text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Black hole thermodynamics was born a little over three decades ago from two simple questions: “What is the most efficient way to extract the rotational energy of a black hole?” and “Can the second law of thermodynamics be violated by dumping entropy across a black hole horizon?” The answer to the first question is that the most efficient energy extraction occurs when the horizon area remains constant, and that moreover if the area increases the process is classically irreversible. More generally, Hawking’s area theorem showed that the horizon area cannot decrease provided that only positive energy can flow across the horizon.

Jacob Bekenstein’s proposed answer to the second question was that it is indeed not possible to violate the second law, provided one attributes to the horizon itself an entropy proportional to its area. The analogy between horizon area and entropy was already motivated by the energy extraction results and the area theorem. Bekenstein added information theoretic arguments, interpreting the horizon area as a measure of the missing information for an outside observer, and deducing that the entropy must be a constant of order unity times the area in Planck units. He thus introduced the generalized second law (GSL) of thermodynamics, which states that the sum of the black hole entropy plus the matter entropy outside the black hole “never decreases”.

The GSL took on a more precise form after Hawking’s discovery that a black hole of surface gravity $`\kappa `$ radiates at a temperature $`T_H=\kappa /2\pi `$.111 We use in this paper Planck units, with $`\mathrm{}=c=G=k=1`$. When taken together with the zeroth law which states that the surface gravity is constant over the horizon, and the first law for isolated black holes,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=\frac{\kappa }{8\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }A+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Delta }J$$
(1)
(where $`M`$ and $`J`$ are the mass and angular momentum of the black hole and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity), this yielded the coefficient (1/4) of proportionality between horizon area and entropy (as well as attributing a truly thermal character to a black hole). The GSL is then the statement that no physical process can lead to a decrease of the sum of the entropy outside a horizon $`S_{outside}`$ and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}=A/4`$ of the event horizon,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(S_{outside}+A/4)0.$$
(2)
The GSL was initially postulated with a positive energy condition in mind, in which case the horizon area of a black hole can only increase. However, it turns out that the GSL holds even during quantum evaporation of the black hole via Hawking radiation, when a negative energy flux across the horizon produces a decrease of area. In that case, the reason for the validity of Eq. (2) is that Hawking radiation carries enough entropy so that the increase of $`S_{outside}`$ outweighs the decrease of the black hole entropy. Convincing arguments have been given which establish more generally that, in any quasi-stationary process, the GSL will hold provided the ordinary second law holds for matter. Taken together, these results imply that black holes are thermodynamic systems.

The generalization of thermodynamics from black hole horizons to de Sitter horizons was initiated by Gibbons and Hawking shortly after the discovery of the Hawking effect, and is by now quite well accepted, despite the observer-dependence of de Sitter horizons. Nevertheless the corresponding generalization to acceleration horizons is less well accepted, especially with regard to the entropy they carry, although they bear a close resemblance to de Sitter horizons. Bekenstein’s original information theoretic concept of the nature of black hole entropy certainly applies to all horizons, even highly non-stationary ones, as does the area increase theorem (see below). The ultimate significance of black hole thermodynamics hangs on this issue of generality, and we thus consider it an ideal topic for our contribution to this festschrift for Jacob.

In this article we take a broad look, both historical and fresh, at the question how general are the laws of horizon thermodynamics. One of the key questions is whether the local notion of horizon entropy density is a valid concept, or whether something essentially global is involved. At the classical level this question concerns the interplay of horizon area and the gravitational field equations. At the quantum level it concerns the role of horizon area in determining the density of states factor in partition functions, in irreversible processes, and in transition rates. The latter statistical role is the more fundamental, since it is related to the underlying quantum states, and it gives rise to the thermodynamic laws.

Using both the classical and quantum viewpoints, we shall argue that local entropy density of a horizon is indeed a valid concept, and that consequently the laws of black hole thermodynamics extend quite generally to any causal horizon. At the statistical level a causal horizon should thus be conceived as an ensemble whose mean properties are the well-known geometrical ones. This conception was pioneered by Bekenstein, who emphasized from the outset the physical relevance of random exchanges which might some times lead to a decrease of the area. From this vantage point, the GSL emerges as “a statistical law which becomes overwhelmingly probable in the limit of a macroscopic system”.

After all this, do we understand horizon entropy? We close with a discussion of the question what does horizon entropy count, a question whose answer we believe, despite some glimpses, remains shrouded in mystery.

## 2 CAUSAL HORIZONS

By a causal horizon we mean here the boundary of the past of any timelike curve $`\lambda `$ of infinite proper length in the future direction. This definition was introduced by Gibbons and Hawking under the name “event horizon”, however we shall call it a “causal horizon” to emphasize its generality, since today “event horizon” refers almost exclusively to the case of a black hole event horizon. More generally, the boundary of the past of any set of events is a kind of causal horizon. This more local notion has not been used as much in the context of horizon thermodynamics as that associated with an infinite future. Nevertheless it does appear to have some thermodynamic or statistical role to play, as evidenced for example in . Four examples are given in Fig. 1.

For a black hole in asymptotically flat spacetime, the event horizon can be defined as the boundary of the past of all of $`^+`$ , however an equivalent definition is the boundary of the past of any any timelike curve that goes to future timelike infinity $`i^+`$. Equivalently, the event horizon is the boundary of the past of $`i^+`$ itself. Therefore, the black hole horizon is defined with reference to the intrinsic asymptotic structure of the spacetime, without referring to a particular class of observers.

An asymptotic de Sitter horizon is defined in a spacetime that is asymptotically de Sitter in the future. It is defined by the boundary of the past of a timelike worldline reaching a point $`p`$ at $`^+`$ (which is spacelike in asymptotically de Sitter spacetime), or equivalently the boundary of the past of $`p`$. Since there are many different points at $`^+`$ there are many inequivalent asymptotic de Sitter horizons. An asymptotic de Sitter horizon is thus said to be “observer-dependent”, in contrast to a black hole event horizon.

Our other two examples are observer-dependent in the same sense. An asymptotic anti-de Sitter horizon, defined in a spacetime that is asymptotically anti-de Sitter at spatial infinity, is the boundary of the past of a timelike worldline reaching a point $`p`$ at $`^+`$ (which is here timelike,) or equivalently the boundary of the past of $`p`$. An asymptotic Rindler horizon (ARH), defined in a spacetime that is asymptotically flat, is the boundary of the past of an accelerated worldline that goes to a point $`p`$ on $`^+`$ (which is here null,) or equivalently the boundary of the past of $`p`$.

Let us bring out the nature of an ARH in more detail. The boundary of the past of $`p`$ is a cone in compactified Minkowski spacetime, however it is actually a plane in Minkowski space. To show this we use coordinates $`(u,v,x,y)`$ for which the line element takes the form $`ds^2=dudvdx^2dy^2`$. The point $`p`$ could be the endpoint $`v\mathrm{}`$ of the light ray $`(u_0,v,x_0,y_0)`$. The points $`(u,v,x,y)`$ to the past of $`(u_0,v_0,x_0,y_0)`$ are those with $`u<u_0`$ and $`(x_0x)^2+(y_0y)^2<(u_0u)(v_0v)`$. In the limit $`v_0\mathrm{}`$ this includes all points with $`u<u_0`$. The ARH is the boundary of this region, which is the null plane $`u=u_0`$. Thus in Minkowski spacetime an ARH is just what is usually meant by a “Rindler horizon”. Note that the location of this horizon is independent of the transverse coordinates $`x_0`$ and $`y_0`$ of the light ray. It is nevertheless observer dependent since it depends on $`u_0`$. Note also that the horizon has infinite cross sectional area. An asymptotically flat spacetime approaches Minkowski space near $`^+`$ , so an ARH in general will asymptotically approach a Rindler horizon.

A causal horizon whose generators coincide with some Killing flow is a Killing horizon, i.e. a null hypersurface generated by a Killing flow. A bifurcate Killing horizon (in four dimensions) is a pair of Killing horizons which intersect in a particular two dimensional spacelike cross section—called the bifurcation surface—on which the Killing vector vanishes. Examples of these occur in Minkowski, de Sitter, Anti de Sitter, and Schwarzschild spacetimes. In the Minkowski case the pair of planes $`u=0`$ and $`v=0`$ (in the above mentioned coordinates) comprise a bifurcate Killing horizon for which the Killing field is the hyperbolic rotation generator $`u_u+v_v`$, and the bifurcation surface is the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane at $`u=v=0`$. This is the bifurcate Rindler or acceleration horizon, and the Killing field generating it is called the boost Killing field. The “other sheet” of the Schwarzschild horizon is called the past horizon since it is defined by the boundary of the future of past null infinity (in the same asymptotic region whose future defines the future horizon). Similarly in Minkowski spacetime for example the other sheet is the past acceleration horizon. It should be emphasized that the various examples of Killing horizons are all indistinguishable in a neighborhood of the bifurcation surface smaller than the curvature scale, hence the acceleration horizon provides a universal template for all of them.

While the notion of bifurcate Killing horizon is a global one, it can be localized in two ways. Obviously, one can focus on a neighborhood of the bifurcation surface or even just part of it. Somewhat less obviously, a neighborhood of a piece of a single Killing horizon can be extended to a neighborhood of a bifurcate Killing horizon including the bifurcation surface, provided the surface gravity is constant and nonvanishing on the horizon. The constancy of the surface gravity—the zeroth law of horizon thermodynamics—can be derived either using the Einstein equation and the dominant energy condition or from the assumption that a neighborhood of the horizon is static or stationary-axisymmetric with a $`t`$-$`\varphi `$ reflection isometry.

In  Gibbons and Hawking argue that in empty spacetimes satisfying the Einstein equations with a cosmological constant (or with electromagnetic fields) stationary causal horizons are necessarily stationary axisymmetric Killing horizons. Their argument follows the same lines as those that had been given previously for the special case of asymptotically flat black hole horizons. (Although not stated explicitly in , it seems the horizon cross sections are assumed to be compact in these arguments.) They also point out that the proof in Ref.  of the zeroth law for such Killing horizons extends immediately to the case of a cosmological constant. Alternatively, the zeroth law follows without the use of field equations or energy conditions as discussed above.

## 3 THE SECOND LAW OF CAUSAL HORIZONS

Gibbons and Hawking quote a “second law of event horizons” (whose proof is referred to a forthcoming publication that seems never to have appeared) which states that the area of causal horizons cannot decrease provided that (i) what the observer can see at late times can be predicted from a spacelike surface (a cosmic censorship assumption), and (ii) the energy-momentum tensor satisfies the strong energy condition. Similar theorems were quoted by Penrose under both the strong and null energy conditions, and with several different formulations of the cosmic censorship assumption (though we have not been able to find their actual proofs in print.) It should be noticed that all these theorems concern the classical version of the second law in which only positive energy fluxes are considered.

A simple but not entirely satisfactory proof that causal horizons satisfy the classical area theorem can be given under the assumptions that (i) the null energy condition holds, and (ii) the null geodesics generating the horizon are future complete, i.e. have infinite affine length in the future. This proof, which is just Hawking’s original proof of the black hole area theorem, works by contradiction. Suppose the congruence of horizon generators were converging at some point $`p`$. Then the null energy condition implies that this focusing cannot be reversed, and will therefore produce a caustic that would be reached at finite affine parameter along the generator to the future of $`p`$. Such a caustic is in essence an intersection of infinitesimally separated null horizon generators, which is incompatible with the defining property of the horizon as the boundary of the past of an infinite timelike curve. Hence the expansion of the null congruence of horizon generators must be greater than or equal to zero everywhere. That is, the area of any bundle of horizon generators is non-decreasing.

What is not entirely satisfactory about the above proof is the assumption that the horizon generators are future complete. In the black hole case this assumption can be replaced by the cosmic censorship assumption that no singularities (to the future of a partial Cauchy surface) are visible from $`^+`$ . (To exploit this assumption it is necessary to use the device of deforming the horizon slightly outward to another surface containing points that are causally connected to $`^+`$ .) For a general causal horizon similar proofs were long ago reported (but not published) under different formulations of the cosmic censorship assumption. Recently, the area theorem for general “future horizons” has been reexamined and proved by Chruściel et al., without assuming piecewise smoothness of the horizon.

Besides such general results, area theorems for various special cases of horizons other than standard black hole horizons have been established by several authors. A theorem was proved by Davies for the case of asymptotically de Sitter causal horizons in Friedmann cosmologies with a cosmological constant, under the assumption that the fluid satisfies the dominant energy condition. An area increase theorem for black holes in asymptotically de Sitter spacetime was proved by Hayward et al.  and Shiromizu et al.. An explicit proof of the area increase theorem for the cosmological event horizon (defined as the past Cauchy horizon of $`^+`$ ) in asymptotically de Sitter spacetimes containing a black hole was given by Maeda et al..

## 4 THE FIRST LAW OF CAUSAL HORIZONS

In this section we consider several versions of the first law of black hole thermodynamics and discuss how they extend to all causal horizons. We close the section with the argument that the ultra-local version of this first law implies, in a precise sense, the Einstein equation as a corresponding equation of state.

### Stationary comparison version

Having shown that causal horizons in stationary spacetimes satisfy the zeroth and second laws, Gibbons and Hawking went on to derive a version of the first law. In particular, for a pair of infinitesimally close spacetimes with both cosmological and black hole horizons, minus the variation of the integral of Killing energy density on a spatial surface bounded by the horizons is given by

$$\delta E_{Killing}=(\kappa _C/8\pi )\delta A_C+(\kappa _H/8\pi )\delta A_H+\mathrm{\Omega }_H\delta J_H.$$
(3)
The Killing vector $`\xi ^a`$ employed here is the one that generates the cosmological horizon. The Killing energy density is defined by $`T_{ab}\xi ^an^b`$, where $`n^b`$ is the unit normal to the spatial surface, $`\kappa _C`$, $`\kappa _H`$, $`A_C`$ and $`A_H`$ are the surface gravities and areas of the cosmological and black hole horizons, $`J_H`$ is the angular momentum of the black hole (defined by the integral of the curl of the rotational Killing field over the horizon), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ is the angular velocity of the black hole relative to the cosmological horizon. No angular momentum term appears for the cosmological horizon since the Killing vector $`\xi ^a`$ generates that horizon. Note that although this Killing field has no natural normalization, that presents no difficulty since each term in Eq. (3) scales with the undetermined normalization in the same manner.

This version of the first law is a generalization of Eq. (1), which arises when taking the asymptotically flat space-time limit $`\kappa _C0`$. The generalization involves not the variation of the ADM mass—which is not defined in a de Sitter background—but instead the variation of the matter Killing energy. It can thus be used to describe variations in the asymptotically flat case between two stationary configurations at fixed ADM energy, in which the matter energy is redistributed, with some going into the black hole. Formulated this way, the first law is more local, since no reference to what is happening at infinity is required.

### Physical process version

Both of the previously mentioned versions of the first law Eq. (1) and Eq. (3) involve comparisons of two stationary solutions to the field equations. A yet more local version of the first law emerges when one enquires into the dynamical process by which the horizon area adjusts to a small flow of energy across the horizon. This relation, which Wald called the “physical process version” of the first law in the case of black hole horizons, was first established in  (see also  for a comprehensive review.) The physical process version of the first law states that

$$\delta S=\delta E_H/T_H,$$
(4)
where $`\delta S=\delta A/4`$ is one fourth the horizon area change, $`\delta E_H=_HT_{ab}\xi ^a𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^b`$ is the flux of “energy” across the horizon, defined with respect to the horizon generating Killing field $`\xi ^a`$ of the stationary background spacetime which is being perturbed, and $`T_H`$ is $`1/2\pi `$ times the surface gravity $`\kappa =|_a\xi |`$ of the horizon generating Killing field.

To exhibit its local nature, let us review the derivation of the physical process first law. We first discuss the approach using affine parametrization and then discuss the approach using Killing parametrization. The expansion $`\theta `$ of the null congruence of horizon generators measures the fractional rate of increase of the cross-sectional area element with respect to an affine parameter $`\lambda `$. Hence the change in the area of a bundle of generators over a finite range of affine parameter is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A=_B\theta d^2A𝑑\lambda ,$$
(5)
where the integral is over a patch $`B`$ of the horizon consisting of the finite range of the chosen generators. This integral can be related to the energy flux using the identity $`\theta =d(\lambda \theta )/d\lambda \lambda d\theta /d\lambda `$, together with the Raychaudhuri equation for $`d\theta /d\lambda `$ and the Einstein equation. The Raychaudhuri equation is

$$\frac{d\theta }{d\lambda }=\frac{1}{2}\theta ^2\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^2R_{ab}k^ak^b,$$
(6)
where $`\sigma ^2=\sigma _{ab}\sigma ^{ab}`$ is the squared shear of the congruence and $`k^a`$ is the affine tangent vector to the congruence, and the Einstein equation reads

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ab}=8\pi T_{ab}.$$
(7)
Eq. (5) thus yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A=[\lambda \theta A]_1^2+_B\frac{1}{2}(\theta ^2+\sigma ^2)d^2A𝑑\lambda ,+_B8\pi T_{ab}\lambda k^a𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^b.$$
(8)
Eq. (8) is an identity satisfied by any null congruence in a spacetime satisfying the Einstein equation. It becomes the first law when we specialize to a situation involving a small change of a stationary background spacetime, with the congruence corresponding to a small deformation of the Killing horizon. We now see how this happens by examining each term in the equation.

If the small deformation is caused by some matter stress tensor at order $`ϵ`$, then the metric perturbation and therefore $`\theta `$ and $`\sigma `$ will be of order $`ϵ`$. Hence the term $`(\theta ^2+\sigma ^2)`$ can be neglected.222Actually, neglect of this term is not justified if the generators develop caustics or if the integration region extends to infinity, as in the case of an asymptotic Rindler horizon, as will be discussed below.

If the upper limit of integration is chosen in a region where the horizon is again stationary, then the net area change of a given bundle of generators must be finite, hence $`\theta `$ must vanish faster than $`1/\lambda `$, so the term $`(\lambda \theta A)_2`$ vanishes. To understand the behavior of the lower limit it is helpful to relate the affine parameter $`\lambda `$ to the Killing parameter $`v`$ of the background stationary spacetime. In general the relation between affine and Killing parameters on a Killing horizon is

$$\lambda =ae^{\kappa v}+b,$$
(9)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are arbitrary constants. If we exploit the shift freedom of the affine parameter to set $`b=0`$, then as the Killing parameter $`v`$ goes into the past, the affine parameter $`\lambda `$ goes to zero exponentially fast. The term $`(\lambda \theta A)_1`$ is already first order in $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ from $`\theta `$, hence to first order we can use this relation between the background values of $`\lambda `$ and $`v`$ to conclude that this term is exponentially suppressed provided the stretch of (background) Killing time over which the first law is being applied is long compared with $`\kappa ^1`$. This temporal restriction of the applicability of the first law corresponds to an “equilibration time” (albeit backwards in time). Indeed, the expansion defined with respect to Killing time also vanishes exponentially.

The last step is to relate $`\lambda k^a`$ in the energy flux term to the Killing vector $`\xi ^a`$. Since the energy is a first order perturbation, this relation can be evaluated in the strictly stationary background on the Killing horizon. We thus have $`\lambda k^a=\lambda (dv/d\lambda )\xi ^a`$, where $`v`$ is the Killing parameter. From the relation (9) with $`b=0`$ we have $`\lambda (dv/d\lambda )=\kappa ^1`$, hence

$$\lambda k^a=\kappa ^1\xi ^a.$$
(10)
When substituted into Eq. (8) this yields the physical process form of the first law Eq. (4) when the patch $`B`$ is taken to be a piece of the horizon bounded in the past and the future by two complete cross-sections.

### Adiabatic version

In the preceding formulation of the first law for physical processes it was assumed only that the neighborhood of the horizon is nearly stationary, so that the perturbation is small. If one assumes further that it is adiabatic, then an even more local form of the first law applies. As pointed out above, the horizon equilibration rate is given by $`\kappa `$, hence adiabatic means slow with respect to that scale. To extract the adiabatic limit, it is useful to re-express the Raychaudhuri equation (6) in terms of derivatives with respect to the Killing parameter $`v`$ rather than the affine parameter. This produces the equation

$$\frac{d\widehat{\theta }}{dv}=\kappa \widehat{\theta }\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\theta }^2\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\sigma }^2R_{ab}\widehat{k}^a\widehat{k}^b,$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{\theta }=(d\lambda /dv)\theta `$, $`\widehat{\sigma }=(d\lambda /dv)\sigma `$, $`\widehat{k}^a=(d\lambda /dv)k^a`$ and $`\kappa =(d^2\lambda /dv^2)/(d\lambda /dv)`$ (cf. Eq. (9)). For a slow perturbation we have $`\widehat{\theta }\kappa `$, $`\widehat{\sigma }\kappa `$, and $`d\widehat{\theta }/dv\kappa \widehat{\theta }`$, so both the left hand side and the second order terms in the expansion and shear can be dropped, which yields

$$\widehat{\theta }\kappa ^1R_{ab}\widehat{k}^a\widehat{k}^b.$$
(12)
When this is substituted in Eq. (5) and the Einstein equation is used, we see that, when the evolution is adiabatic, the first law Eq. (4) holds over any patch and over any stretch of time of the slowly evolving horizon.

### Extension to all causal horizons

While the preceding derivations apply for black hole horizons, they are localized on the horizon and make no reference to spatial infinity. Therefore it is tempting to apply them to all causal horizons. Possible obstructions concern the normalization of the Killing vector, the possibly infinite horizon area, and convergence of the upper limit. Let us consider these in turn.

First, the energy flux $`\delta E_H`$ and the temperature $`T_H`$ scale in the same way under a change of normalization of the Killing field. Hence, as in Eq. (3), this normalization cancels out so no choice is required. (In the stationary black hole case the horizon generating Killing field is a linear combination of a time translation and a rotation, $`\xi ^a=(/t)^a+\mathrm{\Omega }_H(/\varphi )^a`$. The time translation Killing field $`(/t)^a`$ is normalized at infinity, so the change of “energy” in Eq. (4) is expressed as $`\delta M\mathrm{\Omega }_H\delta J`$.)

Second, the derivation of the first law can be applied to a bundle of generators forming a finite subset of the horizon, so no infinite area need be confronted. Moreover, the change of total area $`\delta A`$ can be finite, even if the total area itself is infinite. This change can be defined by considering first a finite bundle of horizon generators whose cross-sectional area is then taken to infinity.333See  for an example of computing the finite difference of acceleration horizon areas when comparing two different spacetimes.

Third, convergence of the upper limit $`(\lambda \theta A)_2`$ of Eq. (8) can be analyzed in each bundle of generators. As explained above this upper limit vanishes if and only if the cross sectional area of any finite bundle is finite at infinity. This corresponds to the condition that the horizon is in equilibrium in the asymptotic future. An ARH satisfies this condition, since it is just a Rindler horizon at infinity. (We have not checked whether the horizon of a point at $`^+`$ in AdS is asymptotically stationary.)

> The physical process first law thus applies to all situations in which a causal horizon goes through an evolution that is nearly stationary and settles down in the future.

### Asymptotic Rindler horizons

In the limit that the cosmological constant goes to zero, the stationary comparison version (3) of the first law for cosmological horizons becomes the first law for Rindler horizons. To illustrate this, we suppose a rest mass $`\delta m`$ follows a Killing orbit on which the norm of the Killing field is $`\xi `$. The Killing energy of this mass is $`\xi \delta m`$, so the first law (3) implies that the disappearance of the mass increases the horizon area by $`\delta A_C=(8\pi \xi /\kappa _C)\delta m`$. In de Sitter space we have $`\kappa _C/\xi =\sqrt{a^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, where $`a`$ is the proper acceleration of the Killing orbit. If the mass sits at the center where $`a=0`$, then in the limit as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ goes to zero the area change diverges. If instead $`a0`$ then the ratio $`\kappa _C/\xi `$ approaches $`a`$ and the area change is finite. It is interesting to note that, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is nonzero, $`\kappa _C/2\pi \xi `$ is equal to the local Unruh/de Sitter temperature $`T_{local}`$ that would be experienced by an accelerated mass in the Euclidean vacuum state. (As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ goes to zero this becomes just the Unruh temperature for the accelerated mass and as $`a`$ goes to zero it becomes just the de Sitter temperature.) The disappearance of the mass thus increases the horizon entropy by an amount equal to $`\delta m/T_{local}`$ for all values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`a`$.

Unlike the stationary comparison version, the physical process version (4) of the first law does not hold for an asymptotic Rindler horizon since the ‘nearly stationary’ condition cannot be satisfied. We now explain the reason for this in two ways, first from the perspective of the ARH itself, and then by describing the ARH as the infinite mass limit of a Schwarzschild horizon.

Suppose a planet in free fall wanders across the ARH. Although the boost energy flux of the planet is finite, it can be shown that the net area change caused by the passage of the planet is infinite. This is essentially because every null geodesic on the ARH—no matter how far from the planet in the transverse direction— is eventually focused backwards in time to a focal point on the line behind the planet, opposite to the direction of the endpoint of the ARH. That is, all the horizon generators originate on the line behind the planet. Hence an infinite area is added to the ARH so evidently the first law (4) is not satisfied.

The reason the physical process first law is not satisfied is that the process is not nearly stationary. The Raychaudhuri equation (6) of course applies, but the terms neglected to arrive at the first law cannot be neglected. For example this is clear from the fact that there are focal points, where the expansion goes to infinity and hence $`\theta ^2`$ cannot be neglected.444A similar but simpler example of a non-nearly stationary process is the formation of a black hole by an infalling thin spherical shell of mass $`M`$. The horizon grows in area from the focal point in the center where it originates, and this area growth is not properly accounted for by the first law. However, if a second such shell with mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }MM`$ follows, the transition does obey the first law. Moreover, since all generators originate on the line of caustics, the ultimate area of the annulus of generators between asymptotic cylindrical radii $`\rho `$ and $`\rho +\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ must grow from zero without any energy having crossed the congruence. According to (8) all of this area must come from integrating the squared expansion and shear. The shear will dominate (since it is the shear that generates the expansion in this case). For any bundle of generators this produces a finite final area, however when integrated over an infinite cross section and infinite affine parameter range it produces an infinite total area change. Thus, even though the squared shear is $`O(\mathit{ϵ}^2)`$ in the perturbation, it has an infinite net effect.

Further insight is offered by viewing the ARH as the infinite mass limit of a Schwarzschild horizon of mass $`M`$. The planet crossing the ARH can be modeled by a planet that falls in freely from infinity and crosses the Schwarzschild horizon. This situation has been analyzed in , where it was shown that the process is nearly stationary for the purposes of the first law only if $`R\sqrt{mM}`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the planet and $`m`$ is the mass.555This condition can also be expressed by saying that the surface area of the planet is much larger than the increase of the horizon area according to the first law. In the limit of $`M`$ going to infinity, this requires that the planet have an infinite radius. Hence, for any finite sized planet crossing, an ARH will not satisfy the physical process version of the first law. The fact that the area increase is infinite can also be understood using the infinite mass limit, since the planet comes in from infinity with finite Killing energy $`m`$ and the surface gravity $`\kappa =1/4M`$ goes to zero. Hence, if the physical process form of the first law were to apply, the area change would be given by $`\delta A(8\pi /\kappa )m=32\pi mM`$, which diverges as $`M`$ goes to infinity.666As the planet falls, a small fraction ($`0.01m/M`$) of the rest mass is radiated as gravitational waves, hence the Killing energy crossing the horizon approaches $`m`$ as $`m/M`$ goes to zero. Failure of the nearly stationary condition would only add to this divergence.

It should be emphasized that although the nearly stationary physical process first law (4) does not hold, the expression (8) for the horizon area change remains valid. This should be considered an extension of the first law to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, as discussed at the classical level in  and at the quantum statistical level in . It would be interesting to pursue this line of thought further.

### Local Rindler horizons and the Einstein equation of state

We have just seen how the Einstein equation enforces the first law for near-stationary transitions of causal horizons. To conclude this section let us show how this logic can be turned around to derive the Einstein equation as an “equation of state” of spacetime. To render the argument entirely local we make use of the notion of a “local Rindler horizon” (LRH). An LRH is defined as the boundary of the past (on one side) of a spacelike two-surface element $`𝒮`$ through a point $`p`$, with $`𝒮`$ adjusted so that the generators of the LRH have vanishing expansion and shear at $`p`$. Thus the LRH reaches equilibrium at $`p`$. The area change of a small bundle of generators approaching the “equilibrium point” $`p`$ is given by Eq. (5), with

$$\theta \lambda R_{ab}k^ak^b,$$
(13)
where the affine parameter $`\lambda `$ has been set to zero at $`p`$, and $`k^a`$ is the affinely parametrized horizon generator. If we restrict attention to a sufficiently small neighborhood, then the effect of any classical energy momentum tensor makes only a small perturbation of the local Minkowski space, hence the near-stationary analysis holds. According to Eq. (10) we can replace $`\lambda k^a`$ by $`\kappa ^1\xi ^a`$, where $`\xi ^a`$ is the boost Killing field on the LRH. The first law Eq. (4) will hold on the small bundle of generators, with $`T_H`$ equal to the Unruh temperature associated with $`\xi ^a`$, if and only if at $`p`$ we have

$$R_{ab}k^ak^b=8\pi T_{ab}k^ak^b.$$
(14)
If this is to hold for all LRH’s through $`p`$ then it must hold for all $`k^a`$, which implies that $`G_{ab}=8\pi T_{ab}+fg_{ab}`$, where $`f`$ is an arbitrary function. The Bianchi identity and the conservation of $`T_{ab}`$ then imply that $`f`$ is a constant, which can be identified with an undetermined cosmological constant.

It is difficult to resist concluding from this argument that the horizon entropy density proportional to area is a more primitive concept than the classical Einstein equation, which appears as a thermodynamic consequence of the interplay of entropy and causality. From the point of view of the quantum action principle this is conclusion is not so surprising. The action gives rise to the entropy at the quantum statistical level, and to the field equations at the level of the classical mean field. It is to the former, deeper level of description that we now turn.

## 5 STATISTICAL MECHANICS OF CAUSAL HORIZONS

In this section we discuss, at the quantum statistical level, the extension of the notion of black hole Boltzmann entropy to stationary states of all causal horizons, i.e. to Killing horizons. The starting point for this generalization is the work of Gibbons and Hawking which showed that semiclassical evaluation of the partition function for the gravitational field yields $`A/4`$ for the entropy of both black holes and de Sitter space. Here we examine the role of horizon entropy in determining the rates for dynamic processes, and we argue that this role extends in particular to acceleration horizons. We also briefly consider a few approaches to explicit “state counting” of horizon degrees of freedom.

### Pair creation

A first indication in favor of the extension of the statistical notion of black hole entropy to all causal horizons arises from the pair creation probability for magnetically charged black holes in a magnetic field. This probability is given as a product of two exponentials:

$$P(q,M;B)e^{A/4}\times e^{\mathrm{\Delta }A_{accel}/4}.$$
(15)
The second factor contains $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_{accel}(q,M,B)`$: the change of area of the acceleration horizon which is associated with the creation of the black hole pair. This term persists even when no black holes but only monopoles are created, and it reproduces the well known instanton contribution $`\mathrm{exp}(\pi M^2/qB)`$ in the test field approximation $`G0`$ where $`G`$ is Newton’s constant. The first factor tells us that the probability is enhanced over that of monopoles by $`\mathrm{exp}(A/4)`$, where $`A(q,M)`$ is the horizon area of a black hole of mass $`M`$ and magnetic charge $`q`$.777One might have thought that it should be the total area of the two black holes appearing here, however that is not the case. The reason is that the pair carries the quantum numbers of the vacuum, so their quantum degrees of freedom are strictly correlated. Thus the degeneracy of states is that of a single black hole.

This is consistent with the usual statistical interpretation of $`A/4`$ as the logarithm of the number of black hole states. From Eq. (15) we see that the two area changes determine the probability in the same manner. It is therefore compelling to apply the same statistical interpretation to both of them. Perhaps the strongest indication in favour of treating both areas on the same footing arises from the fact that an accelerated black hole will be in a statistical ensemble since it will experience Unruh radiation. The random exchanges of thermal photons between the acceleration horizon and the hole will bring the whole system into equilibrium. It is to be noticed that the equilibrium situation is determined by Eq. (15) and corresponds to the maximum probability where $`_M(A+\mathrm{\Delta }A_{acc})=0`$, i.e. when Hawking and Unruh temperatures agree. In this $`S_{system}=(A+\mathrm{\Delta }A_{acc})/4`$ does act as the entropy of the whole system. The random energy exchanges will also spread both the black hole mass and the area of the acceleration horizon around their mean values. The spread in the mass of the hole is related to the heat capacity and it is given, as usual, by $`(_M^2S_{system})_{equil}^{1/2}`$. We emphasize that the conclusion that the acceleration horizon is in an ensemble requires no assumption other than that the creation probability Eq. (15) also delivers the equilibrium distribution. The considerations of the following subsection support this natural assumption.

Consideration of pair creation of black holes in de Sitter space yields again a probability given as the exponential of two area changes. In this case, people would likely agree that both terms possess a statistical interpretation. Despite the similarity between the two cases, Hawking and Horowitz nevertheless assert that the acceleration horizon area should not be interpreted as counting an entropy. They give two reasons. The first is that the usual evaluation of the entropy from the partition function cannot be performed since the period of the Euclidean section is fixed and cannot be varied. The second is that the acceleration horizon is observer dependent and hence the information behind the horizon “can be recovered by observers who simply stop accelerating”. Restated, they assert the unitarity of the evolution on a foliation cutting across the acceleration horizon. The last two statements can be made for a black hole horizon (or a de Sitter horizon) however, so they do not seem to preclude the association of area with entropy for the acceleration horizon.

### Transition rates for systems in contact with a Killing horizon

Further evidence for the statistical entropy of causal horizons is obtained from  where it is explained why the transition rates for systems in contact with a Killing horizon are governed by changes in the horizon area. The analysis applies to black hole horizons with the evaporation process itself, to acceleration horizons with the Unruh effect experienced by accelerated systems, and to cosmological horizons with the processes related to the de Sitter temperature. In all cases, when taking into account the gravitational back-reaction, the excitation rates are governed by $`\mathrm{exp}(\delta A/4)`$ in place of the thermal Boltzmann factor $`\mathrm{exp}(\delta E_K/T_H)`$ which is known to govern Hawking radiation for example. In these expressions, $`\delta E_K`$ is the change in Killing energy, $`T_H`$ the horizon temperature measured in the same units as $`\delta E_K`$, and $`\delta A`$ is the corresponding area change. In the test field approximation, $`\delta A`$ is related to the matter change by Eq. (3). Hence we recover the transition rate in a thermal state, as previously obtained in the case of Hawking radiation or transitions of an accelerated detector. The novelty consists of taking into account the back-reaction of the spacetime geometry in the evaluation of individual transition amplitudes (like one does it with recoil effects), and no longer in the mean as one does when using the semi-classical Einstein equations. As a byproduct, one notices that canonical distributions (governed by Hawking or Unruh temperature) are replaced by microcanonical distributions in which the heat capacity of the horizon is properly accounted for.

To understand how this replacement occurs, recall that the action must sometimes be supplemented by boundary terms in order to have a well-defined action principle, since the action should be stationary when varied within the class of metrics under consideration. Consider $`S_h`$, the action for matter+gravity in its hamiltonian form and applied to the class of metrics which belong to the “one black hole sector”, namely metrics which are asymptotically flat and which also possess an inner horizon. The total variation of $`S_h`$ reads

$$\delta S_h=𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_3(\pi \delta g+p\delta q)|_1^2+\mathrm{bulk}\mathrm{terms}+\delta M(t_2t_1)\frac{\delta A}{8\pi }(\mathrm{\Theta }_2\mathrm{\Theta }_1).$$
(16)
The first terms give the initial and final momenta of gravity and matter respectively. The bulk terms vanish on-shell. The third term arises from the outer boundary. It is given by the variation of the ADM mass times the lapse of asymptotic proper time. The last term arises from the inner boundary and it is given by the change of the horizon area times the lapse of the hyperbolic angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. (On-shell and for stationary metrics, $`d\mathrm{\Theta }/dt=\kappa `$ gives the surface gravity.) For the class of processes involving exchanges between a black hole and surrounding matter at fixed ADM energy $`M`$, the outer boundary term vanishes. Hence one should not add to $`S_h`$ the energy term $`𝑑tM`$. On the other hand, since the area then adjusts itself dynamically, it should not be fixed. Thus, one must get rid of the inner boundary term in Eq. (16) by working with the (Legendre transformed) exchange action

$$S_{exchange}=S_h+\frac{A}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }.$$
(17)
As noticed by Carlip and Teitelboim , quantization of this action yields for the matter + gravity wave function the unusual Schrödinger equation

$$i\frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\widehat{A}}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(18)
where $`\widehat{A}`$ is the operator valued horizon area which acts on both the matter and gravity sectors. The system at fixed ADM energy thus evolves according to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and not the time at infinity. Eq. (18) is remarkable. It shows that the area itself is the operator-valued geometrical quantity that replaces the Hamiltonian in governing exchanges.

Two applications of Eq. (18) were considered in . First is the thermalisation of a two level atom held at some fixed distance from a black hole. This type of situation also applies to the thermalisation of inertial systems in de Sitter space and leads to expressions that can be put in parallel to the static version of the first law Eq. (3). The other case concerns self-gravitating effects within Hawking radiation as studied in . The results found there emerge simply and transparently when the system is analyzed using the conjugate variables $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`A`$ rather than the pair of asymptotic variables $`t`$ and $`M`$.

The essential new point is that, via the gravitational back reaction, each matter energy eigenstate $`j`$ is correlated to an area eigenstate with eigenvalue $`A_j`$. Thus it evolves according to (18) with a $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-time dependence given by $`\mathrm{exp}(iA_j\mathrm{\Theta }/8\pi )`$. (The entanglement of the gravitational subspace of eigenvalue $`A_j`$ to the matter state $`j`$ is not specific to the present case: because of the constraints, this gravity-matter entanglement always occurs when working with the solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.)

As an illustration the system can be taken to be a two-level atom held fixed at some distance from the hole (for a more complete discussion see ). To mediate the interactions we introduce a radiation field which allows for transitions from ground state $`j`$ to excited state $`j^{}`$ by absorption or emission of a photon. To first order in the coupling between the atom and the radiation field, the transition amplitude from $`j`$ to $`j^{}`$ accompanied by the emission of a photon of frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by

$`𝐓_{jj^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`C{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Psi }_j(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\varphi _\mathrm{\Omega })^{}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Theta }e^{i(A_jA_j^{})\mathrm{\Theta }/8\pi }e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }e^\mathrm{\Theta }}}.`$
In the first line, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ characterizes the time evolution of the initial state of the system: a black hole plus the detector in its ground state with the radiation field in its vacuum state. The product in parenthesis characterizes the final state: the black hole and the excited detector plus the photon of frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Their wave functions factorize because we neglect the gravitational back-reaction of the radiation. (This is a legitimate assumption when computing the rates to leading order in the back-reaction.) The overall constants $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ will play no role since we shall be interested in the ratio $`𝐑=|𝐓_{jj^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }}/𝐓_{j^{}j+\mathrm{\Omega }}|^2`$ which determines the equilibrium distribution. In the second line, we have grouped together the two ‘unperturbed’ stationary states with their corresponding area-eigenvalues. The last factor is the wave function of a photon of (Kruskal) frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Its properties are fixed by the following considerations. Since we are interested in near equilibrium transitions, the initial state of the radiation field must be stationary and regular on the horizon. It must therefore be either the Hartle-Hawing vacuum or the Unruh vacuum, depending on the condition one imposes on infalling configurations. It is most economical (though physically less direct) to characterize one-particle states by making use of modes which individually incorporate the requirement of regularity at the expense of being non-stationary. (The other option would be to work with stationary modes (like Schwarzschild modes $`e^{i\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }}`$) and to express the Unruh or Hartle-Hawking state as a thermal state in terms of these modes.) When working with the first option, the modes are of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega }U)`$, where $`U`$ is a null outgoing coordinate which is regular on the future horizon (see e.g.  for a discussion of the various relevant modes). When evaluated at the (stationary) location of the two level atom, one has $`U(\mathrm{\Theta })=ce^\mathrm{\Theta }`$, where the constant $`c`$ can be put to unity by a shift in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Before proceeding, it is of interest to display the corresponding expression one would obtain by working in a fixed background. Instead of Eq. (19) one would have

$`T_{jj^{},\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`C^{}{\displaystyle 𝑑t\psi _j(\psi _j^{}\varphi _\mathrm{\Omega })^{}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{}{\displaystyle 𝑑te^{i(E_jE_j^{})t}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }e^{\kappa t}}},`$
where $`E_j`$ and $`E_j^{}`$ are the eigen-energies of the two atom states measured with the asymptotic time which defines the surface gravity $`\kappa `$.

When working with the non-stationary modes, the ratio $`𝐑`$ of transition rates can be simply evaluated, at fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, by recognizing from (19) that $`𝐓_{j^{}j+\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is related to $`𝐓_{jj^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}`$ by a shift $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }i\pi `$ of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ contour. This yields $`𝐑=\mathrm{exp}(A_j^{}A_j)/4`$ for the case when the gravity-matter entanglement has been taken into account in the amplitudes. On the other hand when using the background fixed transitions the ratio of the rates is $`R=\mathrm{exp}(E_j^{}E_j)(2\pi /\kappa )`$, which gives rise to a Boltzmann distribution with the horizon temperature $`\kappa /2\pi `$. As mentioned above, the first law Eq. (3) guarantees that these results agree to first order in $`G`$. The only difference is that, in the first case, the specific heat of the horizon has been taken into account through the gravity-matter entanglement of the wave functions. Let us emphasize that in both cases, the ratio of the transition rates has been computed unconventionally by making use of the (non-stationary) Kruskal modes. The stationarity of the processes follows from the fact that the above ratios are independent of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The principle of detailed balance implies that the ratio $`p_j^{}/p_j`$ of equilibrium occupation probabilities for the detector + horizon system, with the field in the Unruh or Hartle-Hawking state, is given by the ratio $`𝐑=\mathrm{exp}(A_j^{}A_j)/4`$ of transition rates. The equilibrium distribution is also the microcanonical distribution, hence we infer that the number of states in a configuration with area $`A`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}A/4`$. Since the above analysis is couched in terms of $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, which are defined at the horizon, it is entirely local to the neighborhood of the Killing horizon and therefore takes the same form for black hole, de Sitter, and acceleration horizons. It was therefore concluded in  that a quantum statistical interpretation of the entropy $`A/4`$ should apply to all “event horizons”.

A difference between the Rindler horizon and both the black hole and de Sitter ones is that in the former case the temperature of the horizon is perceived as a physical temperature only by observers who follow the accelerated worldlines of the horizon generating Killing field (i.e. it is the Unruh temperature), while in the black hole and de Sitter cases there are also unaccelerated observers who perceive a nonzero temperature. This difference plays no role in the above analysis however.

### Other approaches to counting horizon states

Of the many other approaches to calculating black hole entropy from quantum first principles, it seems to us that none present any evidence that the notion of universal horizon entropy density is invalid. For examples we briefly consider here the approaches of Carlip using the structure of the near-horizon component of the diffeomorphism group, the canonical quantum gravity calculations in the loop approach, and the calculations of string theory.

Carlip’s approach, being based on representations of the residual local diffeomorphism symmetry modulo horizon boundary conditions, is as applicable to any Killing horizon as it is to black hole horizons. It does not rely on the global properties of the horizon, but instead appears consistent with the notion of horizon entropy density. The loop quantum gravity approach as currently formulated involves an induced Chern-Simons theory on the horizon, and applies to both compact black hole and de Sitter horizons. For technical reasons however it does not apply to non-compact Rindler horizons or even to a Rindler horizon compactified to a 2-torus. It is not yet clear what result would be obtained for the entropy of a Rindler horizon using this approach.

The string calculations are of two types. In the weakly coupled D-brane context, near-extremal configurations at weak coupling are found to have the same entropy as the black hole with the corresponding charges at strong coupling (for a review see ). To apply this reasoning to other causal horizons seems problematic, since it is unclear how to identify an appropriate weakly coupled cousin. The second (and related) string approach is in the context of the AdS/CFT duality, wherein the black hole entropy is identified with ordinary thermal entropy in the CFT (for a review see ). Hawking, Maldacena, and Strominger applied these ideas to understand the entropy in a two dimensional de Sitter brane world, embedded in AdS, in terms of entanglement entropy of the conformal field theory vacuum across the de Sitter horizon, and they made arguments for the extension of this result to higher dimensions. Somewhat similarly, Das and Zelnikov have identified the mapping between the Unruh radiation for an accelerated observer in AdS and a thermal appearance of the ground state in the CFT for a corresponding class of observers. Presumably the acceleration horizon entropy can be identified with some definite CFT entropy along these lines, although that has not been shown explicitly.

In summary, it is fair to say that, wherever the question can be addressed, all of these approaches to counting black hole states apply in principle equally well to all Killing horizons. This seems to be consistent with the universal interpretation of horizon entropy we are advocating here.

## 6 WHAT DOES HORIZON ENTROPY COUNT?

We have argued that the entire framework of black hole thermodynamics and in particular the notion of black hole entropy extends to any causal horizon. What are the implications of this conclusion?

First of all, our attention is deflected away from the black holes and towards the horizons in black hole thermodynamics. It is sometimes considered a mystery how a black hole horizon could be capable of carrying so much entropy when after all it has no local significance in but is rather defined teleologically in terms of the future evolution of the spacetime. For example, it is regarded as puzzling that when a star collapses and forms a black hole, the entropy suddenly rockets up to a value many orders of magnitude greater than it was in the star, “just because” the horizon has formed. This becomes much less mysterious when it is realized that in essence the black hole really has nothing to do with it. Any causal horizon is endowed with a surface entropy density of 1/4.

The realization that horizon entropy is an intrinsically observer dependent notion raises the obvious question of what are the states that the horizon entropy counts? The notion that it counts the number of internal configuations, i.e. configurations behind the horizon, was argued against in  on various grounds. It seems only even possibly viable if the holographic conjecture holds, i.e. if the entire description of the world behind any horizon can be fully described on its bounding surface. It was argued in  that the holographic conjecture is at best valid when there is no trapped surface behind the horizon, but it may otherwise in some sense be true. Whether or not it is true, the fact remains that, for the observers who remain confined to the “outside” of the horizon, the horizon entropy somehow captures the number of ways that the world beyond the horizon can affect the world outside.

Black hole pair creation rates are sometimes cited for a counter-argument to this viewpoint, since the rates are proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}A/4`$ which is interpreted as a density of states factor counting degeneracy of all black hole states. However it must be recalled that the instanton method for computing a tunneling rate just yields the probability for the most probable transition and the ones in its immediate vicinity. Hence the degeneracy factor is not counting all interior states of the black hole since these are beyond the scope of the instanton method.

One clue to the nature of the horizon states counted by $`A/4`$ comes from an old analysis by Candelas and Sciama. They showed how the relationship between near equilibrium transition rates for a system in contact with a horizon and horizon area is extended to non-equilibrium processes. They interpreted the viscous dissipation rate of a shearing horizon, via the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, in terms of the quantum gravitational spectrum of shear fluctuations. This explains “why” a horizon has a coefficient of viscosity, and suggests that it is, at least in part, the quantum shear states of the fluctuating horizon that the entropy counts. This seems a good beginning, but it is surely not the whole story. In addition to the shear viscosity term in Eq. (6) for the horizon evolution there is also a bulk viscosity ($`\theta ^2`$) term. Morover, even when both these terms are absent the horizon acts as a ”perfect dissipator” via just the area expansion.

Another idea is that the horizon entropy arises from the entanglement of short distance field fluctuations on either side of the horizon. This notion is quite appealing since it traces the entropy directly to the defining character of the horizon as a causal barrier that hides information, and it naturally accounts for the scaling with area. Moreover, it allows the generalized second law to be understood as a consequence of causality. However, it is problematic in the quantitative measure of missing information (which appears to be infinite in ordinary field theory and to depend on the number of species) and in the neglect of the quantum fluctuations of the horizon itself. These issues are tied up with the renormalization of Newton’s constant, though a completely satisfactory understanding at the statistical level is far from being at hand. The finiteness problem is absent in the loop quantum gravity approach, which can be viewed as a counting of intertwiners that characterize the possible ways a spin network inside the black hole could link to the one in the exterior. However, that approach remains to be tied to the semiclassical limit in a quantitatively convincing manner. Interesting perspectives on some of these issues are given in the review article by Bekenstein.

While no definitive answer as to the ultimate nature of horizon entropy seems immediately at hand, an abundance of insight has been gleaned from the three decades of work. Perhaps the time is ripe to synthesize this insight and make the leap to a new conception.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank A. Ashtekar, P. Chruściel, and G. Galloway for helpful correspondence. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant No. PHY98-00967 and NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant CLG.976 417.


format: text

text:
# Measurements of Rare B Decays at BABAR

## 1 Introduction

Measurements of rare B meson branching fractions have been performed using the BABAR detector. B decays in which CKM favored amplitudes are suppressed or forbidden are sensitive to penguin amplitudes and hence to possible non-Standard Model effects arising from new particles participating in internal loops. In addition to probes for new physics, many of these modes are also crucial to the full constraint of the “Unitarity Triangle”. As the definition implies, rare decays typically have branching fractions of less than $`10^4`$. The present data sample of roughly 88 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs allows for measurements or stringent limits on many such modes.

### 1.1 Flavor and the Quark Sector of the Standard Model

The complex CKM matrix describes the coupling of the charged weak transition $`qW^+q^{}`$, which is proportional to $`V_{qq^{}}^{}`$. The non-diagonality of this matrix expresses the fact that the Weak isospin doublet members $`(b^{},s^{},d^{})`$ are states of mixed flavor. We can thus view the CKM matrix as the transformation between the mass and flavor eigenstates of the quarks

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}d^{}\\ s^{}\\ b^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
The unitarity condition implies that there are four free parameters in this matrix, one of which is a phase. It is through this phase that the Standard Model can accommodate CP violation. In particular, the orthogonality requirement between the first and third columns requires

$$V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0,$$
(2)
which can be expressed geometrically as the so called “Unitarity Triangle” shown in Figure 1. Information about each side and angle is accessible through a variety of measurements in the B meson system. The angles are measured through time-dependent decay rate asymmetries, and the sides via direct or indirect measurements of the CKM matrix elements. Measurement of all the components of the Unitarity Triangle over-constrains the triangle, and thus provides a test of the Standard Model (SM).

## 2 The BABAR Detector

A detailed description of the BABAR detector can be found elsewhere. Charged particle momenta are measured in a tracking system that consists of a 5-layer double-sided silicon micro-strip vertex tracker (SVT) and a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH) filled with an (80:20) mixture of helium and isobutane. The tracking volume is contained within the 1.5T magnetic field of a superconducting solenoid. The combined track momentum resolution is $`\sigma _{p_T}/p_T=0.13\%\times p_T+0.45\%`$. The primary charged hadron identifiation device is a detector of internally reflected Cerenkov radiation (DIRC). The typical separation of kaons and pions due to their measured Cerenkov angle $`\theta _C`$ varies from 8$`\sigma `$ at 2 GeV/c to 2.5$`\sigma `$ at 4 GeV/c, where $`\sigma `$ is the average $`\theta _C`$ resolution. Specific ionization energy loss (dE/dx) measurements in the DCH and SVT also contribute to charged hadron identification for particle momenta less than 0.7 GeV/c. Photons are detected in an electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC) consisting of 6580 Thallium doped CsI crystals arranged in barrel and forward end-cap sub-detectors. The $`\pi ^0`$ mass resolution in on average about 7 MeV/c2. Muons and long-lived neutral hadrons are detected within the instrumentation of the solenoid flux return (IFR) which consists of alternating layers of iron and resistive plate chambers.

## 3 Common Analysis Features

### 3.1 Data sample

The analyses described here use all or part of a data sample consisting of approximately 88 million pairs of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B\overline{B}`$ decays, corresponding to a detector exposure of about 81 fb-1. An additional sample of 9.6 fb-1 taken about 40 MeV below the peak of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (“off-resonance”) is used by many analyses to study $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ “continuum” backgrounds.

### 3.2 B Meson Reconstruction

B mesons produced from $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays are identified via their unique kinematics. Because the mass of the $`B`$ meson pair is nearly that of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, they are produced nearly at rest ($`p_B^{}325`$ MeV/c). Use of the beam energy in constraining the kinematics serves to reduce the resolution of theses variables.

The conservation of energy can be expressed as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_B^{}E_{beam}^{},$$
(3)
where $`E_{beam}^{}`$ is the single beam energy in the center-of-mass (CM) frame. $`E_B^{}`$ is the measured energy of the $`B`$ candidate in the CM. Correctly reconstructed $`B`$ candidates have $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distributed around zero with a resolution ranging from 15 to 80 MeV. The energy resolution of the $`B`$ decay products dominates the resolution of this variable. Continuum background in this variable is well described by a monotonically decreasing low order polynomial. Figure 2 shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution for a typical rare mode after all selection criteria have been applied (except that on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$).

We express momentum conservation as:

$$m_{ES}=\sqrt{E_{beam}^2\stackrel{}{p}_B^2}.$$
(4)
Here $`m_{ES}`$ is the “beam-energy substituted mass”, with $`\stackrel{}{p}_B^{}`$ the $`B`$-candidate momentum in the CM. Correctly reconstructed $`B`$ candidates have $`m_{ES}`$ equal to the $`B`$ meson mass, with a resolution of about 2.5-3.0 MeV/c2, which is dominated by the beam energy spread. The continuum background shape in $`m_{ES}`$ is parameterized by a threshold function with a fixed endpoint given by the average beam energy. Figure 3 shows the $`M_{ES}`$ distribution for a typical rare mode after all other selections have been applied.

In addition to the kinematics of the $`B`$ meson, signal events are selected by making requirements on the decay products. $`B`$ daughter resonances are required to have invariant masses within a restricted range typically determined by resolution and the need to leave sufficient sideband to determine background levels. Particle identification requirements are made to select some particles and veto sources of background.

### 3.3 Background Suppression

All rare analyses suffer from substantial backgrounds, and a variety of techniques are employed to reduce this to manageable levels. In general, backgrounds from other $`B`$ decays are small. Decays resulting from CKM favored $`bc`$ transitions have heavier daughters and higher multiplicity final states than do CKM suppressed decays. In order to wrongly reconstruct such a decay as a rare signal, one must typically lose a particle from the true $`B`$ decay, resulting is a substantial shift in the candidate’s $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. The only exception to this is for rare modes with high final state multiplicities, in which indications of some background have been observed. While $`B`$ decays from other CKM suppressed transitions have similar kinematics and multiplicities to that of a rare signal, such modes are rare themselves, and require only limited suppression in most analyses. Where $`B`$ backgrounds are present, they typically populate the sidebands of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ distribution, but have tails that reach into the signal region as illustrated in Figure 4

For all the modes discussed here, the primary background is due to random particle combinations arising from continuum quark-antiquark production. Although the probability for any given continuum event to satisfy a signal selection is quite small, the numbers favor the continuum. The total production cross section for light quarks (including charm) under the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ is about 3.5 nb, but only 1 nb for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ itself. For a mode with an expected branching fraction of order 10-6 this means that continuum events are produced at a rate well in excess of 106 times that of the signal.

In order to control continuum backgrounds, one typically exploits the fact that while the $`B`$ meson pairs are produced near threshold in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays, the light and charm quark pairs which comprise the continuum are produced with a great deal of excess energy. The result is that for true $`B`$ meson decays, the decay products entering the detector are distributed isotropically in the CM, while the continuum background exhibits a “jet-like” topology, with a strong correlation between the $`B`$ candidate decay and jet axes.

The first topological variable typically employed is the angle $`\theta _T`$ between the thrust axes of the $`B`$ candidate and the remaining particles in the event. The sphericity axes may be used almost interchangeably. The distribution of $`|cos\theta _T|`$ is nearly uniform for true $`B`$ mesons, but is strongly peaked near 1 for continuum background as is illustrated in Figure 5. If additional background rejection is required, one may consider the remaining event shape information, such as the angles between the $`B`$ thrust and decay axes and the beam as well as the angular energy flow in the event, and combine it into an optimized quantity using a neutral network or a Fisher discriminant. An example of the the separation power of a Fisher discriminant after a thrust cut has been made can be found in Figure 6.

### 3.4 Signal Extraction

All rare analyses at BABAR are performed “blind”, meaning that signal yields are hidden from the analyzer until the analysis has been peer reviewed and determined to be in a final form. These steps are taken to avoid experimenter’s bias.

There are two primary methods in which signal event yields are extracted; the event counting analysis, and the maximum likelihood fit. Detection efficiencies determined from signal Monte Carlo simulations and data control samples are used to convert yields into branching fraction measurements. Equal production of charged and neutral $`B`$’s from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay are assumed throughout.

In the event counting analysis, a set of selection criteria are defined to select a signal region of the parameter space. The criteria are optimized with respect to expected signal and background yields to produce a measurement of the greatest possible statistical significance. Systematic uncertainties may figure into this process, but they are usually negligible for rare modes. The selection are applied to the data, and the population of signal region is counted. An estimated background is subtracted to determine the signal event yield. The background yield is typically determined by measuring the density of events in a sideband region and projecting that density into the signal region.

In the maximum likelihood fit method signal yields are determined by an unbinned extended maximum likelihood fit to a set of observables. These typically include $`m_{ES}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, event shape variables and, where appropriate, $`B`$ daughter resonance invariant masses and particle identification information. The probability $`𝒫_i(\stackrel{}{x}_j;\stackrel{}{\alpha }_i)`$ for a given hypothesis $`i`$ is the product of probability density functions (PDFs) for each of the variables $`\stackrel{}{x}_j=(m_{ES},\mathrm{\Delta }E,\mathrm{Fisher},\mathrm{})`$ given the set of parameters $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_i`$. The hypotheses $`i`$ are signal, continuum background and sometimes $`B`$ background for each final state in the fit. The likelihood function is given by a product over all events $`N`$ and the signal and background components:

$$=\frac{e^{_in_i}}{N!}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}_j,_j=\underset{i}{}n_i𝒫_i(\stackrel{}{x}_j;\stackrel{}{\alpha }_i).$$
(5)
The $`n_i`$ are the numbers of events for each hypothesis. The values of the yields (and any free parameters in the PDFs) are taken as those which maximize the likelihood function. Unit change in $`2ln`$ defines the one standard deviation statistical uncertainties on the free parameters in the fit. The statistical significance of the signal yield is determined from the change in $`2ln`$ when the signal yield is forced to zero. If no statistically significant signal is found (more than 4 standard deviations), a 90% confidence level upper limit may be obtained by requiring:

$$\frac{_0^{n_{UL}}(n)𝑑n}{_0^{\mathrm{}}(n)𝑑n}=0.9.$$
(6)
Full and toy Monte Carlo simulations are used to verify that the fit is unbiased.

The accuracy with which the PDFs describe the data is of utmost importance in the likelihood fit. Background PDFs are determined by fits to off-resonance and sideband data. Signal PDFs are determined primarily from signal Monte Carlo simulations, but ultimately rely on data control samples to verify their validity.

## 4 Electromagnetic Penguins

Electromagnetic penguins consist of the class of amplitudes in which an external photon is emitted by one of the virtual particles participating in the loop through which the $`bs(d)`$ transition proceeds. This is illustrated in Figure 7. Such diagrams are relatively clean from a theoretical perspective, and a variety of information can be gather from measurements of decays dominated by these amplitudes. The decay $`BK^{}\gamma `$ was the first penguin to be observed. Measurements of its branching fraction provides a test of QCD, and direct CP violation in this mode would be an indication of new physics. The decay rate ratio of $`B\rho \gamma `$ to $`BK^{}\gamma `$ is sensitive to the ratio of $`|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}|`$. The photon energy spectrum from measurements of $`bs\gamma `$ provides information on the mass and Fermi motion of the $`b`$ quark within the $`B`$ meson.

In the analysis of these modes, in each case there is a requirement of a high energy isolated photon. The calorimeter cluster is required to have a profile consistent with an electromagnetic shower, and the candidate photon must not be consistent with having originated from a $`\pi ^0`$ or $`\eta `$ decay. Further details and results of each analysis are presented below.

### 4.1 Measurement of $`BK^{}\gamma `$

The analysis of $`BK^{}\gamma `$ has been performed on a data sample corresponding to approximately 22 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs recorded in 1999-2000. The $`K^{}\gamma `$ final state is reconstructed in all four $`K^{}`$ decay modes. Stringent identification requirements are placed on charged kaons. Invariant mass requirements are placed on both $`K^{}`$ and $`K_S^0`$ candidates. The $`K_S^0`$ is also required to have a decay vertex displaced from the $`e^+e^{}`$ interaction point. Since the $`B`$ meson is a pseudoscalar, angular momentum conservation requires that the $`K^{}`$ is polarized. The absolute value of the cosine of the $`K^{}`$ helicity angle is required to be less than 0.75. Continuum background is suppressed with cuts on the absolute values of the cosines of the thrust and $`B`$ flight angles, both of 0.80.

After cutting on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, the signal yield is determined from an unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the $`m_{ES}`$ distribution, shown for each $`K^{}`$ decay mode in Figure 8. Branching fraction and direct CP asymmetry results are shown in Table 1.

### 4.2 Search for $`B\rho \gamma `$ and $`B\omega \gamma `$

The analysis of the $`\rho \gamma `$ and $`\omega \gamma `$ final states is significantly more challenging than that of $`K^{}\gamma `$. The predicted branching fractions are about 50 times smaller than for $`K^{}\gamma `$. Both the $`\rho `$ and the $`\omega `$ have significantly more background under their peaks than does the $`K^{}`$, and the rho is much broader. In addition to continuum background, these modes also potentially suffer cross-feed background from $`K^{}\gamma `$, other $`bs\gamma `$ processes and from $`B\rho \pi ^0`$.

A neutral network containing information from event shape, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and flavor tagging is used to control continuum background. $`K^{}\gamma `$ feed-across is vetoed using particle identification. After these selection criteria are applied, the signal yield for each final state is extracted using a unbinned maximum likelihood fit to $`m_{ES}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and the $`\rho /\omega `$ invariant mass. Studies of generic $`B\overline{B}`$ Monte Carlo show that the expected $`B`$ background is quite small, so the fit includes components only for signal and continuum background. Background from $`B`$ decays is considered as a systematic uncertainty.

The results of this analysis applied to a sample of 84 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs can be found in table 2. If isospin symmetry is assumed, all three modes can be combined to produce an upper limit of $`(B\rho \gamma )<1.9\times 10^6`$ @ 90% CL. This result can be used to place on upper limit on CKM parameters $`|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}|<0.036`$ @ 90% CL. A discussion of theoretical errors can be found in Ali and Parkhomonko.

### 4.3 Semi-Inclusive Measurement of $`bs\gamma `$

This analysis of 22 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs is a study of a collection of exclusive final states with a kaon plus up to four pions, no more than one of which may be neutral. Because $`bs\gamma `$ is a two-body decay process, the photon energy $`E_\gamma `$ in the $`B`$ rest frame is related to the recoil hadronic mass, $`M_{Had}`$:

$$E_\gamma =\frac{M_B^2M_{Had}^2}{2M_B}.$$
(7)
Fits to the measured spectra of both of these quantities can be used to determine the total branching ratio for $`BX_s\gamma `$. In addition to constraining new physics contributions to the underlying amplitude, parameters associated with heavy quark effective theory (HQET) are also extracted in the analysis. These parameters are critical to reducing theory errors in the extraction of $`V_{ub}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$.

Measured branching fractions as a function of $`M_{Had}`$ and $`E_\gamma `$ can be found in Figure 9. Analysis of these spectra yield results:

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.37\pm 0.09(stat)\pm 0.07(syst)\pm 0.10(model)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$
$`m_b`$ $`=`$ $`4.79\pm 0.08(stat)\pm 0.10(syst)\pm 0.10(model)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$
$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`0.24_{0.04}^{+0.03}(stat)\pm 0.02(syst)_{0.21}^{+0.15}(model)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$
$`(bs\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`4.3\pm 0.5(stat)\pm 0.8(syst)\pm 1.3(model)\times 10^4.`$ (8)
### 4.4 Fully-Inclusive Measurement of $`bs\gamma `$

Much of the uncertainty in the semi-inclusive $`bs\gamma `$ analysis arises from theoretical errors. HQET implies a duality between the quark and hadron level of an interaction, which implies that parton level rate for $`bs\gamma `$ is the same as the inclusive rate for $`BX_s\gamma `$. These two issues motivate the fully inclusive analysis technique.

This analysis is performed on a sample of 60 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs. Photons in the range $`1.5<E_\gamma ^{}<3.5`$ GeV are analyzed. These photons are required to meet the selection criteria described above. To suppress continuum background the event is required to have a lepton flavor tag which strongly selects true $`B\overline{B}`$ decays. Such a selection induces no model dependency into the analysis as it only applies to the “other” $`B`$ in the decay. In addition to particle identification criteria, fake leptons are further rejected by requiring large missing energy in the event, which is normally associated with semi-leptonic $`bc`$ transitions. To obtain additional discrimination, the angular separation between the lepton and the photon is required not to be small. Event topology in the form of the Fox-Wolfram moments in also employed to reduce background from the continuum. Backgrounds are estimated using off-resonance data and $`B\overline{B}`$ Monte Carlo.

The $`E_\gamma `$ spectra for on-resonance data and the predicted background are shown in Figure 10.

The photon energy range $`2.1<E_\gamma ^{}<2.7`$ GeV is considered to reduce model dependencies. The branching fraction for $`BX_s\gamma `$ is measured in this region and then extrapolated to the full spectrum:

$$(BX_s\gamma )=3.88\pm 0.36(stat)\pm 0.37(syst)_{0.23}^{+0.43}(model)\times 10^4.$$
(9)
## 5 Electroweak Penguins

As the name suggests, Electroweak penguins are amplitudes that proceed via loops involving photons, $`W`$ or $`Z`$ bosons. Such processes are strongly suppressed in the Standard Model, and as such, are excellent windows onto potential new physics. Well controlled theoretical uncertainties aid in this sensitivity. We discuss the analysis of four such final states here: $`K^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`K\nu \overline{\nu }`$, and $`\gamma \gamma `$.

### 5.1 Measurement of $`BK^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$

The flavor-changing neutral current decays $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ have predicted branching fractions on the order $`10^610^7`$. The leading diagrams for this decay are electroweak penguin and box diagrams, and can be found in Figure 11.

The decay rate for $`BK^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is rather sensitive to the presence of new physics. In particular, certain extensions to the SM can vary the rate by more than a factor of two. In addition to the decay rate, kinematic distributions accessible with higher statistics, such as the boson $`q^2`$ distribution ($`m_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^2`$) and the forward-backward asymmetry in the $`K^{}`$ channel are of considerable interest as they are also quite sensitive to non-SM physics, and are less model dependent than the overall rate.

The experimental challenge in this analysis is to control the various sources of background. Background from $`B`$ charmonium decays which have the same final state particles are control by vetoing regions in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ vs $`m_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ plane. Continuum background is reduced using a Fisher discriminant which in addition to event shape information includes information on the $`K\mathrm{}`$ invariant mass, which serves to veto $`DK\mathrm{}\nu `$. Combinatorics from semi-leptonic $`B`$ decays are rejected using a B-likelihood built from the missing energy in the event, vertex information, and the $`B`$ production angle. Finally, peaking backgrounds from particle mis-identification are reduced by vetoing the $`K^{()}\pi `$ mass in the region of the $`D`$ mass.

After background rejection and particle identification criteria are applied, the signal is extracted with a likelihood fit to $`m_{ES}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. The results of this analysis on a sample of 88.4M $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs are:

$$(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=(0.78_{0.20}^{+0.24}(stat)_{0.18}^{+0.11}(syst))\times 10^6$$
(10)
with a significance (including systematics) of $`4.4\sigma `$, and

$$(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=(1.68_{0.58}^{+0.68}(stat)\pm 0.28(syst))\times 10^6$$
(11)
with a significance of $`2.8\sigma `$. Since the $`K^{}`$ result is not significant, we report a 90% CL upper limit:

$$(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})<3.0\times 10^6.$$
(12)
Combined projections of $`m_{ES}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ are shown in Figure 12.

### 5.2 Search for $`B^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$

The decay of a $`B`$ meson to a pair of leptons is highly suppressed within the SM by factors resulting from CKM, internal quark annihilation and helicity. Leading diagrams are shown in Figure 13. Within the SM, predicted branching fractions are $`1.9\times 10^{15}`$ and $`8.0\times 10^{11}`$ for the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channels respectively. The $`e\mu `$ channel is forbidden by lepton number conservation. New physics can significantly alter these predictions.

In this analysis, the primary sources of background are from real lepton production from continuum $`c\overline{c}`$ decays, pions which are mis-identified as muons, and two photon processes. Continuum background is suppressed using the thrust magnitude, and the angle between the thrust axes of the $`B`$ candidate and the rest of the event. A track multiplicity cut serves to reject two photon processes. The signal is selected by requiring two high momentum leptons of opposite charge and good vertex information. Particle identification requirements for both leptons are made. The signal yield is determined by counting events in a signal region of $`m_{ES}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and subtracting an estimated background determined from the scaled population of the $`m_{ES}`$ vs $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ plane. The results of this analysis applied to a sample of approximately 60 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs are presented in Table 3.

### 5.3 Search for $`B^+K^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$

Within the SM, the decay $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ is a pure electroweak flavor changing neutral current. The final state is nearly free of strong interaction uncertainties, and hence the theoretical errors associated with this decay are small. While the inclusive analysis is not currently feasible, it is possible to search for the exclusive decay $`B^+K^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$. Summing over all neutrino species, the SM prediction for this branching fraction is

$$(B^+K^+\nu \overline{\nu })=3.8_{0.6}^{+1.2}\times 10^6.$$
(13)
The presence of two neutrinos in the final state makes this analysis difficult, as there are no kinematic constraints which may be applied to the signal $`B`$. Instead, the strategy is to fully reconstruct the other $`B`$ from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay, and compare the remaining particles in the event with the signature expected from the signal. The “tag” $`B`$ is required to be fully reconstructed as either $`B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ or $`B^{}D^0\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$. The $`D^0`$ is reconstructed in the $`K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ modes, which results in a total of about 0.5% of all charged $`B`$s being reconstructed as tags. To select signal events, a high momentum charged kaon is required in the recoil of the tagged $`B`$. Additional requirements are made on the neutral energy in the recoil and on the angle between the kaon and the tag side lepton.

Events are counted in a signal region in the plane defined by the electromagnetic energy in the tag $`B`$ recoil, and the difference between the reconstructed and mean fitted $`D`$ mass, scaled by the fitted $`D`$ mass resolution. The expected background, determined by scaling the sideband population into the signal region, is subtracted from the signal region population to determine the signal yield. This is illustrated in Figure 14. In a sample of 60 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, the expected background in the signal region is 2.2 events, and there are two events observed. The 90% confidence level upper limit on the branching fraction, including systematics, is

$$(B^+K^+\nu \overline{\nu })<9.4\times 10^5.$$
(14)
### 5.4 Search for $`B^0\gamma \gamma `$

The decay $`B^0\gamma \gamma `$ is an example of electroweak annihilation. The SM expectation for this decay is small, with predictions ranging from 0.1 to $`2.3\times 10^8`$. As with the other modes discussed in this section, physics beyond the SM can result in significant enhancements to this rate.

In this analysis, selection criteria are placed on the ratio of the 2nd to 0th Fox-Wolfram moments, the cosine of the angle between one of the photons (chosen at random) and the thrust axis of the rest of the event, and the $`B`$ production angle to suppress continuum background. Selected photons are required not to be consistent with having come from a $`\pi ^0`$ or $`\eta `$ decay. The signal yield is determined by counting events in a signal region of the plane defined by $`m_{ES}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, and subtracting the expected background determined by scaling the the sideband population into the signal region. The result for a sample of 22 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs is

$$(B^0\gamma \gamma )<1.7\times 10^6,$$
(15)
at the 90% confidence level, including systematic uncertainties.

## 6 Gluonic Penguins (Charmless Hadronic B Decays)

Charmless hadronic $`B`$ decays proceed through a combination of CKM suppressed tree ($`bu`$) and gluonic penguin ($`bd,s`$) amplitudes. There are about 70 possible combinations of two-body decays in the lowest pseudoscalar and vector nonets. These may be further broken into two groups; two-body decays in which both $`B`$ daughters are kaons or pions, and quasi-two-body decays in which at least one of the $`B`$ daughters is a short-lived resonance. The two-body modes can be analyzed for information on the CP phases $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$, and have been found to have significant penguin contributions in addition to CKM allowed tree amplitudes. Several of the quasi-two-body modes are sensitive to the CP phase $`\beta `$. In addition to yielding information about the Unitarity Triangle, decays in which penguin amplitudes are dominant are sensitive to new physics. Our study of three-body $`B`$ decays has thus far been limited to combinations of three charged kaons or pions.

All of these modes share some common features. The primary source of background is random particle combinations in the continuum, although modes with large final state multiplicities or significant neutral energy may suffer from non-negligible $`B\overline{B}`$ backgrounds. All the final states are ultimately composed of high momentum kaons and pions, so the ability to distinguish been these particles at high momenta is crucial.

### 6.1 Two-Body Decays

Two body $`B`$ decays to kaons and pions are sensitive to the angle $`\alpha `$ of the Unitarity Triangle through the time-dependent CP violating asymmetry in the decay $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and to the the angle $`\gamma `$ through branching fractions and direct CP-violating asymmetries of decays to various $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ final states. Because there are substantial penguin amplitudes which contribute to the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ final state in addition to the tree amplitude, the time-dependent asymmetry in that mode does not directly measure $`\alpha `$. An isospin analysis of the rates for all the $`B\pi \pi `$ decays is required to fully unfold the effects of the penguin contributions and determine the relationship between what is measured from the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ analysis ($`\alpha _{eff}`$) and $`\alpha `$. Interference between penguin and tree amplitudes may also lead to substantial direct (time-independent) CP asymmetries in the $`K\pi `$ final states.

In each mode, the signal is extracted using an unbinned extended maximum likelihood fit, using the $`m_{ES}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, a Fisher discriminant, and where appropriate, Cerenkov angle residuals. Groups of related decays are fit simultaneously. For example, the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+K^{}`$ yields are determined from a single fit. In these cases, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and the Cerenkov angle residuals separate the signal modes from each other. Branching fraction results for all two-body modes based on a sample of 88 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs can be found in Table 4.

Despite no central measurement of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ final state, it is still possible to place limits on the relationship between the measured parameter $`\alpha _{eff}`$ and the Unitarity Triangle parameter $`\alpha `$. Using the bound of Grossman and Quinn and our measured values, we set an upper limit of $`|\alpha _{eff}\alpha |<51^{}`$ at 90% CL.

### 6.2 Quasi-Two-Body Decays

Quasi-two-body decays proceed through resonant intermediate states. The analysis of such modes is very similar to true two-body decays, but there are additional variables that provide separation between the signal and background, such as the resonance invariant mass and polarization (if the final state is a pseudoscaler-vector combination). We present the analyses of three groups of related quasi-two-body decays; $`B\varphi K^{()}`$, $`B\omega h`$ and $`B\eta ^{()}K^{()}`$.

#### 6.2.1 $`B\varphi K^{()}`$

The decay $`bs\overline{s}s`$ is CKM forbidden, thus the decay $`B\varphi K^{()}`$ is a nearly pure gluonic penguin, as shown in Figure 15. New physics might not only manifest itself as a deviation from the SM prediction for the decay rate, but since the mode $`\varphi K_S^0`$ is the strange analog to $`J/\psi K_S^0`$, the CP phase one measures in a time-dependent analysis could be altered from it’s SM value of $`\beta `$.

The signal yield in each of these modes is determined from an extended unbinned maximum likelihood fit to $`m_{ES}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, a Fisher discriminant and the $`\varphi (K^+K^{})`$ invariant mass. For the $`\varphi K_S^0`$, $`\varphi K^+`$ and $`\varphi \pi ^+`$ final states, the $`\varphi `$ polarization is included in the fit, as is the Cerenkov angle residual for the charged states. For the $`\varphi K^{}`$ final states, the $`K^{}`$ invariant mass is included in the fit. Significant signals are observed for both charged and neutral $`B`$ decays to $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ final states. The results of this analysis on a sample of 60 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs are

$`(B^+\varphi K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(9.2\pm 1.0\pm 0.8)\times 10^6`$
$`(B^+\varphi K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`(8.7_{1.5}^{+1.7}\pm 0.9)\times 10^6`$
$`(B^+\varphi K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(9.7_{3.4}^{+4.2}\pm 1.7)\times 10^6`$
$`(B^+\varphi K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`(8.7_{2.1}^{+2.5}\pm 1.1)\times 10^6`$
$`(B^+\varphi \pi ^+)`$ $`<`$ $`0.56\times 10^6\mathrm{@}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}\%\mathrm{CL}.`$ (16)
A stringent limit is also placed on the decay $`B^+\varphi \pi ^+`$, which is both CKM and color suppressed.

#### 6.2.2 $`B\omega h(h=K,\pi )`$

$`B`$ decays involving an omega and either a kaon or a pion proceed through a mixture of CKM suppressed $`bu`$ tree and CKM forbidden $`bd,s`$ penguin amplitudes. The analysis method is identical to that described for $`\varphi K^{()}`$. The results in Table 5 are based on a sample of 22 million $`B\overline{B}`$, except for the $`\omega K_S^0`$ analysis, which was performed on a sample of 60 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, and is a first observation.

#### 6.2.3 $`B\eta ^{()}K^{()}`$

$`B`$ decays to $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ with a kaon or $`K^{}`$ proceed predominantly through penguins, although there is some $`bu`$ tree contribution as well. The decays $`B\eta ^{}K`$ and $`B\eta K^{}`$ were the first gluonic penguins to be observed, and the rates are much larger than initially expected. The best present conjecture is that the tree and penguin amplitudes interfere in such a way as to enhance $`\eta ^{}K`$ and $`\eta K^{}`$ but suppress $`\eta ^{}K^{}`$ and $`\eta K`$. Because of it’s relatively large rate and nearly pure penguin content, $`B\eta ^{}K_S^0`$ is also of considerable interest for measurements of time-dependent CP asymmetries, which within the SM should probe the angle $`\beta `$.

Signals for these modes are extracted as described above for $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$. The $`\eta ^{}`$ is reconstructed in two decay chains; $`\eta (\gamma \gamma )\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\rho ^0\gamma `$. The $`\eta `$ is reconstructed as $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$ and $`\eta \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$. The results of these analyses are displayed in Table 6. The data samples used for the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ analyses are 22 and 60 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs respectively.

### 6.3 Three-Body Decays

We describe here the analysis of $`B^+h^+h^{}h^+`$, where $`h`$ is either a charged kaon or pion. An event counting analysis is performed over the full three particle dalitz plot. All final states are measured simultaneously, and unfolded to obtain branching fractions for each combination. Continuum background is suppressed using the thrust angle and a Fisher discriminant. In addition to continuum background, the open nature of the dalitz plot also admits background in some regions from $`B^+J/\mathrm{\Psi }K^+`$ and $`B^+D\pi ^+/DK^+`$. These regions of the dalitz plot are vetoed. Charged particle identification is crucial to this analysis, and along with tracking, is the primary source of systematic uncertainty. Figure 16 shows the dalitz plots for $`B^+K^+K^{}K^+`$ and $`B^+K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$. Results of this analysis on a sample of 56 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs are

$`(B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^{}\pi ^\pm )`$ $`<`$ $`15\times 10^6\mathrm{@}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}\%\mathrm{CL}(8.5\pm 4.0\pm 3.6)`$
$`(B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^{}\pi ^\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`(59.2\pm 4.7(stat)\pm 4.9(sys))\times 10^6`$
$`(B^\pm K^\pm K^{}\pi ^\pm )`$ $`<`$ $`7\times 10^6\mathrm{@}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}\%\mathrm{CL}(2.1\pm 2.9\pm 2.0)`$
$`(B^\pm K^\pm K^{}K^\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`(34.7\pm 2.0(stat)\pm 1.8(sys))\times 10^6.`$ (17)
## 7 Conclusion and Outlook

We have presented a number of results for rare $`B`$ meson decays using all or part of a sample of approximately 88 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs collected by the BABAR detector. Updates of many of these analyses to the full data set are in progress. These results represent only a part of the spectrum of possible measurements of rare decays. The larger data sets that will be available in the coming years will allow us to more fully exploit rare decays to test the self consistency of the flavor sector of the Standard Model, and will perhaps offer the first glimpse of new physics which lies beyond.

## 8 Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine conditions provided by our PEP-II colleagues, and for the substantial dedicated effort from the computing organizations that support BABAR. The author’s work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of Colorado under Contract DE-FG03-95ER40894.