text:
# Coupled fermion and boson production in a strong background mean-field

## I Introduction

An ultra-relativistic heavy ion collision is a very complex process and its theoretical description requires a fundamental understanding of all phases . After the collision of the nuclei, it is expected that a strongly coupled quark gluon plasma is formed . The production of hard partons due to collisions is one successful way to describe properties of the pre-equilibrium phase . Alternatively the flux-tube model was developed describing the spontaneous creation of soft particles in a chromo-electric background field .

The idea is based on the QED picture of spontaneous vacuum pair creation in a strong field . The strong electric background field leads to a restructuring of the Dirac sea and drives the system into a false, unstable vacuum which decays by emitting particles. Experimentally this was never measured because of the insufficiently small fields compared to the mass of the electrons in e.g. optical laser experiments. Planned new facilities such as the X-ray free electron laser (XFEL) may be able to probe the domain of non-perturbative QED and melt the vacuum .

In QCD the string tension is large compared to the mass of the partons. Therefore the main application of the Schwinger mechanism is for ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions to study the production of a strongly coupled system of partons within the flux tube model . Different versions of a Schwinger-like source term have been suggested, e.g. , and are implemented in transport equations to describe formation and evolution of a quark-gluon plasma on a phenomenological level.

However the precise connection between field theoretical approaches and a kinetic theory is very challenging and an unsolved problem in general. For the considered example of the Dirac/Klein-Gordon equation in an external field this connection was found in . The resulting quantum Vlasov equation was successfully applied to fermion- and boson pair creation .

In the applications considered so far either fermions or bosons were treated. One important aspect of most of the studies was the appearance of plasma oscillations due to back reactions  and their damping due to collisions . Herein we introduce a self-consistent scheme in which fermion and boson fields are coupled via a strong background mean field. This internal field replaces the external field description of recent approaches and dynamically couples fermion and boson production. This coupling is most important for the back reactions since the total induced current consists of both fermionic and bosonic contributions. We solve the resulting coupled equations in cylinder geometry  to implement physical boundary conditions leading to a lower bound in the infra-red momentum region. This procedure not only satisfies the geometry constraints characteristic for a flux tube but also allows the production of massless scalar particles (“gluons”). The fermionic “quark” mass is treated as a momentum and temperature dependent quantity as obtained from QCD Dyson-Schwinger equation investigations .

The article is organized as follows. In Section II we introduce the effective Lagrangian which we use to derive the kinetic equations. In Section III we introduce cylindric boundary conditions for which we solve the equations numerically in Section IV. We summarize our results in Section V.

## II Effective Lagrangian and equation of motions

In this article we will adopt the flux tube picture. One important aspect is the particular geometry assuming that the “chromo-electric” field acts along the longitudinal direction. We introduce the arbitrary fixed 4-vector $`n_\mu `$ which allows the implementation of the flux tube geometry as described below.

We start our discussion from the following Lagrangian for fermions and bosons:

$`L(x)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }(x)m_+^2\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right|^2e_+^2\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right|^4`$ (4)
$`+ie_+\left\{[_n\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)]\mathrm{\Phi }^2(x)[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)]^2_n\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu \underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\psi (x)m_{}\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e_{}}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)\right)\overline{\psi }(x)(\gamma n)\psi (x),`$
where (-) denotes fermions, $`\psi `$, and (+) bosons, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The operator $`_n=n^\mu _\mu `$ permits to introduce the self-interacting scalar field with first order derivative only. The total field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$, can be decomposed into a mean field contribution, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, and fluctuations around it, $`\phi `$, (e.g. )

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)+\phi (x).$$
(5)
We consider $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)`$ as a neutral, space-homogeneous background mean field: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=<\mathrm{\Phi }>`$. The field of the fluctuations $`\phi (x)`$ is in general complex corresponding to a charged field with a vanishing mean value $`<\phi (x)>=0`$. The Lagrangian (4) contains in particular terms of the order $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(x)|^4`$ related to self-interaction. As we will discuss below, we keep the $`|\mathrm{\Phi }(x)|^4`$ contribution to determine only the background field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)`$. That makes possible a proper inclusion of back reactions. However we neglect all higher orders in the fluctuations in deriving the equations of motion and the kinetic equations. That means we restrict ourselves to the limit without collisions.***A systematic way of defining the mean-field approximation and beyond is the large N expansion, see e.g. . We obtain the following Lagrangian for the quantum fluctuations in mean field approximation

$`L^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu \underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\psi (x)m_{}\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x)`$ (7)
$`+e_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)\overline{\psi }(x)(n_\mu \gamma ^\mu )\psi (x),`$
$`L^+(x)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \phi ^{}(x)^\mu \phi (x)m_+^2\left|\phi (x)\right|^2`$ (10)
$`+ie_+\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)\left[(_n\phi ^{}(x))\phi (x)\phi ^{}(x)_n\phi (x)\right]`$
$`e_+^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)|^2\left|\phi (x)\right|^2.`$
The corresponding equations of motion are found within standard techniques and read

$`\left(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu e_{}\gamma ^\mu n_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^0(t)m_{}\right)\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
$`\left[D_\mu ^{}D^\mu +m_+^2\right]\phi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (12)
$`_0^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)+m_+^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)+4e_+^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^3(t)j_{}j_+`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (13)
where Eq. (11) is the Dirac equation, Eq. (12) is the Klein-Gordon equation with the covariant derivative

$`D_\mu =_\mu +ie_+n_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)`$ (14)
and Eq. (13) provides the time dependent background mean field. It is important to observe that the external gauge field which typically appears in applications for pair creation in strong fields in the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equation is replaced by an internal mean field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The third term on the left-hand side of Eq. (13) is non-linear and appears as result of the $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^4`$ self-interacting contribution in the Lagrangian (4). The second (mass term) and the third term are not contained in the external field description.Note that for a particular Lagrangian of similar structure, Eq. (13) has a model specific shape, e.g. starting from a $`U_A(1)`$ symmetry breaking Lagrangian of the Witten-DiVecchia-Veneziano type the non-linear contribution can be a transcendent function . The equations of motion are self-consistently coupled, i.e. the mean background field acts on the fluctuations and vice versa: the produced charged particles generate the currents forming the background field. That is the well-know back reaction phenomenon. The contraction of these currents with $`n^\mu `$ reads

$`j_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e_{}<\overline{\psi }(x)(\gamma n)\psi (x)>,`$ (15)
$`j_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e_+<i\phi ^{}(x)_n\phi (x)i(_n\phi ^{}(x))\phi (x)`$ (17)
$`2e_+\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)\phi ^{}(x)\phi (x)>.`$
In the following we will identify the fermions as “quarks” and the bosons as “gluons”, i.e. we consider the “gluons” to be scalar. Alternatively one could consider the bosons as a vector field and such an approach is demonstrated in the Appendix A yielding the same Lagrangian as Eq. (10). Many aspects of QCD are not contained in our approach and clearly to identify the fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom with “quarks and gluons” is a very optimistic view. However we hope that some qualitative features discussed below are robust and also hold for more sophisticated theories than our toy model.

One way to proceed is to solve the equations of motions directly. We are interested in finding kinetic equations being the exact analogue to these equations of motion. Starting from Eqs. (11) and (12) it is possible to derive such quantum kinetic equations. In  it was explained in detail how to introduce quasi-particles, diagonalize the interaction Hamiltonian and describe the transition from an unstable to a stable vacuum as a dynamical process employing a time-dependent Bogolyubov transformation. The resulting equation for the single particle distribution function is exact on the mean field level in a space-homogeneous field, i.e. it preserves the quantum statistical nature and the pair creation phenomenon. We choose $`n_\mu =(0,0,0,1)`$ which is equivalent to considering a vector potential in temporal gauge with a background field acting in z-direction. We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pm (\overline{p},t)}{t}}+e_\pm \sigma (t){\displaystyle \frac{f_\pm (\overline{p},t)}{p_{}}}=S_\pm (\overline{p},t),`$ (18)
where $`\sigma (t)=d\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)/dt`$ is the space-homogeneous time dependent “chromo-electric” field strength, $`f_\pm (\overline{p},t)`$ is the distribution function of the partons in quasi-particle approximation and $`S_\pm (\overline{p},t)`$ is the source term

$`S_\pm (\overline{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_\pm (\overline{p},t){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{t}{}}}dt^{}W_\pm (\overline{p},t,t^{})\times `$ (20)
$`\left[1\pm 2f_\pm (P_\pm (t,t^{}),t^{})\right]\mathrm{cos}\left\{2{\displaystyle \underset{t^{}}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑\tau \omega _\pm (\overline{p};t,\tau )\right\}`$
describing the creation and annihilation processes of fermions and bosons as result of vacuum tunneling in a strong quasi-classical mean-field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)`$. The transition amplitudes are

$$W_\pm (\overline{p};t,t^{})=\frac{e_\pm \sigma (t^{})P_\pm (t,t^{})}{\omega _\pm ^2(\overline{p};t,t^{})}\left[\frac{\epsilon _\pm }{P_\pm (t,t^{})}\right]^{2s_\pm }.$$
(21)
For fermions $`s_{}=1/2`$ and for bosons $`s_+=0`$. The energy squared of the quasi-particles reads

$`\omega _\pm ^2(\overline{p},t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _\pm ^2+P_\pm ^2(t,t^{}),`$ (22)
$`P_\pm (t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`p_{}e_\pm {\displaystyle \underset{t^{}}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑\tau \sigma (\tau ),`$ (23)
where $`\epsilon _\pm ^2=m_\pm ^2+p_1^2+p_2^2`$ is the transverse energy. It is assumed that $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\sigma (t)=0`$ and we simplify the notation by introducing

$$\omega _\pm (\overline{p})=\omega _\pm (\overline{p},t,t),W_\pm (\overline{p},t)=W_\pm (\overline{p},t,t).$$
(24)
The kinetic equations (18) coincide with recent results and retain all physical information contained in the field equations (11)-(12). The main properties of the source term are the inclusion of quantum statistical effects due to the Fermi suppression (Bose enhancement) factor for fermions (bosons) and the nonlocal time structure. “Quarks and gluons” are produced with a non-trivial, non-equilibrium momentum distribution which is different in transverse- and in longitudinal direction to which the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ couples according to the chosen anisotropy. Apart from the conceptual interest of a kinetic formulation, the practical merits are obvious: e.g. the straightforward identification of the Markovian- or low density limit and the phenomenologically simple inclusion of collisions.

The background field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ decays through particle creation and generation of currents which are readily obtained:

$`j_\pm (t)=2e_\pm g_\pm {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}({\displaystyle \frac{p_{}}{\omega _\pm (\overline{p})}}f_\pm (\overline{p},t)+`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\pm (\overline{p})}{e_\pm \sigma (t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{df_\pm (\overline{p},t)}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_\pm \dot{\sigma }(t)p_{}}{8\omega _\pm ^4(\overline{p})}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\pm }{p_{}}}\right]^{2s_\pm }),`$ (26)
where $`g_\pm `$ is the degeneracy factor The first term is proportional to the occupation number itself and the second term is related to polarization being proportional to the rate. The last term is a regularizing counter term. Its origin is associated with charge regularization; further details can be found in .

## III Cylindric boundary and the flux tube geometry

Another element that we would like to introduce in our model is a cylindrically confined region for the particle production process. A similar approach was explored in  and an advanced description of a dynamical flux tube was given in . The background field is constructed to act only inside a cylindric tube and is assumed to vanish outside this finite volume. We introduce this feature because of two reasons: (i) to implement the given anisotropic symmetry and (ii) to avoid difficulties with massless particle production for “gluons”. It is clear that a finite size in transverse direction leads to a quantization of the transverse momentum, so that at zero mass $`m_+=0`$ the minimal energy at which particles can be produced is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{IR}`$.

One possible, simple way is to introduce the boundary conditions

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_3,\rho _0,\varphi ,t)=0`$ (27)
to require that the field vanishes outside a fixed flux tube of the radius $`\rho _0`$, e.g. . The Klein-Gordon equation in such cylinder coordinates reads

$`[_0^2_{}^2_3^2`$ $``$ $`2ie_+\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)_3e_+^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2(t)`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`m_+^2]\phi (x_3,\rho ,\varphi ,t)=0,`$ (29)
where the Laplace operator is given by

$`_{}^2={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}.`$ (30)
The radius is denoted with $`\rho `$ and the angle is $`\varphi `$. Here we assume that the mean field depends only on time and not explicitly on the radius: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)`$. A $`\rho `$\- dependent field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ would lead to nontrivial changes in the quasi-particle representation itself and to more complicated final expressions for the equations of motion. This assumption allows to make a separable ansatz of the following form

$`\phi (x_3,\rho ,\varphi ,t)=Ne^{il\varphi }e^{ik_3x_3}T(t)R(\rho ).`$ (31)
Substituting (31) into (28) we find two equations, one for the time dependent part

$`\ddot{T}(t)+\left[m_+^2+\left(k_3e_+\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)\right)^2+\epsilon ^2\right]T(t)=0`$ (32)
and one for the spatial dependence

$`\rho ^2R^{^{\prime \prime }}(\rho )+\rho R^{^{}}(\rho )+\left(\epsilon ^2\rho ^2l^2\right)R(\rho )=0,`$ (33)
where $`\epsilon `$ is any constant value. The latter equation is known as the Bessel equation and with the boundary condition $`R(\epsilon \rho _0)=0`$. Eq. (31) can be rewritten in terms of Bessel functions

$`\phi _{nl,k_3}(x_3,\rho ,\varphi ,t)=e^{ik_3x_3}T_{nl}(t){\displaystyle \frac{J_l(\epsilon _{nl}\rho )}{\sqrt{\pi }\rho _0J_l^{^{}}(\epsilon _{nl}\rho _0)}}e^{il\varphi },`$ (34)
where $`\epsilon _{nl}\rho _0`$ is the $`nth`$ zero of the Bessel function $`J_l`$.

The resulting kinetic equations are identical to Eqs. (18) but the quasi-particle energy is now discrete and reads

$`\omega _{\pm nl}^2(\overline{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{+nl}^2+(k_3e_\pm \mathrm{\Phi }_0(t))^2,`$ (35)
$`\epsilon _{\pm nl}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_\pm ^2+\epsilon _{nl}^2.`$ (36)
The kinetic momentum $`p_{}=k_3e_\pm \mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)`$ contains the time dependent mean-field and the canonical momentum $`k_3`$. The lowest possible values for the transverse energy are assumed for $`\epsilon _{10}`$ and the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{IR}=\epsilon _{10}`$ are given in Table I for three different flux tube radii. This means that the transverse energy never vanishes. Even for a zero gluon mass the discretization provides a lower bound for the momentum. To proceed we consider all observable values as mean values in the following way

$$<<\mathrm{}>>_\rho =\frac{1}{\pi \rho _0^2}_0^{\rho _0}\rho 𝑑\rho _0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi <\mathrm{}>.$$
(37)
Assuming such mean ($`\rho `$\- independent) quantities is a very simple approximation. However for the qualitative study performed it is sufficient and can certainly be improved for a particular experimental application. The charges in strong coupling limit are fixed to be $`e_\pm =1`$ throughout the numerical calculations and the degeneracy factors for a three flavor system are for quarks $`g_{}=18`$ and for gluons $`g_+=16`$. Quantitatively the numerical results depend on these values, qualitatively the main effects discussed below are robust against small changes of all parameter values.

Before we present our numerical results we briefly discuss the mass scales of the produced particles. The “gluon” mass is chosen to be zero or finite. This is possible because of the geometry constraint discussed above. The fermion mass is very small on the hadronic scale in the perturbative regime, $`m_{}(p\mathrm{})<<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. In the non-perturbative domain dynamical chiral symmetry breaking appears and the quark mass increases by about two orders of magnitude $`m_{}(p0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. For very large temperatures the quarks can be well approximated by their current quark mass for all momenta. However in vicinity of the phase transition a dynamical mass is generated. Furthermore, non-perturbative effects are manifest up to $`23\times T_c300450`$ MeV. It was shown in a variety of model approaches that within the parton creation model employed in our investigation such temperatures are initially reached. Due to a rapid expansion the temperature will further decrease and non-perturbative dressing of the quarks appears.

In QCD the momentum dependence of the quark mass can be calculated on the lattice, e.g. in  in Landau gauge. QCD Dyson-Schwinger equation models  are in good agreement with these studies and we employ a simple model introduced in  extended to non-zero temperature and density in . The instantaneous version of such an infrared dominant model  leads to the following QCD gap equation for the scalar part of the self-energy:

$`b(\overline{p})`$ $`=`$ $`m_0+\eta {\displaystyle \frac{m_{}(\overline{p})}{\sqrt{\overline{p}^2+m_{}^2(\overline{p})}}}\times `$ (39)
$`[1f_{}^{eq}(\overline{p},T,\mu )\overline{f}_{}^{eq}(\overline{p},T,\mu )]`$
and the vector part

$$a(\overline{p})=\frac{2b(\overline{p})}{m_0+b(\overline{p})}$$
(40)
where $`m_{}=b/a`$. $`f_{}^{eq}`$ and $`\overline{f}_{}^{eq}`$ are the Fermi distribution functions for particles and antiparticles, respectively. The value of the mass scale parameter $`\eta =1`$ GeV is inspired by the potential energy in a QCD string at the confinement distance, $`V_{q\overline{q}}(r=1\mathrm{f}\mathrm{m})1`$ GeV. The momentum dependence calculated with Eq. (39) is depicted in Fig. 1 for different temperatures. The chemical potential is $`\mu =0`$ and the current quark mass $`m_0=5`$ MeV. For further calculations we will use the shape corresponding to $`T=T_c170`$ MeV. For the current application a constant fermion mass with the value of $`m_0`$ would provide a good guide. However for future applications, it will be very useful to have its complete temperature and momentum dependence introduced already.

## IV Numerical results

The final equations solved numerically are given in the Appendix B. In the following we compare the model cases (i) coupled fermion and boson production with non-linear self-interaction included; (ii) only boson production with self-interaction, i.e neglecting the fermionic contribution, $`j_{}`$ in Eq. (13) to (iii) boson production without self-interaction, i.e. neglecting the nonlinear term in Eq. (13) and $`j_{}`$ . Furthermore we will explore the dependence of the numerical results on the parameters of the model, i.e. the masses and the flux tube radius, see Table I. We use (a) a zero “gluonic” mass $`m_+=0`$ and compare the results with (b) a finite “gluon” mass of $`m_+=0.5`$ GeV; the mass of the quarks is given by the simple model defined by Eq. (39).

### A The mean background field

We start the discussion of the numerical results with the background mean field $`\sigma (t)`$. As initial condition for the field we choose $`e_+\sigma (t=0)=4`$ GeV2 corresponding to a large initial energy density of about $`ϵ(t=0)700`$ GeV/fm3 related to future LHC experiments. The time dependence of the “chromo-electric” field strength $`\sigma (t)`$ is plotted Fig. 2.

The self-interaction leads to oscillations on a time scale of $`\tau _{pl}0.5`$ fm/c in the early phase of the evolution. This result is basically independent of the masses used, however it strongly depends on the initial field strength. The amplitude of the oscillations is damped due to back reactions and the background mean-field vanishes after a few periods at about $`\tau _f3\tau _{pl}1.5`$ fm/c for the case of zero gluonic mass. With other words: the field leading to pair creation disappears, the flux tube dynamically collapses. For $`m_+=0.5`$ GeV the oscillations at the beginning of the evolution are damped as well but at $`\tau _f`$ the field does not disappear completely. It rather evolves into a permanently oscillating field with an amplitude of 10% of the initial value.§§§ We suppose that a detailed study of this effect in the application presented in  could lead to a similar result. This behavior for $`t>\tau _f`$ can be compared to typical results in an external field approach where a constant background field or an impulse shape was applied and undamped plasma oscillations appeared. The production of quarks is much less effected, see Fig 3, and a physical explanation of this effect seems to be straightforward:

The field energy is transformed into the energy of the produced partons, i.e. the amplitude of the oscillations for $`t<\tau _f`$ is decreasing with time. In the vicinity of large magnitudes of $`\sigma (t)`$ the current is zero since the partons stop their collective motion within the flux tube and at this time the distribution function is symmetrically peaked around zero momentum . For fermions Pauli blocking is most efficient and no particles can be produced in already occupied states. For bosons, however, the enhancement of particle production has its maximum at this time and a large number of bosons is produced. Therefore a direct flow of energy from the field to the gluons occurs, i.e. the damping of the mean field happens very sufficiently. With other words, the quantum statistical nature leads to a fast energy transformation for bosons but to a suppressed one for fermions.

The origin of the collapse of the flux tube is the back reaction phenomenon , the time scale on which this appears is given by self-interaction, see Fig. 4. This becomes clear by neglecting the non-linear terms in Eq. (13). That is one new result of the present investigation. The plasma oscillations are smoothly damped only, i.e. the energy is slowly converted from the mean field to the produced particles. In that case the background vanishes at much larger times.

There is only a weak dependence of the results for the mean-field on the flux tube radius. Using the different radii given in Table I, the time scale $`\tau _f`$ is changed by about 10 % but all qualitative effects are unchanged. For values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{IR}m_+`$, the lower bound in momentum acts like a mass scale itself and leads to similar results as discussed above in connection with the finite gluon mass. Numerical examples of that consideration are given in the next subsection.

### B Particle production

The self-consistent solution of the quantum kinetic equations for quarks and gluons provides particle creation and a strong background mean-field discussed in the previous section. The large strength of the field initiates the particle production process and “quark”- and “gluon” pairs are spontaneously produced. In Fig. 5 we plot the number density

$$n_\pm (t)=\frac{g_\pm }{\pi \rho _0^2}\underset{nl}{}\frac{dp_{}}{2\pi }f_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)$$
(41)
of the produced “quarks and gluons”. It is simple to verify that Eq. (41) is a finite expression, e.g. by using the equations given in Appendix B. At the beginning of the evolution the background field is very large and therefore many particles are produced in a short time. At the same time the background field decreases, energy is converted from the field into the created particles. At $`\tau _f1.5`$ fm/c the background mean-field vanishes and consequently no more quarks and gluons are produced and the number density assumes a constant value. The number density is very large and therefore it is necessary to solve the full non-Markovian equation (18). The application of the low density limit would underestimate the production of “gluons” and overestimate the “quark” production. Note that, in a realistic description of the further evolution of the produced plasma, collisions between the partons could equilibrate the system. Additionally, the number density would decrease when an expansion is implemented.

The regularized energy density is defined by

$$ϵ_\pm (t)=\frac{g_\pm }{\pi \rho _0^2}\underset{nl}{}\frac{dp_{}}{2\pi }\omega _\pm (\stackrel{}{p})(f_\pm (\overline{p},t)f_\pm ^c(\overline{p},t))$$
(42)
with the counter term

$$f_\pm ^c(\overline{p},t)=\left[\frac{e_\pm \sigma (t)p_{}}{4\omega _\pm ^3(\overline{p})}\left(\frac{\epsilon _\pm }{p_{}}\right)^{2s_\pm }\right]^2.$$
(43)
The time dependence of the energy density is plotted in Fig. 6. Due to the strong background mean-field many particles are produced at small times and energy is converted from the field to the particles (see Fig. 2). During the fast increase of the energy density a shoulder-like structure appears. The period of these waves is in tune with the oscillations of the mean field. The energy density reached at large times for “gluons” is larger compared to the “quarks” due to Pauli blocking acting on the quarks. The value of about $`200`$ GeV/fm3 corresponds to a (quasi-equilibrium) temperature of about $`1`$ GeV and is characteristic for planned ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collision experiments. The insertion in Fig. 6 shows the sensitivity to the “gluon” mass. A finite gluon mass leads to weak plasma oscillations in the background mean-field even for large times as discussed in connection with Fig. 2 and therefore the energy density oscillates in concert with these repeated creation and annihilation processes.

Naturally the question arises whether the system is in equilibrium after the production of particles has stopped and no fields are imposed. Although the number- and energy density is constant for large times, the system is still in a strong non-equilibrium state. Further interactions such as inter-parton collisions could provide thermalization, but that is a challenging theoretical question on its own. Further understanding can be provided by studying the pressure for the “quarks and gluons” given by the following expressions:

$`P_+^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_+}{\pi \rho _0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dp_{}}{2\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^2}{\omega _+(\stackrel{}{p})}}(f_+(\overline{p},t)f_+^c(\stackrel{}{p},t))`$ (45)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^2}{2\omega _+(\overline{p})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _+(\stackrel{}{p})}{6}})(v_+(\overline{p},t)v_+^c(\stackrel{}{p},t))],`$
$`P_+^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_+}{2\pi \rho _0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dp_{}}{2\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon _{nl}^+)^2}{\omega _+(\stackrel{}{p})}}(f_+(\overline{p},t)f_+^c(\stackrel{}{p},t))`$ (47)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon _{nl}^+)^2}{2\omega _+(\overline{p})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _+(\stackrel{}{p})}{3}})(v_+(\overline{p},t)v_+^c(\stackrel{}{p},t))],`$
$`P_{}^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}}{\pi \rho _0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dp_{}}{2\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^2}{\omega _{}(\overline{p})}}(f_{}(\overline{p},t)f_{}^c(\overline{p},t))`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{}^{}p_{}}{2\omega _{}}}(v_{}(\overline{p},t)v_{}^c(\stackrel{}{p},t))],`$
$`P_{}^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}}{2\pi \rho _0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dp_{}}{2\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon _{nl}^{})^2}{\omega _{}(\overline{p})}}(f_{}(\overline{p},t)f_{}^c(\overline{p},t))`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon _{nl}^{})^2p_{}}{2\omega _{}(\overline{p})\epsilon _{}}}(v_{}(\overline{p},t)v_{}^c(\stackrel{}{p},t))],`$
where the regularizing counter term $`f^c`$ is given in Eq. (43) and $`v^c`$ reads

$$v_\pm ^c(\overline{p},t)=\frac{e_\pm \dot{\sigma }(t)p_{}}{8\omega _\pm ^4(\overline{p})}\left(\frac{\epsilon _\pm }{p_{}}\right)^{2s_\pm }.$$
(52)
In Fig. 7 we plot the different components of the pressure. It is apparent that the considered system is still out-off equilibrium. It is interesting to observe that the difference is much more pronounced for “gluons” (lower panel) compared to “quarks” (upper panel). The “gluon” production is unhindered and preferable in longitudinal direction, for “quarks” again Pauli blocking prevents a drastic difference. In an equilibrated system the longitudinal and the parallel pressure contributions would be equal.

## V Summary

We have described coupled fermion and boson production within a quantum kinetic approach in cylinder geometry. The strong background field is given by a dynamical mean-field containing self-interactions. Back reactions are included, both fermionic and bosonic currents modify the initial “chromo-electric” background field. Strong particle creation appears at the beginning of the time evolution, however due to back reactions the background mean-field vanishes. The time scale at which such a collapse of the flux tube happens depends on the self-interaction. This general approach has been applied to the production of ”quarks” and “gluons” and using a zero “gluon” mass, a momentum dependent quark mass from Dyson-Schwinger studies in concert with a flux tube radius of about $`2`$ fm, we find a typical time scale of $`1.5`$ fm/c for this effect. At that time all energy is converted from the field to the particles and the evaluated number- and energy densities reach a constant value being of the typical order of magnitude of a few hundred GeV/fm3. The system is still out off equilibrium, we have exemplified this by calculating the pressure components which are different in longitudinal and transverse direction.

The further evolution of the system will strongly depend on additionally included interactions, such as collisions. A detailed study will be reported elsewhere.

## Acknowledgment

We thank C.D. Roberts for helpful discussions. This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under project number SCHM 1342/3-1, AL 279/3-3 and 436 RUS 17/102/00; and partly by the Russian Federation’s State Committee for Higher Education under grant N E00-33-20.

## A Vector interaction and bosons

In Section II we have introduced an effective Lagrangian in mean field approximation based on coupled boson and fermion fields. The boson fields have been considered as scalar fields. In this appendix we will briefly demonstrate that starting from a charged vector field, the same Lagrangian in mean field approximation can be obtained.

The fermionic contribution is identical to Eq. (7) and therefore restrict ourselves to the bosonic contribution. The Lagrangian for a minimal substituted charged vector field reads:

$`L^{(0)}(x)=\left(D_\nu \omega _\mu (x)\right)^{}\left(D^\nu \omega ^\mu (x)\right)m_+^2\omega _\mu ^{}\omega ^\mu ,`$ (A1)
where $`D_\nu =_\nu +ie_g\omega _\nu `$ is the covariant derivative. The decomposition into a mean-field contribution and fluctuations reads

$`\omega _\mu =\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu +\delta _\mu ,\omega _\mu =\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu .`$ (A2)
Using this Ansatz in Eq. (A1) we obtain

$`\left(D_\nu \omega _\mu (x)\right)^{}\left(D^\nu \omega ^\mu (x)\right)=`$ (A3)
$`\left(_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }^\mu +_\nu \delta _\mu ^{}^\nu \delta ^\mu e_+^2\left|\mathrm{\Omega }\right|^4e_+^2\left|\mathrm{\Omega }\right|^2\left|\delta \right|^2\right)`$ (A4)
$`+ie_+\left[_\nu \delta _\mu ^{}\delta ^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }^\mu \delta _\nu ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{}^\nu \delta ^\mu \right]`$ (A5)
$`+ie_+\left[_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ^{}\delta ^\nu \delta ^\mu \delta _\nu ^{}\delta _\mu ^{}^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }^\mu \right],`$ (A6)
where we have neglected odd orders in the fluctuations $`\delta `$. Furthermore we focus on the collisionless limit, i.e. we do not consider $`e_+^2\left|\delta \right|^4`$ terms.

Assuming that the fluctuations do not depend on the mean-field part and imposing the initial spatial anisotropy of the flux tube, we can write in Hartree approximation

$`\delta _k^{}\delta ^k=3|\phi |^2,\delta _i^{}\delta _k=\delta _{ik}|\phi |^2,`$ (A7)
where $`i,k=1,2,3`$. $`\phi `$ is the effective fluctuating scalar field. The mean-field reads

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =(0,0,0,\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)).`$ (A8)
Employing this Hartree-Fock like approximation in temporal gauge we can construct the following modified Lagrangian

$`L_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`3_\nu \phi ^{}^\nu \phi 3m_+^2|\phi |^23e_+^2\left|\phi \right|^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2(t)`$ (A10)
$`+ie_+\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)\left[_3\phi ^{}\phi \phi ^{}_3\phi \right].`$
Eq. (A10) can be generalized, using $`_3_n`$, to obtain the Lagrangian Eq. (10).

## B Equations for the numerical solution

Eq. (18) is an integro-differential equation. It can be re-expressed by introducing

$`u_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}dt^{}W_\pm (\overline{p},t,t^{})(1\pm 2f_\pm (P_\pm (t,t^{}),t^{}))\times `$ (B2)
$`\mathrm{sin}[2{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau \omega _\pm (t,\tau )],`$
$`v_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}dt^{}W_\pm (\overline{p},t,t^{})(1\pm 2f_\pm (P_\pm (t,t^{}),t^{}))\times `$ (B4)
$`\mathrm{cos}[2{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau \omega _\pm (t,\tau )],`$
with the initial conditions $`u(\stackrel{}{p},0)=v(\stackrel{}{p},0)=0`$, in which case we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pm (\overline{p},t)}{t}}+e_\pm \sigma (t){\displaystyle \frac{f_\pm (\overline{p},t)}{p_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_\pm (\overline{p},t)v_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t),`$ (B5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_\pm (\overline{p},t)}{t}}+e_\pm \sigma (t){\displaystyle \frac{v_\pm (\overline{p},t)}{p_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`W_\pm (\overline{p},t)\left(1\pm 2f_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)\right)`$ (B6)
$``$ $`2\omega _\pm (\overline{p})u_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t),`$ (B7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_\pm (\overline{p},t)}{t}}+e_\pm \sigma (t){\displaystyle \frac{u_\pm (\overline{p},t)}{p_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega _\pm (\overline{p})v_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t).`$ (B8)
where the total energy is defined in Eq. (35) for bosons and in Eq. (22) for fermions. The transition amplitudes are given by

$`W_\pm (\overline{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e_\pm \sigma (t)p_{}}{\omega _\pm ^2(\overline{p})}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{\pm nl}}{p_{}}}\right)^{2s_\pm }.`$ (B9)
For the currents we obtain the following final expression

$`j_\pm (t)`$ $`=`$ $`2e_\pm g_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \rho _0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nl}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dp_{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{}}{\omega _\pm (\overline{p})}}(f_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ (B10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_\pm (\stackrel{}{p},t)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{nl}}{p_{}}}\right]^{2s_\pm }e_\pm \dot{\sigma }(t){\displaystyle \frac{p_{}}{8\omega _\pm ^4(\overline{p})}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{nl}}{p_{}}}\right]^{2s_\pm }).`$ (B11)
In concert with Eq. (13) they define the mean background field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)`$.


format: text

text:
# Negative isotope effect of a BCS-like gap; an inelastic light scattering study

## Abstract

In a prior study of the boron isotope effect on the transition temperature ($`T_c`$) of $`R`$Ni2B2C ($`R`$ = Y, Lu) system, a positive isotope effect was observed, e.g., $`T_c(^{10}B)>T_c(^{11}B)`$. BCS theory predicts that the superconducting gap at zero temperature ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) is proportional to $`T_c`$. Therefore, the gap should also show a positive boron isotope effect. On the contrary, in an inelastic light scattering study, we report a negative boron isotope effect on the energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the gap-like feature in B2g symmetry, e.g., $`\mathrm{\Omega }(^{10}B)<\mathrm{\Omega }(^{11}B)`$. The origin of the effect is discussed in terms of selective probing of a non-conventional electron-phonon interaction on part of the Fermi surface, probably near the X point in the Brillouin zone.

In a previous study of an isotope effect on the transition temperature ($`T_c`$) of $`R`$Ni2B2C ($`R`$ = Y, Lu) system,cheon  positive isotope exponents $`\alpha _B^{Tc}=+0.21\pm 0.07`$ for YNi2B2C and $`+0.11\pm 0.05`$ for LuNi2B2C were observed upon changing the mass of the boron site. The exponent $`\alpha _B^{Tc}`$ is defined as $`\alpha _B^{Tc}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}T_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}M_B}`$. A relatively large positive value despite the light mass of boron is regarded as a good indication that these materials are BCS-type superconductors, where phonons involving boron atoms play a major role in the pairing mechanism.

BCS-type theory predicts that the superconducting gap in the limit of the absolute zero temperature ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) is proportional to $`T_c`$. In weak coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1.76k_BT_c`$, where $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant. The gap should also show a positive isotope effect upon changing the boron mass. We report here the contrary result: In an inelastic light scattering study, we observe a negative isotope effect of the gap-like Raman peak in $`B_{2g}`$ symmetry.

The gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be measured by electronic Raman scattering. The photon scattering process excites two quasi-particles out of the condensate at a minimum energy cost of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In the limit of small wave-vector transfer $`q`$ relative to the inverse coherence length and small elastic and inelastic scattering rate relative to $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ and with neglect of final state interactions, the Raman spectrum has a peak at an energy shift of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Earlier measurements on NbSe2 and A15 compounds showed redistribution of the continuum of the Raman spectra and the formation of a $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$-like peak upon cooling the samples below $`T_c`$.a15  Electronic Raman studies have played important role in characterizing the nature of the superconducting gap of the high-temperaure superconductors.cooper

Compared with other techniques that measure the gap, such as tunneling and photoemission spectroscopy, inelastic visible light scattering has the advantage of measuring the anisotropy of the gap while being less surface sensitive.

The single crystal samples were grown by the flux- growth methodcanfield ; xu  and were characterized by resistivity, magnetization, and neutron scattering.character  $`R`$Ni2B2C crystalizes in the tetragonal body-centered space group $`I4/mmm`$, and phononic Raman analyses have been made earlier.p-raman  Here, we concentrate on the electronic Raman scattering from the quasi-particles in normal and superconducting states.

Raman spectra were obtained in a pseudo-backscattering geometry using a custom-made subtractive triple-grating spectrometer designed for very small Raman shifts and ultra low intensities.kang  A 3 mW beam of 6471 Å Kr-ion laser light was focused onto a spot of $`100\times 100\mu `$m2. The temperature rise $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T of the focal spot above ambient temperature was estimated by solving the heat-diffusion equation. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T is largest at lowest temperature because of the smaller values of the thermal conductivity.thermal  The estimated $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$T is 2.7K at 4K and 0.9K at 14K for YNi2B2C single crystals. The ambient temperature at which the Raman continua begin to show the redistribution was determined to be 14K, in agreement with this estimate. The spectra were corrected for the Bose factor and therefore are proportional to the imaginary part of the Raman susceptibility.

The “$`B_{2g}`$ spectra” and “$`B_{1g}`$ spectra” presented below are actually from the linearly-polarized light scattering geometries of XY ($`B_{2g}`$ \+ $`A_{2g}`$) and X’Y’ ($`B_{1g}`$ \+ $`A_{2g}`$), respectively. The $`A_{2g}`$ contribution to these spectra was determined from the sum of XY and X’Y’ spectra minus the spectrum obtained in LR ($`B_{1g}`$ \+ $`B_{2g}`$) circularly-polarized scattering geometry. $`A_{2g}`$ was found to be negligible.

Figure 1 shows the electronic Raman spectra in $`B_{2g}`$ and $`B_{1g}`$ geometries of (a) YNi2B2C (10B) and (b) LuNi2B2C (10B) in the superconducting state (6 K) and normal state (16 K). The figure clearly shows 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-like peaks in the superconducting states. As reported earlier,yang  the development of the 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-like peaks is indeed due to superconductivity, following the BCS prediction of the gap-vs-temperature very well.other

The gap values extrapolated to T = 0 are 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(B_{2g}`$) = 5.0 meV (2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$/kTc = 3.7) and 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(B_{1g}`$) = 6.1 meV (2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$/kTc = 4.5) for YNi2B2C, while 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(B_{2g}`$) = 6.2 meV (2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$/kTc = 4.5) and 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(B_{1g}`$) = 6.6 meV (2$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$/kTc = 4.8) for LuNi2B2C. Finite scattering intensity below the gap-like peaks is observed even at 6 K. Possibility of signal from the normal-state phase is ruled out and is discussed in our earlier paperyang  in more detail.

We have measured YNi$`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{2}{}^{}`$B2C (B10-Y), YNi$`{}_{}{}^{11}{}_{2}{}^{}`$B2C (B11-Y), LuNi$`{}_{}{}^{10}{}_{2}{}^{}`$B2C (B10-Lu), and LuNi$`{}_{}{}^{11}{}_{2}{}^{}`$B2C (B11-Lu) single crystals in order to investigate the isotope effect on the “2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-like” peaks. Measurements were repeated on 3-4 different single crystals of each set, and comparisons between the two isotopes were made under conditions that were as identical as possible. For instance, one sample of B10-Y and another one of B11-Y were loaded together into the same cryostat and measured several times in the sequence of B10 - B11 - B10 - B11 - B10… in one experimental run.

Figure 2 shows the isotope dependence of the “2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-like” peaks at 6 K in various scattering geometries for YNi2B2C and $`B_{2g}`$ geometry for LuNi2B2C. Clearly, we observe that the $`B_{2g}`$ peak position in B10-Y is at smaller wavenumber than in B11-Y (Fig. 2a). This behavior was observed in 3-4 pairs of B10-Y and B11-Y. For LuNi2B2C the trend is far less obvious due to weaker signal-to-noise ratio (Fig. 2b). In other scattering geometries (Fig. 2c,d), no such isotope dependence is observed. On the contrary, the $`B_{1g}`$ peak tends to show a positive isotope effect, but the greater breadth of the peak hinders determining an isotope effect within experimental resolution.

In our earlier paper,yang  it was shown that the $`B_{2g}`$ peak follows the BCS prediction for the temperature dependence of the superconducting gap. However, as seen in Fig.2a, it does not follow the BCS prediction for the isotope dependence of the gap. Rather, the $`B_{2g}`$ peak frequency in YNi2B2C, as well as the leading edge of the peak, exhibits a negative isotope effect. There are prior reports of some of these experimental results.prior

We found empirically that in the region of the $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ peaks the ratio of $`B_{2g}`$ to $`B_{1g}`$ Raman intensities can be fit to a Lorentzian expression

$$\frac{I_{B_{2g}}}{I_{B_{1g}}}=\frac{A}{(\omega \omega _0)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}.$$
(1)
near the ‘gap-like’ peak frequency, $`\omega _0`$.

Figure 3 shows the results of fitting the above equation to the ratio of the $`B_{2g}`$ to $`B_{1g}`$ spectra. The fit is excellent around the peak and below, deviating much at higher frequencies. No such fit is possible for $`I_{B_{2g}}`$ or $`I_{B_{1g}}`$ itself. From the fits to several sets of $`B_{2g}`$/$`B_{1g}`$ Raman ratios, we obtained the isotope effect exponent due to boron, $`\alpha _B^{Raman}=0.32\pm 0.03`$ for YNi2B2C and $`0.04\pm 0.07`$ for LuNi2B2C, where $`\alpha _B^{Raman}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\omega _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}M_B}`$. $`M_B`$ is the mass of the boron isotopes. Since there is little evidence for an isotope effect in the $`B_{1g}`$ spectra, we attribute these results for $`\alpha _B^{Raman}`$ primarily to the negative isotope effect on the $`B_{2g}`$ spectrum.

We have measured the superconducting transition temperatures using a SQUID magnetometer and eliminated the possibility that the particular B10 samples in our study have lower $`T_c`$ values than those of B11 samples. Figure 4 shows a plot of $`B_{2g}`$ peak frequencies ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) at 6K and the onset temperatures of the superconducting transition of six different YNi2B2C single crystals. As is clearly seen, B11-Y samples do have larger $`B_{2g}`$ peak frequencies than B10-Y samples, in contradiction to the BCS prediction. This figure shows that the isotope effect of the $`B_{2g}`$ peak frequencies is negatively correlated with the isotope effect of the $`T_c`$ in YNi2B2C. The dashed line on the plot represents $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_0=3.52k_BT_c`$, the BCS prediction in the weak coupling limit.

There is no previous report known to us of an observed negative isotope effect of the superconducting gap. Negative isotope effects have been observed for the transition temperatures of the Pd-H(D) systempd-h  and under-doped YBa2Cu3O7-δ .ybco  In the following discussion we assume that the $`B_{2g}`$ peak is directly due to superconducting gap $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. How, then, can we explain a negative isotope effect for the gap measured in $`B_{2g}`$ Raman symmetry along with a positive isotope effect for $`T_c`$ and small or zero isotope effects for the gap measured in $`B_{1g}`$ and $`A_{1g}`$ symmetries?

The most likely possibility is that the boron portion of the electron-phonon interaction plays out quite differently on the various portions of the Fermi surface. It would be necessary for the $`B_{2g}`$ Raman vertex to probe those parts of the Fermi surfaces which have a negative boron-isotope effect on the value of the gap. Correspondingly, the isotope effect would have to be much smaller and possibly positive on those parts of the Fermi surface probed in $`A_{1g}`$ and $`B_{1g}`$ Raman geometries.

There is a simple picture of the electronic structure that may give a strong clue to where the $`B_{2g}`$ vertex is large. According to the band structure calculations for LuNi2B2CMattheiss ; Pickett  and YNi2B2C,Lee  there is a flat band that may cross the Fermi surface near the X point \[wave-vector given by $`(\pi /a,\pi /a,0)`$\]if there is a small change in parameters. This band has strong anti-bonding $`dd\sigma `$ interactions as well as $`d_{z^2}`$ character on Ni sites.Pickett  If we take a nearest neighbor, planar, Ni-Ni tight binding model with coupling $`t`$, we obtain a band dispersion $`\text{}\epsilon (k)=4t\mathrm{cos}(k_xa/2)\mathrm{cos}(k_ya/2)`$. This has a saddle point at X. A good starting approximation to the Raman vertex is the so-called mass approximation, valid when the photon energy is less than that of all interband transitions starting or ending at the Fermi energy. It says that the $`B_{2g}`$ Raman vertex is proportional to $`^2\epsilon /k_xk_y`$. For the assumed band structure, this would give $`^2\epsilon /k_xk_y=4t(a/2)^2\mathrm{sin}(k_xa/2)\mathrm{sin}(k_ya/2)`$, which takes on its maximum value at the X point.

It would be useful to verify this suggestion with a band structure calculation of the mass vertex of the band that crosses the Fermi energy near the X point. The next step would be to study the coupling between this band and the boron phonon modes. There is one such calculation in the literature, which emphasizes the role of the $`A_{1g}`$ zone center boron mode on modulating the angle of the B-Ni-B tetrahedra. MattheissSSC  However, much more needs to be done, with a particular look for novel couplings that would give a negative isotope effect on the gap associated with this band.

The superconducting gap of borocarbides will not be as simple as calculated by BCS theory. The finite intensity below the gap observed in our Raman measurements (Figs. 1 and 2 andyang ), a nearly $`T^3`$ behavior of the electronic specific heat,cp  and evidence of small gap on the small pocket Fermi surface from de Haas-van Alphen measurementspocket  of superconducting $`R`$Ni2B2C ($`R`$ = Y, Lu) system are good indications of the complex nature of the gap of borocarbide superconductors.

In conclusion, we observed a negative boron isotope effect of the gap-like feature in B2g electronic Raman spectra from YNi2B2C single crystals. For LuNi2B2C, the negative isotope effect is weaker, and may be zero within our experimental resolution. A likely explanation is that the $`B_{2g}`$ Raman vertex selectively probes those portions of the Fermi surface which show a negative boron-isotope effect of the order parameter in the superconducting state. We have suggested that this may occur at the X point, the corner of the Brillouin zone in the basal plane.

ISY is grateful for the financial support of the Korea Research Foundation through a grant number KRF-2000-015-DS0014. MVK was partially supported under NSF 9705131 and through the STCS under NSF 9120000. Ames Laboratory is operated by the U.S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-82.


text:
# X-ray Study of Seventy-nine Distant Clusters of Galaxies: Discovery of Two Classes of Cluster Size

## 1 Introduction

Clusters of galaxies are the largest collapsed structures in the universe, and thus are a useful cosmological probe. At X-ray energies, thermal emission from highly ionized plasma that is confined in the cluster is an excellent tracer of the underlying gravitational potential. A large number of cluster samples observed with the ASCA and ROSAT observatories enable us to investigate both the spatial and spectral structures systematically. Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard (1999) performed a uniform analysis on the ROSAT PSPC data of forty-five clusters with $`z_{}^<0.1`$ under the $`\beta `$-model (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano, 1976) and gathered the spectral data from the literature. Based on their results, Fujita & Takahara (1999a) found that the nearby clusters show a planar distribution in the 3-dimensional parameter space, and named it the X-ray fundamental plane. Fujita & Takahara (1999b) proposed that the major axis of the plane may represent the cluster formation epoch. According to their interpretations, the distributions of more distant clusters on the plane should be displaced in comparison to the nearby samples.

In order to constrain structure and evolution of clusters, it is important to extend the cluster study to a wider redshift range. However, at $`z>0.1`$, only a limited number of clusters have been uniformly analyzed (e.g. Allen (1998); Ettori & Fabian (1999); Hashimotodani (1999)). In this paper and Ota (2001), we analyzed the ROSAT HRI and the ASCA SIS/GIS data of 79 clusters in a uniform manner for the first time. The analysis includes the largest sample of pointed observations of distant clusters. We report on the results of the redshift dependence of the X-ray properties and the double structure discovered in the spatial distributions of the intracluster gas. We use $`H_0=50`$ km/s/Mpc, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ throughout the paper.

## 2 Systematic analysis

### 2.1 The sample

We have selected distant clusters with $`0.1<z<1`$ for which both ASCA and the ROSAT HRI pointed observations were made. Excluding three clusters that were observed away from the center of the field of view of the ROSAT HRI, the sample comprises 79 clusters. Clusters with $`z<0.4`$ make up about 90% of the sample. Since the samples are collected from proposal observations, and also since the sensitivities for high-redshift clusters are limited, we have to be careful about selection bias. Our sample covers the temperature range almost equivalent to that of the X-ray flux limited 55 cluster sample constructed by Edge et al. (1990), but has a higher average temperature of 6.8 keV. The K-S test shows the probability that the two samples are from the same temperature distribution is 0.06 (the K-S parameter, $`D=0.24`$). Observation bias will be discussed in a later section in more detail.

### 2.2 Spatial analysis

We have made use of the ROSAT Data Archive of the Max-Plank-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik to study the spatial distributions. We used the EXSAS analysis package (Zimmermann et al., 1992) to produce the HRI images from the event lists and rebinned the images into $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ bins. We first exclude image regions of point sources that were detected by the maximum likelihood method. Then we define the cluster center as the center of gravity of the photon distribution in a given aperture radius, and derive azimuthally averaged radial profiles. We fit the radial profiles with the isothermal $`\beta `$-model to determine the best-fit model parameters that minimize $`\chi ^2`$. The single $`\beta `$-model fitting function is written as $`S(r)=S_0(1+(r/r_\mathrm{c})^2)^{3\beta +1/2}+C`$, where $`S_0`$, $`r_\mathrm{c}`$, and $`\beta `$ are the central surface brightness, the core radius and the outer slope, respectively, and $`C`$ is a constant background.

In order to estimate the possible systematic errors, we studied the dependence of the best-fit parameter values on analysis parameters; the aperture radius for the cluster centroid determination, and the inner and outer radii of the image region used in the model fittings.

The centroid positions of 34 clusters showed significant (more than $`3\sigma `$) variations as a function of the aperture radius of the centroid determination compared to the statistical errors estimated by Monte-Carlo simulations. We find the variation is due to irregularity of the photon distribution. Thus we define the 34 clusters as “irregular” clusters, and the others as “regular” clusters. However, even for the irregular clusters, the deviations of the best-fit $`\beta `$-model parameters due to the selection of the aperture radius were smaller than the statistical errors, as long as the aperture radius is large enough that there is no significant cluster emission outside it but it is smaller than $`12^{}`$, within which radial dependences of telescope vignetting and background are small (Snowden, 1998).

If the outer radius used for the fitting is too small, we overestimate or underestimate the background level and introduce systematic errors in the fitting parameters. However, we find the best-fit values are constant within the statistical errors as long as the outer radius is large enough, but $`{}_{}{}^{<}12_{}^{}`$.

The fit significantly improved for nine “regular” clusters when we excluded a few central bins from the fitting. We restricted this analysis to the regular clusters to avoid apparent double structure that could arise from the irregularities. The best-fit core radius increased for seven of them when we excluded the central bins. This indicates that those clusters contain two different length scales. Thus we define the double $`\beta `$-model as a superposition of two single $`\beta `$-models with different core radii. For all the nine clusters, the radial profiles are better fitted with the double $`\beta `$-model than the single $`\beta `$-model; the improvement is significant by the F-test at the 95% level. We refer to those nine clusters as the double-$`\beta `$ clusters hereafter. Of these, we classify seven clusters as inner-core dominant double-$`\beta `$, because the central surface brightness of the inner-core component is higher by one to two orders of magnitude than that of the outer-core component. We call the remaining two clusters outer-core dominant double-$`\beta `$, because the outer-core component dominates the total luminosity.

### 2.3 Spectral analysis

We integrated the cluster spectra from the circular regions of radius $`3^{}`$ for the SIS and $`6^{}`$ for the GIS. We subtracted the background spectra that were obtained through blank sky observations. Assuming a thin-thermal emission model (Raymond & Smith, 1977), we fitted the SIS and GIS spectra simultaneously, where the absorption column density was allowed to vary in order to take into account the uncertainty in the low energy efficiency of the SIS detector (Yaqoob, 1999). We determined the emission-weighted average temperature, $`\mathrm{k}T`$ and also estimated the bolometric luminosity, $`L_{\mathrm{X},\mathrm{bol}}`$. We evaluated systematic errors caused by the selection of integration area and the background subtraction in the analysis, and found they are smaller than the statistical errors. We checked the consistency of the luminosities from ASCA and ROSAT. We find the luminosity from the HRI surface brightness profile is systematically higher by about 15%. We consider that this is within calibration errors of the effective areas of the X-ray telescopes (Fukazawa et al. (1997); Prestwitch et al. (1998))

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Redshift dependence

In Figure 1, we plotted the redshift dependence of the average temperature and core radius obtained from the present analysis together with the data for clusters with $`z_{}^<0.1`$ from Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard (1999). With three overlaps there are 121 clusters. We do not find many clusters with $`\mathrm{k}T<5`$ keV at $`z>0.4`$. As indicated in Figure 1 (a), this is consistent with the ASCA sensitivity, if we assume the luminosity-temperature relation of the clusters (See subsection 3.3). We also do not find many clusters with a core radius larger than $`300`$ kpc or smaller than $`40`$ kpc at $`z>0.4`$. This is again consistent with the selection effect, because the detection of clusters with very small and large core sizes are limited respectively by the spatial resolution ($`5^{\prime \prime }`$) and by the sensitivity for low surface brightness emission (see sensitivity curves in Figure 1 (b)). Therefore, due to the sensitivity limit, the redshift evolution of the temperature and the core radius is not clear, although there is large cluster-to-cluster scatter. We also found that $`\beta `$ and the central electron density have no significant redshift dependence either. The average and the standard deviation of $`\beta `$ for the 79 samples are 0.65 and 0.29, respectively.

It is remarkable that the core radius shows the largest cluster-cluster dispersions among the X-ray parameters, spanning over an order of magnitude. We also notice in Figure 1 (b) that the number of clusters with $`r_\mathrm{c}100`$ kpc is smaller compared to clusters with $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ 50 and 200 kpc.

The fraction of the irregular clusters in our sample is 43%. This is smaller than the fractions of irregular clusters of nearby clusters; 71% for 46 Einstein IPC samples (Mohr et al., 1995), 49% of 39 ROSAT PSPC samples (result with a $`1h_{80}^1`$Mpc aperture in Buote & Tsai (1996)). All the substructure tests measure departures from regularity against the level expected from Poisson noise. The typical number of photons of our cluster sample is by a factor of $`2`$ smaller than that of the nearby sample of Mohr et al. (1995). Thus this may partly account for the difference. Difference in analysis techniques to quantify irregularities and selection bias may also partly explain the difference.

### 3.2 Core radius distribution

In Figure 2 we show histograms of the core radius for the single-$`\beta `$ and the double-$`\beta `$ clusters, separately. In the histograms we included the nearby clusters of Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard (1999). Eighteen of their samples are better fitted with the double $`\beta `$-model. For the single-$`\beta `$ clusters, there are clearly two peaks at 60 kpc and 220 kpc. They are separated by about a factor of 4 and the depletion around 100 kpc is significant at the $`4\sigma `$ level if the population is comparable to those in the two peaks. About 70% of clusters (64 out of 95) are within two core-radius ranges corresponding to the peaks: $`40<r_\mathrm{c}<80`$ kpc and $`160<r_\mathrm{c}<320`$ kpc. Although the detection of large and small core clusters are seriously affected by the selection effect at $`z>0.4`$, there is no reason that makes the detection of the intermediate core sizes of $`100`$ kpc difficult and it is very unlikely that the proposers of those observations avoided clusters of the intermediate core size. Therefore, as the observed double-peaked distribution cannot be explained by selection effects, it reflects the real nature of the clusters. For the double-$`\beta `$ clusters, the inner core and the outer core are distributed around 60 kpc and 250 kpc, respectively. The coincidence with the two peak values of the single-$`\beta `$ clusters is also striking.

### 3.3 Optical morphology and $`L_\mathrm{X}T`$ relation

In Figure 1, we find a systematic difference in $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ between the regular and the irregular clusters; clusters with a small (large) core tend to have a regular (irregular) X-ray morphology. Furthermore, among 37 clusters for which the optical Bautz-Morgan type is known, all 6 clusters classified as BM I or I-II (i.e. a cluster with a cD galaxy) are found to be either a single-$`\beta `$ cluster with a small core or a double-$`\beta `$ cluster.

Concentrated gas distribution in the small core system is indicated from the plot of the $`L_\mathrm{X}T`$ relation (Figure 3). The clusters with $`r_\mathrm{c}<135`$ kpc and $`>135`$ kpc are denoted by different symbols. The core radius of the dominant core was used for the classification of the double-$`\beta `$ clusters. We obtained the observed $`L_\mathrm{X}T`$ relations of the form $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{k}T=a(\mathrm{log}L_{\mathrm{X},\mathrm{bol}}45.4)+b`$ with $`(a,b)=(0.37\pm 0.12,0.68\pm 0.04)`$ for $`r_\mathrm{c}<135`$ kpc and $`(a,b)=(0.324\pm 0.097,0.81\pm 0.03)`$ for $`r_\mathrm{c}>135`$ kpc, where the errors (90%) were estimated from the dispersion of the data points around the model function rather than the photon statistics. Thus the slopes are consistent for the two subgroups, however, the offsets differ significantly. The difference is consistent with a higher central electron density for the small core group: we find from the $`\beta `$-model analysis that $`n_{e0}`$ is approximately related to $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ through $`n_{e0}r_\mathrm{c}^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 1.5`$. Fabian et al. (1994) mentioned that the offset of clusters from the mean $`L_\mathrm{X}T`$ relation can be explained by the strength of cooling flow. We discuss the connection between the double peak structure of the core radius distribution and the $`L_\mathrm{X}T`$ relation in more detail in a separate paper (Mitsuda & Ota, 2002).

## 4 Discussion

We found that among the X-ray parameters, the core radius has the largest scatter and that its histogram shows a double-peaked distribution. The optical and X-ray morphologies and the $`L_\mathrm{X}T`$ relation show correlations with the core radius. These results indicate that the clusters are divided into two subgroups according to the core radius.

In some nearby clusters, a central concentration in the iron distribution has been detected (e.g. Ezawa et al. (1997)). This may enhance the central surface brightness and might produce a double-$`\beta `$ profile. We generated simulated single-$`\beta `$ cluster images assuming the abundance gradient profile observed for AWM7 in which the abundance increases from 0.2 to 0.5 solar toward the center, and the average temperature from 0.5 to 3 keV. When the temperature is 3 keV, the central excess emission attributed to the gradient is only about 10% and the radial profile is well fitted with the single $`\beta `$-model. When $`\mathrm{k}T`$ is lower than 1 keV, the radial profile approaches that of the outer core dominant double-$`\beta `$ cluster. Thus the outer core dominant double-$`\beta `$ clusters can be explained by simultaneous abundance and temperature gradients, because although the observed average temperatures are all higher than 2 keV, the temperature of the inner core region can be lower for outer core dominant double-$`\beta `$ clusters. However, the inner-core dominant double-$`\beta `$ clusters cannot be explained with this model.

Because of the similarity of the core radius distributions between the single-$`\beta `$ and the double-$`\beta `$ clusters, we tested the assumption that the clusters classified as the single-$`\beta `$ regular clusters also contain a double-$`\beta `$ profile within the photon statistics, assuming the ratio of the two core radii to be 1 : 4, and the ratio of central surface brightnesses 1 : 0.01 to 1 : 1. As a result, we found that the double $`\beta `$-model cannot be rejected at the 90 % level for about 2/3 of the single-$`\beta `$ regular clusters. Thus it is possible that a large fraction of the clusters contain two different length scales in X-ray brightness distribution and can be approximated with the double $`\beta `$-model. The fraction of double-$`\beta `$ clusters in nearby regular clusters (Mohr et al., 1995; Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard, 1999) is $`60`$% (4 out of 7 regular clusters). Thus the fractions are consistent for the distant and the nearby samples.

The radiative cooling timescale at the cluster center is shorter than the age of the universe for most of the small core clusters. This supports the presence of the cooling flow phenomenon (e.g. Fabian (1994)). The cooling flow model predicts the emergence of a cool component at the cluster center. If the small core radius of the small-core subgroup is due to such a cool component, these clusters should contain another emission component of a larger core radius which reflects the gravitational potential. From the upper limit of the surface brightness of the outer component from the analysis in the previous paragraph, we find the photon flux from the outer component is smaller than 25% of the total emission for most of clusters of the subgroup. Thus the average cluster temperature should reflect the average temperature of the central enhancement. However we do not observe a strong correlation between $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\mathrm{k}T`$. In particular, the temperature ranges of clusters with $`r_\mathrm{c}<135`$ and $`r_\mathrm{c}>135`$ kpc are comparable to each other (see Figure 3). The recent XMM-Newton observations of nearby cooling flow clusters revealed that the temperature gradient is not very large and is approximately $`r^{0.2}`$ (Böhringer et al. (2001); Tamura et al. (2001)). These indicate that cooling is not as efficient as the standard cooling flow predictions. However a small temperature gradient of the gas could cause differences in the gas density distribution and the underlying potential distribution. We need further investigation to clarify through which physical processes such discrete cluster structures are formed.

We are grateful to M. Hattori and S. Sasaki for useful comments. We thank Philip Edwards for his careful review of the manuscript. N.O. is supported by a Research Fellowship for Young Scientists from the JSPS.


text:
# Cardy-Verlinde Formula and asymptotically flat rotating Charged black holes

## I INTRODUCTION

In a recent paper  Verlinde made an interesting proposal that the $`(1+1)`$-dimensional Cardy formula  can be generalized to the case in arbitrary dimensions. He argued that the entropy of the conformal field theory (CFT) in a spacetime $`ds^2=dt^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,`$ can be explicitly expressed as

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi R}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}}\sqrt{E_c(2EE_c)},`$ (1)
where $`E`$ is the total energy, $`E_c`$ is the Casimir energy, and $`a_1`$ and $`b_1`$ are two positive coefficients which are independent of $`R`$ and $`S`$. For strong coupled CFT’s with AdS dual, the value of $`\sqrt{a_1b_1}`$ is fixed to $`n`$ exactly. The expression (1) is now referred to as the Cardy-Verlinde formula.

The study of validity of the Cardy-Verlinde formula (1) for every typical spacetimes has attracted much attention recently ,  - since it has not been proved for all CFT’s exactly yet: For the AdS Schwarzschild black holes in various dimensions the formula (1) holds exactly ; The Cardy-Verlinde formula is valid for the AdS Reissner-Nordström black hole if we subtract the electric potential energy from the Casimir and total energies , but it is invalid for the AdS black holes in higher derivative gravity ; The formula holds for the Taub-Bolt-AdS spacetimes at high temperature limit ; Klemm, Petkou, and Siopsis  showed that the Cardy-Verlinde formula holds for the Kerr-AdSn black holes; Motivating by the observational evidence that our universe has positive cosmological constant  and an interesting proposal for dS/CFT correspondence , Danielsson , Cai , Medved , and Ogushi  et al attempt to generalize the formula to the case of the de Sitter (dS) black holes; We  verified the Cardy-Verlinde formula by using the Kerr-Newman-AdS4 and Kerr-Newman-dS4 black holes and found that it holds for these black holes if we modify the definitions of the Casimir energy and the extensive energy.

An interesting question, whether the Cardy-Verlinde formula holds for a more general setting, e. g. for the black holes that are asymptotically flat rather than approaching AdS/dS space, was proposed by Klemm, Petkou, and Zanon . They argued that for the asymptotically flat Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes in any dimensions the Cardy-Verlinde formula can be expressed as

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{n}}\sqrt{E_c2E},`$ (2)
where $`r_+`$ is the radius of the event horizon. However, at the moment the question whether or not the Cardy-Verlinde formula can be generalized to the asymptotically flat rotating charged black holes obtained from the Einstein-Maxwell theory and low-energy effective field theory describing string still remains open. The main aim of this paper is to study the question by using some typical spacetimes, such as the Kerr-Newman, Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton-axion (EMDA), Kaluza-Klein, and Sen black holes. The another purpose of the paper is to study the entropy bounds for the systems in which the matters surround these black holes.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we study the Cardy-Verlinde formula and entropy bound for the Kerr-Newman black hole. In Sec. III, we consider the same question for the case of the EMDA black hole. In Sec. IV, we investigate the case of the Kaluza-Klein black hole. In Sec. V, we discuss the case of the Sen black hole. We present some discussions and conclusions in the last section.

## II The Kerr-Newman black hole

The general charged stationary axisymmetric black hole obtained from the Einstein-Maxwell gravitational theory is the Kerr-Newman black hole. Mazur  showed that the Kerr-Newman solution is the only stationary, axisymmetric electrovac solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. In the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates the metric of the black hole reads

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a^2sin^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}\right)dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{2a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (r^2+a^2\mathrm{\Delta })}{\rho ^2}}dtd\varphi `$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}dr^2+\rho ^2d\theta ^2+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+a^2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}\right]\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2,`$
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^22Mr+Q^2,`$ (5)
$`\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$ (6)
where the parameters $`M`$, $`a`$, and $`Q`$ represent the mass, angular momentum, and electric charge of the black hole, respectively. The event horizon is located at $`r_+`$, which is determined by the largest root of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r=0`$. The mass $`M`$ can be expressed as

$$M=\frac{r_+^2+a^2+Q^2}{2r_+}.$$
(7)
Euclideanizing the metric (4) and identifying $`\tau \tau +\beta `$ and $`\varphi \varphi +i\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_H`$, we can get the inverse Hawking temperature and the angular velocity of the event horizon

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r_+(r_+^2+a^2)}{r_+^2a^2Q^2}},`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r_+^2+a^2}}.`$ (9)
The angular momentum, electric potential and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy are

$`𝒥`$ $`=`$ $`Ma,`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Qr_+}{r_+^2+a^2}},`$ (11)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\pi (r_+^2+a^2).`$ (12)
An electric potential when the rotation parameter $`a`$ goes to be zero is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q0}=\underset{a0}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }_Q={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{r_+}}.`$ (13)
For the rotating black hole we define the Casimir energy as

$`E_c=n\left(E+pVTS𝒥\mathrm{\Omega }_H{\displaystyle \frac{Q\mathrm{\Phi }_Q}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q0}}{2}}\right),`$ (14)
where the pressure is defined as $`p=\left(\frac{E}{V}\right)_{S,J,Q}`$ and $`n=2`$. The definition of the Casimir energy (14) takes the same form as that of the Kerr-Newman-AdS4 and Kerr-Newman-dS4 black holes . Substituting Eqs. (9), (12), and (13) into Eq. (14), we get

$`E_c={\displaystyle \frac{(r_+^2+a^2)}{r_+}}.`$ (15)
We also define the extensive energy as

$`E_{ext}=2\left(E{\displaystyle \frac{Q\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q0}}{2}}\right)=2(EE_Q),`$ (16)
where $`E_Q=\frac{Q\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q0}}{2}`$. In this case the extensive energy is

$`E_{ext}={\displaystyle \frac{(r_+^2+a^2)}{r_+}}.`$ (17)
We should note that the definition of the extensive energy (16) is different from that of the Kerr-Newman-AdS4 and Kerr-Newman-dS4 black holes  by a term $`E_c`$. With the Casimir energy (15) and the extensive energy (17), we find that the entropy of the CFT on the horizon can be written as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{n}}\sqrt{E_c\left[2\left(EE_Q\right)\right]}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\pi (r_+^2+a^2),`$ (19)
which is equal to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the Kerr-Newman black hole. The result in this section reduces to that of the Kerr black hole obtained in Ref.  when the charge $`Q`$ becomes zero.

We now study the entropy bound for a system in which some matters surround the Kerr-Newman black hole. We can define the entropy $`S_B`$ which relates the energy $`EE_Q`$ by

$`S_B=2\pi (EE_Q)R,`$ (20)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the sphere circumscribing the system ($`Rr_+`$). Substituting Eq. (16) into (20) we get

$`S_B=\pi (r_+^2+a^2){\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_+}}=S{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_+}},`$ (21)
which shows that

$`SS_B=2\pi R\left(E{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2r_+}}\right).`$ (22)
It reduces to the Bekenstein bound when the charge $`Q`$ becomes zero.

## III The Stationary axisymmetric EMDA black hole

The general four-dimensional low-energy action obtained from string theory is

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{\mathrm{g}}(2\mathrm{g}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{4\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{g}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{K}_\mathrm{a}_\nu \mathrm{K}_a`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{g}^{\mu \lambda }\mathrm{g}^{\nu \rho }\mathrm{F}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{F}_{\lambda \rho }\mathrm{K}_a\mathrm{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{F}}^{\mu \nu }),`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{g}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }`$, where $``$ is the scalar Riemann curvature, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the massless dilaton field, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the electromagnetic antisymmetric tensor field, and $`K_\mathrm{a}`$ is the axion field dual to the three-index antisymmetric tensor field $`H=\mathrm{exp}(4\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{d}K_\mathrm{a}/4`$.

The stationary axisymmetric EMDA black hole solution get from the action (we take the solution $`b=0`$ in Eq.(14) in Ref.; the reason we use this solution is that the solution $`b0`$ cannot be interpreted properly as a black hole) is given  by

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}\mathrm{d}t^2{\displaystyle \frac{2a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}\left[(r^2+a^22Dr)\rho ^2\right]\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}\varphi `$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{d}r^2+\rho ^2\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}\left[(r^2+a^22Dr)^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right]\mathrm{d}\varphi ^2,`$
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=r^22mr+a^2,\rho ^2=r^22Dr+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,`$ (27)
and

$`\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ),\omega =\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0},`$ (28)
$`K_a`$ $`=`$ $`K_0+{\displaystyle \frac{2aD\mathrm{cos}\theta }{W}},A_t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(Qr\mathrm{g}a\mathrm{cos}\theta ),A_r=A_\theta =0,`$ (29)
$`A_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\mathrm{\Delta }}}(Qra^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{g}(r^2+a^2)a\mathrm{cos}\theta ).`$ (30)
The mass $`M`$, angular momentum $`𝒥`$, electric charge $`Q`$, and magnetic charge $`P`$ of the black hole are given by

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`mD,𝒥=a(mD),`$ (31)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2\omega D(Dm)},P=\mathrm{g}.`$ (32)
The inverse Hawking temperature and the angular velocity are

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r_+(r_+^2+a^22Dr_+)}{(r_+^2a^2)}},`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r_+^2+a^22Dr_+}}.`$ (34)
The electric potential and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole are

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Qr_+}{\omega (r_+^2+a^22Dr_+)}},`$ (35)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\pi (r_+^2+a^22Dr_+).`$ (36)
We now define the Casimir energy as

$`E_c=n\left(E+pVTS𝒥\mathrm{\Omega }_H{\displaystyle \frac{Q\mathrm{\Phi }_Q}{2}}\right),`$ (37)
where $`n=2`$ and the pressure is defined as $`p=\left(\frac{E}{V}\right)_{S,J,Q}`$. Substituting quantities of the EMDA black hole into Eq. (37), we arrive at

$`E_c={\displaystyle \frac{(r_+^2+a^22Dr_+)}{r_+}}=2E.`$ (38)
Thus the entropy of the CFT can be cast as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{n}}\sqrt{E_c2E}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`\pi (r_+^2+a^22Dr_+).`$ (40)
It is of interest to note that the definitions of the Casimir energy (37) of the EMDA black hole has similar form as that of the Kerr-Newman black hole, but the Cardy-Verlinde formula (40) takes the same form as that of the Kerr black hole (2). We should not be surprised at this fact because the charged EMDA black hole possesses several different properties as compared to the charged Kerr-Newman black hole: (a) The horizons of the Kerr-Newman black hole are given by $`r_\pm =M\pm \sqrt{M^2a^2Q^2}`$, whereas in the case of the EMDA black hole we have $`r_\pm =m\pm \sqrt{m^2a^2}`$ which takes the same form as that of the Kerr black hole; (b) The heat capacity of the Kerr-Newman black hole is $`C_{QJ}=\frac{MS^3T}{\pi 𝒥^2+\pi Q^2/4S^3T^2}`$, while for the EMDA black hole we get $`C_{QJ}=\frac{MS^3T}{\pi 𝒥^2S^3T^2}`$  which also has the same form as that of the Kerr black hole.

We now study the entropy bound for a system in which some matters surround the black hole. We can define an entropy $`S_B`$ which relates the energy $`E`$ by

$`S_B=2\pi ER=\pi (r_+^2+a^22Dr_+){\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_+}}=S{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_+}}.`$ (41)
Thus we have

$`SS_B=2\pi RE.`$ (42)
Which takes the same form as that of the Bekenstein bound (2).

## IV The stationary Kaluza-Klein black hole

The four dimensional low-energy action obtained from string theory is

$$I=\frac{1}{2\kappa }d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[2(\varphi )^2e^{2\alpha \varphi }F^2\right],$$
(43)
where $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton scalar field, $`F_{ab}`$ is the Maxwell field, and $`\alpha `$ is a free parameter which governs the strength of the coupling of the dilaton to the Maxwell field. The stationary Kaluza-Klein black hole is described by a solution of the motion equations obtained from Eq. (43) with $`\alpha =\sqrt{3}`$, which takes the form

$`ds^2=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1Z}{B}}dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{2aZ\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{B\sqrt{1v^2}}}dtd\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{B\rho ^2}{\mathrm{}_r}}dr^2+B\rho ^2d\theta ^2`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`\left[B(r^2+a^2)+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{Z}{B}}\right]\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2,`$ (45)
with

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2mr}{\rho ^2}},B=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2Z}{1v^2}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (46)
$`\rho ^2`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,\mathrm{}_r=r^2+a^22mr,`$ (47)
where $`a`$ and $`v`$ are the rotation parameter and the velocity of the boost. The dilaton scalar field, and the vector potential of the stationary Kaluza-Klein black hole are

$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}\mathrm{ln}B,A_t={\displaystyle \frac{v}{2(1v^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{B^2}},A_\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{av\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{2\sqrt{1v^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{B^2}}.`$ (48)
We get the inverse Hawking temperature and the angular velocity

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r_+(r_+^2+a^2)}{(r_+^2a^2)\sqrt{1v^2}}},`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a\sqrt{1v^2}}{r_+^2+a^2}}.`$ (50)
The ADM mass, angular momentum $`𝒥`$, charge $`Q`$, and corresponding potential of the black hole are given by

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2(1v^2)}}\right]m,`$ (51)
$`𝒥`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ma}{\sqrt{1v^2}}},`$ (52)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mv}{1v^2}},`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Qr_+(1v^2)}{r_+^2+a^2}},`$ (54)
while the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole is

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{\pi (r_+^2+a^2)}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}.`$ (55)
As the EMDA black hole we define the Casimir energy as

$`E_c=n\left(E+pVTS𝒥\mathrm{\Omega }_H{\displaystyle \frac{Q\mathrm{\Phi }_Q}{2}}\right),`$ (56)
where $`n=2`$ and the pressure is defined as $`p=\left(\frac{E}{V}\right)_{S,J,Q}`$. Substituting Eqs. (50), and (55) into Eq. (56), we get

$`E_c={\displaystyle \frac{(r_+^2+a^2)(2v^2)}{2r_+(1v^2)}}.`$ (57)
The extensive energy is defined as

$`E_{ext}=2E={\displaystyle \frac{(r_+^2+a^2)(2v^2)}{2r_+(1v^2)}}.`$ (58)
Then, the entropy of the CFT can be cast into

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}}\sqrt{E_c2E}`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (r_+^2+a^2)}{\sqrt{1v^2}}},`$ (60)
where

$`a_1=b_1={\displaystyle \frac{n\left(1\frac{v^2}{2}\right)}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}.`$ (61)
The definition of the Casimir energy (56) and the Cardy-Verlinde formula (60) possess the same form as that of the EMDA black hole. The entropy of the CFT (60) agrees exactly with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (55).

To study the entropy bound for a system in which some matters surround the Kaluza-Klein black hole, we can define an entropy $`S_B`$ as

$`S_B=2\pi ER\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi (r_+^2+a^2)}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_+}}=S{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_+}}.`$ (62)
Noting that $`Rr_+`$ we obtain

$`SS_B=2\pi RE\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}}\right).`$ (63)
The entropy bound is different from the Bekenstein bound by a factor $`\frac{n}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}`$. We know from the Fig. (1) that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}}1.`$ (64)
The relation shows that the entropy bound (63) is tighter than the Bekenstein bound $`S2\pi ER`$ .

## V The Sen black hole in heterotic string

The effective action of a toroidally compactified heterotic string in $`D`$-dimensions takes the form

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle }d^Dx\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(D2)}}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}(_\mu ML_\nu ML)`$ (66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}e^{2\alpha \varphi }g^{\mu \mu ^{}}g^{\nu \nu ^{}}g^{\rho \rho ^{}}H_{\mu \nu \rho }H_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}\rho ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}g^{\mu \mu ^{}}g^{\nu \nu ^{}}_{\mu \nu }^i(LML)_{ij}_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^j],`$
where $`g\mathrm{det}g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`_g`$ is the Ricci scalar of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the dilaton field, $`_{\mu \nu }^i=_\mu 𝒜_\nu ^i_\nu 𝒜_\mu ^i`$ are the $`U(1)^{362D}`$ gauge field strengths, $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }=(_\mu B_{\nu \rho }+2𝒜_\mu ^iL_{ij}_{\nu \rho }^j)+\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{permutations}\mathrm{of}\mu ,\nu ,\rho ,`$ and $`M`$ is the O(10-D, 26-D) symmetric matrix and $`L`$ is

$$L=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& I_{10D}& 0\\ I_{10D}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& I_{26D}\end{array}\right).$$
(67)
The metric of the Sen black hole is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Delta }^1(r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 2mr)dt^2+(r^2+a^22mr)^1dr^2+d\theta ^2`$ (70)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }^1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta [\mathrm{\Delta }+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +2mr\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta )]d\varphi ^2`$
$`2\mathrm{\Delta }^1mra\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cosh}\beta )dtd\varphi \},`$
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=(r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )^2+2mr(r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta 1)+m^2r^2(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta )^2,$$
(71)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are two boosts, and $`a`$ and $`m`$ represent the rotational and mass parameters, respectively. The black hole will be called Sen black hole for short. The two horizons of the black hole are shown by

$$r_+=m\pm \sqrt{m^2a^2}.$$
(72)
The surface gravity of the black hole is given by,

$$\kappa =\frac{\sqrt{m^2a^2}}{m(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cosh}\beta )(m+\sqrt{m^2a^2})}.$$
(73)
$`\kappa /2\pi `$ can be interpreted as the Hawking temperature of the black hole. The angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at the horizon is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_H=\frac{a}{m(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cosh}\beta )(m+\sqrt{m^2a^2})}.$$
(74)
The mass $`M`$, angular momentum $`𝒥`$, electric charge $`Q^a`$ and magnetic dipole moment $`\mu ^a`$ given by

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m(1+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta ),`$ (75)
$`𝒥`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ma(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cosh}\beta ),`$ (76)
$`Q^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sinh}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta n^a\text{for}1a22`$ (77)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sinh}\beta \mathrm{cosh}\alpha p^{(a22)}\text{for}23a28,`$ (78)
$`\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}ma\mathrm{sinh}\alpha n^a\text{for}1a22`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}ma\mathrm{sinh}\beta p^{(a22)}\text{for}23a28.`$ (80)
The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole is

$$S=\pi m(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cosh}\beta )(m+\sqrt{m^2a^2}).$$
(81)
By setting the boost parameter $`\beta =0`$, the metric (70) reduces to the black hole in Ref.  and Eq. (75) becomes

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m(1+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha )}{2}},𝒥={\displaystyle \frac{ma(1+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha )}{2}},`$ (82)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{sinh}\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}},\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{ma\mathrm{sinh}\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (83)
See Eq.(16) and Eq.(17) of Ref.. This is a special case of the Sen black hole, so the discussion in this section will be valid for the black hole.

The Casimir energy can also be define as

$`E_c=n\left(E+pVTS𝒥\mathrm{\Omega }_H{\displaystyle \frac{Q\mathrm{\Phi }_Q}{2}}\right),`$ (84)
where $`n=2`$ and the pressure is defined as $`p=\left(\frac{E}{V}\right)_{S,J,Q}`$. Substituting quantities of the black hole into Eq. (84), we arrive at

$`E_c={\displaystyle \frac{(r_+^2+a^2)(1+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta )}{2r_+}}=2E.`$ (85)
Therefore, the entropy of the CFT can be expressed as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}}\sqrt{E_c2E}`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}(r_+^2+a^2)(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cosh}\beta ),`$ (87)
where

$`a_1=b_1={\displaystyle \frac{n(1+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta )}{\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cosh}\beta }}.`$ (88)
The entropy of the CFT (87) is equal to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (81). The the Casimir energy (84) and the Cardy-Verlinde formula (87) for the Sen black hole also take the same form as that of the EMDA and Kaluza-Klein black holes. The result can be used for the black hole in Ref. , i. e., for the case $`\beta =0`$.

For a system in which matter surrounds the Sen black hole, we can define the entropy $`S_B`$ which relates the energy $`E`$ by

$`S_B`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ER\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}}\right)`$ (89)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (r_+^2+a^2)(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cosh}\beta )}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_+}}`$ (90)
$`=`$ $`S{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_+}}.`$ (91)
From which we obtain the entropy bound

$`SS_B=2\pi RE\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}}\right).`$ (92)
The Fig. (2) shows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}}1.`$ (93)
Therefore, as the case of the Kaluza-Klein black hole, we also note that the entropy bound (92) for the Sen black hole is tighter than the Bekenstein one.

## VI conclusion and discussion

The Cardy-Verlinde formula, which relates the entropy of the conformal field theory to its Casimir energy $`E_c`$, the energy $`E`$ (or the extensive energy), and the radius $`R`$ of the unit sphere $`S^n`$, is generalized to the asymptotically flat rotating charged black holes in the Einstein-Maxwell theory and low-energy effective field theory describing string, such as the Kerr-Newman, EMDA, Kaluza-Klein, and Sen black holes.

For the Kerr-Newman black hole, we find that the definition of the Casimir energy (14) takes the same form as that of the Kerr-Newman-AdS4 and Kerr-Newman-dS4 black holes , while the extensive energy (16) is different from that of the Kerr-Newman-AdS4 and Kerr-Newman-dS4 black holes . The Cardy-Verlinde formula for the black hole can be generalized as $`S=\frac{2\pi r_+}{n}\sqrt{E_c\left[2\left(EE_Q\right)\right]}.`$

The charged EMDA, Kaluza-Klein, and Sen black holes possess some special properties as compare to the Kerr-Newman black hole. The definition of the Casimir energies (37), (56), and (84) have the similar form as that of the Kerr-Newman black hole, but the Cardy-Verlinde formulae (40), (60), and (87) take the same form as that of the Kerr black hole , which can be written as follows a united form $`S=\frac{2\pi r_+}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}\sqrt{E_c2E},`$ where $`\sqrt{a_1b_1}=n`$ for the EMDA black hole, $`\sqrt{a_1b_1}=\frac{n\left(1v^2/2\right)}{\sqrt{1v^2}}`$ for the Kaluza-Klein black hole, and $`\sqrt{a_1b_1}=\frac{n(1+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta )}{\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\mathrm{cosh}\beta }`$ for the Sen black hole. The result is also valid for the black hole in Ref.  since it can be considered as a special case of the Sen black hole.

Another important conclusion obtained for these asymptotically flat rotating charged black holes is that the entropies of the CFTs agree precisely with their Bekenstein-Hawking entropies.

For stationary charged black holes in the Einstein-Maxwell theory and the low-energy effective field theory describing string, by using the covariant phase technique  and Carlip’s boundary  conditions, we constructed  the standard Virasoro subalgebra with corresponding central charge at the Killing horizons and proved that the density of states determined by conformal fields theory methods yields the statistical entropy which agrees with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. Comparing the result with that obtained in this paper, it is surprising to note that different ways arrive at the same conclusion!

Furthermore, we also study the entropy bounds for the systems in which the matters surrounds these black holes. For the case of the Kerr-Newman black hole, the bound $`S2\pi R\left(E\frac{Q^2}{2r_+}\right)`$ is tightened by the electric charge. The bound reduces to the Bekenstein bound when the charge $`Q`$ becomes zero. For the case of the charged EMDA, Kaluza-Klein, and Sen black holes, the entropy bound can be expressed as a unified form, $`S2\pi ER\frac{n}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}`$. It is of interest to note that the entropy bound for the Kaluza-Klein and Sen black holes is tighter than the Bekenstein one since $`\frac{n}{\sqrt{a_1b_1}}1`$ for these cases.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 19975018, and Theoretical Physics Special Foundation of China under Grant No. 19947004.