure 4, where we show our data and fit for $`W_{\lambda _0}0.24`$ Å (solid line), and the $`d𝒩/dz`$ vs. $`z`$ curve (dotted line) for a comparable sample from Weymann et al. (1998; their sample #5, which had $`𝒜_0=30.7`$ and $`\gamma =0.15\pm 0.23`$). We see a comparable number of lines per unit redshift at low $`z`$, but slightly (ca. 15%) more lines at $`z1.5`$.

There are a few effects that may account for the discrepancy. As noted earlier (see Fig. 3), our sample has larger redshift coverage and contains markedly more lines at $`z=1.01.5`$. Also, our sample excludes lines below Ly-$`\beta `$ emission line.

We determined the parameters of Eq. (1) in a subsample of our data, containing only the objects we had in common with the Key Project. The results were in very good agreement with Weymann et al. (1998); we show the data points and the fit on Fig. 4. Specifically, we obtained $`\gamma =0.38\pm 0.36`$ for the $`W_{\lambda _0}0.24`$ Å sample, and $`\gamma =0.26\pm 0.22`$ for the variable threshold case, markedly lowering any discrepancy. Also, the results show the same qualitative behavior of lowering the value of $`\gamma `$ when limiting the analysis to the Key Project objects.

The other effect that can influence the results is the exclusion of lines below Ly-$`\beta `$ emission lines. In order to verify whether this can account for at least part of the discrepancy, we analyzed the Ly-$`\alpha `$ line lists of the HST Key Project using our equivalent width threshold information and our metal system identifications for excluding spectral regions. Including identified Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines blueward of Ly-$`\beta `$ emission — as the Key Project did — we find $`\gamma =0.03\pm 0.20`$ and $`\gamma =0.10\pm 0.29`$, for variable and 0.24 Å thresholds, respectively, in good agreement with the Key Project results. Excluding lines blueward of Ly-$`\beta `$ emission, we find $`\gamma =0.03\pm 0.24`$ and $`\gamma =0.01\pm 0.32`$ for variable and 0.24 Å thresholds, respectively, i.e. no significant difference in both cases. We thus conclude that exclusion or inclusion of lines below Ly-$`\beta `$ does not affect the results, and that the primary source of the discrepancy between our and Weyman et al.’s (1998) results lies in the difference in the sample coverage.

It is known that $`d𝒩/dz`$ steepens around $`z1.61.8`$. It is obvious from Fig. 5 of Weymann et al. (1998) that if they included the $`z_{\mathrm{em}}=1.9`$ quasar UM18 in their sample (it was excluded because of incomplete line identifications; note that this object is included in the sample presented here), then their derived distribution would have been considerably steeper, in agreement with our result. It is possible that this, combined with the fact that we have better coverage at high-$`z`$ end of the sample, contributes to our deriving larger $`\gamma `$ than the Key Project. We note, however, that the fact that K-S test shows that for our sample the power law is an excellent approximation of the number density evolution over the entire redshift range of our sample is in apparent contradiction to what inclusion of UM18 would do to the Key Project sample, in which case their fit to a single power law would likely become worse.

#### 3.2.3 Dependence of evolution on line equivalent width

If the intergalactic medium evolves, then we expect that the observed $`\gamma `$ could depend on equivalent width, or equivalently, the distribution of equivalent widths could be a function of redshift. Weymann et al. (1998) found a trend of increasing $`\gamma `$ with increasing line strength in the Key Project data. However, Penton, Shull, & Stocke (2000) saw no difference in the evolution of strong and weak lines in the HST/GHRS sample.

Although the statistical significance is low, our results suggest that there appears to be a difference in the rate of evolution for weak and strong lines. In Figure 5 the solid line shows the evolution of the number density of absorbers for lines from one of the samples, with $`W_{\lambda _0}0.24`$ Å. On the same plot, we show the data and fits for two of its subsamples: the dashed line shows the sample with $`W_{\lambda _0}0.36`$ Å, the dotted line — $`0.24W_{\lambda _0}<0.36`$ Å. As in other plots, the data have been arbitrarily binned solely for presentation; the lines show the fits to unbinned data.

While number densities of strong and weak lines seem to be comparable in the present epoch, there are more (by roughly 25%) strong lines at $`z1.7`$. In principle, the dividing line between those two subsamples lies near the point where Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines leave the linear part of the curve of growth. Therefore, one could try to interpret this result as an indication that the two subsamples are in fact two different populations of absorbers. However, there are two reasons why we regard this result with caution and avoid drawing far-reaching conclusions. First, the result is marginal. Second, the same behavior would be expected to occur from line blending. Two blending effects associated with increased density of lines at larger $`z`$ may affect the relative number of strong and weak lines: (1) two lines, both above the threshold, may blend into features indistinguishable from strong lines (“blending-out”), or (2) two weak lines, both with $`W_{\lambda _0}`$ below the threshold, may blend, resulting in a feature that has combined width greater than the threshold (“blending-in”). These two effects work in opposite directions, and they are hard to quantify, especially in spectra with limited resolution (see, e.g., Parnell & Carswell 1988, Liu & Jones 1988). If the first of those two effects dominates over the second, the result may appear as if there were more strong lines at higher redshifts.

#### 3.2.4 Variation in $`d𝒩/dz`$ from quasar to quasar

Impey, Petry, & Flint (1999) reported marginal evidence for quasar-to-quasar variations in the number density of lines in their sample of 10 spectra taken with HST/GHRS. Our sample, which contains 165 lines of sight, is particularly well suited to test whether there is structure in the distribution of Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorbers on very large scales. We find remarkably little scatter in the number of lines detected. For each object, we calculated the expected number of absorption lines by integrating Eq. (1) over the usable parts of the spectrum, and compared it with the number of lines observed in the spectrum. Figure 6 shows the histogram of the deviations in units of the individual uncertainties. Since the number of lines in each object can be small, the individual uncertainties were calculated using the Gehrels (1986) approximation, $`\sigma _𝒩=1+\sqrt{𝒩+3/4}`$, where $`𝒩`$ is the predicted number of lines. If the distribution were random, then the histogram would be a gaussian with unit sigma. A dotted line in Figure 6 shows the predicted gaussian distribution. The observed distribution is in fact much narrower than random: the farthest outliers deviate by only $`2\sigma `$, and there are only a handful of objects outside $`\pm 1\sigma `$.

The explanation is that the deviations in the number of lines detected in the FOS spectra is not given by counting statistics. Rather, the deviations reflect the uniformity of the intergalactic medium averaged over large scales. The size scale probed is given roughly by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ between Ly-$`\alpha `$ and Ly-$`\beta `$ emission lines of each quasar, or $``$750 $`h_{50}^1`$ Mpc at $`z=1`$ and $``$850 $`h_{50}^1`$ Mpc at $`z=0.5`$ ($`q_0=0.5`$).

We will explore the uniformity of the line distribution in more detail in a future paper.

#### 3.2.5 Line equivalent width and neutral hydrogen column density distributions

Equation (1) describes very well the distribution of rest equivalent widths of lines in the sample. We note, however, that the derived value of the equivalent width distribution parameter, $`W_{}`$, depends quite strongly on whether Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines associated with metal systems are included in the analyzed sample. Figure 7 shows the distribution of equivalent widths in the $`W_{\lambda _0}0.24`$ Å, $`V_{\mathrm{ej}}3000`$ km s-1 samples. Clearly, inclusion of lines from metal systems, which (as noted above) tend to be strong, affects the slope of the observed distribution.

It has been found that a simple power law, $`d𝒩/dN_\text{}\text{i}N_\text{}\text{i}^\beta `$, describes the distribution of Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest column densities $`N_\text{}\text{i}`$. Analyses of high redshift data (Petitjean et al. 1993; Press & Rybicki 1993; Hu et al. 1995; Dobrzycki & Bechtold 1996; Kim, Cristiani, & D’Odorico 2001) showed that the value of $`\beta `$ is in the $`1.41.7`$ range. Analysis of low redshift data from HST/GHRS (Penton, Schull, & Stocke 2000) indicated $`\beta `$ near the high end of this range, at $`1.71.8`$. However, recent analysis by Davé & Tripp (2001) of high resolution HST/STIS spectra of two quasars suggested that at low $`z`$ the distribution is even steeper, with $`\beta 2.0`$.

The FOS data lack the spectral resolution to perform direct Voigt profile fitting, which is necessary to derive the column density directly. However, because of the large size of the sample we can obtain precise measurements of the equivalent width distribution. Since column density and equivalent width are related via the curve of growth (see, e.g., Barcons & Webb 1991; Chernomordik & Ozernoy 1993; Penton, Schull, & Stocke 2000), the distribution of line equivalent widths can give insight into the distribution of column densities.

Our data do not support the $`\beta 2`$ value of the column density distribution slope. For all our Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest subsamples, we get the equivalent width distribution parameter, $`W_{}`$, in the $`0.200.22`$ Å range with very low uncertainties, of the order of $`0.01`$ Å or less. This value of $`W_{}`$, when converted to the value of $`\beta `$ using the curve of growth, yields $`\beta 1.61.7`$, depending on the Doppler parameter distribution. In order to obtain the value of the slope in the vicinity of 2, we would have to have $`W_{}`$ from the $`0.100.13`$ Å range, which is inconsistent with our results.

However, as Barcons & Webb (1991) pointed out, the relation between $`\beta `$ and $`W_{}`$ may be affected by a subtle problem with line blending, or the presence of clustering of weak lines. Since those effects are hard to quantify, it is possible that the discrepancy is in fact smaller. Also, as noted above, the derivation of $`W_{}`$ is rather sensitive to the selection criteria in the sample. Including/excluding lines associated with metal systems in the sample leads to distinctly different value of the distribution slope. This may help explain some of the discrepancy with the Davé and Tripp (2001) result.

## 4 Clustering in the HST/FOS sample

An important clue to the nature of the Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorption in quasar spectra is the clustering of lines in redshift space. In general, it is agreed that a weak clustering at scales of few hundred km/s is present in high redshift Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest (Rauch 1998 and references therein; more recently Liske et al. 2000; Penton, Schull, & Stocke 2000). At low redshifts, Ulmer (1996) analyzed the line clustering in the spectra of 12 objects from the HST/FOS Key Project (100 lines) and reported a significant excess of line pairs at velocity separations of 250–500 km s-1. More recently, Vanden Berk et al. (1999) reported positive correlation for similar velocity separations, though not as strong as Ulmer, in a sample consisting of the combination of Ulmer’s sample and FOS spectra of quasars in the galactic poles (217 absorption lines, 22 quasars); they noted that the signal seems to be coming from a small set of line “clumps” in a few of the objects.

Impey, Petry, & Flint (1999) found excess of nearest-neighbor pairs at separations of 250–500 km s-1 in their sample of 139 lines from 10 HST/GHRS spectra, but they did not find any correlation function signal on any scales. However, Penton, Schull, & Stocke (2000) reported a clustering signal for $`\mathrm{\Delta }V150`$ km s-1 in their sample of 15 HST/GHRS spectra containing 111 lines.

The critical factor in the analysis of line clustering is the number of the available objects (i.e. lines of sight), since correlating the line positions is possible only in one dimension. Our sample is a superset of the Ulmer sample and — with the exception of two quasars, TON155 and 1306+3021, which did not meet our sample’s criteria — of the Vanden Berk et al. sample. In our data set that has comparable selection criteria ($`W_{\lambda _0}0.24`$ Å, $`V_{\mathrm{ej}}3000`$ km s-1), we have 84 objects with 622 absorption lines, i.e. seven times more lines of sight and six times more lines than Ulmer and ca. four times more lines of sight and three times more lines than Vanden Berk et al.

### 4.1 Lyman $`\alpha `$ – Lyman $`\alpha `$ clustering

We calculated the correlation function by comparing the observed number of pairs of lines with the number counted in Monte Carlo simulations. We performed the simulations by drawing redshifts at random from the power-law distribution of $`d𝒩/dz`$ (Eq. ) inside ranges identical to those in which our sample was defined. Each simulation was run until we had a total number of lines equal to the total number of lines in the real sample. We ran the simulations 10,000 times. To account for blending, we removed pairs with separations smaller than 250 km s-1. However, we do expect blending to play at least some role, so that the number of expected pairs in the simulations may be overestimated, primarily in the $`250500`$ km s-1 bin.

The clustering results in our sample are shown in Figure 8. Solid crosses show the observed number of pairs in each velocity separation bin, while the dashed histogram shows the expected number of pairs, as calculated through the simulations.

A key issue is the uncertainties of the observed data points. If the lines are clustered, simply taking the square root of the number of line pairs in each bin will cause the error of the bin to be underestimated. We calculated the error bars for the observed data points using a modified bootstrap technique, similar to the method used by Fernández-Soto (1996). In this method, one replaces parts of the spectra with randomly selected substitute parts of the spectra and then calculates the distribution of pairs, repeating this procedure a large number of times. It can be shown that the dispersion of pair counts in each bin is an unbiased estimate of the actual variance in this bin.

In Fig. 8, a weak correlation can be seen for $`\mathrm{\Delta }V<500`$ km s-1. The signal is weak, though — as mentioned above — it is quite possible that line blending was not all accounted for in the simulations, leading to overestimating the expected number of pairs, thus mitigating the clustering signal.

The correlation found in our data has lower amplitude than the one reported by Ulmer (1996) or Vanden Berk et al. (1999). At least part of the difference can be explained if one looks into the sample used by Ulmer (and, consequently, Vanden Berk et al.) in more detail.

We first note that our selection criteria excluded regions containing the cluster of four pairs in TON 153, since this region is bluewards of the Ly-$`\beta `$ emission line. In regions that we have in common, we note the following differences:

1. In PG 1352+011, Ulmer has four close pairs, coming from lines near 1843, 1846, 1849, 1852, and 1855 Å. We present this region in Figure 9. The line at 1843 Å was deblended by Key Project from a wing of a strong Si iii line near 1841 Å. In our analysis (Paper III) it was not identified as a separate feature. We do see a line near 1849 Å (Paper III), but it has a detection significance of $`2.7\sigma `$, which is too low to be included in the sample analyzed here. All these factors result in our sample only containing one close pair in this region, the 1852–1855 pair.

2. In two pairs in Ulmer’s sample — $`\lambda =1562.7`$ in 3C 351 and $`\lambda =2601.6`$ in PG 1634+706 — we identify one of the pair components as a heavy element line rather than as a Ly-$`\alpha `$ line. This means that they are removed from consideration in our analysis of correlations. Both these systems were considered by Ulmer (and Vanden Berk et al.) to be Ly-$`\alpha `$ pairs.

In total, in the regions that we had in common, we do see five fewer close pairs. Removal of those pairs lowers the number reported by Ulmer (14 pairs) by 36%, and the correlation signal (i.e. the ratio of $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}/N_{\mathrm{ran}}`$) by about half. Indeed, as it has been found in previous studies (Heisler, Hogan, & White 1989; Bahcall et al. 1996; Vanden Berk et al. 1999), the correlation signal is dependent on a small handfull of line pairs.

In Fig. 10 we show the results converted to the two point correlation function, $`\xi (\mathrm{\Delta }V)=N_{\mathrm{obs}}/N_{\mathrm{ran}}1`$. On the same plot, the dashed line shows Ulmer’s result. We show two data points for Ulmer’s results in the $`250500`$ km s-1 bin; the bottom one is what his result would be if the five close pairs mentioned above were removed. Please note that we examined in detail only the $`250500`$ km s-1 bin in Ulmer’s data and so we do not show how other velocity bins would be affected. Obviously, the differences in line identifications and deblending accounts for some — but not all — of the difference between the correlation strengths.

Clustering of Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines at small velocity separations is predicted by Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model simulations of the galaxy formation, the growth of large scale structure and subsequent evolution of the intergalactic medium (Cen et al. 1998; Davé et al. 1999). These models predict that the Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorbing gas traces the dark matter distribution more closely than galaxies, and so the 2-point correlation function of Ly-$`\alpha `$ clouds provides a different and complementary constraint on the formation of large scale structure than the distribution of galaxies and galaxy clusters. The solid histogram on Fig. 10 shows the galaxy-galaxy correlation function, taken as $`\xi _{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}}=(\mathrm{\Delta }V/500)^{1.8}`$ (e.g. Davis & Peebles 1983). We see that the galaxy-galaxy correlation function is stronger than the Ly-$`\alpha `$ correlation function, as is predicted by the CDM simulations.

### 4.2 Lyman $`\alpha `$ – metal system correlation

Analyses of FOS data suggested that Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest lines may have a tendency to be found preferably near heavy element systems. This tendency appeared to be even stronger if one considered the “extensive” metal systems, i.e. metal systems with four or more identified species; those systems were often seen near “clumps” of Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines. See Bahcall et al. (1996), Jannuzi (1997), and Vanden Berk et al. (1999). Given scarcity of available systems, those analyses were, for the most part, qualitative, though Vanden Berk et al. reported some positive signal for metal system–Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest correlation at $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=10001500`$ km s-1 for strong ($`W_{\lambda _0}>0.5`$ Å) lines.

In the $`W_{\lambda _0}>0.24`$ Å, $`V_{\mathrm{ej}}3000`$ km s-1 sample, we have 78 identified metal systems, 41 of which qualify as “extensive”. We analyzed the correlation of Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest vs. those systems, using approach similar to the one used in the analysis of Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest correlations. In the simulations, we fixed the positions of the metal systems at their observed locations and selected locations of Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest lines at random. We compared the simulated and observed pairs of absorbers, requiring that one of the pair components be a metal system. We do not see any correlation on any scale in both cases (Fig. 11). It is, however, clear that even the entire FOS sample is somewhat too small for this test.

## 5 Summary

We analyzed the redshift distribution of the Ly-$`\alpha `$ clouds at $`z=0.01.7`$ in the spectra of 165 quasars. The major results are the following.

1. We confirm that the clouds at redshifts less than 1.7 undergo slow, if any, evolution. A single power law is an excellent approximation of the behavior of the number density evolution of lines at low redshift. However, we find the evolution of the cloud number density to be somewhat steeper that the one found by the HST Key Project, probably the result of a different proportion of $`z1.51.7`$ lines in the two samples.

2. We see marginal evidence for a difference between the evolution index for weak and strong lines. The weak lines undergo evolution in the opposite direction from the strong lines, i.e. their number per comoving volume increases with decreasing redshift. The strong lines are consistent with the no-evolution case.

3. The object-to-object variation in the number of lines is small, suggesting that the intergalactic medium is uniform on $``$800 Mpc scales.

4. We see weak clustering in the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest for $`\mathrm{\Delta }V500`$ km s-1. However, the correlation is weaker than reported by Ulmer (1996) or Vanden Berk et al. (1999). At least part of the difference can be accounted for by differences in details of the deblending and identification of a small number of absorption features. In all cases, the clustering signal is smaller than that seen for galaxies at the same redshift.

5. No correlations were found for Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest vs. metal systems and Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest vs. “extensive” metal systems, although the numbers are small, and the limits correspondedly are weak.

The FOS data set is useful for many other quasar absorption line studies. Paper V reports the analysis of the proximity effect, and the evolution of the UV radiation field which may drive the evolution of $`d𝒩/dz`$ for the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest clouds derived here (see Paper V and references therein for further discussion of this point). The results for clustering described in this paper can be confirmed or refuted with high resolution spectroscopy, currently planned or underway with STIS on board HST.

AD would like to thank A. Fernández-Soto for helpful comments on the bootstrapping technique. We would like to thank the anonymous referee for several helpful comments. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA. This project was supported by STScI grants No. AR-05785.02-94A and GO-06606.01-95. AD acknowledges support from NASA Contract No. NAS8-39073 (CXC). JB, JS and MM received financial support from NSF grant AST-9617060. JS acknowledges support of the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and the Zonta Foundation Amelia Earhart Fellowship.