text:
# Vacuum polarization in two-dimensional static spacetimes and dimensional reduction

## I Introduction

In a spacetime possessing a continuous symmetry one can decompose a quantum field into harmonics on the symmetrical subspace, effectively reducing the dimensionality of the system. For example, a quantum field in a four-dimensional spherically symmetric spacetime can be recast as a collection of two-dimensional fields labelled by their angular momentum. If one or a few of these modes make the dominant contribution to vacuum polarization in four dimensions, solving the reduced theory only for the modes of interest allows one to truncate “irrelevant” degrees of freedom.

This idea motivates much of the literature on two-dimensional black holes. By restricting attention to the spherically symmetric “$`s`$ mode” of a quantum field, which contributes the bulk of the Hawking radiation Ha:75  emitted by Schwarzschild black holes, several authors MuWiZe:94 ; NoOd:97 ; HaBo:97 ; BaFa:99 ; KuLiVa:98  have proposed two-dimensional effective actions which could be used for the calculation of back-reaction effects and black-hole evaporation. These actions have difficulty, however, in reproducing the expected amount of Hawking radiation, in some cases predicting a negative flux (anti-evaporation) BuRa:00 . Before these actions can be trusted for back-reaction calculations, it is imperative to understand the behaviour of modes of fixed angular momentum in the Schwarzschild geometry.

A recent paper BaFaNiFrSuZe:01  partially addressed this question. Using point-splitting regularization and the well-known WKB approximation, the stress tensor due to the $`s`$ mode of a massless, minimally coupled quantum scalar field in the Schwarzschild geometry was found. A careful analysis demonstrated that the field is regular at the event horizon in the Hartle-Hawking state, and also exhibits the expected Hawking flux at infinity.

In this paper we extend the analysis of BaFaNiFrSuZe:01  to general two-dimensional static spacetimes and consider arbitrary harmonics of massive, nonminimally coupled scalar fields. We use the high-frequency approximation FrSuZe:02 ; FrSuZe:00 ; Su:00b  to construct an effective action describing the quantum effects of a scalar field mode of fixed angular momentum at both zero and arbitrary finite temperature. This action is shown to yield a stress tensor which for the Schwarzschild spacetime coincides exactly with that obtained in canonical quantization through point-splitting regularization using the WKB approximation for the modes. As before BaFaNiFrSuZe:01 , corrections to the WKB and high-frequency approximations are necessary to investigate the near-horizon behaviour. We show that the stress tensor is regular on the Schwarzschild horizon in the Hartle-Hawking state for arbitrary mass, coupling and angular momentum, and that it reduces to a thermal gas of massive particles at spatial infinity.

In Section II we review the quantum field–dilaton gravity model. Section III briefly outlines the high-frequency approximation and applies it to our system, producing analytic expressions for the effective action and stress tensor throughout the spacetime. Special attention is devoted to the region near the horizon in Section IV, where we demonstrate the regularity of the field in the Hartle-Hawking state. We conclude with some brief comments in section V.

## II Quantum Field Coupled to Dilaton Gravity

We wish to construct the two-dimensional theory corresponding to a mode of fixed angular momentum of a scalar field in a four-dimensional static 111A static geometry is a requirement of our approximation scheme. spherically symmetric geometry. The line element may be written as

$$ds^2=h_{ab}(x^c)dx^adx^b+\rho ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi (x^c)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}(y^k)dy^idy^j,$$
(2.1)
where $`h_{ab}`$ is a static two-dimensional Euclidean metric, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$ is the metric of the unit two-sphere, $`\rho `$ is a constant with dimensions of length, and $`r\rho \mathrm{e}^\varphi `$; the function $`\varphi `$ is termed the dilaton. The four-dimensional scalar field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ satisfies the equation

$$(\mathrm{}m^2\xi ^4R)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0,$$
(2.2)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}R`$ are the d’Alembertian and scalar curvature in four dimensions.

Our model is obtained by decomposing $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in terms of spherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}(y^i)`$ on the two-sphere:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x^c,y^k)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\widehat{\phi }_l(x^c)\frac{Y_{lm}(y^i)}{r}.$$
(2.3)
The two-dimensional field $`\widehat{\phi }_l`$ satisfies

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2V)\widehat{\phi }_l=0,$$
(2.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the d’Alembertian for the metric $`h_{ab}`$, the potential $`V`$ is

$$V=\xi R+\frac{1}{r^2}[2\xi +l(l+1)]+(4\xi 1)\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +(16\xi )(\varphi )^2,$$
(2.5)
and $`R`$ is the two-dimensional scalar curvature associated with $`h_{ab}`$. Equations (2.4)–(2.5) define the 2D quantum field theory which we will study. The special case $`m=0`$, $`\xi =0`$, $`l=0`$ in a Schwarzschild geometry was dealt with in BaFaNiFrSuZe:01  (see also MuWiZe:94 ; NoOd:97 ; BaFa:99 ; KuLiVa:98 ).

In Section III we use the high-frequency approximation to calculate the one-loop effective action $`W`$ for (2.4)–(2.5). Given $`W`$, the expectation value of the stress tensor can be obtained as

$$T_{ab}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{h}}\frac{\delta W}{\delta h^{ab}}.$$
(2.6)
This two-dimensional stress tensor is not conserved BaFa:99 ; Su:00b ; rather, it satisfies

$$_aT^{ab}=2^b\varphi P,$$
(2.7)
where the “effective pressure” $`P`$ corresponds to $`T_\theta {}_{}{}^{\theta }`$ from four dimensions. This pressure is also easily calculated from the effective action:

$$P=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{h}}\frac{\delta W}{\delta \varphi }.$$
(2.8)
Equations (2.7), (2.8) follow from the conservation of the full four-dimensional stress tensor. Using the relationship (2.3) between the four-dimensional field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and its two-dimensional counterpart $`\widehat{\phi }_l`$, one can express the four-dimensional stress tensor in terms of the two-dimensional one. Substitution into the four-dimensional conservation equation then yields (2.7). For details, see BaFa:99 ; Su:00a ; Su:00b .

Local observables may also be calculated using the Euclidean Green function, which satisfies

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2V)G(x,x)=\frac{\delta (xx^{})}{\sqrt{h}}$$
(2.9)
and is related to the effective action by the formal expression

$$W=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}G.$$
(2.10)
The stress tensor and pressure can be obtained by applying certain differential operators to the Green function:

$$T_{ab}=\underset{x^{}x}{lim}D_{ab}G(x,x^{}),$$
(2.11a)
$$P=\underset{x^{}x}{lim}DG(x,x^{}),$$
(2.11b)
where Su:00b
$`D_{ab}`$ $``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi )(h_a{}_{}{}^{c^{}}_{c^{}}^{}_b+h_b{}_{}{}^{c^{}}_{a}^{}_c^{})\xi (_a_b+h_a{}_{}{}^{c^{}}h_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{d^{}}_{c^{}}^{}_d^{})`$ (2.11c)
$`+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})h_{ab}h^{cd^{}}_c_d^{}+\xi R_{ab}+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})h_{ab}\varphi ^c\left(_c+h_c^d^{}_d^{}\right)`$
$`(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\left[\varphi _a(_b+h_b^d^{}_d^{})+\varphi _b(_a+h_a^d^{}_d^{})\right]+(16\xi )\varphi _a\varphi _b`$
$`+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})h_{ab}\left[m^2+\xi R+4\xi \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +(16\xi )(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}(2\xi +l(l+1))\right],`$
$`D`$ $``$ $`(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})h^{cd^{}}_c_d^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(16\xi )\left[\varphi ^c\left(_c+h_c^d^{}_d^{}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right]`$ (2.11d)
$`+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\left[m^2+\xi R+(4\xi 1)\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +(16\xi )(\varphi )^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{r^2}}(2\xi +l(l+1)).`$
Here $`h_a^b^{}`$ is the bivector of parallel transport, and $`\varphi _a\varphi _{;a}`$. This technique will be used to calculate corrections to the high-frequency approximation near the event horizon in Section IV.

## III High-Frequency Approximation in Dilaton Gravity

The high-frequency approximation FrSuZe:02 ; FrSuZe:00 ; Su:00b  is a new generalized approximation scheme for quantum fields in static spacetimes. Here we apply this scheme to our dilaton gravity model (2.4)–(2.5). In Appendix A we show that for the $`s`$ mode ($`l=0`$) in the reduced Schwarzschild spacetime our high-frequency approximation is equivalent to the WKB approximation; however, the high-frequency approximation is simpler and gives the effective action for general static spacetimes and field modes. Our analysis will be brief; for additional details see FrSuZe:00 ; FrSuZe:02 ; Su:00b .

### III.1 High-Frequency Approximation in Two Dimensions

The high-frequency approximation models the observable of interest, in this case the effective action, using the ultraviolet divergences of the theory. Since high frequencies are equivalent to short distances, one is in essence assuming that the dominant features of the field (aside from any temperature dependence) can be approximated using its local behaviour.

The procedure is simple:

1. Use as the starting point the Schwinger-DeWitt short-distance expansion Ch:76 ; BiDa:82  for the observable of interest, which is a local expression containing all of the ultraviolet divergences of the theory. Since only this ultraviolet behaviour is of interest, discard any terms in the expansion which are finite in the coincidence limit.
2. Fourier transform over the time splitting, expand in a Laurent series in the inverse frequency $`\omega ^1`$ as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$, and retain only those terms which diverge when summed over $`\omega `$. (These are the only terms which are unambiguously specified by the ultraviolet divergences of the theory.) This defines the high-frequency approximation in the frequency domain.
3. Return to the time domain by summing over all frequencies (performing the inverse Fourier transform).
4. Renormalize in the usual way for point splitting, by subtracting the Schwinger-DeWitt expansion.

Let us apply this scheme to our dilaton-gravity model. We may write the line element of a two-dimensional static spacetime as

$$ds^2=h_{ab}dx^adx^b=\mathrm{e}^{4\eta (x)}dt^2+dx^2,$$
(3.1)
where $`\eta `$ is a function of the coordinate $`x`$ but not of $`t`$. Then for infinitesimally separated points, the Schwinger-DeWitt expansion Ch:76 ; BiDa:82  for the Lagrangian of the effective action (2.10) is

$`L_{\text{DS}}(t,x;t^{},x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi (\tau ^2+ϵ^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}RVm^2\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(\tau ^2+ϵ^2)}{4\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma }}}`$ (3.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi }}\mathrm{\Delta }\eta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi }}(\eta )^2+𝒪(\tau ^2,ϵ^2),`$
where $`\tau ^2=\mathrm{e}^{4\eta }(tt^{})^2`$, $`ϵ=(xx^{})^2`$, and $`\gamma `$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.

To construct our approximation, we Fourier transform over the time splitting:

$$L(x;x^{}|\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{e}^{i\omega t}L(t,x;0,x^{}).$$
(3.3)
Since we are only interested in the high-frequency limit of $`L(x;x^{}|\omega )`$, we need accurately model only the divergences of $`L(t,x;t^{},x^{})`$. Casting off terms in (3.2) which are finite in the coincidence limit 222There is an ambiguity in how one specifies the divergent part of the logarithm term in (3.2). Our choice corresponds to using $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(\tau ^2+ϵ^2)}{4\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma }}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(\tau ^2+ϵ^2)}{1+m^2\tau ^2}}`$. and using equations (3.723.2) and (4.382.3) of GrRy:94 , we arrive at 333 $`L(x,x^{}|\omega )`$ also contains a $`1/ϵ`$ term which is the usual leading divergence for a one-dimensional action; it is the ‘superficial’ divergence encountered by Candelas and Howard CaHo:84  and others An:90 ; AnHiSa:95 , and may be safely ignored.

$$L_{\text{HFA}}^{\text{bare}}(x;x|\omega )\frac{|\omega |}{2\chi ^2}\frac{1}{4|\omega |}\left(\frac{1}{6}RVm^2\right),$$
(3.4)
where $`\chi ^2=\mathrm{e}^{4\eta }`$ is the norm of the Killing vector $`\chi ^a`$ for the static space (3.1), and we have dropped all terms of $`𝒪(\omega ^3)`$ and higher.

We return to the time domain by summing (3.4) over all frequencies. For a scalar field at finite temperature $`T=\beta ^1`$ the allowed frequencies are discrete,

$$\omega _n=n\frac{2\pi }{\beta },$$
(3.5)
where $`n`$ is an integer. (From (3.5), it is clear that the high-frequency approximation includes an assumption of high temperature.) The bare approximate effective Lagrangian in the time domain can then be evaluated using equation (E1) of AnHiSa:95 , giving

$`L_{\text{HFA}}^{\text{bare}}(t,x;t^{},x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _n(tt^{}))L_{\text{HFA}}^{\text{bare}}(x;x|\omega _n)`$ (3.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \tau ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6\chi ^2\beta ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}RVm^2\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\tau ^2}{\chi ^2\beta ^2}}.`$ (3.7)
Note that the zero-frequency mode makes no contribution in the high-frequency approximation; from (3.4)–(3.5), it consists of one term proportional to $`n`$, which vanishes, and one term proportional to $`1/n`$, which must be dropped to regularize the infrared behaviour of the Lagrangian.

The ultraviolet divergences are renormalized in the usual way by subtracting the Schwinger-DeWitt expansion (3.2); integrating over the spacetime then gives the renormalized effective action

$`W_{\text{HFA}}^{\text{ren}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{h}\left[\frac{\pi }{6\chi ^2\beta ^2}\frac{m^2}{8\pi }+\frac{(\eta )^2}{6\pi }\frac{1}{8\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2\beta ^2\chi ^2}{16\pi ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma }}\right)\left(\frac{1}{6}RVm^2\right)\right]},`$ (3.8)
where we have discarded a surface term. This action can be put into explicitly covariant form by the substitution

$$\eta =\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\chi ^2.$$
(3.9)
All further expectation values will be calculated from $`W_{\text{HFA}}^{\text{ren}}`$ and hence will be renormalized already, so the superscript ‘ren’ will be dropped.

To determine the stress tensor we must specify the potential $`V`$. Using (2.5), (2.6), and (2.8), we find

$`T_{ab}_{\text{HFA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6\beta ^2\chi ^2}}\left[h_{ab}2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _a\chi _b}{\chi ^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }}h_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi }}h_{ab}(\eta )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi }}_a\eta _b\eta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _a\chi _b}{\chi ^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ (3.10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _a\chi _b}{\chi ^2}}\left[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi )Rm^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}[2\xi +l(l+1)]+(14\xi )\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +(6\xi 1)(\varphi )^2\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi )2[_a_b\eta h_{ab}\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ]+(14\xi )[_a\varphi _b\eta +_b\varphi _a\eta h_{ab}\varphi \eta ]\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2\beta ^2\chi ^2}{16\pi ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma }}}\right)[h_{ab}(m^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}[2\xi +l(l+1)]+(6\xi 1)(\varphi )^2)`$
$`+2(16\xi )_a\varphi _b\varphi ],`$
$`P_{\text{HFA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left[(14\xi )2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta +(16\xi )4\varphi \eta \right]`$ (3.11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2\beta ^2\chi ^2}{16\pi ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma }}}\right)\left[(6\xi 1)\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}[2\xi +l(l+1)]\right],`$
where use of

$$\frac{\delta \eta }{\delta h^{ab}}=\frac{\chi _a\chi _b}{4\chi ^2}$$
(3.12)
has been made. One can verify that the stress tensor and pressure obey the “conservation” equation (2.7). For the conformally invariant theory ($`m=0`$, $`\xi =0`$, and $`l=0`$), this stress tensor also has the correct anomalous trace BiDa:82  of

$$T_\nu {}_{}{}^{\nu }_{\text{HFA}}=\frac{1}{4\pi }(\frac{1}{6}RV).$$
(3.13)
Equations (3.10)–(3.11) provide analytic expressions for expectation values for a wide class of quantum scalar fields in general static two-dimensional spacetimes. For example, for the Polyakov theory ($`m=0`$, $`\xi =0`$, $`l=0`$, $`\varphi =0`$) the effective action (3.8) reduces to the exact result for a static geometry FrIsSo:96 . Unfortunately, for more general systems these expectation values all contain $`\mathrm{ln}\chi ^2`$, and thus typically will diverge at horizons, even in the Hartle-Hawking state. This appears to be a generic feature of local approximation schemes, occuring also in the WKB AnHiSa:95 ; An:90 , Page-Brown-Ottewill Pa:82 , and Killing FrZe:87  approximations in both two and four dimensions. In Section IV we shall see how the high-frequency approximation can be corrected near the horizon through more accurate modelling of the lowest-frequency field modes.

### III.2 Spherically Reduced Schwarzschild Geometry

For the special case of a field propagating in the Schwarzschild geometry,

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+\frac{1}{f(r)}dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2),f(r)=1\frac{2M}{r},$$
(3.14)
we have

$$\chi ^2=f,\eta =\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}f,\varphi =\mathrm{ln}\frac{r}{\rho },$$
(3.15)
where $`\rho `$ is some arbitrary length scale. The high-frequency approximation for the stress tensor and pressure for general $`m`$, $`\xi `$ and $`l`$ is

$`T_t{}_{}{}^{t}_{\text{HFA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6\beta ^2f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi r^2f}}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}+5{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{r^2}}+12\xi \left(4{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}+7{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{r^2}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{4\pi r^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi r^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2\beta ^2f}{16\pi ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma }}}\right)\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}\right)+4\xi \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3M}{r}}\right)m^2r^2l(l+1)\right],`$
$`T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{\text{HFA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6\beta ^2f}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi r^2f}}\left[6{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}+11{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{r^2}}+12\xi \left(2{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}3{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{r^2}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi r^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2\beta ^2f}{16\pi ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma }}}\right)\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}\right)+4\xi \left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{3M}{r}}\right)m^2r^2l(l+1)\right],`$
$`P_{\text{HFA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi r^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{r}}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{20M}{r}}\right]`$ (3.16c)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi r^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2\beta ^2f}{16\pi ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma }}}\right)\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{r}}+8\xi \left(13{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}\right)+l(l+1)\right].`$
For $`l=0`$ and general $`m`$ and $`\xi `$, these expectation values coincide with the WKB approximation, as shown in Appendix A. For a zero-temperature conformally invariant field ($`\beta \mathrm{}`$, $`m=0`$, $`\xi =l=0`$, with the $`m`$ in the logarithm terms replaced by an arbitrary cutoff parameter), (3.16) also coincides with the stress tensor and pressure obtained from integrating the two-dimensional conformal anomaly alone BaFa:99 .

At spatial infinity, the stress tensor (LABEL:SchwTtt), (LABEL:SchwTrr) reduces precisely to that of a thermal gas of massive particles at high temperature in flat space, except that $`T_r{}_{}{}^{r}`$ is missing a term proportional to $`m/\beta `$. This term is lost because the high-frequency approximation does not include the contribution of the zero-frequency mode, which must be added by hand. Using the WKB approximation presented in Appendix A, one finds that at spatial infinity the only nonvanishing contribution of the $`n=0`$ mode is

$$T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{n=0|WKB}=\frac{m}{2\beta \sqrt{f}}.$$
(3.17)
Adding this term to (LABEL:SchwTrr) reproduces exactly the stress tensor of a thermal gas of massive particles at high temperature in flat space. This stress tensor obeys the conservation equation (2.7), with the right-hand side of (2.7) vanishing at spatial infinity.

The situation at the horizon is more troublesome. It was seen in BaFaNiFrSuZe:01  that for the conformally invariant field in the Hartle-Hawking state ($`\beta =8\pi M`$) the stress tensor and pressure (3.16) diverge logarithmically at the event horizon in a freely falling frame 444 The stress tensor will be finite in a freely-falling frame on the past and future event horizons provided that as $`r2M`$
$$|T_t{}_{}{}^{t}+T_r{}_{}{}^{r}|<\mathrm{},f^1|T_t{}_{}{}^{t}T_r{}_{}{}^{r}|<\mathrm{},\left|P\right|<\mathrm{}.$$
due to the logarithm terms. For nonconformal fields (any of $`m`$, $`\xi `$, or $`l`$ nonzero), the additional terms in (3.16) produce yet stronger divergences on the past and future horizons. Since the Hartle-Hawking state should be regular on the horizon, this implies that the high-frequency and WKB approximations break down there. Some indication of why comes from inspection of (3.2), (3.7): the logarithm term in the bare Lagrangian (3.7) does not contain the norm of the Killing vector \[note that $`\tau ^2/\chi ^2=(tt^{})^2`$\]; the $`\mathrm{ln}\chi ^2`$ terms arise purely from the renormalization counterterms (3.2). This implies that the bare high-frequency approximation misses contributions which go as $`\mathrm{ln}\chi ^2`$ near the horizon. In the following section we demonstrate that this omission occurs because the high-frequency approximation fails to accurately model the lowest-frequency modes ($`n2`$) near the horizon. Correcting for these modes shows that the stress tensor and pressure are indeed regular on the horizon in the Hartle-Hawking state.

## IV Regularity of the Hartle-Hawking State

In this section we demonstrate the regularity of the stress tensor and pressure at the event horizon of the Schwarzschild geometry in the Hartle-Hawking state for general $`m`$, $`\xi `$, and $`l`$. We do this by solving the Green function equation (2.9) near the horizon for individual modes $`\omega _n=2\pi n/\beta `$ of small $`n`$, and using these more accurate expansions to correct the high-frequency approximation. This analysis closely follows that of BaFaNiFrSuZe:01 .

### IV.1 Mode-by-Mode Predictions of the High-Frequency Approximation

We begin by listing the contributions made by each frequency $`n`$ to expectation values in the high-frequency approximation. This will be necessary later for determining the amount by which the approximation must be corrected for each mode.

Using (3.4)–(3.6) one finds that for each $`n>0`$ the bare contributions to the stress tensor and pressure for $`\beta =8\pi M`$ are

$`T_a^b_{n|\text{HFA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{32\pi M^2f}}\left[2\delta _a^0\delta _0^b\delta _a^b\right]`$ (4.1a)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi n}}\left[\delta _a^b(m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{r^2}})+(16\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{f}{r^2}}(2\delta _a^r\delta _r^b\delta _a^b)\right],`$
$`P_{n|\text{HFA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi r^2n}}\left[(6\xi 1)(1{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{r}})+2\xi +\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)\right].`$ (4.1b)
Note the absence of any logarithmic terms. Also, recall that the high-frequency approximation includes no contributions from the $`n=0`$ mode.

### IV.2 Corrected Green Function near the Horizon

We now proceed to calculate the exact contribution to the Green function and local observables made by each mode $`n`$ in the vicinity of the event horizon of the Schwarzschild geometry. We do this by solving for the Green function as a power series in the physical distance to the event horizon. We assume the field to be in the Hartle-Hawking state ($`\beta =8\pi M`$).

In the $`(t,r)`$ sector of the Schwarzschild spacetime (3.14) we decompose the Green function (2.9) into Fourier modes as

$$G(t,r;t^{},r^{})=\frac{1}{\beta [f(r)f(r^{})]^{\frac{1}{4}}}\left[G_0(r,r^{})+2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _n(tt^{}))G_n(r,r^{})\right].$$
(4.2)
Substituting (4.2) and a similar decomposition for the delta function into the differential equation (2.9) for the two-dimensional Green function, and expanding in terms of the physical distance $`L`$ to the event horizon, where

$$dL=\frac{dr}{f^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$
(4.3)
the differential equation with $`rr^{}`$ becomes

$$_L^2G_n\left(\frac{4n^21}{4L^2}+\frac{\alpha _n^2}{M^2}\frac{A_n^2}{16M^4}L^2+O(L^4)\right)G_n=0,$$
(4.4)
where we define the constants

$$\alpha _n^2(mM)^2+\frac{l(l+1)}{4}+\frac{1}{6}+\frac{n^2}{12},$$
(4.5)
$$A_n^2\frac{n^2+56+60l(l+1)}{120}.$$
(4.6)
Neglecting the $`O(L^2)`$ term, (4.4) becomes a differential equation for the Bessel functions of imaginary argument. The solution for $`G_n`$ is easily shown to be

$$G_n(r,r^{})=(LL^{})^{\frac{1}{2}}I_n\left(\frac{\alpha _nL_<}{M}\right)K_n\left(\frac{\alpha _nL_>}{M}\right),$$
(4.7)
where $`L_>`$ ($`L_<`$) is the physical distance to the greater (lesser) of $`r`$, $`r^{}`$. This solution obeys the derivative condition resulting from integrating across the delta-function singularity at $`r=r^{}`$.

The approximate solution (4.7) will yield the pressure accurately to $`O(1+\mathrm{ln}L)=O(1+\mathrm{ln}f)`$ inclusive, which contains all of the potentially divergent terms. To prove the finiteness of the stress tensor, however, it is also necessary to calculate the $`O(L^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}L)=O(f\mathrm{ln}f)`$ terms; a careful examination reveals that this requires taking the $`O(L^2)=O(f)`$ term in (4.4) into account. The simplest way to do this is to begin with the approximate solution (4.7), expand it for small $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$, and modify the higher-order terms so that the resulting Green function satisfies (4.4) up to and including the $`O(L^2)`$ term. The resulting Green functions $`G_n`$ for $`n=0,1,2,3`$ are listed in Appendix B .

### IV.3 Corrections to Local Observables

We now calculate the precise contributions to the stress tensor and pressure for modes of small $`n`$, and use this information to correct the high-frequency approximation.

Using (2.11), for a contribution to the two-dimensional Green function of the form

$$\mathrm{cos}(\omega _n(tt^{}))F_n(r,r^{}),$$
(4.8)
the corresponding contributions to the stress tensor and pressure in $`t,r`$ coordinates are

$`T_t^t_n`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{r^{}r}{lim}[(2\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _n^2}{f}}+\xi {\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r^3}}+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})[m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{f+l(l+1)}{r^2}}]`$ (4.9a)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f+\xi (2+{\displaystyle \frac{3M}{r}})]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(_r+_r^{})+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})f_r_r^{}]F_n(r,r^{}),`$
$`T_r^r_n`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{r^{}r}{lim}[(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _n^2}{f}}+\xi {\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r^3}}+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})[m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{f+l(l+1)}{r^2}}]+(16\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{f}{r^2}}`$ (4.9b)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f+\xi (2{\displaystyle \frac{5M}{r}})]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(_r+_r^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_r_r^{}\xi f(_r^2+_r^{}^2)]F_n(r,r^{}),`$
$`P_n`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{r^{}r}{lim}[(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _n^2}{f}}+2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{f}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{2r^2}}+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})[m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{f+l(l+1)}{r^2}}]`$ (4.9c)
$`+(16\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{f}{2r}}(_r+_r^{})+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})f_r_r^{}]F_n(r,r^{}).`$
Using the $`G_n`$ in Appendix B one can calculate the contribution to the stress tensor from each mode near the horizon. Subtracting the corresponding high-frequency approximation result (4.1) yields the corrections that should be added to the stress tensor and pressure for each $`n`$. Doing so, one finds that divergent corrections come only from the $`n=0,1,2`$ modes; higher modes give only corrections which are regular at the horizon. The total divergent corrections to be added to the high-frequency approximation are

$`\delta T_a{}_{}{}^{b}_{\text{div corr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi M^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3\xi }{f}}+(12\mu ^2+6\xi +3l(l+1))+(318\xi )f\mathrm{ln}f\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)`$ (4.10f)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi M^2}}(12\mu ^2+6\xi +3l(l+1))\mathrm{ln}f\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),`$
$`\delta P_{\text{div corr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi M^2}}(3+12\xi 3l(l+1))\mathrm{ln}f.`$ (4.10g)
For the conformal field these reproduce the divergent terms found in BaFaNiFrSuZe:01  (note that in BaFaNiFrSuZe:01  $`P`$ was defined with an additional factor of $`(4\pi r^2)^1`$). By adding these corrections to the high-frequency approximation (3.16) one finds that the resulting stress tensor and pressure are indeed regular on the event horizon for general $`m`$, $`\xi `$, and $`l`$.

The corrected stress tensor and pressure near the horizon, including all finite corrections for the $`n=0,1,2`$ modes, are

$`(1920\pi M^2)T_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`4020\xi 60l(l+1)+80\xi \mu ^2+20\xi l(l+1)+f(170+160\mu ^2`$ (4.11a)
$`+220l(l+1)480\mu ^41334\xi 1840\xi \mu ^2720\xi \mu ^430l^2(l+1)^2`$
$`360\xi \mu ^2l(l+1)1690\xi l(l+1)240\mu ^2l(l+1)45\xi l^2(l+1)^2)`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3l(l+1)+2}{12\mu ^2}})[240\mu ^2+60l(l+1)480\xi \mu ^2120\xi l(l+1)`$
$`+f(480\mu ^2+2880\mu ^41920\xi \mu ^28640\xi \mu ^4+180l^2(l+1)^2`$
$`+1440\mu ^2l(l+1)120\xi l(l+1)540\xi l^2(l+1)^24320\xi \mu ^2l(l+1))]`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)+1}{4\mu ^2}})[120\xi +480\xi \mu ^2+120\xi l(l+1)+f(60480\mu ^2`$
$`120l(l+1)2880\mu ^4+480\xi +4800\xi \mu ^2+11520\xi \mu ^4+1200\xi l(l+1)`$
$`+5760\xi \mu ^2l(l+1)+720\xi l^2(l+1)^21440\mu ^2l(l+1)180l^2(l+1)^2)]`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)+2}{4\mu ^2}})[f(1080\xi 2880\xi \mu ^22880\xi \mu ^4`$
$`180\xi l^2(l+1)^21080\xi l(l+1)1440\xi \mu ^2l(l+1))]+O(f^2),`$
$`(1920\pi M^2)T_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`4020\xi 60l(l+1)+80\xi \mu ^2+20\xi l(l+1)+f(70+60l(l+1)`$ (4.11b)
$`160\mu ^4498\xi 400\xi \mu ^2240\xi \mu ^4120\xi \mu ^2l(l+1)80\mu ^2l(l+1)`$
$`10l^2(l+1)^2510\xi l(l+1)15\xi l^2(l+1)^2)`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3l(l+1)+2}{12\mu ^2}})[240\mu ^2+60l(l+1)480\xi \mu ^2120\xi l(l+1)`$
$`+f(480\mu ^2+960\mu ^41920\xi \mu ^22880\xi \mu ^4360\xi l(l+1)`$
$`180\xi l^2(l+1)^2+480\mu ^2l(l+1)1440\xi \mu ^2l(l+1)+60l^2(l+1)^2)]`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)+1}{4\mu ^2}})[120\xi +480\xi \mu ^2+120\xi l(l+1)+f(60480\mu ^2`$
$`120l(l+1)960\mu ^4+480\xi +2880\xi \mu ^2+3840\xi \mu ^4+720\xi l(l+1)`$
$`60l^2(l+1)^2+240\xi l^2(l+1)^2480\mu ^2l(l+1)+1920\xi \mu ^2l(l+1))]`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)+2}{4\mu ^2}})[f(360\xi 960\xi \mu ^2960\xi \mu ^4360\xi l(l+1)`$
$`60\xi l^2(l+1)^2480\xi \mu ^2l(l+1))]+O(f^2),`$
$`(192\pi M^2)P`$ $`=`$ $`14\mu ^24\xi l(l+1)+16\xi \mu ^2+4\xi l(l+1)`$ (4.11c)
$`+\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)+1}{4\mu ^2}})[624\mu ^2+24\xi 6l(l+1)+96\xi \mu ^2+24\xi l(l+1)]`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3l(l+1)+2}{12\mu ^2}})[24\mu ^296\xi \mu ^224\xi l(l+1)]+O(f).`$
The stress tensor and pressure for the conformal field are retrieved by taking $`m`$, $`\xi `$, and $`l`$ to zero 555An error was made in equation (4.16) of BaFaNiFrSuZe:01  which affected the finite terms in (4.20), (4.21), and (4.23) of that paper. Equation (4.16) should read
$$T_a{}_{}{}^{b}_0=O(f^2).$$
As a consequence, in (4.20) the factor $`17/240`$ should be replaced by $`1/24`$, in (4.21) the factor $`83/960`$ should be replaced by $`11/192`$, and in (4.23) the factor $`23/240`$ should be replaced by $`1/48`$. The conclusions regarding the regularity of the field at the horizon are unchanged. Note also that in BaFaNiFrSuZe:01  $`P`$ was defined with an additional factor of $`(4\pi r^2)^1`$..

The challenge remains to extend these explicit formulae for the stress tensor and pressure outside of the immediate neighborhood of the horizon, to match onto the high-frequency approximation (3.16).

## V Conclusions

In this paper we have obtained an analytic approximation for the effective action of a quantum scalar field in a general static two-dimensional spacetime. The resulting expression shows clearly both the zero and the finite temperature contributions; these latter are competely missed in the construction based on functional integration of the conformal anomaly.

In this elegant and rather simple way an expression for the stress tensor of the scalar field can be obtained and is shown to coincide with the one obtained by standard canonical construction under the WKB approximation. The most remarkable aspect of this new method is that the same procedure can be repeated for the full 4D case FrSuZe:00 ; FrSuZe:02 ; Su:00b , reproducing exactly the results of Anderson, Hiscock, and Samuel AnHiSa:95 .

Unfortunately our effective action, like other analytical approaches, is unable to handle correctly the horizon region, where the high-frequency approximation breaks down. This causes the appearance of unphysical divergences in the stress tensor in the Hartle-Hawking state. We have shown how a careful analysis of the Green function near the horizon leads to the expected regular result.

Much effort is still needed to find an analytic expression for the stress tensor in black-hole spacetimes which correctly describes both the horizon and the asymptotic region. Only then can a serious analysis of nonperturbative backreaction effects in black-hole spacetimes start.

## Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Valeri Frolov and Andrei Zelnikov for helpful discussions. PJS would like to thank the INFN and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for their financial support. This work has been funded by NSF grant PHY 00-99559 and its predecessor. The Center for Gravitational Wave Physics is supported by the NSF under co-operative agreement PHY 01-14375.

## Appendix A WKB Approximation for the $`𝒍\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mode

Here we outline the calculation of the stress tensor of the two-dimensional s-wave field $`\widehat{\phi }_0`$ satisfying (2.4) with $`l=0`$ in the Schwarzschild spacetime (3.14) using the WKB approximation with point-splitting regularization. We show that the WKB approximation coincides exactly with the high-frequency approximation (LABEL:SchwTtt, LABEL:SchwTrr) for $`l=0`$. These calculations closely follow analogous ones performed in BaFaNiFrSuZe:01 ; details on the method can be found there and in the seminal paper by Anderson, Hiscock and Samuel AnHiSa:95 .

To take advantage of the work of BaFaNiFrSuZe:01 ; AnHiSa:95  it is convenient to consider not the two-dimensional Euclidean Green function $`G`$ of (2.9) but the rescaled quantity

$$G_E(t,r;t^{},r^{})rr^{}G(t,r;t^{},r^{}).$$
(A.1)
Substitution into (2.9) shows that $`G_E`$ satisfies

$$[^a(e^{2\varphi }_a)m^2e^{2\varphi }]G_E(x,x^{})=\frac{\delta ^2(xx^{})}{\sqrt{h}},$$
(A.2)
where $`h_a^c^{}`$ is the bivector of parallel transport. The expressions (2.11a), (2.11c) for the unrenormalized point-split stress tensor become

$`T_{ab}(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\varphi (x)\varphi (x^{})}\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi )(h_a^c^{}G_{E;c^{}b}+h_b^c^{}G_{E;ac^{}})+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})h_{ab}h^{cd^{}}G_{E;cd^{}}`$ (A.3)
$`\xi (G_{E;ab}+h_a^c^{}h_b^d^{}G_{E;c^{}d^{}})+(2\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})h_{ab}m^2G_E\}.`$
We begin with the WKB approximation at zero temperature, and then calculate finite-temperature effects. We conclude by showing how to estimate the contribution of the zero-frequency mode at finite temperatures in flat space; this is useful for correcting the WKB and high-frequency approximations in asymptotically flat regions.

### A.1 Zero Temperature

At zero temperature, this Green function has the integral expansion

$$G_E(x,x^{})=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{4\pi }\mathrm{cos}[\omega (tt^{})]p_\omega (r_<)q_\omega (r_>),$$
(A.4)
where $`p_\omega `$ and $`q_\omega `$ obey the differential equation

$$f\frac{d^2S}{dr^2}+[\frac{2f}{r}+f^{}]\frac{dS}{dr}(\frac{\omega ^2}{f}+m^2)S=0.$$
(A.5)
One can write $`p_\omega `$ and $`q_\omega `$ in the WKB form

$`p_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\sqrt{2W}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle ^r}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{W(r)}{f}}\right\},`$ (A.6a)
$`q_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\sqrt{2W}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle ^r}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{W(r)}{f}}\right\},`$ (A.6b)
where the function $`W`$ satisfies the equation

$$W^2=\omega ^2+m^2f+V+\frac{f}{2W}\left[f\frac{d^2W}{dr^2}+\frac{df}{dr}\frac{dW}{dr}\frac{3f}{2W}(\frac{dW}{dr})^2\right]$$
(A.7)
with

$$V=\frac{f}{r}\frac{df}{dr}.$$
(A.8)
This is solved iteratively starting with the zeroth-order solution

$$W=\sqrt{\omega ^2+m^2f}.$$
(A.9)
In the following we omit terms coming from the conformally invariant part ($`\xi =0`$, $`m=0`$), indicated with $`T_a{}_{}{}^{b}^0`$, which have been treated in BaFaNiFrSuZe:01 . We have

$`T_t{}_{}{}^{t}_{unren}`$ $`=`$ $`T_t{}_{}{}^{t}_{unren}^0+\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{4\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega ϵ_\tau \right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2A_1+\xi [c_0\omega ^2A_1+c_1A_2`$ (A.10a)
$`+c_2A_3+c_3(A_4+A_5)+c_4A_5+c_5A_1]\}`$
$`+i\xi \mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{4\pi }}\omega \mathrm{sin}\left(\omega ϵ_\tau \right)[c_6A_1+c_7\left(A_4+A_5\right)],`$
$`T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{unren}`$ $`=`$ $`T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{unren}^0+\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{4\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega ϵ_\tau \right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2A_1+\xi [c_8\omega ^2A_1+c_9A_3`$ (A.10b)
$`+c_{10}(A_4+A_5)]\}+i\xi \mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }{\displaystyle }_0^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{4\pi }}\omega \mathrm{sin}(\omega ϵ_\tau )c_{11}A_1,`$
where $`ϵ=tt^{}`$ (for convenience the points are split in time only, so $`r^{}=r`$ ), the $`c_i`$ at leading orders are

$`c_0={\displaystyle \frac{2}{f}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2ϵ^2}{r^4}}\right),c_1=2h^{rr^{}},c_2=O\left(ϵ^2\right),`$
$`c_3={\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{2}},c_4=O\left(ϵ^2\right),c_5=2m^2,`$
$`c_6=h^{tt^{}}h^{tr^{}}f^{},c_7=2h^{rt^{}},c_8={\displaystyle \frac{M^2ϵ^2}{fr^4}},`$
$`c_9=O\left(ϵ^2\right),c_{10}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2f}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{2}}\right),c_{11}=h^{rt^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{f}},`$ (A.11)
and

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`p_\omega q_\omega ,A_2={\displaystyle \frac{dp_\omega }{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq_\omega }{dr}},A_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}p_\omega q_\omega ,`$
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`q_\omega {\displaystyle \frac{dp_\omega }{dr}},A_5=p_\omega {\displaystyle \frac{dq_\omega }{dr}}.`$ (A.12)
The expansions for the bivector of parallel transport are

$`h^{tt^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{8f}}ϵ^2+O(ϵ^4),`$
$`h^{tr^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`h^{rt^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{2}}ϵ+O(ϵ^3),`$
$`h^{rr^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`f+{\displaystyle \frac{f^2f}{8}}ϵ^2+O(ϵ^4).`$ (A.13)
Eventually one arrives at the following expression for $`T_a{}_{}{}^{b}`$ in the zero temperature state:

$`T_t{}_{}{}^{t}_{unren}`$ $`=`$ $`T_t{}_{}{}^{t}_{unren}^0+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi }}L+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2\pi f}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4Mf}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{r^4}}+[{\displaystyle \frac{2Mf}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2f^2}{r^2}}]L\},`$ (A.14a)
$`T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{unren}`$ $`=`$ $`T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{unren}^0+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi }}L+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2\pi f}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{r^4}}+[{\displaystyle \frac{2Mf}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4f^2}{r^2}}]L\},`$ (A.14b)
where $`L=[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\lambda ^2ϵ^2\right)+\gamma ]`$ and $`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant. To obtain the renormalized stress tensor, one subtracts from the above expression the renormalization counterterms obtained from the DeWitt-Schwinger Green function,

$`G_{DS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\varphi (x)+\varphi (x^{})}}{2\pi }}\left\{L^{}[1+\alpha \sigma +O(\sigma ^2)]+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2m^2}}+\beta \sigma +O(\sigma ^2)\right\},`$ (A.15)
where

$$L^{}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2\sigma }{2}+\gamma ,$$
(A.16)
$`a_1`$ is the DeWitt-Schwinger coefficient,

$$a_1=\frac{1}{6}(R6(\varphi )^2+6\mathrm{}\varphi ),$$
(A.17)
and

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2}},`$ (A.18a)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{4}}.`$ (A.18b)
Recall that $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of the two-dimensional metric $`h_{ab}`$; $`\sigma `$ is one-half the square of the geodesic distance between the points $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. Performing all the calculations, the counterterms read

$`T_t{}_{}{}^{t}_{DS}`$ $`=`$ $`T_t{}_{}{}^{t}_{DS}^0+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi }}L^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2\pi f}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2Mf}{r^3}}L^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2f^2}{r^2}}L^{}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }},`$ (A.19a)
$`T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{DS}`$ $`=`$ $`T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{DS}^0+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi }}L^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2\pi f}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2Mf}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2Mf}{r^3}}L^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4f^2}{r^2}}L^{}\}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }}.`$ (A.19b)
Subtracting these from the unrenormalized expressions (A.14a) one obtains the renormalized stress tensor in the Boulware vacuum:

$`B|T_t{}_{}{}^{t}|B_{ren}`$ $`=`$ $`B|T_t{}_{}{}^{t}|B_{ren}^0{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2f}{4\lambda ^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2\pi f}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4M}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7M^2}{r^4}}`$ (A.20a)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{r^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{3M}{r}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2f}{4\lambda ^2}}\right)\}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }},`$
$`B|T_r{}_{}{}^{r}|B_{ren}`$ $`=`$ $`B|T_r{}_{}{}^{r}|B_{ren}^0{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{m^2f}{4\lambda ^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2\pi f}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3M^2}{r^4}}`$ (A.20b)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{r^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{3M}{r}}2)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2f}{4\lambda ^2}}\right)\}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{8\pi }},`$
where the conformal ($`\xi =0`$, $`m=0`$) contribution is BaFaNiFrSuZe:01

$`B|T_t{}_{}{}^{t}|B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi f}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{fM}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4r^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2f}{4\lambda ^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (A.21a)
$`B|T_r{}_{}{}^{r}|B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi f}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{fM}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4r^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2f}{4\lambda ^2}}\right)\right\}.`$ (A.21b)
### A.2 Finite-Temperature Corrections

The thermal case is treated similarly. Evaluating the sum over discrete frequencies using the Plana sum formula ChVi:78  one finds that the stress tensor at finite temperature is obtained from the zero-temperature one by making the substitution

$$\mathrm{ln}(\frac{m^2f}{4\lambda ^2})\left\{2\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(\frac{m^2\beta ^2f}{16\pi ^2})\right\}$$
(A.22)
and adding the traceless pure radiation term

$$T_t{}_{}{}^{t}_{rad}=T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{rad}=\frac{\pi }{6\beta ^2f},$$
(A.23)
where $`\beta =T^1`$ is the inverse temperature.

### A.3 Zero-Frequency Mode

One can also use the WKB procedure to calculate the contribution of the $`n=0`$ mode at nonzero temperature in the asymptotically flat region, as mentioned in Section III.2. In this case the zeroth-order solution (A.9) for $`W`$ is sufficient,

$$W=m\sqrt{f}.$$
(A.24)
Substituting into (A.6) and using (A.1), (A.1) one can evaluate the contribution of this mode to the stress tensor, (A.10). Note that for a field at finite temperature, we should replace the integrals over continuous $`\omega `$ in (A.10) by sums. For the zero-frequency mode alone, it is sufficient to make the replacement

$$\frac{d\omega }{4\pi }F(\omega )\frac{F(0)}{\beta }.$$
(A.25)
See, for example, the equations following (3.4) of BaFaNiFrSuZe:01 . Evaluating (A.10), we find that the only term in the stress tensor which is nonvanishing at spatial infinity is

$$T_r{}_{}{}^{r}_{n=0}=\frac{m}{2\beta \sqrt{f}}.$$
(A.26)
## Appendix B Corrected $`𝑮_𝒏`$ near the Horizon

The solutions to the differential equation (4.4) for the contribution $`G_n`$ to the two-dimensional Green function for modes of small $`n`$ are

$`G_0(r,r^{})`$ $`=`$ $`L_<^{\frac{1}{2}}I_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0L_<}{M}}\right)\left(1A_0^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_<}{4M}}\right)^4\right)`$ (B.1a)
$`\times L_>^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(K_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0L_>}{M}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_0^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_>}{4M}}\right)^4\left[12\gamma 2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0L_>}{2M}}\right)\right]\right),`$
$`G_1(r,r^{})`$ $`=`$ $`L_<^{\frac{1}{2}}I_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1L_<}{M}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A_1^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_<}{4M}}\right)^4\right)`$ (B.1b)
$`\times L_>^{\frac{1}{2}}K_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1L_>}{M}}\right)\left(12A_1^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_>}{4M}}\right)^4\right),`$
$`G_2(r,r^{})`$ $`=`$ $`L_<^{\frac{1}{2}}I_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2L_<}{M}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_2^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_<}{4M}}\right)^4\right)`$ (B.1c)
$`\times L_>^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(K_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2L_>}{M}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha _2^2}}A_2^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_>}{4M}}\right)^2\left[\gamma +\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2L_>}{2M}}\right)\right]\right),`$
$`G_3(r,r^{})`$ $`=`$ $`L_<^{\frac{1}{2}}I_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3L_<}{M}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}A_3^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_<}{4M}}\right)^4\right)`$ (B.1d)
$`\times L_>^{\frac{1}{2}}K_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3L_>}{M}}\right)\left(1+2A_3^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_>}{4M}}\right)^4\right).`$
Here $`L_>`$ ($`L_<`$) is the physical distance from the event horizon to the greater (lesser) of $`r`$, $`r^{}`$:

$$L(r)=2M\left[\sqrt{\frac{r}{2M}\left(\frac{r}{2M}1\right)}+\mathrm{ln}\left(\sqrt{\frac{r}{2M}}+\sqrt{\frac{r}{2M}1}\right)\right].$$
(B.2)
The expansions of each of these functions for small $`f`$, $`f^{}`$ is significant up to and including the third term, and satisfies the differential equation (4.4) for the Green function to the order required for obtaining the stress tensor to $`O(L^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}L)=O(f\mathrm{ln}f)`$ inclusive.


format: text

text:
# Topology of the ground state of two interacting Bose-Einstein condensates

## I Introduction

Bose-Einstein condensation of mixtures of different atomic species has recently been the subject of an intensive experimental and theoretical research jila1 ; jila2 ; otago ; lens ; mit ; ho ; bigelow ; timm ; ao ; esry ; tripp ; barankov . The first experimental realization of a system of two interacting Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) has been obtained at JILA with a double condensate of 87Rb in two different hyperfine states, $`|F,M_F=|1,1`$ and $`|2,2`$ jila1 . This mixture was characterized by a partial overlap between the two condensates, in presence of a gravitational “sag” due to the different magnetic moment. Since then several other experiments have been performed with double condensates of rubidium jila2 ; otago ; lens  and with spinor condensates of sodium in optical traps mit .

Motivated by these experiments and by the future possibility of realizing other binary mixtures of interacting BECs, these systems have been extensively studied also from the theoretical point of view. Up to now only two particular cases have been addressed: (i) a system of two condensates with different mass in cylindrically symmetric potentials arranged concentrically ho ; bigelow ; tripp ; barankov , and (ii) including a gravitational sag, but for condensates with the same mass (the JILA case) esry .

In this paper we extend these studies by considering the very general case of two different atomic species, with different mass and in different hyperfine states, trapped in a magnetic potential whose eigenaxes can be tilted with respect to the direction of gravity. We show that, despite the complicated geometry, the ground-state of the system can be easily characterized within the Thomas-Fermi approximation valid for large numbers of atoms. We provide general formulas which allow to calculate the shape and the density distributions of the two BECs. Our results can be a useful tool to analyze future experiments.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we discuss the equations for the ground state of the system and show that upon an appropriate coordinate transformation, they can be put in a very simple spherical form. In Section III we discuss the general features of the model, and we give an explicit algorithm to classify all the different topologies which can be constructed by varying the number of atoms and the inter-atomic scattering length. We also work out some example for the case 87Rb and 41K, which is a promising system for the realization of a new binary mixture of BECs potassio ; potassio\_new . Finally we compare the results against the numerical solution of the full Gross-Pitaevskii equations for the system, finding a good agreement.

## II The model

Let us consider a system of two Bose-Einstein condensates with mass $`m_i`$ and in the hyperfine state $`(F_i,M_{Fi})`$, each containing $`N_i`$ atoms ($`i=1,2`$), confined in a magnetic trap. The ground state of the system can be obtained by solving two coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations for the condensate wave-functions $`\psi _i`$ report

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_1}^2+U_1(𝐱)+u_{11}|\psi _1|^2+u_{12}|\psi _2|^2\right]\psi _1=\mu _1\psi _1$$
(1)
$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_2}^2+U_2(𝐱)+u_{21}|\psi _1|^2+u_{22}|\psi _2|^2\right]\psi _2=\mu _2\psi _2$$
(2)
with the normalization condition

$$d^3x|\psi _i|^2=N_i.$$
(3)
The coupling constants $`u_{ij}`$ are given in terms of the scattering length $`a_{ij}`$ by esry

$`u_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{11}}{m_1}}`$ (4)
$`u_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{12}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1+m_2}{m_1m_2}}\right)=u_{21}`$ (5)
$`u_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{22}}{m_2}}`$ (6)
where we used the fact that $`a_{12}=a_{21}`$. Hereinafter we assume $`a_{11}`$, $`a_{22}>0`$.

The total potential experienced by each condensate is the sum of the gravitational potential and of a dipole magnetic potential $`U_B^i(𝐱)=\mu _Bg_{Fi}M_{Fi}|B(𝐱)|`$ ($`g_{Fi}`$ is the gyro-magnetic factor of the specie $`i`$) which we assume, as usual, to be harmonic

$$U_B^{(i)}(𝐱)=\mu _Bg_{Fi}M_{Fi}\left(B_0+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}K_jx_j^2\right)$$
(7)
By defining $`\overline{K}=(K_1K_2K_3)^{1/3}`$, $`\lambda _j=\sqrt{K_j/\overline{K}}`$, and

$`U_{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _Bg_{Fi}M_{Fi}B_0`$ (8)
$`\omega _i^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _Bg_{Fi}M_{Fi}\overline{K}/m_i`$ (9)
we can finally write $`U_B`$ in the standard form

$$U_B^{(i)}(𝐱)=\frac{1}{2}m_i\omega _i^2\underset{j}{}\lambda _j^2x_j^2+U_{0i}$$
(10)
For what concerns the gravitational potential, here we consider the general case in which the vertical direction (the direction of gravity) is not aligned with any of the symmetry axis of the trap, but lies in the $`xz`$ symmetry plane, rotated by an angle $`\theta `$. We include this possibility since in the experiments the trap confinement is generally weaker along the horizontal direction $`x`$, and therefore even a small angle can produce a large “horizontal sag”; we will give explicit examples in the following section nota . The total potential is

$$U_i(𝐱)=U_B^{(i)}(𝐱)+m_ig(x\mathrm{sin}\theta +z\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(11)
By performing an appropriate transformation on the coordinates the potential $`U(𝐱)`$ can be put in a simpler form. These transformations amount to

* a scaling by $`\lambda _j`$ (notice that the determinant of the transformation is equal to one)

$$x_jx_j^{}\lambda _jx_j$$
(12)
in order to put $`U_B(𝐱^{})`$ in a spherically symmetric form;
* a rotation of an angle $`\phi `$ ($`x_j^{}x_j^{\prime \prime }`$) in order to align the $`z^{\prime \prime }`$ axis with the vertical direction

$$\phi =\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{\lambda _z}{\lambda _x}\mathrm{tan}\theta \right).$$
(13)

The transformed potential reads (to simplify the notations in the following we omit the apices, $`x_j^{\prime \prime }x_j`$)

$$U_i(𝐱)=\frac{1}{2}m_i\omega _i^2\left(r^2+(zz_{0i})^2\right)+U_{0i}$$
(14)
where we have defined $`r^2=x^2+y^2`$, and

$$U_{0i}=\mu _Bg_{Fi}m_{Fi}B_0\frac{1}{2}m_i\frac{g^2l^2}{\omega _i^2}$$
(15)
$$z_{0i}=\frac{gl}{\omega _i^2}$$
(16)
where the scaling factor $`l`$ is given by

$$l=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\lambda _z\mathrm{cos}\phi }$$
(17)
Then we perform a translation along $`z`$ by $`z_{01}`$, defining $`dz=z_{02}z_{01}`$, and we express all quantities in dimensionless units, rescaling lengths by $`a_{ho}\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega _1)}`$ and energies by $`\mathrm{}\omega _1`$. Finally, the expressions for the trapping potential that will be used in the rest of the paper are

$`V_1(𝐱)U_1(𝐱)U_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(r^2+z^2\right)`$ (18)
$`V_2(𝐱)U_2(𝐱)U_{02}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta \left(r^2+(zdz)^2\right)`$ (19)
with

$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_2\omega _2^2}{m_1\omega _1^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_{F2}m_{F2}}{g_{F1}m_{F1}}}`$ (20)
$`dz`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{lg}{a_{ho}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _1^2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{lg}{a_{ho}\omega _1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{\eta m_1}}1\right).`$ (21)
To summarize, in this section we have shown that with suitable transformations the trapping potential for the two condensates can be reduced to a simple spherical form. This allows for a much easier investigation of the features of the interacting system, as will be discussed in the following section.

## III Thomas-Fermi approximation

For large number of atoms $`N_i`$ the solution of Eqs. (1)-(2) can be derived in the so called Thomas-Fermi approximation which amounts to neglecting the kinetic terms $`^2\psi _i`$. Therefore, by reabsorbing the values $`U_{0i}`$ of the potentials on their minima in the definition of the chemical potentials, $`\mu _iU_{0i}\mu _i`$, the above equations become

$`V_1(𝐱)+u_{11}|\psi _1|^2+u_{12}|\psi _2|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1`$ (22)
$`V_2(𝐱)+u_{21}|\psi _1|^2+u_{22}|\psi _2|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _2`$ (23)
where the reduced coupling constants $`u_{ij}`$ are

$`u_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{a_{11}}{a_{ho}}}`$ (24)
$`u_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{a_{12}}{a_{ho}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_2}}\right)=u_{21}`$ (25)
$`u_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{a_{22}}{a_{ho}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_2}}`$ (26)
By defining $`\gamma _1u_{21}/u_{11}`$, $`\gamma _2u_{12}/u_{22}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=u_{11}u_{22}u_{12}^2`$, the solution of Eqs. (22)-(23) in the overlapping region take the form

$`|\psi _1|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1\left(R_1^2r^2(zz_{c1})^2\right)`$ (27)
$`|\psi _2|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _2\left(R_2^2r^2(zz_{c2})^2\right)`$ (28)
where we have defined the radii $`R_i`$

$`R_1^2(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\mu _1\gamma _2\mu _2)}{1\eta \gamma _2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \gamma _2}{(1\eta \gamma _2)^2}}dz^2`$ (29)
$`R_2^2(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\mu _2\gamma _1\mu _1)}{\eta \gamma _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \gamma _1}{(\eta \gamma _1)^2}}dz^2`$ (30)
the position of the centers along $`z`$

$`z_{c1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \gamma _2}{1\eta \gamma _2}}dz`$ (31)
$`z_{c2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\eta \gamma _1}}dz`$ (32)
and the normalization factors $`\alpha _i`$

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`u_{22}{\displaystyle \frac{1\eta \gamma _2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (33)
$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`u_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \gamma _1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}.`$ (34)
Notice that in order to have overlap between $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ Eqs. (27)-(28) have both to be satisfied, that is both right members must be positive ($`|\psi _1|^2,|\psi _2|^20`$). The overlapping region between the two condensates is therefore the intersection of the regions of space delimited by the spherical surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ defined by the equation $`R_i^2=r^2+(zz_{ci})^2`$, and identified by the sign of the coefficient $`\alpha _i`$: for $`\alpha _i>0`$ the region to be considered is the one inside the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$, for $`\alpha _i<0`$ the one outside.

In the regions where there is not overlap the wave functions take the usual form

$`|\psi _{01}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2u_{11}}}\left(2\mu _1r^2z^2\right)`$ (35)
$`|\psi _{02}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2u_{22}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2}{\eta }}r^2(zdz)^2\right).`$ (36)
Analogously to the overlapping case, these solutions are defined in a region of space whose boundary is delimited by the surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0i}`$ of equation $`R_{0i}^2=r^2+(zz_{ci}^0)^2`$, with $`R_{01}^2=2\mu _1`$, $`R_{02}^2=2\mu _2/\eta `$, $`z_{c1}^0=0`$ and $`z_{c2}^0=dz`$.

Notice that in order to satisfy the continuity condition of the wave function $`\psi _i`$ at the interface between the overlapping and non-overlapping regions the wave function $`\psi _{01}`$ must be connected to $`\psi _1`$ at the boundary defined by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ (where $`|\psi _2|^2`$ vanishes, but not $`|\psi _1|^2`$), and vice-versa.

### III.1 General considerations

Even though a self consistent solution of the full problem can be obtained only after having imposed the normalization of the wave functions, we can draw some general considerations by considering the role played by the determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the coupling $`u_{12}`$. First of all we define the value of $`u_{12}`$ at which the determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ change sign, $`\overline{u}\sqrt{u_{11}u_{22}}`$. Then we notice that the behavior of the position of the centers along $`z`$, $`z_{ci}`$, and the normalization factors $`\alpha _i`$ of the overlapping wave functions depends on two critical values $`u_{12}=\eta u_{11}`$ and $`u_{12}=u_{22}/\eta `$, which define the poles of $`z_{ci}`$ and the zeros of $`\alpha _i`$ (the latter have poles also for $`u_{12}=\pm \overline{u}`$. It is not difficult to prove that one of this two values lies in the interval where $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, and the other outside. Therefore, to fix the hierarchy of the scattering lengths we choose the condensate 1 in order to satisfy the condition $`\eta ^2u_{11}/u_{22}`$; with this choice the critical value lying in the interval of positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is $`u^{}\eta u_{11}`$. In Figs. 2 and 2 we show the position of the centers $`z_{ci}`$ and the normalization factors $`\alpha _i`$ as a function of $`u_{12}`$. Notice that in correspondence of $`u^{}`$ the center $`z_{c2}`$ of the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ goes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, and the normalization factor $`\alpha _2`$ becomes negative. Therefore for $`u^{}<u_{12}<\overline{u}`$ the region where $`|\psi _2|^2>0`$ is the one outside the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ (see also Figs. 3c,g).

We can distinguish three cases:

* $`u_{12}<\overline{u}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$: no overlapping solution is allowed in this range. From Fig. 2 we see that both $`\alpha _i`$ are negative, and therefore it is not difficult to prove that an overlapping region could be constructed only at the price of putting an hole in the condensate, where both $`\psi _i`$ would be vanishing. This has obviously no physical meaning and in fact what actually happens is that when $`u_{12}`$ approaches $`\overline{u}^+`$ the condensates eventually collapse bigelow ; esry .
* $`\overline{u}<u_{12}<\overline{u}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$: in this range the two condensate can coexist and overlap in some region of space if $`|dz|<R_{10}+R_{20}`$. We will discuss in detail the actual degree of overlap and its topology in the next section.
* $`u_{12}>\overline{u}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$: in this case the strong mutual repulsion leads to a phase separation between the two condensates timm ; ao . The actual shape of the interface is determined by the one at the critical value $`\overline{u}`$. Since for this value the overlap goes to zero (in the TF approximation), if one further increases $`u_{12}`$ the shape of the interface cannot change.

Of course, if one retains the kinetic term in the GP equations this can in part affect the degree of overlap between the two condensates. In particular the transition to the phase separation regime is not so sharp: the condensates can have an appreciable overlap also for $`u_{12}\overline{u}`$ tripp ; barankov ; esry . The effect of the kinetic energy is also to raise the critical value below which the system collapses.

### III.2 Topology of spatial configurations

In this section we investigate the different configurations which can be obtained in the case (ii) discussed above ($`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, $`\overline{u}<u_{12}<\overline{u}`$). Before solving completely the system for some particular set of parameters, we give an overview of the different topologies that one can obtain. We again distinguish three cases, as shown in Fig. 3

* “external overlap”: This case can take place when the separation $`|dz|`$ between the centers is larger than the difference of the radii of the non-interacting profiles, $`|R_{01}R_{02}|<|dz|<R_{01}+R_{02}`$ (see Figs. 3a-d). One can easily verify that all the four surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0i}`$ intersect on a circle perpendicular to the plane in Fig. 3, passing for the points P and Q (shown as black dots). The overlapping region is the one contained between the surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ (dashed lines in the figure) whose actual shape depend on $`u_{12}`$, as shown in Fig. 3 for $`u_{12}<0`$ (a), $`0<u_{12}<u^{}`$ (b), $`u^{}<u_{12}<\overline{u}`$ (c), and $`u_{12}=\overline{u}`$ which is a case of phase separation (d). For smaller $`dz`$ one obtains other configurations, which fall in the next two classes.
* “full overlap”: in this case, for $`|dz|<|R_{01}R_{02}|`$, one of the two condensates is entirely contained into the other with whom it is fully overlapping. See Figs. 3e-f for $`u_{12}<0`$ and $`0<u_{12}<u^{}`$ respectively. Which of the two condensates lies in the outer shell depends the actual value of the parameters ho .
* “partial overlap”: this is similar to the case (2), but now the overlap take place over a shell which separates the inner core containing the condensate 1, and the outer region with the condensate 2 (Fig. 3g). Notice that according to the above discussion this configuration is possible only for $`u^{}<u_{12}<\overline{u}`$ where the sign of $`\alpha _2`$ is negative. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition, since also the condition $`R_2<R_1`$ must be satisfied. In this range of $`u_{12}`$ (where $`\alpha _2<0`$) another possible solution is $`R_2^2<0`$, which leads to the case (2). By further increasing $`u_{12}`$ to the critical value $`\overline{u}`$ one again obtain a configuration of phase separation (Fig. 3h).

Having determined the possible configurations of the system, we are now ready to solve any particular problem by imposing the normalization condition (3). To do this one has to write the normalization integrals for each of the possible profiles in Fig. 3, and then solve Eq. (3) in order to find the chemical potentials $`\mu _i`$ as a function of the atom numbers $`N_i`$. The analytic expressions for these integrals are given in Appendix A. These are polynomial functions of fractional powers in the chemical potentials $`\mu _i`$, and in general Eq. (3) does not admit analytical solutions. Therefore the relation between $`\mu _i`$ and $`N_i`$ must be inverted numerically (which is nevertheless a much easier task than solving numerically the full Gross-Pitaevskii problem). For the special case of phase separation the two normalization equations can be decoupled (by using the fact that $`R_1=R_2`$ and $`z_{c1}=z_{c2}`$ for $`u_{12}=\overline{u}`$), and solved analytically for $`dz=0`$.

Notice that in general (except for some particular case, e.g. $`dz=0`$) it is not possible to know a priori which of the various configurations in Fig. 3 applies: one has to solve Eq. (3) for all the possible configurations, and then choose the one which gives a self-consistent solution.

In summary the ground state configuration for a particular system can be found in three steps:

* choose the normalization integrals which applies to the possible profiles in Fig. 3 for a given $`u_{12}`$, and determine $`\mu _i(N_i)`$ by solving Eq. (3) self-consistently;
* identify the overlapping region by plotting the “interacting” surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$;
* determine the non-interacting region for each condensate by using the “non-interacting” surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0i}`$, and the continuity of the wave functions (see Fig. 3).

We also remind that for the very special case $`dz=0`$ there are also symmetry breaking solutions, not included in the present analysis, which could be energetically favorable tripp .

### III.3 Examples

To give some explicit example we now consider two condensates of 87Rb and 41K, which is a promising system for the realization of a new binary mixture of BECs potassio ; potassio\_new . We will classify some possible configurations which can be obtained by varying the number of atoms in each condensate, for different values of the inter-atomic scattering length, which is considered here as a tunable parameter a12 . The results, valid in the Thomas-Fermi (TF) approximation, will be compared with the numeric solution of the full-3D Gross-Pitaevskii equations (GPE), found using a steepest descent method report .

We start by considering a case of “external overlap” with both condensates in the hyperfine level $`|2,2`$ ($`\eta =1`$). The scattering lengths are $`a_{Rb}=99a_0`$ and $`a_K=60a_0`$, $`a_0`$ being the Bohr radius scatt . As trap frequencies we use $`\omega _x^{Rb}=16`$Hz, $`\omega _y^{Rb}=\omega _z^{Rb}=250`$Hz, with an angle of rotation $`\theta =0.035`$ (we retain these values for all the cases analyzed in this section). With this choice the reduced coupling constant $`u_{ii}`$ are

$$u_{Rb,Rb}=0.0611,u_{K,K}=0.0785$$
(37)
and therefore, according to the above discussion, we identify the condensates 1 with 87Rb, and the condensates 2 with 41K. We choose a case attractive interaction between the two condensates, $`a_{12}=55a_0`$ ($`u_{12}=0.0530`$), with $`N_{Rb}=510^4`$ and $`N_K=210^4`$. To visualize the role of the scaling and rotation transformations, in Fig. 4 we show the TF profiles of the two condensates in the $`xz`$ plane, in rescaled (left) and natural coordinates (the coordinate axes correspond to the trap eigenaxes; right). The profiles in natural units can be easily obtained by performing the inverse transformation of those in Eqs. (12) and (13). We will use this system of coordinates to show all the following figures. Notice that despite the small rotation angle $`\theta `$, (the direction of gravity, represented by a dotted line in the right picture of Fig. 4, is almost indistinguishable from the $`z`$ axis on the scale of the figure) the misalignment in the direction of gravity produces a relatively large horizontal sag in the $`x`$ direction where the trap confinement is weak.

In Fig. 5 we compare the TF profiles with the contour plot of the two densities, as found from the full GPE solution. For clarity each condensate is plotted separately, and compared with the TF profiles which define the boundary of the non-interacting (continuous lines) or overlapping phases (dashed lines), as defined in Fig. 3. The outer contour line for each condensate correspond to $`10\%`$ of its peak density (for $`y=0`$).

Then we consider two examples for a system where the 87Rb condensate is in the hyperfine level $`|2,2`$ and the 41K condensate in $`|2,1`$ (we use again $`a_{K,K}=60a_0`$). In this case $`\eta =0.5`$. In Fig. 6 we show a case of “partial overlap”, obtained by fixing the inter-atomic scattering length to $`a_{12}=67a_0`$ ($`u_{12}=0.0645`$) and the number of atoms to $`N_{Rb}=210^4`$ and $`N_K=210^5`$. Notice that when both condensates are in the $`|2,2`$ level the spatial separation between the two is too large to allow for a configuration of “partial overlap” for reasonable values of the trap frequencies (in principle one could reduce the separation by strongly increasing the confinement in the direction of gravity).

Finally, in Fig. 7 we show a case of “full overlap” for $`N_{Rb}=510^5`$, $`N_K=110^4`$, and $`a_{12}=20a_0`$, giving $`u_{12}=0.0193`$.

From the examples considered here we see that, although the full solution of the GPE is required for a precise determination of the actual degree of overlap between the two condensates, the TF approximation well captures the basic topology of the ground state configurations. Therefor, due to its simplicity, the TF method presented here can be a useful tool to characterize the ground state structure of a binary mixture of BECs also in presence of a non trivial geometry.

We conclude this section by noting that we have also verified that our method well reproduces the results already studied in literature in case of simpler geometries ho ; esry ; tripp .

## IV Conclusions

We have presented a general method to classify the ground-state of a binary mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates. We have considered the general case of of two different atomic species, with different mass and in different hyperfine states, trapped in a magnetic potential. We have explicitly included the possibility of a non trivial gravitational sag, when the direction of gravity is not aligned with any of the trap eigenaxes, since even a small misalignment can produce a large “horizontal sag”. We have shown that, within the Thomas-Fermi approximations and by performing a suitable coordinate transformation, the equations for the density distributions can be put in a simple spherical form. We have given explicit rules to classify the different spatial topologies which can be produced, and we have discussed how the behavior of the system is influenced by the inter-atomic interaction.

We have also provided explicit examples, and compared the results with the full numeric Gross-Pitaevskii calculation, finding a good agreement.

The results presented in this paper might be useful for analyzing future experiments where new combinations of binary condensates are likely to be produced potassio ; potassio\_new .

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge useful discussion with G. Modugno and G. Roati.

Note added After having completed this work we became aware of a very recent preprint related to this subject jezek .

## Appendix A Normalization integrals

In this appendix we give the explicit expressions for the integrals which enter the normalization condition (3). We distinguish two general cases: (i) “internal overlap” one of the two condensates is entirely contained into the other (Fig. 3, right column), and (ii) “external overlap”, (Fig. 3, left column).

In both cases the normalization condition can be written as a sum of integrals of a generic density

$$|\psi |^2=\alpha \left(R_c^2r^2(zz_c)^2\right)$$
(38)
over an appropriate portions of spherical domain whose boundary is given by the surface

$$R_A^2=r^2+(zz_A)^2.$$
(39)
In the following subsections we consider explicitly the two cases.

### A.1 Internal overlap

In this case the normalization condition can be imposed by using a combination of integrals over spherical domains. The generic form is

$`I_I(\alpha ,z_c,R_c,z_A,R_A)=`$ (40)
$`4\pi \alpha R_A^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}R_c^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(z_cz_A)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}R_A^2\right]`$
From this expression one also recover the value of the integral for the non-interacting case

$$I_n(\mu _i)=\frac{8\pi }{15}\alpha R_c^5$$
(41)
($`I_n(\mu _i)=4\pi (2\mu _i)^{5/2}/u_{ii}`$ for $`\eta =1`$).

By using appropriate combinations of the integral (40), the normalization condition for the case shown in Fig. 3g reads

$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`I_I(\alpha _1,z_{c1},R_1(\mu _1,\mu _2),z_{c1},R_1(\mu _1,\mu _2))I_I(\alpha _1,z_{c1},R_1(\mu _1,\mu _2),z_{c2},R_2(\mu _1,\mu _2))`$ (42)
$`+I_I(\alpha _{01},0,\sqrt{2\mu _1/\eta },z_{c2},R_2(\mu _1,\mu _2))`$
$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`I_n(\mu _2)I_I(\alpha _{02},dz,\sqrt{2\mu _2/\eta },z_{c1},R_1(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$ (43)
$`+I_I(\alpha _2,z_{c2},R_2(\mu _1,\mu _2),z_{c1},R_1(\mu _1,\mu _2))I_I(\alpha _2,z_{c2},R_2(\mu _1,\mu _2),z_{c2},R_2(\mu _1,\mu _2))`$
where we have indicated the explicit dependence on $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$. The cases in Figs. 3e,f,h can be constructed in a similar way.

### A.2 External overlap

These are the configurations shown in Fig. 3a-d. In this case the master integral can be written as the integral over a convex domain delimited by two spherical surfaces (A and B the upper and lower ones along the $`z`$ axis respectively)

$`I_E(\alpha ,z_c,R_c,z_A,R_A,z_B,R_B)=\pi \alpha [R_A^2(R_c^20.5R_A^2(z_cz_A)^2)(R_A\overline{z}(A,B))`$
$`R_A^2(z_cz_A)(R_A^2\overline{z}^2(A,B)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(R_c^2(z_cz_A)^2\right)(R_A^3\overline{z}^3(A,B))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(z_cz_A)(R_A^4\overline{z}^4(A,B))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}(R_A^5\overline{z}^5(A,B))]+(z_Az_B,R_AR_B)`$ (44)
with

$$\overline{z}(A,B)=\frac{R_A^2R_B^2+(z_Bz_A)^2}{2(z_Az_B)}.$$
(45)
By assuming a configuration where the condensate 1 has a lower position along $`z`$ (as in Fig. 3), the normalization condition for the cases with $`u_{12}<u^{}`$ shown in Fig. 3a,b is

$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`I_n(\mu _1)I_E(\alpha _{01},0,\sqrt{2\mu _1},0,\sqrt{2\mu _1},z_{c2},R_2(\mu _1,\mu _2))`$ (46)
$`+I_E(\alpha _1,z_{c1},R_1(\mu _1,\mu _2),z_{c1},R_1(\mu _1,\mu _2),z_{c2},R_2(\mu _1,\mu _2))`$
$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`I_n(\mu _2)I_E(\alpha _{02},dz,\sqrt{2\mu _2/\eta },z_{c1},R_1(\mu _1,\mu _2),dz,\sqrt{2\mu _1})`$ (47)
$`+I_E(\alpha _2,z_{c2},R_2(\mu _1,\mu _2),z_{c1},R_1(\mu _1,\mu _2),z_{c2},R_2(\mu _1,\mu _2))`$
In an analogous way one can construct the appropriate normalization condition for all other cases in this class (“external overlap”), by considering the appropriate combination of integral of the form (44) over convex domains.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a paper by Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Dietz, Harney, and Krivosheina? (Hereafter referred to as KDHK) evidence is claimed for zero-neutrino double-beta decay in 76Ge. The high quality data, upon which this claim is based, was compiled by the careful efforts of the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration, and is well documented?. However, the analysis in KDHK makes an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires very solid substantiation. In this letter, we outline our concerns for the claim of evidence.

Unfortunately, a large number of issues were not addressed in KDHK. Some of these are:

1. There is no null hypothesis analysis demonstrating that the data require a peak. Furthermore, no simulation has been presented to demonstrate that the analysis correctly finds true peaks or that it would find no peaks if none existed. Monte Carlo simulations of spectra containing different numbers of peaks are needed to confirm the significance of any found peaks.
2. There are three unidentified peaks in the region of analysis that have greater significance than the 2039-keV peak. There is no discussion of the origin of these peaks.
3. There is no discussion of how sensitive the conclusions are to different mathematical models. There is a previous Heidelberg-Moscow publication? that gives a lower limit of 1.9 $`\times `$ 1025 y (90% confidence level). This is in conflict with the “best value” of the new KDHK paper of 1.5 $`\times `$ 1025 y. This indicates a dependence of the results on the analysis model and the background evaluation.

A number of other cross checks of the result should also be performed. For example, there is no discussion of how a variation of the size of the chosen analysis window affects the significance of the hypothetical peak. There is no relative peak strength analysis of all the 214Bi peaks. Quantitative evaluations should be made on the four 214Bi peaks in the region of interest. There is no statement of the net count rate of the peaks other than the 2039-keV peak. There is no presentation of the entire spectrum. As a result, it is difficult to compare relative strengths of peaks. There is no discussion of the relative peak strengths before and after the single-site-event cut. This is needed to elucidate the model for the origin of the peaks.

Our investigations of several of these issues create doubt as to the validity of the paper’s conclusions. Below, we demonstrate this by briefly discussing two items. Our analyses suggest that, at best, KDHK failed in presenting a strong case for their extraordinary claim, and at worst, that their analyses or assumptions have led to an incorrect claim.

## 2 The Choice of Window and Background

In Fig. 2 of KDHK, the count rate in the region of 2000-2080 keV is 0.168 c/(keV$``$kg$``$yr), and in the 2034-2045 keV region it is 0.167 c/(keV$``$kg$``$yr). These numbers indicate a flat background and very little signal. However, KDHK found numerous peaks in the 2000-2080 keV region in their search for a peak. Next, they constrained their double-beta decay ($`\beta \beta `$) analysis to a small region that excluded these peaks. An analysis only within that limited region is used to claim a 2039-keV peak at the 2-3 $`\sigma `$ level. The conclusion in KDHK must depend on the choice of window and on the number of peaks in the region near the window. In particular, it requires that the other peaks found are real so that the background level can be diminished.

## 3 The Relative Strength of the 214Bi Peaks

The KDHK paper provides data only in the 2000-2080 keV region. However a recent paper by the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration? (hereafter referred to as HM) shows the entire spectrumaaaFig. 1 in HM has an incorrect caption and the Figure is actually for only 1 detector. Therefore we multiplied the net peak counts from that detector by 4 so it would correspond to a spectrum composed of 4 detectors and could be compared to Fig. 2 in KDHK. A similar analysis using a 49.03 kg-y, 5-detector spectrum from Ref. ? leads to the same qualitative conclusions. from 100-2700 keV, which permits a relative-intensity peak-analysis. Although the two data sets are not entirely congruent, they are very similar, having 47.4 kg-y of data (HM) and 46.5 kg-y of data (KDHK). They both quote comparable backgrounds in the 2000-2080 keV region.

The table below summarizes an analysis of the 214Bi peak intensities, as given in HM and in KDHK. The first column gives the peak energy of seven of the 214Bi lines: three major lines spanning the region of interest and the four weak lines that can appear in the region of interest. KDHK claims to have observed lines at the positions of the 4 weak 214Bi lines.

The rates for the 3 major peaks given in Column 2 were calculated by integrating the spectrum in HM. For those 3 peaks, the fourth column is the relative peak count rate divided by the branching fraction. If the efficiency were the same for all peak energies, these should all have the same value. In fact, peak efficiency is rarely independent of energy, and here it actually increases slightly with increasing energy.

Since the relative counting efficiency is virtually flat as a function of energy, all peaks in the 2000-2080 keV region are assigned the same interpolated number. The last column uses the measured 214Bi disintegration rate from the three major (and prominent) peaks and calculates the expected count rate for the four minor 214Bi peaks in KDHK. These rates are all $``$ 0.08 c/(kg$``$yr). For a peak width of $``$4 keV, this corresponds to 0.02 c/(keV$``$kg$``$yr) and therefore too low to be observed as peaks superimposed upon a background of 0.17 c/(keV$``$kg$``$yr) as shown in Fig. 2 of KDHK. The strongest of these peaks would produce only about 4 counts in 46.5 kg-y over an expected background of $``$32 counts. One is led to conclude that there are no observable 214Bi peaks in the 2000-2080 keV region. That is, the 214Bi peaks found by KDHK in the region of interest appear to be spurious.

## 4 Conclusions

A simple analysis of the 214Bi peaks suggests that the peak finding procedure used by KDHK can produce spurious peaks near the $`\beta \beta (0\nu )`$ endpoint. However, the existence of these claimed peaks is crucial to the KDHK claim of a peak at 2039 keV, which is interpreted as zero-neutrino double-beta decay. Hence, all the peaks claimed in the 2000-2080 keV region may be spurious, and the entire count rate therefore attributable to a flat uniform background. Alternatively, if all the peaks are real but unidentified, the putative 2039-keV feature may be simply another of those unidentified lines.

These two examples emphasize the importance of addressing all the items listed in the Introduction. By failing to address these issues, the KDHK paper does not provide sufficient support for its claim of evidence for $`\beta \beta (0\nu )`$.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge supportive discussions with Dale Anderson, Laura Baudis, Theodore Bowyer, David Jordan, Bela Majorovits, William Pitts, Eric Smith, Bob Thompson, Albert Young, and Igor Kirpichnikov.

The preprint by Feruglio, Strumia, and Vissani? with independent criticisms of the KDHK result became available during the final preparation of this manuscript.

## 6 References