text:
# Untitled Document

Vertical scaleheights in a gravitationally coupled,

three-component Galactic Disk

Chaitra A. Narayan and Chanda J. Jog

Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science

Bangalore 560 012, INDIA.

email: chaitra@physics.iisc.ernet.in,cjjog@physics.iisc.ernet.in

Astron. & Astrophys. 2002, 394, 89.

Abstract

The vertical scaleheight of the atomic hydrogen gas shows a remarkably flat distribution with the galactocentric radius in the inner Galaxy. This has been a long-standing puzzle (Oort 1962) because the gas scaleheight should increase with radius when treated as responding to the gravitational potential of the exponential stellar disk. We argue that the gravitational force of the molecular and atomic hydrogen gas should also be brought into the picture to explain this. We treat the stars, the HI and H2 gas as three gravitationally coupled components in the Galactic disk, and find the response of each component to the joint potential and thus obtain their vertical distribution in a self-consistent fashion. The effect of the joint potential is different for the three components because of their different velocity dispersions. We show that this approach cohesively and naturally explains the observed scaleheight distribution of all the three components, namely, the HI and H2 gas and the stars, in the region studied (2-12 kpc). This includes the constant scaleheight for the HI seen in the inner Galaxy. The effect of H2 dominates in the molecular ring region of 4-8.5 kpc, while that due to HI is dominant in the outer Galaxy.

Running Title : Scaleheights of Stars and Gas in the Galaxy

Key Words: galaxies: ISM - galaxies: kinematics and dynamics - galaxies: structure - galaxies: HI - galaxies: The Galaxy \- hydrodynamics

1. Introdution

The constancy of HI vertical scaleheight in the inner region of our Galaxy ($`<8.5`$kpc) has been well-known for a long time and has not been explained so far (Oort 1962, Dickey & Lockman 1990, Heiles 1991). This behaviour is surprising since the atomic hydrogen gas, in the presence of the stellar disk potential alone, should have a scaleheight which increases exponentially with radius. Physically, the scaleheight of a component is a measure of the equilibrium between the local vertical gravitational force and the gas pressure as given by the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium (e.g., Rohlfs 1977). Thus, an increase in the gravitational force in the disk would reduce the scaleheight. We show in this paper that the gas gravity needs to be taken into account, to get the correct physical description for the observed vertical scaleheights of all the disk components.

The interstellar gas in the Galaxy contains $``$ 15% of the total disk surface density (Binney & Merrifield 1998). About half of it is in the form of atomic hydrogen and the other half is in the form of molecular hydrogen but with widely different radial distributions (Scoville & Sanders 1987, Bronfman et al. 1988). A large fraction of mass of atomic hydrogen is located in the outer Galaxy (with R, the galactocentric radius $`>8.5`$ kpc), which is also the region where the force due to the stellar disk becomes weak. Hence we expect the gravity of atomic gas to play a significant role in the determination of the scaleheights of stars and gas in the outer Galaxy. In contrast, most ($`80`$%) of the molecular hydrogen gas is concentrated in the form of a ring between $`48.5`$ kpc. The molecular hydrogen gas is known to exist in the form of self-gravitating clumps called molecular clouds and several such clouds segregate to form a cloud complex (Rivolo, Solomon, & Sanders 1986). It has been shown recently that such complexes (of a few $`100`$ pc in size each) with mass densities $`6`$ times that of Oort limit dominate the local gravitational field, and this leads to a redistribution of the nearby disk matter resulting in smaller scaleheights of the disk components (see Jog & Narayan 2001). On a larger scale, the average H2 distribution will affect the scaleheight distribution of all the disk components in the inner Galaxy. Because of its low velocity dispersion the gas forms a thin layer, and hence can dominate the in-plane dynamics and affect the net vertical distribution of the disk components even though its contribution to the total surface density is small.

In this paper, we treat the stars, the HI and H2 gas as three gravitationally coupled disk components and obtain their vertical scaleheights as a function of radius under the new joint potential. A similar study showing the importance of gravitational coupling between stars and gas for the local stability of a two-component galactic disk has been shown earlier by Jog & Solomon (1984) and Jog (1996). The importance of including the HI self-gravity was pointed out in the past to mainly study the vertical distribution of HI at large radii in galaxies (van der Kruit 1988, Olling 1995). However, these earlier papers do not include H2 gas and also they do not treat a coupled three-component disk as we do in this paper.

The formulation of equations is discussed in Sect. 2. Section 3 describes the method of solving them and the parameters used. The results obtained and a comparison with observations are discussed in Sect. 4. The discussion and conclusions follow in Sect. 5 and Sect. 6 respectively.

2. Formulation of Equations

We consider the atomic and molecular hydrogen gas layers to be very thin disks embedded in the stellar disk. We use the galactic cylindrical co-ordinates ($`R,\varphi ,z`$), and consider their distribution from $`R=212`$ kpc. For the sake of simplicity, all the three disks are taken to be axisymmetric and coplanar. The gravitational force due to these embedded layers would modify the steady-state density distribution of all the three components and along all the three axes. However, we can neglect the effect along the azimuthal direction because of the assumed axisymmetry and along the radial direction because the disk is thin. Therefore, we need to consider the modification of the steady-state density distribution only along the $`z`$-axis.

The force equation along the $`z`$-axis or the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium is given by (e.g., Rohlfs 1977):

$$\frac{(v_\mathrm{z})_\mathrm{i}^2}{\rho _\mathrm{i}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho _\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{d}z}=(K_\mathrm{z})_\mathrm{s}+(K_\mathrm{z})_{\mathrm{HI}}+(K_\mathrm{z})_{\mathrm{H}_2}+(K_\mathrm{z})_{\mathrm{DM}}$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\rho `$ is the mass density, $`(K_\mathrm{z})=\psi /z`$ is the force per unit mass along $`z`$-axis, $`\psi `$ is the corresponding potential, and the subscript i = s, HI, and H2 denotes these quantities for stars, HI and H2 respectively. The last term on the right hand side denotes the force along the $`z`$-axis due to the dark matter (DM) halo. Due to the disk being thin, its effect on the vertical distribution within the halo can be neglected. We take the root mean square of the vertical velocities of a component $`(v_\mathrm{z})_\mathrm{i}^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ or the random velocity dispersion at a radius $`R`$ and treat the component as being isothermal along $`z`$. The right hand side of equation (1) gives the total vertical force due to all the components. The dark matter halo has been included for the sake of completeness, and also because it helps us to quantify the role played by the halo in defining the vertical density distribution in the region of interest ($`R12`$ kpc).

For a thin axisymmetric disk, the joint Poisson equation reduces to :

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\psi _\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{d}z^2}+\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\psi _{\mathrm{HI}}}{\mathrm{d}z^2}+\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\psi _{\mathrm{H}_2}}{\mathrm{d}z^2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\pi G\left(\rho _\mathrm{s}+\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}+\rho _{\mathrm{H}_2}\right)$$
$`(2)`$
Combining equations (1) and (2), the density distribution of a component at a radius $`R`$, can be defined by :

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\rho _\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{d}z^2}=\frac{\rho _\mathrm{i}}{(v_\mathrm{z})_\mathrm{i}^2}\left[4\pi G(\rho _\mathrm{s}+\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}+\rho _{\mathrm{H}_2})+\frac{\mathrm{d}(K_\mathrm{z})_{\mathrm{DM}}}{\mathrm{d}z}\right]+\frac{1}{\rho _\mathrm{i}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho _\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{d}z}\right)^2$$
$`(3)`$
where the square brackets contain terms that arise due to the joint potential of the three disk components and the halo, and the same total potential is experienced by all the components. The vertical velocity dispersion, on the other hand, varies with each component. Thus, despite a common gravitational potential, the density distribution of each component will be different due to the difference in their random velocity dispersions.

3. Solution and Parameters

3.1. Solution of equations

We need to solve the three coupled equations (represented by equation (3)) simultaneously to obtain the vertical density distribution of each component. Each second order ordinary differential equation can be split into two first order differential equations for the sake of simplicity. They can be solved numerically as an initial value problem, using the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method of integration (Press et al. 1986). The two boundary conditions required at the mid-plane, $`z=0`$ are :

$$\rho _\mathrm{i}=(\rho _{})_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{and}\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho _\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{d}z}=0$$
$`(4)`$
For a realistic distribution, the density along the vertical axis is homogeneous very close to the mid-plane, thus $`\mathrm{d}\rho _\mathrm{i}/\mathrm{d}z=0\mathrm{at}z=0`$. We are then left with $`(\rho _{})_\mathrm{i}`$, the modified midplane density which is not known a priori. The distribution of matter can be treated as a one dimensional problem along the $`z`$-axis and hence the surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{i}(R)`$ will not vary even when the joint gravitational potential is considered. The surface density is twice the area under the curve $`\rho _\mathrm{i}(z)`$ versus $`z`$. Given a value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{i}(R)`$ (see Sect. 3.2 for the values used), the value of $`(\rho _{})_\mathrm{i}`$ can be found by trial and error. Once this is fixed, the distribution $`\rho _\mathrm{i}(z)`$ follows easily.

All the three components, stars, HI and H2 affect each other’s density distribution via equation (3) so that the Galactic disk is actually a coupled system. At each $`R`$, the three density functions are solved simultaneously by taking account of the effect of the other components in an iterative fashion. First, $`\rho _\mathrm{s}(z)`$ is evaluated using equation (3) with null values for the corresponding gas densities. $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}(z)`$ is then obtained by using the known stellar density distribution and null values for $`\rho _{\mathrm{H}_2}(z)`$. Knowing $`\rho _\mathrm{s}(z)`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{HI}}(z)`$, $`\rho _{\mathrm{H}_2}(z)`$ can be found easily. However, these results do not describe the real coupled disk distribution because $`\rho _\mathrm{s}(z)`$ has been evaluated here in the absensce of HI and H2. Knowing the non-zero values for gas densities, $`\rho _\mathrm{s}(z)`$ is re-evaluated incorporating the gas gravity. The above cycle is repeated four times until each of the distribution converges with a fifth decimal accuracy. We obtain a sech2-like distribution for each component and we use its HWHM (half-width-half-maximum) to define the vertical scaleheight. In comparison, for a one-component self-gravitating disk, the vertical distribution obeys a sech2 distribution (Spitzer 1942). Repetition of the above calculation at regular intervals of $`R`$ enables us to plot the scaleheights versus radius, provided the surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{i}(R)`$ is known at all radii.

3.2. Parameters Used

For each disk component, we need to specify the surface density and the random velocity dispersion at each radius $`R`$ in the disk. Table 1 gives values of all the observed parameters used. The observed values are used for all the gas parameters, whereas all the stellar parameters except for the velocity dispersion are taken from models in the literature. The HI gas surface density is negligible at the Galactic centre, slowly increases to $`5`$ M pc-2 by 4 kpc and remains roughly constant till about $`16`$ kpc (Scoville & Sanders 1987). A similar HI profile was obtained by Dame (1993), also based on the HI data by Burton & Gordon (1978). The molecular hydrogen gas is concentrated in the form of a ring with the peak surface density of $`20`$ Mpc-2 at $``$ 5 kpc from the centre (Scoville & Sanders 1987). The vertical velocity dispersions of HI and H2 gas are 8 kms-1 (Spitzer 1978) and 5 kms-1 (Clemens 1985, and Stark 1984) respectively and they remain constant with radius. These values agree fairly well with the determination based on a tangent-point analysis by Malhotra (1994) for H2, and by Malhotra (1995) for HI.

Lewis and Freeman (1989) have measured the stellar radial velocity dispersion at different points between 1-17 kpc along the galactocentric radius towards the Baade’s window in the Milky Way. Assuming the ratio of the vertical to the radial random velocity dispersion at all radii to be equal to its value at the solar neighbourhood, namely $`1/2`$ (Binney & Merrifield 1998), we get the corresponding vertical velocity dispersions. The method of least square fit to the data gives an exponential fit with a scalelength of 8.7 kpc, and a value of $`18`$ kms-1 at the solar neighbourhood.

The two key parameters required to find the entire stellar disk surface density distribution are the local stellar surface density and the exponential radial disk scalelength, $`h_\mathrm{R}`$. The stellar disk mass surface density at the solar point has the following range of observed values. For example, from a set of distance and velocity data, Kuijken & Gilmore (1991) obtain the total disk plus halo surface density to be $`48\pm 9`$ Mpc-2 for the region very close to the midplane. More recent observations point to a value of $`52\pm 13`$ Mpc-2 (Flynn & Fuchs 1994). Denhen and Binney (1998) use a lower limit of 40 Mpc-2 for the total disk surface density as a constraint for four models involving a range of values for the stellar disk scalelength.

The determination of the radial disk scalelength $`h_\mathrm{R}`$ has attracted much attention in the literature in recent years. A wide range of values is obtained for $`h_\mathrm{R}`$ ranging from 2.3 kpc (Drimmel & Spergel 2001) to 6 kpc (Mendez & van Altena 1998). Most of the recent papers tend towards a lower value in this range : Fux and Martinet (1994) : 1.9-3.3 kpc ; Ruphy et al. (1996) : 2.3 kpc ; Denhen and Binney (1998) : 2-3.2 kpc ; Mera, Chabrier,& Schaeffer (1998) : 3.2 kpc; Porcel et al. (1998) : 2.1 kpc ; Drimmel and Spergel (2001) : 2.3 kpc.

We adopt the model of Mera et al. (1998) (see Table 2) as the standard mass model for the Galaxy for the following reasons. First, it is modern and simple and also allows us to study the gravitational effect of various components. Second, their choice of the total surface density of 52 Mpc-2 at the solar neighbourhood from a recent paper in the literature (Flynn & Fuchs 1994) and their choice of $`h_\mathrm{R}=3.2`$ kpc fall within the acceptable range as can be seen from the discussion above. Third, for the sake of internal consistency, we prefer to use the parameters from a single mass model as opposed to choosing them in an ad hoc manner. Finally, they use a screened halo-density profile which is sufficient to determine the dynamical effect of the spherical halo. Its contribution to the local surface density is negligible but it gives rise to a non-zero force term along the $`z`$-axis. Subtracting the total gas surface density of 7 Mpc-2 (Scoville & Sanders 1987) from the above value of the local total surface density, we get the local stellar surface density to be 45 Mpc-2. This gives the central extrapolated stellar surface density, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{})_\mathrm{s}`$ = 640.9 Mpc-2 as given in Table 2.

In spherical co-ordinates, the density profile for the halo is (Mera et al. 1998) :

$$\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}(r)=\frac{v_{\mathrm{rot}}^2}{4\pi G}\frac{1}{(R_\mathrm{c}^2+r^2)}$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}`$ is the dark matter halo mass density; $`R_\mathrm{c}`$, the core radius = 5 kpc ; and $`v_{\mathrm{rot}}`$, the circular velocity = 220 kms-1.

By inverting the Poisson equation for the dark matter halo, we calculate the halo potential to be the following :

$$\psi _{\mathrm{DM}}(r)=v_{\mathrm{rot}}^2\left[1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(R_\mathrm{c}^2+r^2)\frac{R_\mathrm{c}}{r}\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{r}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right)\right]$$
$`(6)`$
Rewriting the above equation in cylindrical co-ordinates and taking the second derivative of the halo potential with respect to $`z`$, we get

$$\frac{^2\psi _{\mathrm{DM}}}{z^2}=\frac{v_{\mathrm{rot}}^2R_\mathrm{c}}{(R^2+z^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{\sqrt{R^2+z^2}}{R_\mathrm{c}}\right)\left[1\frac{3z^2}{R^2+z^2}\right]+$$

$$\frac{z^2R_\mathrm{c}^2v_{\mathrm{rot}}^2}{(R^2+z^2)^2(R_\mathrm{c}^2+R^2+z^2)}+\frac{v_{\mathrm{rot}}^2}{(R^2+z^2)}\left[\frac{2z^2}{(R^2+z^2)}1\right]$$
$`(7)`$
Thus, $`\mathrm{d}(K_\mathrm{z})_{\mathrm{DM}}/\mathrm{d}z=^2\psi _{\mathrm{DM}}/z^2`$, is the halo contribution used in the right hand side of equation (3).

4. Results

4.1. Results for Vertical Scaleheight : Standard Model

The results for the vertical scaleheight are obtained as a function of the galactocentric radius using the Galactic mass model of Mera et al. (1998), as explained in Sect. 3.1. The sampling is done at every 420 pc which is set by the bin-size of the H2 data given by Scoville & Sanders (1987).

4.1.1. HI Scaleheight

Figure 1a shows the plot of vertical scaleheight versus radius for HI with the dashed line obtained using the stellar potential and the solid line obtained using the joint potential approach. The observed values are shown as crosses and are taken from Lockman (1984) for the inner Galaxy ($`R<8.5`$ kpc), and Wouterloot et al. (1990) for the outer Galaxy ($`R>8.5`$ kpc) - see Burton (1992) for details. The curve obtained using the stellar potential alone increases exponentially and thus deviates strongly from the observed curve beyond 8 kpc. On using the joint potential, the scaleheights reduce significantly at large radii and show a better overall agreement with observations. Thus our model explains the old puzzle (Oort 1962) of nearly-constant scaleheight observed in the inner Galaxy.

At 10 kpc, the scaleheight reduces by about $`34\%`$ to give a value of 187 pc, which is very close to the observed value of 193 pc (Wouterloot et al. 1990). In the outer Galaxy, the HI surface density is either comparable to or more than that of stars because of the exponential fall-off of the stellar surface density. Thus the joint self-gravitating disk extends well beyond the stellar disk and the HI gravity is mainly responsible for the scaleheight determination in that region. In the inner Galaxy ($`R<8.5`$ kpc), the combined gravity of HI and H2 is responsible for the reduced scaleheights. Unlike the smooth dashed line, the response to the joint potential has many small-scale dents on it. This is also seen later in the plots for H2 and stars. The appearance of these dents is not due to an undersampling of data points but rather is due to the gravity of H2 gas which shows a non-smooth radial distribution, as seen from the fact that the locations of the dents coincide with the surface density peaks of molecular hydrogen gas. This is analogous to the local effect of a molecular cloud complex on the disk shown by Jog & Narayan (2001).

A more subtle point is that in the range $`R=`$0-5 kpc both the approaches predict lower values than observed, implying that some other factors must be affecting the scaleheight. There could be additional physical processes that increase the scaleheight in the region such as, the heating due to the bar (Binney & Merrifield 1998) within the central 4 kpc. On the other hand, beyond 10 kpc, the predicted scaleheights are larger than the observed values in spite of incorporating the HI gas gravity. Thus, the dominant role played by the HI gas gravity is still not sufficient to bring about a complete agreement between the two. One would then expect that, inclusion of the halo potential would resolve the disagreement between the observed and theoretical curves. However, Fig. 1c already includes the halo potential and it brings about less change in the disk density distribution than expected. A possible reason as to why the halo contribution may not be very important is due to its extended $`z`$ distribution and this is discussed in detail in Sect. 5. Thus, the agreement of the theoretical vertical scaleheights for HI with observations is best seen in the middle galactic range of 5-10 kpc. A small radial variation of HI velocity dispersion leads to a better agreement with observations over a larger radial range as shown in Sect. 4.2.

4.1.2. H2 Scaleheight

Figure 1b shows the plot of scaleheight vs. radius for H2, with the dashed line obtained using the stellar potential and the solid line obtained using the joint potential approach. The observed scaleheight values from Sanders, Solomon, & Scoville (1984) for $`R<8.5`$ kpc and Wouterloot et al. (1990) for $`R>8.5`$ kpc are shown as crosses. Neglecting the self-gravity of HI and H2 once again yields scaleheights much larger than the observed values. On the other hand, the curve predicted by treating the galactic disk as a coupled, three-component system, agrees very well with observations. This agreement continues further upto 14 kpc though the Fig. 1b shows results upto only 12 kpc. Both the theoretical results are in good agreement with the observations in the inner few kpc from the Galactic centre because, this region is entirely dominated by the stellar potential so that the joint potential differs very little from it.

4.1.3. Stellar Scaleheight

Figure 1c shows the vertical scaleheight curves for the stellar disk, obtained using the potential of stellar disk alone (shown as a dashed line), and that obtained using the joint potential (shown as a solid line). The stellar disk potential gives an exponentially increasing curve, while the joint potential results in a nearly flat curve. The resulting scaleheight curve exhibits the following detailed behaviour. In the region of 0-5 kpc the scaleheight is almost constant at 300 pc. In the middle region of 5-10 kpc it shows a linear increase with a slope of $`24`$ pc kpc-1, while beyond 10 kpc it remains a constant at $`420`$ pc. Without gas gravity (the dashed line, Fig. 1c), the stellar scaleheight in the solar neighbourhood is then 550 pc. With the gas gravity (the solid line, Fig. 1c), this comes down to a reasonable 380 pc. This agrees well with the local observed characteristic half thickness of 350 pc (Binney & Tremaine 1987, chap. 1). We would like to stress that the near constancy of the stellar scaleheight upto 5 kpc (Fig. 1c) in our model comes about naturally by incorporating the gravity of HI and H2 in a standard exponential galactic disk.

Unfortunately, these results cannot be compared with the optically deduced scaleheights in the non-local regions of our own Galaxy due to the high optical depth in the visible band. Hence, one has to compare the trend in the predictions with the data from external galaxies. van der Kruit & Searle (1981a, b) first showed from a study of edge-on spirals that these exhibit a remarkably constant stellar scaleheight with radius. However, recent data by de Grijs & Peletier (1997) show a moderate increase in the stellar scaleheight with radius, in agreement with the trend shown by our results in Fig. 1c. This moderate increase is shown to be a general result for spiral galaxies (Narayan & Jog 2002).

A linear increase beyond 5 kpc with a small slope of 20 pc kpc-1 has been argued for by Kent, Dame, & Fazio (1991). This is obtained from a best fit to the near-IR data from the $`\mathit{Spacelab2}`$ mission for the Galaxy. This is in very good agreement with our results. A similar conclusion, based on the COBE/DIRBE data was reached by Drimmel & Spergel (2001). Kent et al. (1991) however do not mention whether the behaviour continues farther into the outer Galaxy or not. Their motivation for using such a slope was purely to get the best fit to the observed data and involved no dynamics whereas we get it physically due to the inclusion of gas gravity in the study.

4.2. Variation in Input Parameters

In Sect. 4.1, we saw that the results for H2 and stars using the joint potential approach are in very good agreement with the observations in the region studied (2-12 kpc). In the case of HI, the best agreement is limited to a small region of 5-10 kpc (see Fig. 1a). To improve the agreement with HI observations over the entire region studied, the predicted scaleheights should increase in the region 0-5 kpc and decrease in the region beyond 10 kpc. We try to obtain this by two different approaches by varying the input parameters as described below.

4.2.1. Variation in the stellar disk parameters

We have used the mass model of Mera et al. (1998) in Sect. 4.1 as a realistic mass model to bring out the importance of gas gravity. In this section, we vary the stellar disk parameters namely $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{})_\mathrm{s}`$, the central surface density, and $`h_\mathrm{R}`$, the disk scalelength, freely and study the resulting variation in the HI scaleheight. For an overall agreement, the gravitational force should be weaker in the region below 5 kpc and stronger in the region beyond 10 kpc. This can be brought about by a lower value of central surface density along with a larger radial scalelength as compared to the model of Mera et al. (1998). We find that the best mathematical fit to the observed data is obtained by using $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{})_\mathrm{s}=200`$ Mpc-2 and $`h_\mathrm{R}=6`$ kpc (see Table 2). Note that these parameters are far from the typical values of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{})_\mathrm{s}640`$ Mpc-2 and $`h_\mathrm{R}`$3 kpc (see Sect. 3.2). Also, we find that the results obtained for H2 and stars in this case deviate to a large degree from the observed behaviour. Thus the above attempted change in the parameters is unrealistic. Hence this is not the correct way to explain the observed radial variation of the HI scaleheight.

4.2.2. Variation in HI velocity dispersion

Yet another way of improving the agreement between the scaleheight curve of HI and the observations is by varying the HI velocity dispersion with radius instead of using a constant value of 8 kms-1 as done earlier in Sect. 4.1. We find that a simple linear variation (between $`R`$ = 2-12 kpc) with a slope of -0.8kms-1kpc-1 is required to obtain the least $`\chi ^2`$ value. The value of HI gas velocity at R = 8.5 kpc is taken to be 8 kms-1 (see Table 2) and is used as a constraint in determining the slope. In Fig. 2a, we plot the results for HI obtained using the joint potential plus the variation in velocity dispersion (as a solid line) and the observed data as crosses (see Sect. 4.1.1 for details of observed data). The results agree well with observations over the entire radial range studied. On comparing with Fig. 1a, it is clear that the variable HI velocity dispersion leads to a better overall agreement with the observed data.

A plausible physical mechanism to explain this varying HI gas dispersion could be the energy input via supernovae. As Mckee & Ostriker (1977) proposed, the kinetic energy of the HI clouds is regulated by the rate of supernovae. Hence we expect the HI velocity to increase in the molecular ring region where a higher star formation rate and a higher rate of formation of supernovae is expected. Kamphuis (1993) has shown that the increase in velocity dispersion at smaller radii is also observed in a number of external galaxies.

Interestingly, Oort (1962) had proposed a similar increase in the velocity dispersion of HI at smaller radii as a possible way for obtaining the observed constant scaleheight, though he did not give a physical reason for this trend. This idea was also proposed by de Boer (1991). Oort (1962) had suggested a linear variation in HI velocity dispersion with a slope of about $`2`$ kms-1kpc-1 (varying from 13 to 5 kms-1 between $`R`$ = 4-8 kpc), where the HI distribution is defined by the stellar potential alone. Note that the slope that we require is smaller and is equal to -0.8 kms-1kpc-1. This is because we have included the effect of the gas gravity, and hence a smaller radial variation in HI velocity dispersion is sufficient to give a constant vertical scaleheight for HI.

Figure 2b contains the resulting H2 scaleheight versus radius (solid line) and the observed data for H2 (see Sect. 4.1.2 for details on observations of H2). Figure 2c contains the resulting stellar scaleheight versus radius (solid line). On varying the HI velocity dispersion the scaleheights of H2 and stars are not affected to a noticeable extent (compare Fig. 2b and Fig. 2c respectively with Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c), because the change in the HI velocity dispersion will not directly affect the vertical distribution of the other components. Thus the joint potential plus a slightly varying HI gas dispersion seems like a plausible physical scenario which can self-consistently explain the scaleheight distribution of all the three galactic disk components for realistic input parameters.

5. Discussion

1. It is interesting that the maximum impact of the different components is seen to occur in different galactocentric radial regions. With the stellar surface density peaking at the centre of the Galaxy, the stellar disk alone determines the scaleheights of all the components in the central few kpc. The maximum effect due to H2 is seen in the region of 4-8.5 kpc, with a peak at 5 kpc. Finally, the maximum effect due to HI is seen only beyond 8.5 kpc, despite the fact that the HI surface density is constant between 4-16 kpc. This is because, the inner Galaxy is entirely dominated by stars and H2 and it is only in the outer Galaxy that the HI becomes important. Thus the three components seem to conspire to give a nearly constant scaleheight for all of them in the inner Galaxy.

2. We have included the dark matter halo potential to evaluate its contribution in reducing the scaleheight quantitatively. We find that the presence of the halo reduces the HI scaleheight at 12 kpc only by $`13\%`$. This is contrary to the general expectation in the literature that the outer Galaxy structure is dominated and defined by the dark halo. This is because the dark matter and visible disk matter dominate at entirely different range of $`z`$ values. For a self-gravitating stellar disk (eq. ), we find that more than 99 percent of its matter lies within $`z1`$ kpc, within radius of 12 kpc. Whereas, a standard massive spherical dark matter halo of a mass of $`10^{12}`$ M and core radius = 5 kpc (as defined in Sect. 3.2) has less than $`6\%`$ of the entire mass in the column at 12 kpc, within the same $`z`$ limit. Therefore, the disk matter distribution along $`z`$ is not strongly dependent on the presence of halo upto the highest radius studied here, namely $`R=12`$ kpc.

3. We have only considered the turbulent gas pressure associated with the vertical velocity dispersion of HI as being responsible for its vertical support. We have not included the pressure support due to magnetic fields and cosmic rays. This is for simplicity, and also because these may not be important for supporting neutral hydrogen as argued by Lockman & Gehman (1991). It is interesting that our resulting scaleheights for a three-component, gravitationally coupled galactic disk using the support of turbulent gas pressure alone match well with observations, this confirms the argument of Lockman & Gehman (1991).

6. Conclusions

In this paper we show that the gas gravity is crucially important in the determination of the vertical scaleheights of all the disk components in a galactic disk. We treat the galactic disk as a gravitationally coupled, three-component system consisting of stars, atomic gas and molecular gas, and also include the effect of the dark matter halo. The model developed is general and is applied to the Galaxy in this paper. We obtain the self-consistent vertical distribution for each component responding to the joint potential for a radial region of 2-12 kpc. Our approach leads naturally to a better agreement with observations of all the three components:

1. The radial variation of the HI vertical scaleheight matches fairly well with observations and the best agreement is seen between $`R`$ = 5-10 kpc. The inclusion of gas gravity can explain the 40-year old puzzle of the observed nearly-constant HI scaleheight.

The overall agreement over the entire region studied is even better if a small linear variation with radius in the HI velocity dispersion with a slope of -0.8 kms-1kpc-1 between 2-12 kpc is introduced. The physical justification for this increase at smaller radii is the higher expected supernovae rate in the inner Galaxy.

2. The radial variation of H2 scaleheight obtained matches very well with observations upto a radius of 14 kpc. Our model gives the physical origin of the H2 vertical scaleheight distribution, which has not been studied in the literature so far.

3. The stellar scaleheight is found to be nearly constant with radius at $`300`$ pc in the central region of 0-5 kpc of our Galaxy and shows a slow linear increase beyond 5 kpc. This agrees well with the result obtained by fitting the near-IR data in the Galaxy by Kent et al. (1991).

We have applied the above general model to two external galxies, NGC 891 and NGC 4565 , and we find that these also show a similar moderate flaring with radius (Narayan & Jog 2002).

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the anonymous referee for useful comments.

References

Binney, J., & Merrifield, M. 1998, Galactic Astronomy (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)

Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)

Bronfman, L. et al. 1988, ApJ, 324, 248

Burton, W.B. 1992, in The Galactic Interstellar Medium, Saas-Fee Advanced course 21, Eds., Pfenniger, D., & Bartholdi, P. (Berlin: Springer)

Burton W.B. & Gordon, M.A. 1978, A&A, 63, 7

Clemens, D.P. 1985, ApJ, 295, 422

Dame, T.M. 1993, in Back to the Galaxy (AIP Conf 278), eds. S.S. Holt & F. Verter (New York: AIP), 267

de Boer, H. 1991, in The Interstellar Disk-halo Connection in Galaxies, IAU Symp. 144, ed. H. Bloemen (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 333

de Grijs, R., & Peletier, R.F. 1997, A&A, 320, L21

Dehnen, W., & Binney, J. 1998, MNRAS, 294, 429

Dickey, J.M., & Lockman, F.J. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 215

Drimmel, R., & Spergel, D.N. 2001, ApJ, 556, 181

Flynn, C., & Fuchs, B. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 471

Fux, R., & Martinet, L. 1994, A & A, 287, L21

Heiles, C. 1991, in The Interstellar Disk-halo Connection in Galaxies, IAU Symp. 144, ed. H. Bloemen (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 433

Jog, C.J. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 209

Jog, C.J., & Narayan, C.A. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1021

Jog, C.J., & Solomon, P.M. 1984, ApJ, 276, 114

Kamphuis, J.J. 1993, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen

Kent, S.M., Dame, T.M., & Fazio, G. 1991, ApJ, 378, 131

Kuijken, K., & Gilmore, G. 1991, ApJ, 367, L9

Lewis, J.R., & Freeman, K.C. 1989, AJ, 97, 139

Lockman, F.J., 1984, ApJ, 283, 90

Lockman, F.J., & Gehman, C.S. 1991, ApJ, 382, 182

Malhotra, S. 1994, ApJ, 433, 687

Malhotra, S. 1995, ApJ, 448, 138

McKee, C.F., & Ostriker, J.P. 1977, ApJ, 218, 148

Mendez, R.A., & van Altena, W.F. 1998, A&A, 330, 910

Mera, D., Chabrier, G., & Schaeffer, R. 1998, A&A, 330, 953

Narayan, C.A., & Jog, C.J. 2002, A&A, 390, L35.

Olling, R.P. 1995, AJ, 110, 591

Oort, J.H. 1962, in The Distribution and Motion of Interstellar Matter in Galaxies, IAU Symp. 15, ed. L. Woltjer (New York: Benjamin), 3

Porcel, C., Garzon, F., Jimenez-Vicente, J., & Battaner, E. 1998, A&A, 330, 136

Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A., & Vetterling, W.T. 1986, Numerical Recipes (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), chap. 6.

Rivolo, A.R., Solomon, P.M., & Sanders, D.B. 1986, ApJ, 301, L19

Rohlfs, K. 1977, Lectures on Density Wave Theory, (Berlin : Springer-Verlag).

Ruphy, S., et al. 1996, A&A, 313, L21

Sanders, D.B., Solomon, P.M., & Scoville, N.Z. 1984, ApJ, 276, 182

Scoville, N.Z., & Sanders, D.B. 1987, in Interstellar Processes, eds. D.J. Hollenbach & H.A. Thronson (Dordrecht: Riedel), 21

Spitzer, L. 1942, ApJ, 95, 329

Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium (New York: John Wiley)

Stark, A.A. 1984, ApJ, 281, 624

van der Kruit, P.C., 1988, A&A, 192 , 117

van der Kruit, P.C., & Searle, L. 1981a, A&A, 95, 105

van der Kruit, P.C., & Searle, L. 1981b, A&A, 95, 116

Wouterloot, J.G.A., Brand, J., Burton, W.B., & Kwee, K.K. 1990, A&A, 230, 21

Figure Legends

FIG. 1a. $``$ A plot of HI vertical scaleheight versus galactocentric radius. The joint potential approach gives a theoretical curve (solid line) which is in a better agreement with observations than the curve obtained using the stellar potential alone (dashed line), particularly in the range of 5-10 kpc.

FIG. 1b. $``$ A plot of H2 scaleheight versus radius. The scaleheight obtained on using the joint potential (solid line) agree well with observations over the entire radial range.

FIG. 1c. $``$ The stellar disk scaleheight versus radius obtained with the stellar potential alone (dashed line) and for the joint potential (solid line). The joint potential approach gives a much more moderate flaring and these results match with the observational data of Kent et al. (1991).

FIG. 2a. $``$ The HI scaleheight versus radius obtained for the joint potential, and where a linear variation of HI velocity dispersion with a slope of -0.8 kms-1kpc-1 has been introduced. This gives results that are in good agreement with observations in the entire radial region studied, and the fit is better than in Fig 1a (solid line).

FIG. 2b. $``$ The vertical scaleheight versus radius for H2 gas (solid line), obtained using a linearly varying HI velocity dispersion as in Fig. 2a. The agreement with observations (crosses) seen here is very close to that in Fig. 1b. This implies that the introduced variation in the HI velocity dispersion does not affect the H2 scaleheight noticeably.

FIG. 2c. $``$ A plot of the predicted stellar scaleheight of our Galaxy versus radius, obtained using a linearly varying HI velocity dispersion as in Fig. 2a. The results are similar to that in Fig. 1c. Thus the introduced variation in the HI velocity dispersion does not affect the stellar scaleheight noticeably.


format: text

text:
# Spatially Resolved Nonlinearity Measurements of YBa2Cu3O7-δ Bi-crystal Grain Boundaries

## Abstract

We have developed a near-field microwave microscope to locally excite a superconducting film and measure second and third harmonic responses at microwave frequencies. We study the local nonlinear response of a YBa2Cu3O7-δ thin film grown on a bi-crystal SrTiO3 substrate. The location of the bi-crystal grain boundary is clearly identified by the microscope through higher harmonic response, and the spatial resolution is on the order of the magnetic loop probe size, about 500$`\mu m`$. The harmonic power and spatial resolution are successfully modeled with a one-dimensional extended Josephson junction simulation. From the model, the 2nd order harmonic response is dominated by Josephson vortex generation and flow. A geometry-free nonlinear scaling current density $`J_{NL}10^410^5A/cm^2`$ is also extracted from the data, indicating that the grain boundary weak link is the dominant nonlinear source in this case.

The nonlinear properties of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors have been of great concern in microwave applications, although the microscopic origins of the nonlinear response still remain uncertain.Hein  All superconductors have an intrinsic nonlinearity associated with the nonlinear Meissner effect (NLME). Calculations of harmonic response based on BCS theory,Yip ; Dahm  Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory,Gittleman  and microwave field-induced modulation of the super/normal fluid densities near $`T_c`$Ciccarello1  have been proposed to describe the intrinsic nonlinearities of superconductors. Extrinsic sources of nonlinearity include grain boundaries,McDonald  edge effects, and weakly-coupled grains.Oates1  Many experiments have studied the intermodulation power,Balam ; Wensheng  harmonic generation,TOI ; Pestov  or the nonlinear surface impedance of superconductorsOates2 ; Ciccarello2  as a function of applied microwave power. However, most nonlinear experiments are done with resonant techniques, which by their nature study the averaged nonlinear response from the whole sample rather than locally. Such techniques usually have difficulty in either avoiding edge effects, which give undesired vortex entry, or in identifying the microscopic nonlinear sources. Therefore, a technique capable of locally measuring nonlinear properties of samples is necessary for understanding the physics of different nonlinear mechanisms. In addition, most existing experimental techniques focus on 3rd order nonlinearities, which can be conveniently studied by intermodulation techniques, but rarely address the 2nd order nonlinear response. Here we present a technique to locally characterize 2nd and 3rd order nonlinearities through spatially localized harmonic generation.

In prior work,Wensheng  we studied the intermodulation signal from a high-$`T_c`$ superconducting microwave resonator using a scanned electric field pick-up probe. Both the ”global” and the ”local” intermodulation power measured with the open-end coaxial probe were presented. However, the local measurements were actually a superposition of nonlinear responses that were generated locally but propagated throughout the microstrip and formed a resonant standing-wave pattern. To avoid this loss of spatial information, we have developed a non-resonant near-field microwave microscope, to non-destructively measure the local harmonic generation from un-patterned samples. This technique has the additional advantage of operating equally well through $`T_c`$ and into the normal state of the sample.

In our experiment (Fig. 1), low pass filters are used to filter out higher harmonics generated by the microwave source, and guarantee that only the selected fundamental frequency is sent to the sample. A loop probe, which is made of a coaxial cable with its inner conductor forming a semi-circular loop shorted with the outer conductor, induces microwave frequency currents of a controlled geometry in the sample. The probe can be translated over the surface of the sample in the x-y plane. The harmonic signals generated in the sample couples back to the loop probe. An advantage of this probe is the localized and directional microwave current induced on the sample surface, which enables the study of direction-dependent nonlinearities. Reflected harmonics are selected by 2 high pass filters, before being amplified by $``$ 65 dB, and measured by a spectrum analyzer.

The sample is a 500$`\AA `$ thick YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO) thin film deposited by pulsed laser deposition on a bi-crystal SrTiO3 substrate with a 30 mis-orientation. The distance between the loop probe and the sample is fixed by a 12.5$`\mu m`$ thick Teflon sheet placed between them. Measurements of the temperature dependent 3rd order harmonic power ($`P_{3f}`$)are first performed, both above the grain boundary (GB) and far away from the grain boundary (non-GB), as shown in Fig. 2. A strong peak in $`P_{3f}(T)`$ is observed at $`T_c=88.9K`$ (measured by ac susceptibility) at all locations on the sample. The peaks have similar magnitudes at both locations although there is a slight shift of $`T_c`$. Note that all measurements are taken near the middle of the film where we have verified that current-enhancement edge effects are absent.John  This peak near $`T_c`$ is predicted by all models of intrinsic nonlinearities of superconductors, e.g. the NLME,Yip ; Dahm  GL theory,Gittleman  etc., and a power-3 dependence of the $`P_{3f}`$ on the input microwave power ($`P_f`$) is observed, in agreement with the predictions of those models. The order parameter of the fragile superconducting state is easily suppressed by the microwave current at temperatures near $`T_c`$, so that its nonlinear dependence on the external rf current dominates the microwave response. Also note that no feature is seen in $`P_{2f}(T)`$ near $`T_c`$, as expected for a time-reversal symmetric superconductor.

The SrTiO3 substrate is a nonlinear dielectric at low temperatures,STO  and we have measured harmonic response from bare SrTiO3 substrates below 80K.John  The nonlinear response is confined to narrow temperature ranges at temperatures when the substrate becomes resonant due to its temperature-dependent, high dielectric constant. However, at temperatures below 80K, a strongly temperature dependent $`P_{3f}`$ is observed above the YBCO bi-crystal grain boundary, while no detectable $`P_{3f}`$ is seen away from the grain boundary. Such clear contrast is evidence that the observed $`P_{3f}`$ is from the grain boundary, not the SrTiO3 substrate. Power dependencies of $`P_{2f}`$ and $`P_{3f}`$ were also performed at both locations at 60K ($`T_c`$) and 95K ($`>T_c`$). As shown in Fig. 3, strongly power dependent $`P_{2f}`$ and $`P_{3f}`$ are only observed above the grain boundary, while no response is seen above the background noise level away from the bi-crystal grain boundary.

To demonstrate how the microwave microscope is able to spatially resolve a localized source of nonlinearity, a measurement of $`P_{2f}`$ and $`P_{3f}`$ along a line crossing the grain boundary is performed. As shown in Fig. 4, a clear peak in both $`P_{2f}`$ and $`P_{3f}`$ is observed above the GB, with a width of about 500$`\mu m`$ . The width of the observed $`P_{2f}/P_{3f}`$ peaks are about the size of the loop probe, which determines the spatial distribution of the surface current on the sample. This interpretation is confirmed by reproducing this peak with the extended resistively shunted Josephson junction model (ERSJ) discussed below.

It is well known that applying microwave current to a single resistively shunted Josephson junction generates harmonics at all odd integer multiples of the drive frequency.McDonald ; VanDuzer  To obtain a more comprehensive understanding of weak link junctions, the ERSJ model was introduced to model long Josephson junctions, such as the YBCO bi-crystal grain boundary.McDonald ; Oates1 ; Oates2  In this paper, we present ERSJ models to simulate a YBCO bi-crystal grain boundary as either an array of identical inductively coupled, or independent (uncoupled), Josephson junctions acting in parallel. From prior work with these junctions, we expect each to have a critical current of 8$`\mu A`$, and a shunt resistance of 20$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the currents applied to each junction vary according to the surface current distribution on the film induced by the loop probe. We sum up the nonlinear potential differences across all junctions, and extract the higher harmonics from this collective nonlinear potential difference via Fourier expansion.McDonald  The spatial distribution of the surface current density is calculated from a simplified analytical model of an ideal circular loop in a vertical plane, with radius 270$`\mu m`$, coupling to a perfectly conducting horizontal plane 382.5$`\mu m`$ away from the center of the loop. The magnitude of the current density is determined by a much more sophisticated microwave simulation by the Ansoft High Frequency Structure Simulator software, which also produces a similar surface current distribution.

The calculation of the uncoupled ERSJ model is performed by Mathematica, and is shown as the dashed line centered on 4mm in Fig. 4. This model predicts a narrow distribution of $`P_{3f}`$ of greater magnitude (almost 20dB) than is observed experimentally. It also predicts no $`P_{2f}`$, due to the absence of Josephson vortices in this model. A power dependence calculation from this uncoupled ERSJ model is also performed and compared with experimental results (dashed line in Fig. 3). The comparison shows qualitative agreement with the $`P_{3f}(P_f)`$ data. Calculations with the inductively coupled ERSJ model, which includes Josephson vortices, performed by WRSpice, give very good descriptions in both magnitude and spatial resolution of the experimental results for both $`P_{2f}`$ and $`P_{3f}`$ (solid lines in Fig. 4).

To further evaluate the capability of our microscope to detect intrinsic superconducting nonlinearities due to different mechanisms, we extract a geometry-free scaling current density, $`J_{NL}`$,Balam  from our data. We assume that the quadratic nonlinearity in the kinetic inductance of our sample dominates the nonlinear response through

$$L_{KI}\frac{\mu _0}{I^2}_{volume}\lambda _L(T,J)^2J^2𝑑VL_0+\mathrm{\Delta }LI^2,$$
(1)
and $`P_{3f}=(\frac{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }LI^3}{4})^2/(2Z_0)`$, where $`P_{3f}`$ is the 3rd harmonic power in the sample, $`\omega `$ and $`I`$ are the microwave frequency and current, $`Z_0`$ is the characteristic impedance of the transmission line, $`L_{KI}`$ is the kinetic inductance of the sample, $`L_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ are the linear and 2nd order nonlinear terms in $`L_{KI}`$, $`\lambda _L(T,J)=\lambda _L(T,0)(1+(\frac{J}{J_{NL}(T)})^2)^{1/2}`$ is the temperature and current dependent London penetration depth, and $`J_{NL}`$ is the nonlinearity scaling current density. Different microscopic models of nonlinearity predict different values and temperature dependences of $`J_{NL}(T)`$. For example, in the nonlinear Meissner effect and Ginzburg-Landau theory,$`J_{NL}10^8A/cm^2`$ or higher,Gittleman ; Balam  except for temperatures close to $`T_c`$, while the $`J_{NL}`$ of a long 1-D Josephson junction array in series combination is expected to be about $`10^6A/cm^2`$ or less.Balam  In our case, we follow Booth’s algorithmBooth  to calculate the nonlinear term in the inductance, and the expected 3rd order harmonic response, all as a function of $`J_{NL}`$, using the current distribution calculated from the model of the loop probe. However, it should be noted that the calculation of $`J_{NL}`$ is based on the assumption that the nonlinearity in the kinetic inductance of the superconductor is purely quadratic. As long as $`P_{3f}`$ does not scale with $`P_f^3`$, the calculated $`J_{NL}`$ will be power dependent.Balam

Assuming $`\lambda _L(T=0,J=0)=1500\AA `$, we obtain the $`J_{NL}`$ calculated near the grain boundary to be $`J_{NL}^{GB}1.5\times 10^5A/cm^2`$, while the sensitivity of our setup is currently limited to $`J_{NL}1.3\times 10^6A/cm^2`$.John  However, it is suggested from the model calculation that thinner films and stronger coupling between the film and the loop probe will give stronger nonlinear response from the same mechanism, and improve the sensitivity to the nonlinearities associated with larger values of $`J_{NL}`$.

We have created a novel near-field microwave microscope that is capable of locally measuring the nonlinear microwave behavior, thus providing an important new tool to study nonlinearities of superconductors. The microscope is able to distinguish GB and non-GB areas through spatially resolved nonlinearity measurements of higher harmonic generation. The spatial resolution is determined by the size of the loop probe, which is about 500$`\mu m`$ in the current setup, and can be improved by reducing the size of the loop probe, and decreasing the loop/sample separation. A quantitative understanding of the magnitude and spatial resolution of the 2nd and 3rd order harmonic response is well achieved by the coupled ERSJ model. A geometry-free scaling current density $`J_{NL}`$ is extracted from our measurement, and can be used to further study the physics of different nonlinearities of superconductors.

We thank Su-Young Lee for making the YBCO thin films, and Greg Ruchti for the HFSS calculation. This work is supported by DARPA DSO contract $`\mathrm{\#}`$ MDA972-00-C-0010 through a subcontract by STI, the University of Maryland/Rutgers NSF MRSEC under grant DMR-00-80008 through the Microwave Microscope SEF, and NSF IMR under grant DMR-98-02756.


text:
# A Dirac Sea for a General Non-Inertial Observer in Flat 1+1 Dimensional Spacetime

## 1 Introduction

Unruh pointed out in 1976  that an observer who accelerated uniformly through the Minkowski vacuum would see a “thermal” spectrum of scalar particles, whose apparent temperature depends upon the acceleration. The same result has also been found for fermions . The constant acceleration case has been extensively investigated and there is a good review by S. Tagaki . However, there have been few attempts at the general case.

The problem of dealing with an accelerated observer is partly how to construct a coordinate system which describes measurements made by that observer. In an inertial reference frame we can easily envisage such a system by, for example, imagining an infinite array of rods and clocks (see, for example, ). If the frame is accelerating we could consider momentarily co-moving inertial frames, but there is then an ambiguity in the coordinates assigned by the observer to events far away in space-time from the observer’s world line. We are led to believe that there is no “natural” coordinate system for the observer . However, when considering observer-dependent and non-local concepts such as ‘vacuum’ and ‘particle’, it is necessary to ensure that the coordinates relate to the observer we are considering.

Our solution to this problem is based on the measurements that an observer could make. We shall use the “radar time” coordinate construction for an arbitrary observer as defined by Dolby . We then apply this construction to the observer’s concept of particle, and derive an expression for the number of fermions that this observer would find in the inertial vacuum.

We use “natural” units throughout such that $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$. We also restrict our study to $`1+1`$ (one time plus one space) dimensions.

## 2 Radar Coordinates

### 2.1 General Derivation

The concept of radar coordinates for an accelerated observer is not new, and an excellent list of references is given in . A set of coordinates is generated having one-to-one correspondence with the whole region of the Lorentz frame with which the accelerated observer can exchange signals. A good derivation, and proofs of various properties, is given also in , in which the construction is referred to as “Märzke-Wheeler coordinates”.

Consider now an observer whose worldline $`\lambda `$ in an inertial frame is described by $`x^\mu =x_\lambda ^\mu (\tau _\lambda )`$ , where $`\tau _\lambda `$ is the observer’s proper time and $`x^\mu `$ are the Minkowski coordinates. A signal is sent to the event whose coordinates are to be measured; the time at which the signal is sent is noted, and a signal is received from the event at a later time. The two times can be used to determine both the time and position of the event according to the observer. Assuming that the observer moves in only one dimension and does not rotate, we define:

> | $`\tau _1`$ | Time at which the signal travelling in the observer’s backward direction is received or is sent. |
> | --- | --- |
> | $`\tau _2`$ | Time at which the signal travelling in the observer’s forward direction is received or is sent. |

The ‘radar time’ $`\tau `$ of the event is defined as the mean of these times, while the ‘radar distance’ $`\rho `$ is one half of their difference (in natural units):

$`\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\tau _1+\tau _2)`$
$`\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\tau _1\tau _2)`$ (1)
We now define the variables $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$ :

$`x^+t+z`$
$`x^{}tz`$ (2)
where $`t`$ and $`z`$ are the coordinates $`x^0`$ and $`x^1`$ in our Minkowski frame. It follows that $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ are related to $`x^+`$, $`x^{}`$ by

$`x^+=x_\lambda ^+(\tau _1)`$
$`x^{}=x_\lambda ^{}(\tau _2)`$ (3)
since the signals follow paths of constant $`x^{}`$ for the ‘forward’ rays, and paths of constant $`x^+`$ for the ‘backward’ ones in a flat space.

Figure 1 illustrates this construction. Times ‘1’ and ‘2’ correspond to $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ for ‘Event 1’, and to $`\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _1`$ for ‘Event 2’, so that the events are simultaneous according to the observer, but the values of $`\rho `$ have opposite sign. This convention differs slightly from that defined in ; we have defined $`\rho `$ as a ‘spatial’ rather than a ‘radial’ coordinate so that our $`|\rho |`$ corresponds to $`\rho `$ of  \- this change is convenient for $`1+1`$ dimensions.

### 2.2 Metric

We can use the coordinate transformation to calculate the metric for the observer, using the invariance of the space-time interval $`ds`$. In our Lorentz frame, we have:

$$ds^2=dt^2dz^2=dx^+dx^{}$$
(4)
However,

$`dx^+=dx_\lambda ^+={\displaystyle \frac{dx_\lambda ^+}{d\tau _1}}d\tau _1={\displaystyle \frac{dx_\lambda ^+}{d\tau _1}}(d\tau +d\rho )`$
$`dx^{}=dx_\lambda ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{dx_\lambda ^{}}{d\tau _2}}d\tau _2={\displaystyle \frac{dx_\lambda ^{}}{d\tau _2}}(d\tau d\rho )`$ (5)
This identity is one of several involving radar coordinates; others are given in the Appendix. By defining

$$U^+(\tau _1)=\frac{dx_\lambda ^+(\tau _1)}{d\tau _1},U^{}(\tau _2)=\frac{dx_\lambda ^{}(\tau _2)}{d\tau _2}$$
(6)
we have:

$$ds^2=U^+U^{}(d\tau ^2d\rho ^2)$$
(7)
This expression gives the metric g, with components $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, via the equation

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(8)
where the Einstein summation convention is employed (as it will be throughout). In matrix form, the metric can be written:

$$𝐠=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U^+U^{}& 0\\ 0& U^+U^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
The off-diagonal elements are zero since the coefficient of $`dx^1dx^0`$ in the interval is zero.

If the observer’s velocity has a discontinuity (i.e. there is a momentary infinite acceleration) then the metric will be two-valued at all events having the same value of $`x^+`$ or $`x^{}`$ as the observer at the point of the discontinuity - i.e. all along the future and past light cones stemming from that event. Also, on the observer’s worldline, $`\tau _1=\tau _2=\tau _\lambda `$ so that $`U^+U^{}=1`$ and $`U^\pm =\sqrt{\frac{1\pm v}{1v}}`$, where $`v(\tau _\lambda )`$ is the speed of the observer.

### 2.3 Examples

#### 2.3.1 Inertial Frame

A very simple case that provides a useful consistency check is an inertial frame with a velocity $`v`$ relative to our original frame. From the Lorentz transformation, we have

$$t=\gamma \tau _\lambda ,z=\gamma v\tau _\lambda $$
(10)
and

$`x^+=\gamma \tau _1(1+v)=\tau _1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+v}{1v}}}`$
$`x^{}=\gamma \tau _2(1v)=\tau _2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}}`$ (11)
giving

$$\tau =\gamma (tvz),\rho =\gamma (zvt)$$
(12)
as expected. We also have

$$U^+=\sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1v}},U^{}=\sqrt{\frac{1v}{1+v}}$$
(13)
which gives our Minkowski metric

$$𝐠=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
#### 2.3.2 Constant Acceleration

The simplest nontrivial case is with constant acceleration. As set out in , the observer’s worldline can be written:

$$t=g^1\mathrm{sinh}g\tau _\lambda ,z=g^1\mathrm{cosh}g\tau _\lambda $$
(15)
where $`g`$ is the acceleration. Hence

$`x^+={\displaystyle \frac{e^{g\tau _1}}{g}},x^{}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{g\tau _2}}{g}}`$
$`\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{x^+}{x^{}}}{2g}},\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}g^2x^+x^{}}{2g}}`$ (16)
and

$$U^+=e^{g\tau _1},U^{}=e^{g\tau _2}$$
(17)
giving

$$𝐠=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2g\rho }& 0\\ 0& e^{2g\rho }\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
This result agrees with  and .

#### 2.3.3 Constant Acceleration Beginning at t = 0

In this case the observer’s world line is described by:

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}g^1\mathrm{cosh}g\tau _\lambda \hfill & \tau _\lambda 0\hfill \\ g^1\hfill & \tau _\lambda 0\hfill \end{array}`$ (21)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}g^1\mathrm{sinh}g\tau _\lambda \hfill & \tau _\lambda 0\hfill \\ \tau _\lambda \hfill & \tau _\lambda 0\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
The radar coordinate system divides naturally into four regions as shown in Figure 2; the corresponding coordinates are given in Table 1. The hypersurfaces of simultaneity are not easy to calculate exactly in regions 2 and 3.

#### 2.3.4 Constant acceleration for a finite time

In this case an observer travels at constant speed until a certain time, then accelerates constantly until the speed is reversed, i.e. equal but in the opposite direction to the initial value; this speed is then maintained. The worldline is given by:

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma v(\tau _\lambda \tau _c)+g^1\mathrm{cosh}g\tau _c\hfill & \tau _\lambda \tau _c\hfill \\ g^1\mathrm{cosh}g\tau _\lambda \hfill & |\tau _\lambda |\tau _c\hfill \\ \gamma v(\tau _\lambda +\tau _c)+g^1\mathrm{cosh}g\tau _c\hfill & \tau _\lambda \tau _c\hfill \end{array}`$ (28)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma (\tau _\lambda \tau _c)+g^1\mathrm{sinh}g\tau _c\hfill & \tau _\lambda \tau _c\hfill \\ g^1\mathrm{sinh}g\tau _\lambda \hfill & |\tau _\lambda |\tau _c\hfill \\ \gamma (\tau _\lambda +\tau _c)g^1\mathrm{sinh}g\tau _c\hfill & \tau _\lambda \tau _c\hfill \end{array}`$ (32)
where $`\tau _c`$ is the time at which acceleration ends according to the observer, and $`v=\mathrm{tanh}g\tau _c`$ is the final speed. Figure 3 shows that the radar coordinate construction for this observer divides space-time naturally into nine regions as a result of the two discontinuities in the acceleration, though the observer can make measurements of the whole space-time. Values of the radar coordinate quantities in each region are given in Table 2.

This example is treated since it does not include an acceleration horizon, yet still uses much of the mathematics of the constant acceleration case.

## 3 Quantum Field Variables for the Accelerated Observer

### 3.1 Dirac Equation

We study the Dirac vacuum, and hence use the Dirac equation for free particles as generalised to curved space-times/accelerated observers :

$$ı\gamma ^\mu \left(\frac{}{x^\mu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right)\psi m\psi =0$$
(33)
where $`\psi `$ is a 2-component spinor (in $`1+1`$ dimensions), $`m`$ is the mass of the spin-$`1/2`$ particle, and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ are the “spin connection” matrices, given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\frac{1}{4}\gamma _\nu \left(\frac{\gamma ^\nu }{x^\mu }+\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu }{\lambda \mu }\right\}\gamma ^\nu \right)=\frac{1}{4}\gamma _\nu _\mu \gamma ^\nu $$
(34)
Here $`\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu }{\lambda \mu }\right\}`$ are the conventional “Christoffel symbols” or “connection coefficients” which form part of the covariant derivative $`_\mu `$ .

In $`1+1`$ dimensions the quantities $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are $`2\times 2`$ component matrices which transform as (contravariant) vectors, and they can be chosen to be any matrices that satisfy

$$\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu =2g^{\mu \nu }𝕀$$
(35)
where $`𝕀`$ is the identity matrix. We shall denote the $`\gamma `$-matrices in the Lorentz frame as $`\overline{\gamma }^\mu `$, so that in the accelerated frame we can choose:

$$\gamma ^\mu =\frac{x^\mu }{\overline{x}^\alpha }\overline{\gamma }^\alpha $$
(36)
according to the transformation law for vectors, where the $`\{x^\mu \}`$ represent the coordinates in our observer’s frame, and the $`\{\overline{x}^\alpha \}`$ are coordinates in our inertial frame. In this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =0`$ and so the Dirac equation (33) then becomes

$$ı\gamma ^\mu \frac{\psi }{x^\mu }m\psi =0$$
(37)
From equation (36), we can write this as

$$ı\frac{x^\mu }{\overline{x}^\alpha }\frac{\overline{x}^\beta }{x^\mu }\overline{\gamma }^\alpha \frac{\psi }{\overline{x}^\beta }m\psi =0$$
(38)
which simplifies to

$$ı\overline{\gamma }^\alpha \frac{\psi }{\overline{x}^\alpha }m\psi =0$$
(39)
and shows the covariance of the equation - the solutions will be the same in all frames. We can rewrite this using equation (35) as

$$\frac{\psi }{\overline{x}^0}+\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1\frac{\psi }{\overline{x}^1}=ım\overline{\gamma }^0\psi $$
(40)
We choose the $`\overline{\gamma }`$-matrices to be

$$\overline{\gamma }^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\overline{\gamma }^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(41)
with the basis spinors

$$\varphi _+=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right),\varphi _{}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)$$
(42)
which gives

$$\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(43)
We then write $`\psi =\psi _+\varphi _++\psi _{}\varphi _{}`$ to obtain the coupled equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _+}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _+}{z}}=ım\psi _{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _{}}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _{}}{z}}=ım\psi _+`$ (44)
For massless fermions, these equations decouple to give

$$\psi _+=\psi _+(x^{}),\psi _{}=\psi _{}(x^+)$$
(45)
whereas for the massive case the equations become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\psi _+}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\psi _+}{z^2}}=m^2\psi _+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\psi _{}}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\psi _{}}{z^2}}=m^2\psi _{}`$ (46)
which can be solved by separation of variables to give:

$$\psi _+=Ne^{ı(At+Bz)},\psi _{}=\frac{A+B}{m}\psi _+$$
(47)
where $`N`$ is a suitable normalisation, and $`A`$ and $`B`$ are constants obeying $`A^2B^2=m^2`$. In our inertial frame, $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively represent the energy and momentum of the particle, although they are combined as components of the momentum-energy vector between inertial frames. This identification does not hold for our accelerated frame, in which the energy and momentum operators are different. To determine the energy and to identify wavefunctions as representing particles or antiparticles we must calculate the appropriate Hamiltonian . As a preliminary step we evaluate the inner product in our coordinate system.

### 3.2 Inner Product

The generalised inner product of two spinors $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ in an accelerated frame on a hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of constant $`\tau `$ is:

$$\psi |\varphi _\mathrm{\Sigma }=\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu \sqrt{g}\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \varphi $$
(48)
where $`g`$ is the determinant of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\overline{\psi }`$ is the conjugate of $`\psi `$, defined as $`\overline{\psi }\psi ^{}\overline{\gamma }^0`$. The ‘surface’ element $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given in $`1+1`$ dimensions by

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu =\frac{\frac{\tau }{x^\mu }}{\frac{\tau }{x^0}}dx^1$$
(49)
The above definition of the inner product is independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, provided that $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are solutions of the Dirac equation.

Since $`\frac{\tau }{\rho }=0`$, we can write the inner product in radar coordinates as

$$\psi |\varphi _\tau =\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\rho \sqrt{g}\psi ^{}\overline{\gamma }^0\gamma ^0\varphi $$
(50)
Equations (9) and (36) allow us to express this as

$$\psi |\varphi _\tau =\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\rho U^+U^{}\psi ^{}\overline{\gamma }^0\left(\frac{\tau }{t}\overline{\gamma }^0+\frac{\tau }{z}\overline{\gamma }^1\right)\varphi $$
(51)
which finally becomes

$$\psi |\varphi _\tau =\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\rho \psi ^{}\left[U^{}(𝕀+\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1)+U^+(𝕀\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1)\right]\varphi $$
(52)
Alternatively, the inner product (still evaluated on a hypersurface of constant $`\tau `$ ) can be written in inertial coordinates as:

$$\psi |\varphi _\tau =\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}𝑑z\psi ^{}\left(𝕀+\frac{\frac{\tau }{z}}{\frac{\tau }{t}}\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1\right)\varphi $$
(53)
### 3.3 Hamiltonian

We can rewrite equation (37) as

$$ı\frac{\psi }{\tau }=\frac{\gamma ^0}{g^{00}}\left(ı\gamma ^1\frac{\psi }{\rho }m\psi \right)$$
(54)
and so define the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{nh}`$ as

$$\widehat{H}_{nh}=U^+U^{}\gamma ^0\left(ı\gamma ^1\frac{}{\rho }m\right)$$
(55)
Now,

$`\gamma ^0\gamma ^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\overline{x}^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\overline{x}^\beta }}\overline{\gamma }^\alpha \overline{\gamma }^\beta `$ (56)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{z}}\right)𝕀+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{t}}\right)\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1`$
$`=`$ $`g^{01}𝕀+\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{t}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{z}}\right)^2\right)\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1`$
$`=`$ $`g^{00}\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1`$
and

$`\gamma ^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x^{}}}\right)\overline{\gamma }^0+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x^{}}}\right)\overline{\gamma }^1`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^{}}}\right)\overline{\gamma }^0+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^{}}}\right)\overline{\gamma }^1\right]`$
so that

$$\widehat{H}_{nh}=ı\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1\frac{}{\rho }+\frac{m}{2}\left[U^+\left(\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1\right)+U^{}\left(\overline{\gamma }^0+\overline{\gamma }^1\right)\right]$$
(58)
where we have used some of the identities given in the Appendix.

It is clear from equation (52) that the Hamiltonian in (58) is not Hermitian - hence the subscript ‘nh’. The explanation lies in the time dependence of both the inner product and the Hamiltonian, although $`\widehat{H}_{nh}`$ is time-independent in the case of massless fermions. At first sight this would appear to violate unitarity. However, as stated by Dolby *et al.*, this is not so; as a result of the time-dependence in the inner product volume element, unitarity actually requires a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. Dolby *et al.*  use the stress-energy tensor to evaluate the energy of the state, and hence find the Hamiltonian at a certain time $`\tau _0`$. We quote the result that the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_1`$ for states at a time $`\tau _0`$ can be written as

$$\widehat{H}_1\frac{1}{2}\left\{\widehat{H}_{nh}+\widehat{H}_{nh}^{}\right\}$$
(59)
The eigenstates of this Hamiltonian can be classified as positive or negative frequency according to whether their eigenvalues are positive or negative.

To find the Hermitian conjugate of our Hamiltonian, we use two arbitrary spinors $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ together with the definition

$$\widehat{H}_{nh}\psi |\varphi =\psi |\widehat{H}_{nh}^{}\varphi $$
(60)
We therefore consider

$$\widehat{H}_{nh}\psi |\varphi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _0}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\rho \left(\widehat{H}_{nh}\psi \right)^{}\left[U^{}(𝕀+\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1)+U^+(𝕀\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1)\right]\varphi $$
(61)
Define $`\sigma =\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1`$, $`a_1=\overline{\gamma }^0+\overline{\gamma }^1`$, $`a_2=\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1`$, $`b_1=𝕀+\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1`$ and $`b_2=𝕀\overline{\gamma }^0\overline{\gamma }^1`$, so that

$$a_1^{}=a_2,b_1^{}=b_1,b_2^{}=b_2,\sigma ^{}=\sigma $$
(62)
with further identities listed in the appendix. If we now put $`M=\frac{1}{2}\left[U^{}b_1+U^+b_2\right]`$, then

$$M^1=\frac{1}{2U^+U^{}}\left(U^+b_1+U^{}b_2\right)$$
(63)
By using these definitions, we can write

$`\widehat{H}_{nh}\psi |\varphi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \left(ı\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\left[U^+a_2+U^{}a_1\right]\psi \right)^{}M\varphi `$ (64)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \left(ı{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{\rho }}\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{m\psi ^{}}{2}}\left[U^+a_1+U^{}a_2\right]\right)M\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`\left[\psi ^{}(ı\sigma )M\varphi \right]_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \psi ^{}ı\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}\left(M\varphi \right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \psi ^{}M\left(M^1\left[U^+a_1+U^{}a_2\right]M\right)\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \psi ^{}M(ı\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\rho }})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \psi ^{}(ı\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{M}{\rho }})\varphi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \psi ^{}M\left[U^+a_2+U^{}a_1\right]\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`\psi |ı\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}|\varphi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _0}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \psi ^{}M\left(M^1ı\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{M}{\rho }}\right)\varphi `$
$`+\psi |{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\left[U^+a_2+U^{}a_1\right]|\varphi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _0}}`$
We have applied the condition that the wavefunction must vanish at infinity, and have assumed that the functions $`U^+`$ and $`U^{}`$ are continuous. By applying further identities from the Appendix, we obtain

$`\widehat{H}_{nh}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`i\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^{}}{d\tau _2}}b_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^+}{d\tau _1}}b_2\right]`$ (65)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\left[U^+a_2+U^{}a_1\right]`$
This finally gives us our Hermitian Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_1`$ as

$`\widehat{H}_1`$ $`=`$ $`i\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^{}}{d\tau _2}}b_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^+}{d\tau _1}}b_2\right]`$ (66)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\left[U^+a_2+U^{}a_1\right]`$
We can use this Hamiltonian to calculate the positive and negative eigenstates of the Dirac vacuum, as measured by our accelerated observer at a certain time. These states do not cover the whole of space-time if an acceleration horizon exists, i.e. the observer approaches the speed of light and does not decelerate, so that signals from certain regions of space-time never reach the observer. However, as found in , the states are still sufficient to calculate the number of particles observed.

We call the eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian $`\omega `$, and write the eigenstates as $`\psi _\tau =f_+\varphi _++f_{}\varphi _{}`$. Equation (66) then gives

$`\omega f_+`$ $`=`$ $`ı{\displaystyle \frac{f_+}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^{}}{d\tau _2}}f_++mU^+f_{}`$
$`\omega f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`ı{\displaystyle \frac{f_{}}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^+}{d\tau _1}}f_{}+mU^{}f_+`$ (67)
We shall not attempt to solve these coupled equations here, but consider only the massless case.

#### 3.3.1 Eigenstates for Massless Fermions

For massless fermions, our Hamiltonian reduces to

$$\widehat{H}_1=ı\sigma \frac{}{\rho }+\frac{ı}{4}\left[\frac{1}{U^{}}\frac{dU^{}}{d\tau _2}b_1+\frac{1}{U^+}\frac{dU^+}{d\tau _1}b_2\right]$$
(68)
for which we require a complete set of eigenstates. If we consider a time $`\tau _0`$, we can use equation (99) from the Appendix to obtain

$`\widehat{H}_1`$ $`=`$ $`ı\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^{}}{d\tau _2}}b_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^+}{d\tau _1}}b_2\right]`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`ı\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau _2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^{}}{d\tau _2}}b_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^+}{d\tau _1}}b_2\right]`$
which gives

$`\omega f_+`$ $`=`$ $`ı{\displaystyle \frac{df_+}{d\tau _2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^{}}{d\tau _2}}f_+`$
$`\omega f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`ı{\displaystyle \frac{df_{}}{d\tau _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{dU^+}{d\tau _1}}f_{}`$ (70)
A complete set of solutions can be found with $`f_+=f_+(\tau _2)`$ and $`f_{}=f_{}(\tau _1)`$. That is, we can find solutions of the massless Dirac equation - given in equation (45) - that are eigenstates at all times. In consequence, the total number of massless fermions seen by a non-inertial observer is independent of time. The possibility of this is hinted at by the commutation of $`\widehat{H}_1`$ with the Dirac Operator $`ı\left(\frac{}{\tau }+\sigma \frac{}{\rho }\right)`$. It occurs because the explicit time dependence disappears as a result of the decoupling of the equations, in contrast to the massive case. This result will be discussed in Section 4.2.

Equations (70) are simply solved by use of an integrating factor to give

$`f_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_\omega e^{ı\omega \tau _2}}{\sqrt{U^{}}}}`$
$`f_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_\omega e^{ı\omega \tau _1}}{\sqrt{U^+}}}`$ (71)
where $`A_\omega `$ and $`B_\omega `$ are normalisation constants. If we normalise the wavefunctions to $`2\pi \delta (\omega \omega ^{})`$ we obtain:

$`\psi _\omega |\psi _\omega ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \left[{\displaystyle \frac{A_\omega ^{}e^{ı\omega \tau _2}}{\sqrt{U^{}}}}\varphi _+^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_\omega ^{}e^{ı\omega \tau _1}}{\sqrt{U^+}}}\varphi _{}^{}\right]M\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A_\omega ^{}e^{ı\omega ^{}\tau _2}}{\sqrt{U^{}}}}\varphi _++{\displaystyle \frac{B_\omega e^{ı\omega ^{}\tau _1}}{\sqrt{U^+}}}\varphi _{}\right]`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \left[A_\omega ^{}A_\omega ^{}e^{ı(\omega \omega ^{})\tau _2}\right]+\left[B_\omega ^{}B_\omega ^{}e^{ı(\omega \omega ^{})\tau _1}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi \delta (\omega \omega ^{})\left(A_\omega ^{}A_\omega ^{}+B_\omega ^{}B_\omega ^{}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi \delta (\omega \omega ^{})\left(A_\omega ^{}A_\omega +B_\omega ^{}B_\omega \right)`$
Hence

$$A_\omega ^{}A_\omega +B_\omega ^{}B_\omega =1$$
(73)
and the coefficients $`A_\omega `$, $`B_\omega `$ are independent of $`\omega `$. We choose the “forward-moving” mode $`\psi _{\omega ,F}`$ to have $`\{A=1,B=0\}`$ and the ‘backward-moving” mode $`\psi _{\omega ,B}`$ to have $`\{A=0,B=1\}`$.

We now have a set of energy eigenstates which remain eigenstates at all times for our observer. We can classify the modes as positive or negative energy simply by the sign of $`\omega `$ in equation (70). We can also use these modes to calculate the particle content of the vacuum.

## 4 Particle Content of the Dirac Vacuum

### 4.1 General Formulae

According to the approach developed in , the particle density of the Dirac vacuum at a given time is given by

$`n_\tau ^+(x^1)={\displaystyle \underset{\omega \omega ^{}}{}}\left((\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{}}\sqrt{g}\psi _{\omega ^{},+}^{}\overline{\gamma }^0\gamma ^\mu \psi _{\omega ,+}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\tau }{x^\mu }}{\frac{\tau }{x^0}}}\right)`$
$`n_\tau ^{}(x^1)={\displaystyle \underset{\omega \omega ^{}}{}}\left((\gamma \gamma ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{}}\sqrt{g}\psi _{\omega ^{},}^{}\overline{\gamma }^0\gamma ^\mu \psi _{\omega ,}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\tau }{x^\mu }}{\frac{\tau }{x^0}}}\right)`$ (74)
where $`n^+`$ and $`n^{}`$ are the densities of particles and antiparticles, respectively defined such that $`n_\tau ^+(x^1)dx^1`$ is the number of particles in the length $`dx^1`$ at $`x^1`$ (and similarly for $`n_\tau ^{}(x^1)`$ ), $`\psi _{\omega ,\pm }`$ are the positive/negative energy eigenstates, and the summation implies integration over the variables between zero and infinity, with a division by $`2\pi `$ for each (due to normalisation), and the matrices $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are given by:

$`\beta _{\omega p}=\psi _{\omega ,+}|u_{p,}`$
$`\gamma _{\omega p}=\psi _{\omega ,}|u_{p,+}`$ (75)
where $`u_{p,\pm }`$ are the positive/negative energy Minkowski eigenstates with momentum $`p`$. These expressions lead to a total particle number $`N^+`$ and antiparticle number $`N^{}`$ in the observer’s entire space as

$`N^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega \omega ^{}}{}}(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{}}\psi _{\omega ^{},+}|\psi _{\omega ,+}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\omega (\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega }`$
$`N^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\omega \omega ^{}}{}}(\gamma \gamma ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{}}\psi _{\omega ^{},}|\psi _{\omega ,}`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\omega (\gamma \gamma ^{})_{\omega \omega }`$
where we have used the orthogonality and normalisation properties of the eigenstates. We see that the eigenstates over the whole space-time are not required, just those for which our observer can construct coordinates.

### 4.2 Massless Fermions

In the massless case, the Minkowski states are the plane-wave basis:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}u_+\hfill & =& e^{ıpx^{}}\varphi _+\text{and }e^{ıpx^+}\varphi _{}\hfill & \text{for }p>0\hfill \\ u_{}\hfill & =& e^{ıpx^{}}\varphi _+\text{and }e^{ıpx^+}\varphi _{}\hfill & \text{for }p>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(77)
where the $`\varphi _+`$ and $`\varphi _{}`$ components combine in the same way as the components of the eigenstates of our massless Hamiltonian, and are normalised to $`2\pi \delta (p^{}p)`$. Taking inner products with our eigenstates of $`\widehat{H}_1`$, we must consider both “forward-moving” and “backward-moving’ particles, and must therefore evaluate the expressions for both of $`\psi _{\omega ,F}`$ and $`\psi _{\omega ,B}`$. The two sets need not have the same distribution or number of particles, merely the same number of particles as antiparticles. Upon denoting “forward-moving” quantities with the subscript ‘F’, and “backward” ones with a ‘B’, we have:

$`\beta _{\omega p,F}={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\tau _2\sqrt{U^{}}e^{ı\omega \tau _2}e^{ıpx^{}}`$
$`\beta _{\omega p,B}={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\tau _1\sqrt{U^+}e^{ı\omega \tau _1}e^{ıpx^+}`$ (78)
The quantity $`(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega }`$ gives the energy distribution of the particles observed. It is independent of time since the arguments in the inner product in $`\beta _{\omega p}`$ are both solutions of the Dirac equation.

The equations for the antiparticles are exactly the same:

$`\gamma _{\omega p,F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \sqrt{U^{}}e^{ı\omega \tau _2}e^{ıpx^{}}`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`\beta _{\omega p,F}^{}`$
Similarly $`\gamma _{\omega p,B}=\beta _{\omega p,B}^{}`$, so that

$$(\gamma \gamma ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{},F}=(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{},F}^{},(\gamma \gamma ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{},B}=(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{},B}^{}$$
(80)
The elements $`(\gamma \gamma ^{})_{\omega \omega }`$ and $`(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega }`$ are hence equal to each other, since the matrices are Hermitian, so from (76)the total number of ‘forward’-moving particles equals the total of ‘forward’-moving antiparticles, and similarly for ‘backward’-moving ones.

In this massless case, the formula for the distribution of particles also takes a simple form:

$`n_F^+(\tau ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{},F}e^{ı(\omega ^{}\omega )\tau _2}`$
$`n_F^{}(\tau ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}(\gamma \gamma ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{},F}e^{ı(\omega ^{}\omega )\tau _2}`$ (81)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega ^{}\omega ,F}e^{ı(\omega ^{}\omega )\tau _2}`$
$`=`$ $`n_F^+(\tau ,\rho )`$
and similarly

$$n_B^\pm (\tau ,\rho )=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{},B}e^{ı(\omega ^{}\omega )\tau _1}$$
(82)
Therefore the distributions of particles and antiparticles are the same - as we expect for local conservation of charge (or lepton number etc). Since $`(\gamma \gamma ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{}}`$ and $`(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{}}`$ are independent of time, the particle distributions depend only on $`\tau _1`$ for ‘backward’-moving particles, and $`\tau _2`$ for the ‘forward’-movers.

Although the distributions of ‘forward’- and ‘backward’-moving particles are not in general the same, we expect them to be identical when the observer’s trajectory is time-symmetric. To show this, consider integrating the expressions (78) along the hypersurface $`\tau =0`$ (this choice is merely for convenience, since we are free to choose any hypersurface of constant $`\tau `$). Time-symmetry implies that

$`z_\lambda (\tau _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`z_\lambda (\tau _\lambda )`$
$`t_\lambda (\tau _\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`t_\lambda (\tau _\lambda )`$ (83)
and hence

$$x_\lambda ^+(\tau _\lambda )=x_\lambda ^{}(\tau _\lambda )$$
(84)
Along $`\tau =0`$ this gives

$`x^+(\tau _1)=x^{}(\tau _1)=x^{}(\tau _2)`$
$`x^{}(\tau _2)=x^+(\tau _2)=x^+(\tau _1)`$ (85)
and hence $`U^+=U^{}`$. Expression (78) for $`\beta _{\omega p,B}`$ thus becomes

$`\beta _{\omega p,B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\tau _2\sqrt{U^{}}e^{ı\omega \tau _2}e^{ıpx^{}(\tau _2)}`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`(\beta _{\omega p,F})^{}`$
The ‘forward’- and ‘backward’ expressions for $`(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{}}`$ must therefore be complex conjugates of each other. The total number of ‘forward’-moving particles therefore equals the number of ‘backward’-moving particles for a time-symmetric observer, and the frequency distributions must be the same. However, the spatial densities will be identical only at $`\tau =0`$, since the expressions in equation (74) contain $`\tau _2`$ for the ‘forward’-moving particles and $`\tau _1`$ for the ‘backward’-moving particles.

### 4.3 Examples

#### 4.3.1 Inertial Frame

By applying the results derived for massless fermions to a boosted Lorentz frame as in section 2.3.1, we find that

$`\beta _{\omega p,F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{ı\omega \tau _2}e^{ıp\tau _2\sqrt{\frac{1v}{1+v}}}`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\rho e^{ı\tau _2\left(\omega +\sqrt{\frac{1v}{1+v}}p\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\delta (\omega +\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}}p)`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
The integral is zero, as expected, and in fact shows that a negative energy mode of energy $`p`$ is interpreted as a negative energy mode of energy $`\sqrt{\frac{1v}{1+v}}p`$. This is the correct Lorentz transformation for energy and momentum for a massless particle.

We obtain the same result if we consider the $`\varphi _{}`$ components, or the antiparticle content.

#### 4.3.2 Constant Acceleration

For massless fermions and a constantly accelerated observer, we obtain

$`\beta _{\omega p,F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\tau _2e^{(ı\omega \frac{g}{2})\tau _2}e^{\frac{ıpe^{g\tau _2}}{g}}`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑u(gu)^{\frac{ı\omega }{g}\frac{1}{2}}e^{ıpu}\text{where}u={\displaystyle \frac{e^{g\tau _2}}{g}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{g}}e^{\frac{ı\pi }{2}}\right)^{\frac{ı\omega }{g}\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{ı\omega }{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$
and similarly

$`\beta _{\omega p,B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\tau _1e^{(ı\omega +\frac{g}{2})\tau _1}e^{\frac{ıpe^{g\tau _1}}{g}}`$ (89)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{p}}e^{\frac{ı\pi }{2}}\right)^{\frac{ı\omega }{g}+\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{ı\omega }{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$
as was found in . If we now calculate $`(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega }`$, divide it by the normalisation $`L=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\rho =\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{du}{gu}`$, and use the fact that $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+iy)|=\sqrt{\pi \mathrm{sech}\pi \mathrm{y}}`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\omega ,F}^+}{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{2\pi \omega }{g}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\omega ,B}^+}{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{2\pi \omega }{g}}}}`$ (90)
as found in , , and indeed most papers on the subject.

By calculating $`(\beta \beta ^{})_{\omega \omega ^{}}`$, we find that for $`\omega \omega ^{}`$ the matrix elements are zero. Hence, since $`\psi _\omega ^{}M\psi _\omega `$ is independent of $`\rho `$, the distribution in space of massless fermions is uniform for this observer.

#### 4.3.3 Constant Acceleration beginning at $`t=0`$

We can use the results from section 2.3.3 for massless fermions to integrate over a hypersurface for any value of $`\tau `$. The simplest choice is $`\tau =0`$ since we need consider only two regions, and

$`\beta _{\omega p,F}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}}𝑑\tau _2e^{(ı\omega \frac{g}{2})\tau _2}e^{\frac{ıpe^{g\tau _2}}{g}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\tau _2e^{ı\omega \tau _2}e^{ıp(\tau _2\frac{1}{g})}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\frac{1}{g}}{}}}𝑑u(gu)^{\frac{ı\omega }{g}\frac{1}{2}}e^{ıpu}\right)+e^{\frac{ıp}{g}}\left(\pi \delta (\omega +p){\displaystyle \frac{ı}{\omega +p}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p}{g}}e^{\frac{ı\pi }{2}}\right)^{\frac{ı\omega }{g}\frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{ı\omega }{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{ı\omega }{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},ıp)\right]ı{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{ıp}{g}}}{\omega +p}}`$
and also

$`\beta _{\omega p,B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}}𝑑\tau _1e^{ı\omega \tau _1}e^{ıp(\tau _1+\frac{1}{g})}+{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\tau _1e^{(ı\omega +\frac{g}{2})\tau _1}e^{\frac{ıpe^{g\tau _1}}{g}}`$ (92)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{p}}e^{\frac{ı\pi }{2}}\right)^{\frac{ı\omega }{g}+\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{ı\omega }{g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},ıp)+ı{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{ıp}{g}}}{\omega +p}}`$
where the delta functions are superfluous because $`\omega `$ must always be positive. The expressions differ for forward- and backward-moving particles; the time symmetry of the constant acceleration case has been broken, so that we no longer expect the numbers of particles moving forwards and backwards to be equal.

#### 4.3.4 Constant Acceleration for a finite time

Here we use the results from section 2.3.4, and insert them into the massless fermion equations as in the previous examples. As can be seen from Figure 3, the simplest hypersurface of simultaneity to choose for the integration is clearly $`\tau =0`$, which corresponds to the $`z`$-axis and crosses only three regions. Moreover, in regions ‘IA’ and ‘IB’ the coordinates are a simple scaling from the inertial coordinates, and the coordinates in region ‘C’ are simply those of the constantly accelerated observer. We therefore obtain

$`\beta _{\omega p,F}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v}{1v}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\tau _c}{}}}𝑑\tau _2e^{ı\omega \tau _2}e^{ıp\sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1v}}(\tau _2+\tau _c\frac{1}{g})}`$ (93)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\tau _c}{\overset{\tau _c}{}}}𝑑\tau _2e^{(ı\omega \frac{g}{2})\tau _2}e^{\frac{ıpe^{g\tau _2}}{g}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau _c}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\tau _2e^{ı\omega \tau _2}e^{ıp\sqrt{\frac{1v}{1+v}}(\tau _2\tau _c\frac{1}{g})}`$
and

$`\beta _{\omega p,B}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1v}{1+v}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\tau _c}{}}}𝑑\tau _1e^{ı\omega \tau _1}e^{ıp\sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1v}}(\tau _1+\tau _c+\frac{1}{g})}`$ (94)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\tau _c}{\overset{\tau _c}{}}}𝑑\tau _1e^{(ı\omega +\frac{g}{2})\tau _1}e^{\frac{ıpe^{g\tau _1}}{g}}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v}{1v}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\tau _c}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\tau _1e^{ı\omega \tau _1}e^{ıp\sqrt{\frac{1v}{1+v}}(\tau _1\tau _c+\frac{1}{g})}`$
$`=`$ $`(\beta _{\omega p,F})^{}`$
From these results, we can determine the particle content of the vacuum according to the observer, despite the absence of an acceleration horizon. The results illuminate the earlier proof that for a time-symmetric observer worldline the ‘forward’- and ‘backward’-moving particles have the same number and the same frequency distribution.

## 5 Discussion

The approach developed in  has been used to evaluate the particle content of the massless Dirac vacuum for an arbitrarily moving observer in 1+1 dimensions. This method uses Bondi’s ‘radar time’, which provides a foliation of flat space that depends only on the observer’s trajectory. It agrees with proper time on the trajectory, and is single valued in the causal envelope of the observer’s worldline.

The particle content can be described in terms of ‘forward moving’ particles (with particle density $`n_F^+(\tau ,\rho )`$ dependent only on $`\tau \rho `$), ‘backward moving’ particles (with particle density $`n_B^+(\tau ,\rho )`$ dependent only on $`\tau +\rho `$), and their corresponding antiparticles (described by $`n_F^{}`$ and $`n_B^{}`$). The particle content is clearly different for different observers, but for any given observer the total number of forward/backward moving particles is independent of $`\tau `$. This result is specific to massless particles in 1+1 dimensions, and is a direct consequence of conformal invariance. The spatial distribution of forward moving particles always matches that of forward moving antiparticles, and likewise for backward moving particles. In general, there is no connection between the observed numbers of forward moving particles and backward moving particles. However, when the observer’s trajectory is time-reversal invariant the distribution of forward and backward moving particles must match at $`\tau =0`$, and their distributions at other times is given by the fact that $`n_F^\pm (\tau ,\rho )`$ depends only on $`\tau \rho `$ and that $`n_B^\pm (\tau ,\rho )`$ depends only on $`\tau +\rho `$. These general results have been illustrated by four examples. We have confirmed that inertial observers do not observe particles in the inertial vacuum, and that uniformly accelerating observers measure the well-known thermal spectrum . This thermal spectrum is spatially uniform in ‘radar distance’ $`\rho `$ and is the same for forward and backward moving particles, as expected. An observer with constant acceleration for finite time (who is otherwise inertial) exhibits time-reversal invariance about the time ($`\tau =0`$ in section 4.3.4) mid way through the period of acceleration. This gives $`n_F^\pm (0,\rho )=n_B^\pm (0,\rho )`$ as predicted, although these distributions are no longer spatially uniform. An observer who accelerates uniformly from $`\tau =0`$ observes different numbers of forward and backward moving particles. This intriguing result suggests an observer-dependent violation of discrete symmetries, which warrants further investigation.

Other work that has treated non-uniformly accelerating observers in flat space is presented in . There, the content of massive scalar particles was studied in flat space, using a foliation based on the observer’s ‘instantaneous rest frame’. Interesting results were obtained there, but their interpretation is limited by the multivalued nature of the instantaneous rest frame, as discussed in . The use of an ‘instantaneous rest frame’ will in general assign more than one time to any event further than $`1/g(t)`$ from an accelerating observer (uniform acceleration is the only exception). This leads in  to multivalued predictions for the particle content at any such event, raising problems of interpretation.

Since massless fermions in 1+1 dimensions are conformally invariant, and consequently lack the scale dependence of the massive case(provided for instance by the Compton scale $`1/m`$), it is not likely that the results obtained here will generalise immediately to massive particles, or to 3+1 dimensions. Further work is needed to investigate those cases in more detail, and to explore the possible observer dependence of discrete symmetries.

## Appendix A Identities

This Appendix sets out many identities used here, mostly following from simple partial derivatives.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x^+}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^+}}\left(\tau _1+\tau _2\right)`$ (95)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau _1}{dx^+}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2U^+}}`$
and similarly

$$\frac{\tau }{x^{}}=\frac{1}{2U^{}}$$
(96)
From our radar coordinate definitions $`\tau =\frac{1}{2}(\tau _1+\tau _2)`$ and $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}(\tau _1\tau _2)`$, we have

$$\frac{\tau }{x^+}=\frac{\rho }{x^+},\frac{\tau }{x^{}}=\frac{\rho }{x^{}}$$
(97)
and

$$\frac{\tau }{t}=\frac{\rho }{z},\frac{\tau }{z}=\frac{\rho }{t}$$
(98)
From the identities $`\rho =\tau \tau _2=\tau _1\tau `$ we can obtain

$$\left(\frac{}{\rho }\right)_\tau =\left(\frac{}{\tau _1}\right)_\tau =\left(\frac{}{\tau _2}\right)_\tau $$
(99)
Identities involving the $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`\sigma `$ matrices of section 3.3 are

$`b_1^2=2b_1,b_2^2=2b_2`$
$`b_1b_2=b_2b_1=0`$
$`b_1+b_2=𝕀,b_1b_2=2\sigma `$ (100)
and

$`a_1b_1=2a_1,a_1b_2=0`$
$`b_1a_1=0,b_2a_1=2a_1`$
$`a_2b_1=0,a_2b_2=2a_2`$
$`b_1a_2=2a_2,b_2a_2=0`$ (101)
together with the commutators:

$`[b_1,b_2]=0,[a_1,a_2]=4\sigma `$
$`[\sigma ,b_1]=[\sigma ,b_2]=0`$
$`[\sigma ,a_1]=2a_1,[\sigma ,a_2]=2a_2`$
(102)