text:
# Ground state energy in a wormhole space-time.

## I Introduction

Wormholes are topological handles in space-time linking widely separated regions of a single universe, or “bridges” joining two different space-times. Interest in these configurations dates back at least as far as 1916  with punctuated revivals of activity following both the classic work of Einstein and Rosen in 1935  and the later series of works initiated by Wheeler in 1955 . More recently, a fresh interest in the topic has been rekindled by the works of Morris and Thorne  and Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever . These authors constructed and investigated a class of objects they referred to as “traversable wormholes”. Their work led to a flurry of activity in wormhole physics .

The central feature of wormhole physics is the fact that traversable wormholes are accompanied by unavoidable violations of the null energy condition, i.e., the matter threading the wormhole’s throat has to be possessed of “exotic” properties. The classical matter does satisfy the usual energy conditions, hence wormholes cannot arise as solutions of classical relativity and matter. If they exist, they must belong to the realm of semi-classical or perhaps quantum gravity. In the absence of the complete theory of quantum gravity, the semi-classical approach begins to play the most important role for examining wormholes. However, there are not so much results concerning quantized fields on the wormhole background. Recently the self-consistent wormholes in the semi-classical gravity were studied numerically in our works . As well some arguments in favor of the possibility of existence of self-consistent wormhole solutions to the semi-classical Einstein equations have been given in works of Khatsymovsky in Ref..

Note that all the mentioned results were obtained within the framework of various approximations, whereas no one up to now has succeeded in exact calculations of vacuum expectation values on the wormhole background. The reason for this state of affairs consists in considerable mathematical difficulties which one faces with trying to quantize a physical field on the wormhole background. To overcome these difficulties, in this work we will consider a simple model of the wormhole space-time: the short-throat flat-space wormhole. The model represents two identical copies of Minkowski space with excised from each copy spherical regions, and with boundaries of those regions are to be identified. The space-time of this model is everywhere flat except a two-dimensional singular spherical surface. Due to this fact it turns out to be possible to construct the complete set of wave modes of the massive scalar field and calculate the ground state energy.

The aim of our work is to calculate the ground state energy of the scalar field on the short-throat flat-space wormhole background using the zeta function regularization approach  which was developed in Refs. . In framework of this approach, the ground state energy of scalar field $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$E(s)=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{2s}\zeta _{}\left(s\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(1)
where

$$\zeta _{}(s)=\underset{(n)}{}\left(\lambda _{(n)}^2+m^2\right)^s$$
(2)
is the zeta function of the corresponding Laplace operator. To make the eigenvalues $`\lambda _{(n)}^2`$ discrete we assume the field $`\varphi `$ to be put into a large ball with Dirichlet boundary condition. The $`\lambda _{(n)}^2`$ are eigenvalues of the three dimensional Laplace operator $``$

$$(\mathrm{}\xi R)\varphi _{(n)}=\lambda _{(n)}^2\varphi _{(n)},$$
(3)
where $`R`$ is the curvature scalar.

The expression (1) is divergent in the limit $`s0`$ which we are interesting in. For renormalization we subtract from (1) the divergent part of it

$$E^{\mathrm{ren}}=\underset{s0}{lim}\left(E(s)E^{\mathrm{div}}(s)\right),$$
(4)
where

$$E^{\mathrm{div}}(s)=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}E(s).$$
(5)
By virtue of the heat kernel expansion of zeta function is the asymptotic expansion for large mass, the divergent part has the following form

$`E^{\mathrm{div}}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}\right)^{2s}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{B_0m^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2)+B_{1/2}m^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+B_1m^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)+B_{3/2}m\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+B_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\right\},`$ (7)
where $`B_\alpha `$ are the heat kernel coefficients.

In this case the renormalized ground state energy (4) obeys the normalization condition

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}E^{\mathrm{ren}}=0.$$
(8)
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II we describe a space-time of wormhole in the short-throat flat-space approximation and analyze the solution of equation of motion for massive scalar field. In Sec. III we obtain close expression for zeta function and ground state energy and calculate corresponding heat kernel coefficients. We analyze also the expression for ground state energy for different radius of throat. In Sec IV we discuss our results. The Appendixes A and B contain some technical details of calculations.

We use units $`\mathrm{}=c=G=1`$ (except Sec IV). The signature of the space-time, the sign of the Riemann and Ricci tensors, is the same as in the book by Hawking and Ellis .

## II A traversable wormhole: the short-throat flat-space approximation

In this section we consider a simple model of a traversable wormhole. Assume that the throat of the wormhole is very short, and that curvature in the regions outside the mouth of the wormhole is relatively weak. An idealized model of such a wormhole can be constructed in the following manner: Consider two copies of Minkowski space, $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$, with the spherical coordinates $`(t,r_\pm ,\theta _\pm ,\phi _\pm )`$ \[Notice: $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$ have a common time coordinate $`t`$. One may interpret this fact as the identification $`t_+t_{}`$.\]; excise from each copy the spherical region $`r_\pm <a`$, where $`a`$ is a radius of sphere; and then identify the boundaries of those regions: $`(t,a,\theta _+,\phi _+)(t,a,\theta _{},\phi _{})`$. The Riemann tensor for this model is identically zero everywhere except at the wormhole mouths where the identification procedure takes place. Generically, there will be an infinitesimally thin layer of exotic matter present at the mouth of the wormhole.

Such an idealized geometry can be described by the following metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+d\rho ^2+r^2(\rho )(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$
(9)
where $`\rho `$ is a proper radial distance, $`\mathrm{}<\rho <\mathrm{}`$, and the shape function $`r(\rho )`$ is

$$r(\rho )=|\rho |+a.$$
(10)
It is easily to see that in two regions $`_+:\rho >0`$ and $`_{}:\rho <0`$ separately, one can introduce a new radial coordinate $`r_\pm =\pm \rho +a`$ and rewrite the metric (9) in the usual spherical coordinates:

$$ds^2=dt^2+dr_\pm ^2+r_\pm ^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$

This form of the metric explicitly indicates that the regions $`_+:\rho >0`$ and $`_{}:\rho <0`$ are flat. However, note that such the change of coordinates $`r=|\rho |+a`$ is not global, because it is ill defined at the throat $`\rho =0`$. Hence, as was expected, the space-time is curved at the wormhole throat. To illustrate this we calculate the scalar curvature $`R(\rho )`$ in the metric (9):

$$R(\rho )=8a^1\delta (\rho ).$$
(11)
Let us now consider a scalar field $`\varphi `$ in the space-time with the metric (9). The equation of motion of the scalar field is

$$(\mathrm{}m^2\xi R)\varphi =0,$$
(12)
where $`m`$ is a mass of the scalar field, and $`\xi `$ is an arbitrary coupling with the scalar curvature $`R`$. In the metric (9), a general solution to the equation (12) can be found in the following form:

$$\varphi (t,\rho ,\theta ,\phi )=e^{i\omega t}u(\rho )Y_{ln}(\theta ,\phi ),$$
(13)
where $`Y_{ln}(\theta ,\phi )`$ are spherical functions, $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, $`n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},\pm l`$, and a function $`u(\rho )`$ obeys the radial equation

$$u^{\prime \prime }+2\frac{r^{}}{r}u^{}+\left(\omega ^2\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}m^2\xi R\right)u=0,$$
(14)
where a prime denotes the derivative $`d/d\rho `$. In the flat regions $`_\pm `$, where $`r(\rho )=\pm \rho +a`$, $`r^{}(\rho )=\pm 1`$, and $`R(\rho )=0`$, Eq.(14) reads

$$u^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2}{\rho \pm a}u^{}+\left(\omega ^2m^2\frac{l(l+1)}{(\rho \pm a)^2}\right)u=0.$$
(15)
A general solution of this equation can be written as

$$u_l^\pm [\lambda (\rho \pm a)]=A_l^\pm h_l^{(1)}[\lambda (\rho \pm a)]+B_l^\pm h_l^{(2)}[\lambda (\rho \pm a)],$$
(16)
where

$$\lambda =\sqrt{\omega ^2m^2},|\omega |>m,$$

$`h_l^{(i)}[z]`$ are spherical Hankel functions, and $`A_l^\pm `$, $`B_l^\pm `$ are arbitrary constants.

The solutions $`u_l^\pm [\lambda (\rho \pm a)]`$ have been obtained in the flat regions $`_\pm `$ separately. To find a solution in the whole space-time we must impose matching conditions for $`u_l^\pm [\lambda (\rho \pm a)]`$ at the throat $`\rho =0`$. The first condition demands that the solution has to be continuous at $`\rho =0`$. This gives

$$u_l^{}[\lambda a]=u_l^+[\lambda a],$$

or

$$A_l^{}h_l^{(1)}[\lambda a]+B_l^{}h_l^{(2)}[\lambda a]A_l^+h_l^{(1)}[\lambda a]B_l^+h_l^{(2)}[\lambda a]=0.$$
(17)
To obtain the second condition we integrate Eq.(14) within the interval $`(ϵ,ϵ)`$ and then go to the limit $`ϵ0`$. Taking into account the following relations

$`r(\rho )=|\rho |+a,r^{}(\rho )=sign\rho ,r^{\prime \prime }(\rho )=2\delta (\rho ),`$ (18)
$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle _ϵ^ϵ}f(\rho )\delta (\rho )𝑑\rho =f(0),`$ (19)
we find

$$\frac{du_l^{}[x]}{dx}|_{x=\lambda a}=\frac{du_l^+[x]}{dx}|_{x=\lambda a}+\frac{8\xi }{\lambda a}u_l^+[\lambda a].$$
(20)
Substituting Eq. (16) into (20) gives

$$A_l^{}h_{l}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a]+B_l^{}h_{l}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a]\left(h_{l}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a]+\frac{8\xi }{\lambda a}h_l^{(1)}[\lambda a]\right)A_l^+\left(h_{l}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a]+\frac{8\xi }{\lambda a}h_l^{(2)}[\lambda a]\right)B_l^+=0,$$
(21)
where $`h_{l}^{(i)}{}_{}{}^{}[\pm \lambda a]=(dh_l^{(i)}[x]/dx)_{x=\pm \lambda a}`$.

In addition to two matching conditions (17) and (21) we must demand regular behavior of the scalar field at the infinity. For this aim, we will consider a “box approximation”, i.e., we will assume, in an intermediate stage of calculations, that the wormhole space-time has an finite radius $`R`$, so that $`|\rho |R`$, and we will go, in the end, to the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. In the framework of the box approximation, we demand that the scalar field becomes to be equal zero at the space-time bounds $`\rho =\pm R`$. Taking into account Eq. (16) gives

$$u_l^{}[\lambda (R+a)]=0,u_l^+[\lambda (R+a)]=0,$$

or

$$A_l^{}h_l^{(1)}[\lambda (R+a)]+B_l^{}h_l^{(2)}[\lambda (R+a)]=0,$$
(22)
$$A_l^+h_l^{(1)}[\lambda (R+a)]+B_l^+h_l^{(2)}[\lambda (R+a)]=0.$$
(23)
The four conditions (17), (21), (22) and (23) obtained represent a homogeneous system of linear algebraic equations for four coefficients $`A_l^\pm `$, $`B_l^\pm `$. As is known, such a system has a nontrivial solution if and only if the matrix of coefficients is degenerate. Hence we get

$$\left|\begin{array}{cccc}h_l^{(1)}[\lambda a]& h_l^{(2)}[\lambda a]& h_l^{(1)}[\lambda a]& h_l^{(2)}[\lambda a]\\ h_{l}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a]& h_{l}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a]& h_{l}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a]\frac{8\xi }{\lambda a}h_l^{(1)}[\lambda a]& h_{l}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a]\frac{8\xi }{\lambda a}h_l^{(2)}[\lambda a]\\ h_l^{(1)}[\lambda (R+a)]& h_l^{(2)}[\lambda (R+a)]& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& h_l^{(1)}[\lambda (R+a)]& h_l^{(2)}[\lambda (R+a)]\end{array}\right|=0.$$
(24)
After some algebra one can show that the determinant in the above formula is factorized, and so Eq. (24) can be reduced to the following two relations:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_l^1[\lambda ]=0,$$
(25)
and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_l^2[\lambda ]=0,$$
(26)
where the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1[\lambda ]`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2[\lambda ]`$ are defined as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^1[\lambda ]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda }{2}}\sqrt{a(a+R)}\left\{h_l^{(1)}[\lambda (R+a)]h_l^{(2)}[\lambda a]h_l^{(2)}[\lambda (R+a)]h_l^{(1)}[\lambda a]\right\},`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^2[\lambda ]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda ^2a}{8}}\sqrt{a(a+R)}\{h_l^{(1)}[\lambda (R+a)]({\displaystyle \frac{4\xi }{\lambda a}}h_l^{(2)}[\lambda a]+h_{l}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a])`$ (28)
$``$ $`h_l^{(2)}[\lambda (R+a)]({\displaystyle \frac{4\xi }{\lambda a}}h_l^{(1)}[\lambda a]+h_{l}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}[\lambda a])\}.`$ (29)
We introduced additional factors in order to simplify formulas that follow. These factors do not change the relations (25), (26). A significance of Eqs. (25) and (26) is that they determine a set of possible values of the wave number $`\lambda `$, i.e., a spectrum for scalar field modes. Resolving Eq. (25) and Eq. (26) we can obtain two families, respectively:

$`\lambda _{lp_1}^{(1)}(a,R,\xi ),p_1=1,2,3,\mathrm{},`$ (31)
$`\lambda _{lp_2}^{(2)}(a,R,\xi ),p_2=1,2,3,\mathrm{}.`$ (32)
## III Ground state energy and heat kernel coefficients.

A ground state energy is given by

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha =1,2}{}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)\sqrt{\lambda _{lp}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2},$$
(33)
which is, in fact, the zero point energy of massive scalar field. This expression is divergent. In the framework of the zeta function regularization method , the ground state energy is expressed in terms of the zeta function

$$E(s)=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{2s}\zeta _{}\left(s\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(34)
where

$$\zeta _{}\left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)=\underset{\alpha =1,2}{}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)\left(\lambda _{lp}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2\right)^{1/2s}$$
(35)
is the zeta function associated with Laplace operator $`\widehat{}=\mathrm{}m^2\xi R`$. The parameter $`\mu `$, with dimension of mass, has been introduced in order to have the correct dimension for the energy. For simplicity we represent Eq. (34) in slightly different form

$$E(s)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mu }{m}\right)^{2s}\zeta \left(s\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(36)
where we introduced the function with dimension energy

$$\zeta \left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)=m^{2s}\zeta _{}\left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(37)
which we shall call the zeta function, too.

The solutions $`\lambda _{lp}^{(\alpha )}(a,R,\xi )`$ of Eqs. (25), (26) cannot be found in closed form. For this reason we use the method suggested in Ref. , which allows us to express the zeta function in terms of the eigenfunctions. The sum over $`p`$ may be converted into a contour integral in a complex $`\lambda `$-plane using the principal of argument, namely

$$\zeta \left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)=\frac{m^{2s}}{2\pi i}\underset{\alpha =1,2}{}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)_\gamma 𝑑\lambda \left(\lambda ^2+m^2\right)^{1/2s}\frac{}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Psi }_l^\alpha [\lambda ],$$
(38)
where the contour $`\gamma `$ runs counterclockwise and must enclose all solutions of Eqs. (25), (26). Shifting the contour to the imaginary axis, we obtain the following formula for the zeta function

$$\zeta \left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)=m^{2s}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\pi s}{\pi }\underset{\alpha =1,2}{}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)_m^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\left(k^2m^2\right)^{1/2s}\frac{}{k}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Psi }_l^\alpha [ik],$$
(39)
where the functions (27), (29) in the imaginary axis $`\lambda =ik`$ read

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^1[ik]`$ $`=`$ $`I_\nu [k(R+a)]K_\nu [ka]K_\nu [k(R+a)]I_\nu [ka],`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^2[ik]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l^1[ik]+{\displaystyle \frac{ka}{4}}\left\{I_\nu [k(R+a)]K_\nu ^{}[ka]K_\nu [k(R+a)]I_\nu ^{}[ka]\right\},`$ (42)
with

$$\nu =l+\frac{1}{2}.$$

The expression (39) may be simplified in the large box limit $`Ra`$, which we are interesting in. Let us rewrite $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^1[ik]`$ in the following form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_l^1[ik]=I_\nu [k(R+a)]K_\nu [ka]\left(1\frac{K_\nu [k(R+a)]I_\nu [ka]}{I_\nu [k(R+a)]K_\nu [ka]}\right).$$
(43)
In the large box limit, the second term in brackets obeys the inequality

$$\frac{K_\nu [k(R+a)]I_\nu [ka]}{I_\nu [k(R+a)]K_\nu [ka]}<e^{2mR}$$
(44)
and brings exponentially small contribution for ground state energy.

Therefore, in the limit of large box we have

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^1[ik]`$ $``$ $`I_\nu [k(a+R))]K_\nu [ka],`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^2[ik]`$ $``$ $`I_\nu [k(a+R)]\left\{\left(\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right)K_\nu [ka]+{\displaystyle \frac{ka}{4}}K_\nu ^{}[ka]\right\}.`$ (47)
In this moment we have to make comment on above formulas. Our approach is valid in the case if the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^m`$ in the imaginary axis do not have zeros in the domain of integration in Eq. (39). It gives the restriction for $`\xi `$. The function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^1[ik]`$ has no zeros in the imaginary axis, but function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^2[ik]`$ has simple zeros if $`\xi >\frac{1}{4}`$. Indeed, by using recurrent formulas for Bessel’s function, let us represent the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^2[ik]`$ in the following form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_l^2[ik]=I_\nu [k(a+R)]\left\{\left(\xi \frac{1}{8}\frac{\nu }{4}\right)K_\nu [ka]\frac{ka}{4}K_{\nu 1}[ka]\right\}.$$
(48)
Since the Bessel’s functions $`K_\nu `$ are positive, the expression in brackets may change sign and therefore the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^2[ik]`$ may have zeros, if

$$\xi \frac{1}{8}\frac{\nu }{4}>0.$$
(49)
The lowest boundary for $`\xi `$ is $`1/4`$ for $`l=0`$. More precisely, in this case we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0^2=\frac{1}{2k}\frac{1}{\sqrt{a(a+R)}}e^{kR}(1e^{2k(a+R)})\left(\xi \frac{1}{4}\frac{ka}{4}\right).$$
(50)
As far as $`k>m`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^2`$ has simple zero at point $`k=(4\xi 1)/a`$ if

$$\xi >\frac{1}{4}+\frac{ma}{4}.$$
(51)
For this reason in the paper we will consider ground state energy for $`\xi <1/4`$. In opposite case we have to modify our approach.

Taking into account these formulas we may divide the zeta function, as well as ground state energy (36), into two parts

$$\zeta \left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)=\zeta _R^{\mathrm{ext}}\left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)+\zeta _a^{\mathrm{int}}\left(s\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(52)
where

$`\zeta _R^{\mathrm{ext}}\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _R^{2s}\mathrm{cos}\pi s}{\pi (a+R)}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\nu ^{22s}{\displaystyle _{\beta _R/\nu }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\left(x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _R^2}{\nu ^2}}\right)^{1/2s}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}2\mathrm{ln}\left\{x^\nu I_\nu [\nu x]\right\},`$ (53)
$`\zeta _a^{\mathrm{int}}\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _a^{2s}\mathrm{cos}\pi s}{\pi a}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\nu ^{22s}{\displaystyle _{\beta _a/\nu }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\left(x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _a^2}{\nu ^2}}\right)^{1/2s}`$ (54)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left\{x^\nu K_\nu [\nu x]\right\}+\mathrm{ln}\left\{x^\nu \left(\delta K_\nu [\nu x]+{\displaystyle \frac{x\nu }{4}}K_\nu ^{}[\nu x]\right)\right\}\right).`$ (55)
Here, $`\beta _R=m(a+R),\beta _a=ma,\delta =\xi \frac{1}{8}`$ and $`\nu =l+\frac{1}{2}`$.

The first part of the zeta function (53) depends only on the size of box with throat $`R^{}=R+a`$ and the asymptotic structure of the space time. It is exactly twice the expression in the flat Minkowski space time without throat  calculated for a massive scalar field inside a ball of radius $`R^{}`$ with the Dirichlet boundary condition. The factor two is very easy explained: we consider scalar field living in the double-sided plane. The second part (55) does not depend on a boundary and it depends only on the radius of throat $`a`$ and non minimal coupling $`\xi `$. It contains information about the space-time under consideration. The same division of zeta function into two parts has been already observed for space-time of the thick cosmic string  and the space-time of a point-like global monopole . Because the first part of zeta function (53) has already been analyzed in great details, we proceed now to consideration the second part (55).

Both expressions (53) and (55) and ground state energy (36) are divergent in the limit $`s0`$ which we are interesting in. According with renormalization procedure, we have to subtract from regularized expression for ground state energy (36) all terms which survive in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$. This procedure corresponds to the subtraction five (three without boundary) first terms of the DeWitt-Schwinger expansion .

Our goal now is to find in closed form the expansion of zeta function (55) at the point $`(\frac{1}{2})`$ as power series over $`s`$ (for arbitrary mass). For this reason we use the uniform asymptotic series over inverse index for Bessel functions of large index and argument given in Ref. . We subtract from and add to the integrand of Eq. (55) the uniform expansion of it up to terms proportional to $`\nu ^3`$. After subtraction we may tend $`s0`$. Second part, which is the uniform expansion of integrand, gives us the pole structure of zeta function. Going in this way (see details in Appendix A) we obtain the following series for zeta function at the point $`(\frac{1}{2})`$

$`\zeta _a^{\mathrm{int}}\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)_{s0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{3/2}a\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}\{b_0^a\beta _a^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2)+b_{1/2}^a\beta _a^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+b_1^a\beta _a^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`b_{3/2}^a\beta _a\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+b_2^a\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2a}}\{b^a\mathrm{ln}\beta _a^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^a[\beta _a]\},`$ (57)
$`\zeta _R^{\mathrm{ext}}\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)_{s0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{3/2}(a+R)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}\{b_0^R\beta _R^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2)+b_{1/2}^R\beta _R^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+b_1^R\beta _R^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`b_{3/2}^R\beta _R\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+b_2^R\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2(a+R)}}\{b^R\mathrm{ln}\beta _R^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^R[\beta _R]\}.`$ (59)
Here

$`b_0^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}},b_{1/2}^a=0,b_1^a=32\pi \left[\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\right],b_{3/2}^a=64\pi ^{3/2}\left[\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right]^2,`$ (60)
$`b_2^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}\left[128\xi ^364\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{56}{5}}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{68}{105}}\right],b_{5/2}^a={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\pi ^{3/2}\left[96\xi ^472\xi ^3+21\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{45}{16}}\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{93}{640}}\right],`$ (61)
$`b^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_0^a\beta _a^4b_1^a\beta _a^2+b_2^a,`$ (62)
and

$`b_0^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}},b_{1/2}^R=4\pi ^{3/2},b_1^R={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\pi ,b_{3/2}^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^{3/2},`$ (63)
$`b_2^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{315}}\pi ,b_{5/2}^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{60}}\pi ^{3/2},`$ (64)
$`b^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_0^R\beta _R^4b_1^R\beta _R^2+b_2^R.`$ (65)
Above expressions (56) and (58) contain all terms which survive in the limit $`s0`$. The details of calculation and a closed form for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^a[\beta _a]`$ are outlined in the Appendix A. The function $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha [\beta _\alpha ]`$ tends to a constant for $`\beta _\alpha 0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha [\beta _\alpha ]=b^\alpha \mathrm{ln}\beta _\alpha ^2+\sqrt{\pi }b_{5/2}^\alpha /\beta _\alpha +O(1/\beta _\alpha ^2)`$ for $`\beta _\alpha \mathrm{}`$ ($`\alpha =a,R`$).

Comparing the above expression with that obtained by the Mellin transformation taking the trace of heat kernel (in three dimensions),

$`\zeta \left(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)_m\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{2s}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{s3/2}K[t]_{t0}`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}\{B_0m^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2)+B_{1/2}m^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+B_1m^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)`$ (67)
$`+`$ $`B_{3/2}m\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+B_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)+\mathrm{}\},`$ (68)
we obtain the heat kernel coefficients:

$`B_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}\left[(a+R)^3a^3\right],`$ (69)
$`B_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^{3/2}(a+R)^2,`$ (70)
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`32\pi \left[\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\right]a+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\pi (a+R),`$ (71)
$`B_{3/2}`$ $`=`$ $`64\pi ^{3/2}\left[\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^{3/2},`$ (72)
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3a}}\left[128\xi ^364\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{56}{5}}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{68}{105}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{32}{315}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{(a+R)}},`$ (73)
$`B_{5/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{3/2}}{a^2}}\left[96\xi ^472\xi ^3+21\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{45}{16}}\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{93}{640}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{60}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{3/2}}{(a+R)^2}}.`$ (74)
Using above scheme we calculated also the coefficient $`B_{5/2}`$ which we will need later for analysis. We should like to note the difference between Eqs. (56), (58) and Eq. (67). The Eq. (67) is an asymptotic expansion of zeta function over inverse mass $`m\mathrm{}`$ but the formulas (56), (58) are correct for arbitrary mass $`m`$ and small $`s0`$. In fact we extracted an asymptotic (for $`m\mathrm{}`$) part of zeta function in the form (67) and saved a finite part of it. In the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ the finite part tends to zero and both formulas are in agreement. This is the reason that the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha [\beta _\alpha ]=b^\alpha \mathrm{ln}\beta _\alpha ^2+\sqrt{\pi }b_{5/2}^\alpha /\beta _\alpha +O(1/\beta _\alpha ^2)`$ for $`\beta _\alpha \mathrm{}`$ ($`\alpha =a,R`$).

As far as the space-time under consideration has singular two-dimensional surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with codimension one, we cannot use standard formulas obtained for smooth background and we have to utilize formulas obtained by Gilkey, Kirsten and Vassilevich in Ref. . The heat kernel coefficients (72) coincide exactly with that obtained from general formulas in three dimensions given in Ref. . We have to take into account that extrinsic curvature tensor of surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is obtained as covariant derivative of the outward unit normal vector $`N_\alpha `$:

$$K_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha N_\beta .$$
(75)
For this reason this vector has coordinates $`N_\alpha =(0,\pm 1,0,0)`$ on the spheres $`\rho =\pm R`$, and

$$trK=\frac{2}{R+a}$$
(76)
in both cases. In Appendix A we found general formulas for arbitrary heat kernel coefficients and traced out them in manifest form up to $`b_3`$.

To obtain the ground state energy we have to subtract from our expressions (36), (53), (55) all terms which will survive in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$. Then we set $`s=0`$ and radius of box $`R\mathrm{}`$. Therefore we arrive to the following expression

$$E^{\mathrm{ren}}=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2a}\left\{b^a\mathrm{ln}\beta _a^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^a[\beta _a]\right\}.$$
(77)
A similar general structure for the ground state energy in massless case has been obtained firstly by Blau, Visser and Wipf  using dimensional consideration only and it was confirmed by detail calculations in Refs. .

Using above-mentioned behavior of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^a[\beta _a]`$, the ground state energy tends to zero for large radius of throat

$$E^{\mathrm{ren}}\frac{b_{5/2}^a}{32\pi ^{3/2}ma^2},a\mathrm{},$$
(78)
and it is divergent for small radius of throat:

$$E^{\mathrm{ren}}\frac{b_2^a}{16\pi ^2a}\mathrm{ln}(ma),a0.$$
(79)
The numerical calculations of ground state energy $`E^{ren}/m`$ (77) as a function of $`\beta _a=ma`$ is depicted in Fig. 1 and 2 for $`\xi =\frac{1}{6}`$ and $`\xi =0`$, respectively. The details of numerical calculations is analyzed in Appendix B.

## IV Discussion

We have calculated the ground state energy of the massive scalar field on the short-throat flat-space wormhole background (see Eq. (77)). It can be written down in the formIn this section we use dimensional units $`G`$, $`c`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$.

$$E^{\mathrm{ren}}=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{a}f(\beta _a),$$
(80)
where $`\beta _a=mca/\mathrm{}`$, and $`f(\beta _a)`$ is a function of $`\beta _a`$ which has the asymptotic

$`f(\beta _a){\displaystyle \frac{b_2^a}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\beta _a,\beta _a0,`$ (81)
$`f(\beta _a){\displaystyle \frac{b_{5/2}^a}{32\pi ^{3/2}\beta _a}},\beta _a\mathrm{}.`$ (82)
To characterize the behavior of the ground state energy as a function of $`\xi `$ we note that the coefficient $`b_{5/2}`$ is positive for all values $`\xi `$ and hence the ground state energy tends to $`0`$ while as $`\beta _a\mathrm{}`$. In the limit $`\beta _a0`$, the behavior of the ground state energy is determined by the sign of $`b_2`$ (see Eq. (79)) and depends on $`\xi `$. For $`\xi <\xi _{}0.123`$, the $`b_2`$ is negative and the ground state energy tends to minus infinity, otherwise it tends to plus infinity. This difference in an asymptotical behavior at $`\beta _a0`$ results in two qualitatively different pictures describing the behavior of the ground state energy. In the first case $`\xi <\xi _{}`$, the ground state energy is monotonically increasing from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`0`$ and has no extremum (see Fig. 2); while in the second case $`\xi >\xi _{}`$, it has a global minimum. For example in Fig. 1 the graph of $`E^{ren}/m`$ versus $`\beta _a`$ is shown for $`\xi =\frac{1}{6}`$. It is seen that the ground state energy has the minimum at $`\beta _a0.16`$ with depth $`E_{min}/m0.0025`$.

Let us now speculate about the result obtained. Suppose that the quantum massive scalar field plays the role of the “exotic” matter maintaining an existence of the short-throat flat-space wormhole in a self-consistent manner. This means that the semiclassical Einstein equations have to be satisfied,

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{ren}},$$
(83)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor, and $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the renormalized vacuum expectation values of the stress-energy tensor of the scalar field. The total energy in a static space-time is given by

$$E=_V\epsilon \sqrt{g^{(3)}}d^3x,$$
(84)
where $`\epsilon =T_t^t^{\mathrm{ren}}=G_t^tc^4/8\pi G`$ is energy density, and the integral is calculated over the whole space. In the spherically symmetric metric (9) we obtain

$$E=\frac{c^4}{2G}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}G_t^tr^2(\rho )𝑑\rho .$$
(85)
Using the relations $`G_t^t=2r^{\prime \prime }/r+(r^21)/r^2`$ and $`r(\rho )=|\rho |+a`$ we can calculate

$$E=\frac{2c^4a}{G}.$$
(86)
Note that the total energy is negative.

In the self-consistent case the total energy must coincide with the ground state energy of the scalar field. Equating Eqs. (80) and (86) gives

$$\frac{2c^4a}{G}=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{a}f(\beta _a),$$

or

$$a=l_P\sqrt{\frac{f(\beta _a)}{2}},$$
(87)
where $`l_P=\sqrt{\mathrm{}G/c^3}`$ is the Planck length. To make further estimations we take into account that in order to be stable a quantum system should be in the state with minimum of ground state energy. This requirement can be fulfilled in case $`\xi >\xi _{}`$. In particular, for $`\xi =1/6`$ the minimum $`E_{min}/mc^20.0025`$ is achieved at $`\beta _a=mca/\mathrm{}0.16`$. This gives $`f(\beta _a)4\times 10^4`$, so that

$$a0.0141l_P,$$
(88)
and

$$m11.35m_P,$$
(89)
where $`m_P=(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$ is the Planck mass.

Thus, our estimations have revealed that the self-consistent semiclassical wormhole, if exists, should possess the throat of sub-Planckian radius, and the quantum scalar field maintaining the wormhole’s existence should have super-Planckian mass. Of course, it should be noted that our consideration has been restricted by a toy model of the short-throat flat-space wormhole, and so one may expect that in more realistic models results would slightly be changed.

Let us emphasize that the result obtained in this work for the wormhole configuration can be generalized. Really, the behavior of ground state energy for small (79) and large (78) values of the throat’s radius $`a`$ depends only on two dimensionless heat kernel coefficients $`b_2`$ and $`b_{5/2}`$, respectively. Instead of the radius $`a`$, we could use a typical size of system $`\lambda `$ (throat) and calculate the coefficients $`b_2`$ and $`b_{5/2}`$ on the corresponding background. Now let us consider the dimensionless ground state energy $`E^{ren}/m`$. Obviously, it will only depend on the dimensionless combination $`m\lambda `$, and hence the limit of large (small) mass will correspond to limit of the large (small) size of the system. Since for renormalization we have to subtract the fist five terms (up to $`b_2`$) of expansion for large mass the ground state energy in this limit should be proportional to the next non-vanishing term of expansion

$$E^{ren}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{3/2}}\frac{b_{5/2}}{(m\lambda )^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}|_{s0}=\frac{b_{5/2}}{32\pi ^{3/2}(m\lambda )^2},$$
(90)
which coincides with Eq. (78). We would like to note that the coefficient $`b_{5/2}`$ is non-zero in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ for background with singular scalar curvature as it was shown in Ref. . For smooth, non-singular geometrical characteristics of background it is zero and we have to take into account the next non-vanishing coefficient which is $`b_3`$. In this case we have the following expression in the limit $`m\lambda \mathrm{}`$:

$$E^{ren}\frac{b_3}{32\pi ^2(m\lambda )^3}.$$
(91)
The origin of logarithmic term, as well as the behavior for small size of system is following. The structure of poles of zeta function does not depend on the parameters of system $`m`$ and $`\lambda `$. The subtraction of the asymptotics for great mass brings us the following contribution to the ground state energy

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(m\lambda )^{2s}1}{2(\lambda m)(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}`$ $`\times `$ $`\{b_0(\lambda m)^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2)+b_{1/2}(\lambda m)^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})`$ (92)
$`+`$ $`b_1(\lambda m)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)+b_{3/2}(\lambda m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+b_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\}_{s0},`$ (93)
where $`b_\alpha `$ are dimensionless heat kernel coefficients. Taking the limit in this formula we observe that the heat kernel coefficients with integer indices will be survived:

$$\frac{1}{32\pi ^2(\lambda m)}(\frac{1}{2}b_0(\lambda m)^4b_1(\lambda m)^2+b_2)\mathrm{ln}(\lambda m)^2.$$
(94)
Therefore in the limit $`\lambda 0`$ one has

$$E^{ren}\frac{b_2\mathrm{ln}(\lambda m)}{16\pi ^2(\lambda m)},$$
(95)
in agreement with Eq. (79).

Therefore the necessary condition that the ground state energy will possess a minimum is following : the coefficients $`b_2`$ and the next non-vanishing coefficient ($`b_{5/2}`$ for singular curvature and $`b_3`$ for non-singular) must be positive. If it is so, the discussion above is valid and the self-consistent semi-classical wormhole exist. The radius of throat of stable wormhole and the mass of scalar boson in this case depend on the model of wormhole and value of non-conformal coupling $`\xi `$.

## Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank M. Bordag, J.S. Dowker, K. Kirsten and D. Vassilevich for helpful comments on some items of paper. This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant No 99-02-17941.

## A

The uniform asymptotic expansion of the modified Bessel’s functions have the form below

$`K_\nu [\nu x]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi t}{2\nu }}}e^{\nu \eta }{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_k[t]}{(\nu )^k}},I_\nu [\nu x]=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi \nu }}}e^{\nu \eta }{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_k[t]}{\nu ^k}},`$ (A1)
$`K_\nu ^{}[\nu x]`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\nu x^2t}}}e^{\nu \eta }{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_k[t]}{(\nu )^k}},I_\nu ^{}[\nu x]=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \nu x^2t}}}e^{\nu \eta }{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_k[t]}{\nu ^k}}`$ (A2)
where

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}},\eta =\sqrt{1+x^2}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1+\sqrt{1+x^2}}},`$ (A3)
$`u_{k+1}[t]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t^2(1t^2)u_k^{}[t]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle _0^t}(15t^2)u_k[t]𝑑t,u_0[t]=1`$ (A4)
$`v_{k+1}[t]`$ $`=`$ $`u_{k+1}[t]+t(t^21)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_k[t]+tu_k^{}[t]\right\},v_0[t]=1.`$ (A5)
Taking into account these formulas in Eq. (55) we obtain power series over $`s`$ for zeta function. The uniform asymptotic expansion (A1) up to $`\nu ^n`$ allows us to take into account terms up to $`m^{3n}`$. Because we need for all terms which survive in limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ we use uniform expansion up to $`n=3`$.

Therefore we have the following expression for the zeta function

$`\zeta _a^{\mathrm{int}}\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _a^{2s}\mathrm{cos}\pi s}{\pi a}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\nu ^{22s}{\displaystyle _{\beta _a/\nu }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\left(x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _a^2}{\nu ^2}}\right)^{1/2s}`$ (A6)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left\{x^\nu K_\nu [\nu x]\right\}+\mathrm{ln}\left\{x^\nu \left(\delta K_\nu [\nu x]+{\displaystyle \frac{x\nu }{4}}K_\nu ^{}[\nu x]\right)\right\}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(\nu )^kN_k\right)`$ (A7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _a^{2s}\mathrm{cos}\pi s}{\pi a}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\nu ^{22s}{\displaystyle _{\beta _a/\nu }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\left(x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _a^2}{\nu ^2}}\right)^{1/2s}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(\nu )^kN_k,`$ (A8)
where functions $`N_p`$ may be found in closed form for arbitrary index $`p`$ using simple program in package Mathematica. For $`p0`$ they are polynomial of $`3p`$ degree and has the following form

$$N_p[t]=\underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}a_{p,k}t^{p+2k}.$$
(A9)
The first five $`N_p`$ are listed below

$`N_0`$ $`=`$ $`0,N_1=2\eta ,`$ (A10)
$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left[4\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right]t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}t^3,`$ (A11)
$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`8\left[\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right]^2t^22\left[\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right]t^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}t^6,`$ (A12)
$`N_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[64\delta ^324\delta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\delta {\displaystyle \frac{19}{64}}\right]t^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\left[40\delta ^225\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{169}{64}}\right]t^5+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{49}{2}}\delta {\displaystyle \frac{329}{64}}\right]t^7+{\displaystyle \frac{179}{576}}t^9.`$ (A13)
We should like to note that the expression (A7) is identical to original one (55). First term is finite in the limit $`s0`$; all divergences are contained into the second part.

Integrating over $`x`$ with help of integral

$$_{\beta /\nu }^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx\left(x^2\frac{\beta ^2}{\nu ^2}\right)^{1/2s}(1+x^2)^{p/2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+\frac{p3}{2})}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{p}{2})}\left(\frac{\nu }{\beta }\right)^{p3+2s}\left(1+\frac{\nu ^2}{\beta ^2}\right)^{s\frac{p3}{2}}$$
(A14)
and taking the limit $`s0`$ in the first term we get

$$\zeta _a^{\mathrm{int}}\left(s\frac{1}{2}\right)_{s0}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2a}A_f[\beta _a]+\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{3/2}a\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}(1)^kA_k[\beta _a].$$
(A15)
where

$`A_f[\beta _a]`$ $`=`$ $`32\pi {\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\nu ^2{\displaystyle _{\beta /\nu }^{\mathrm{}}}dx\sqrt{x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\nu ^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}(\mathrm{ln}K_\nu (\nu x)+\mathrm{ln}[\delta K_\nu (\nu x)+{\displaystyle \frac{x\nu }{4}}K_\nu ^{}(\nu x)]`$ (A16)
$`+`$ $`2\nu \eta (x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}N_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu ^2}}N_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu ^3}}N_3),`$ (A17)
$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \beta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒵(0,l+s1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+s+1/2)}},`$ (A18)
$`A_p`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi ^{3/2}\beta ^{1p}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{p,k}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+s+1/2)}}𝒵(2k,s+k+{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}),`$ (A19)
$`𝒵(p,s)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\nu }{(1+\nu ^2/\beta _a^2)^s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{\beta _a}}\right)^p.`$ (A20)
The first four $`A_p`$ are listed below

$`A_0[\beta _a]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A21)
$`A_1[\beta _a]`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi \left[\left(4\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)𝒵(0,s)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}𝒵(2,s+1)\right],`$ (A22)
$`A_2[\beta _a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^{3/2}}{\beta _a}}\left[16\left(\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right)^2𝒵(0,s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+4\left(\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right)𝒵(2,s+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒵(4,s+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}})\right],`$ (A23)
$`A_3[\beta _a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{3\beta _a^2}}[(64\delta ^324\delta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\delta {\displaystyle \frac{19}{64}})𝒵(0,s+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}(40\delta ^225\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{169}{64}})𝒵(2,s+2)`$ (A24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{35}}({\displaystyle \frac{49}{2}}\delta {\displaystyle \frac{329}{64}})𝒵(4,s+3)+{\displaystyle \frac{179}{2520}}𝒵(6,s+4)].`$ (A25)
To find the heat kernel coefficients we have to take limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (A15). The asymptotic expansion of $`𝒵(0,q)`$ over inverse power of $`\beta _a^2`$ was found in Ref. :

$$𝒵(0,s)=\beta _a^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)+2\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^l}{l!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+s)\beta _a^{2l}\zeta _H(12l,\frac{1}{2}),$$
(A26)
where $`\zeta _H(s,a)`$ is the Hurwitz zeta function

$$\zeta _H(s,a)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(l+a)^s,s>1.$$
(A27)
Other functions $`𝒵(2k,s+k+\frac{p1}{2})`$ in (A19) are expressed in terms of $`𝒵(0,q)`$ by relation

$$𝒵(2k,s+k+\frac{p1}{2})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{k!}{n!(kn)!}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{p1}{2}+s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{p1}{2}+s)}𝒵(0,n+\frac{p1}{2}+s).$$
(A28)
Taking into account above formulas we obtain the following formulas for heat kernel coefficients

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2+n)}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _{np1}(2p1),`$ (A29)
$`b_{n+1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{3}{2}+n)}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _{np1}(2p),`$ (A30)
where $`(l,p0)`$

$`\alpha _1(1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2),`$ (A31)
$`\alpha _l(1)`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi (1)^l{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _H(12l,\frac{1}{2})}{l!(12l)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1+l),`$ (A32)
$`\alpha _l(p)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi ^{3/2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{p,k}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{p}{2})}}z_l(p,k),`$ (A33)
$`z_1(p,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{k!}{n!(kn)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{p1}{2}+s)}{n+\frac{p3}{2}+s}},`$ (A34)
$`z_l(p,k)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^l}{l!}}\zeta _H(12l,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{k!}{n!(kn)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{p1}{2}+s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{p1}{2}+s)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+n+{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}+s).`$ (A35)
Using these formulas, one obtains the following expressions for heat kernel coefficients

$`b_0^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}},b_{1/2}^a=0,b_1^a=32\pi \left[\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\right],b_{3/2}^a=64\pi ^{3/2}\left[\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right]^2,`$ (A36)
$`b_2^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}\left[128\xi ^364\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{56}{5}}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{68}{105}}\right],b_{5/2}^a={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\pi ^{3/2}\left[96\xi ^472\xi ^3+21\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{45}{16}}\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{93}{640}}\right],`$ (A37)
$`b_3^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4096}{5}}\xi ^5{\displaystyle \frac{4096}{5}}\xi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{35584}{105}}\xi ^3{\displaystyle \frac{1088}{15}}\xi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{848}{105}}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{144}{385}}\right].`$ (A38)
The coefficient $`b_{k/2}`$ is polynomial of $`(k1)`$-th order over $`\xi `$. The coefficient $`b_2`$ changes its sign at point $`\xi _{}0.123`$ and $`b_{5/2}`$ is positive for arbitrary $`\xi `$.

Our problem now is to take limit $`s0`$ in the second part of Eq. (A7). Because the function $`𝒵(p,s)`$ with $`p=2,4,\mathrm{}`$ may be expressed in terms the $`𝒵(0,s)`$ only, let us analyze it in details. Let us suppose for a moment that $`\beta _a<1`$ and represent $`𝒵(0,s)`$ as power series over $`\beta _a`$:

$$𝒵(0,s)=2\beta _a^{2s}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+s)\beta _a^{2n}\zeta _H(2n+2s1,\frac{1}{2}).$$
(A39)
The gamma function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ has simple poles in points $`s=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and the Hurwitz zeta function $`\zeta _H(s,p)`$ has simple pole only in one point $`s=1`$. They have the following expansion near their poles

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(sn)_{s0}=\frac{(1)^n}{n!}\left(\frac{1}{s}+\mathrm{\Psi }[n+1]\right)+O(s),\zeta _H(s+1,p)_{s0}=\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{\Psi }[p]+O(s),$$
(A40)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }[x]`$ is the digamma function.

All divergences of the function $`𝒵(0,s)`$ (A39) in the limit $`s0`$ are contained in the first two terms with $`n=0,1`$. The rest of series is finite and we set $`s=0`$ in it. Therefore we obtain the following expression

$`𝒵(0,s)_{s0}`$ $`=`$ $`2\beta _a^{2s}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _a^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _a^2\left[12\gamma 4\mathrm{ln}2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left[12\zeta _R^{}(1)+\mathrm{ln}2\right]\right\}`$ (A41)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n}}\beta _a^{2n}\zeta _H(2n1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+O(s),`$ (A42)
where $`\zeta _R(s)`$ is the Riemann zeta function and $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant.

The series in above formula may be analytically continued for arbitrary value of $`\beta _a`$. First of all using series representation of Hurwitz zeta function (A27) we represent this series in the following form

$$j_2(\beta _a)=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{n}\beta _a^{2n}\zeta _H(2n1,\frac{1}{2})=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\nu \left[\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{\beta _a^2}{\nu ^2}\right)+\frac{\beta _a^2}{\nu ^2}\right].$$
(A43)
Then, taking into account the integral representation for logarithm

$$\mathrm{ln}x=_0^x\frac{dt}{1+t},$$

and the close expression for series below

$$j_0(x^2)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\nu (\nu ^2+x^2)}=\frac{1}{2x^2}\left\{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\frac{1}{2}ix\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\frac{1}{2}+ix\right)2\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right\},$$
(A44)
one has

$$j_2(\beta )=\beta ^2_0^1𝑑xx\left\{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\frac{1}{2}ix\beta \right)+\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\frac{1}{2}+ix\beta \right)2\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right\}.$$
(A45)
The function in rhs is analytical in whole complex plane and therefore it gives analytical continuation the series $`j_2(\beta _a)`$ for arbitrary value of $`\beta _a`$. This representation of $`j_2(\beta )`$ is preferable for numerical calculations.

Using the same approach for other $`𝒵(p,q)`$ we arrive at the following formulas for $`A_k[\beta _a]`$

$`A_1[\beta _a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}\beta _a^{2s}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{160}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\beta _a^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)\beta _a^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2)\right\}+\omega _1(\beta _a),`$ (A46)
$`A_1[\beta _a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}\beta _a^{2s}\left\{\left(\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)+12\left(\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\right)\beta _a^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)\right\}+\omega _1(\beta _a),`$ (A47)
$`A_2[\beta _a]`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^{3/2}\beta _a^{2s}\left\{16\delta ^2\beta _a\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\beta _a}}\left(\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right\}+\omega _2(\beta _a),`$ (A48)
$`A_3[\beta _a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3}}\beta _a^{2s}\left\{128\delta ^316\delta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{71}{3360}}\right\}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)+\omega _3(\beta _a),`$ (A49)
where

$`\omega _1(\beta _a)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi \{[{\displaystyle \frac{7}{160}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\zeta ^{}(3)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{240}}\mathrm{ln}2]+\beta _a^2[2\zeta ^{}(1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}]`$ (A50)
$`+`$ $`\beta _a^4[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{13}{36}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}2]+j_3(\beta _a)\},`$ (A51)
$`\omega _1(\beta _a)`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi \{[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\zeta ^{}(1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}]+\delta [4\zeta ^{}(1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{ln}2]`$ (A52)
$`+`$ $`\beta _a^2[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{ln}2)+\delta (4\gamma 8\mathrm{ln}2+2)]+4(\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}})j_2(\beta _a)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\beta _a^4j_0(\beta _a^2)\},`$ (A53)
$`\omega _2(\beta _a)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi ^2\left\{16\delta ^2\beta _a16\left[\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right]^2j_{\frac{1}{2},0}(\beta _a)2\left[\delta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\right]j_{\frac{3}{2},0}(\beta _a){\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}j_{\frac{5}{2},0}(\beta _a)\right\},`$ (A54)
$`\omega _3(\beta _a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\pi \{[{\displaystyle \frac{71}{3360}}\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{757}{20160}}+{\displaystyle \frac{71}{6720}}\gamma ]+\delta [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\mathrm{ln}2]+\delta ^2[8\gamma +816\mathrm{ln}2]`$ (A55)
$`+`$ $`\delta ^3\left[128\mathrm{ln}2+64\gamma \right]+\left[64\delta ^324\delta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\delta {\displaystyle \frac{19}{64}}\right]j_{1,1}(\beta _a)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\left[40\delta ^225\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{169}{64}}\right]j_{2,1}(\beta _a)`$ (A56)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{35}}[{\displaystyle \frac{49}{2}}\delta {\displaystyle \frac{329}{64}}]j_{3,1}(\beta _a)+{\displaystyle \frac{179}{420}}j_{4,1}(\beta _a)\}.`$ (A57)
Here we introduced the following notations

$`j_3(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n(n\frac{1}{2})(n1)}}\beta ^{2n}\zeta _H(2n3,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$ (A58)
$`j_{p,q}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)}}\beta ^{2n}\zeta _H(2n+q,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (A59)
The functions $`j_3(\beta )`$ and $`j_{p,q}(\beta )`$ with integer $`p`$ and $`q`$ are expressed in terms the function $`j_0(\beta )`$ only, by relations

$`j_3(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`2\beta ^4{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx(1x)^2\left\{\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\beta x\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+i\beta x\right)2\mathrm{\Psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right\},`$ (A60)
$`j_{1,1}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`xj_0(x)|_{x=\beta ^2},`$ (A61)
$`j_{2,1}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`2xj_0(x)x^2j_0^{}(x)|_{x=\beta ^2},`$ (A62)
$`j_{3,1}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`3xj_0(x)3x^2j_0^{}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^3j_0^{\prime \prime }(x)|_{x=\beta ^2},`$ (A63)
$`j_{4,1}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`4xj_0(x)6x^2j_0^{}(x)2x^3j_0^{\prime \prime }(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}x^4j_0^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)|_{x=\beta ^2}.`$ (A64)
For half-integer indexes $`p`$ and $`q`$ in Eq. (A59) we use the integral representation for Hurwitz zeta function from Ref.

$$\zeta _H(s,v)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{(v1)x}x^{s1}dx}{e^x1}$$
(A65)
and obtain the following formulas

$`j_{\frac{1}{2},0}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{\mathrm{sinh}(x)}}J_1(2\beta x),`$ (A66)
$`j_{\frac{3}{2},0}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{\mathrm{sinh}(x)}}\left\{3J_1(2\beta x)2\beta xJ_2(2\beta x)\right\},`$ (A67)
$`j_{\frac{5}{2},0}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{\mathrm{sinh}(x)}}\left\{5J_1(2\beta x){\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}\beta xJ_2(2\beta x)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\beta xJ_3(2\beta x)\right\}.`$ (A68)
Substituting the formulas obtained in Eq. (A15) one has

$`\zeta _a^{\mathrm{int}}\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)_{s0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _a^{2s}}{(4\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}\{b_0^am^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2)+b_{1/2}^am^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+b_1^am^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)`$ (A69)
$`+`$ $`b_{3/2}^am\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+b_2^a\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2a}}\mathrm{\Omega }^a(\beta _a),`$ (A70)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^a(\beta _a)=A_f^a(\beta _a)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}(1)^k\omega _k(\beta _a).$$
(A71)
In the limit $`s0`$ an additional finite contribution appears due to multiplication $`s\mathrm{ln}\beta _a^2`$ and gamma functions in brackets (A69). Because the gamma function has simple poles in points $`0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, the heat kernel coefficients with integer indexes will give the finite contributions and we arrive at the following expression

$`\zeta _a^{\mathrm{int}}\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)_{s0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{3/2}a\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}\{b_0^a\beta _a^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2)+b_{1/2}^a\beta _a^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+b_1^a\beta _a^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)`$ (A72)
$`+`$ $`b_{3/2}^a\beta _a\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+b_2^a\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2a}}\{b^a\mathrm{ln}\beta _a^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^a[\beta _a]\}.`$ (A73)
Therefore we divided the zeta function in two parts: the asymptotic singular part of zeta function in standard form and finite contribution.

Using the same approach for $`\zeta _R^{\mathrm{ext}}(s\frac{1}{2})`$ one has

$`\zeta _R^{\mathrm{ext}}\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)_{s0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{3/2}(a+R)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}\{b_0^R\beta _R^4\mathrm{\Gamma }(s2)+b_{1/2}^R\beta _R^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+b_1^R\beta _R^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)`$ (A74)
$`+`$ $`b_{3/2}^R\beta _R\mathrm{\Gamma }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+b_2^R\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2(a+R)}}\{b^R\mathrm{ln}\beta _R^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^R[\beta _R]\}.`$ (A75)
By virtue of the fact that in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ the above formulas must give us the asymptotic expansion (67), the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }[\beta ]`$ has the following behavior $`(\beta _\alpha \mathrm{},(\alpha =a,R))`$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha [\beta _\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`b^\alpha \mathrm{ln}\beta _\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=5}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_{k/2}^\alpha \beta _\alpha ^{4k}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}2)|_{s0}`$ (A76)
$`=`$ $`b^\alpha \mathrm{ln}\beta _\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \underset{k=5}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_{k/2}^\alpha \beta _\alpha ^{4k}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}2)`$ (A77)
$`=`$ $`b^\alpha \mathrm{ln}\beta _\alpha ^2+\sqrt{\pi }b_{5/2}^\alpha \beta _\alpha ^1+O(\beta _\alpha ^2).`$ (A78)
## B

The main problem for numerical calculation the ground state energy is the term $`A_f[\beta ]`$ given by Eq. (A16). The series in (A16) is low convergent. To calculate this expression let us, first of all, represent it in the following form

$`\overline{A}_f`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_f}{32\pi }}={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sigma _\nu ,\mathrm{where}`$ (B1)
$`\sigma _\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^2{\displaystyle _{\beta /\nu }^{\mathrm{}}}dx\sqrt{x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\nu ^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}(\mathrm{ln}K_\nu (\nu x)+\mathrm{ln}[\delta K_\nu (\nu x)+{\displaystyle \frac{x\nu }{4}}K_\nu ^{}(\nu x)]`$ (B2)
$`+`$ $`2\nu \eta (x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}N_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu ^2}}N_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu ^3}}N_3)`$ (B3)
and divide the series in two parts

$$\overline{A}_f=\underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _\nu +\underset{l=N+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _\nu .$$
(B4)
The first sum we calculated numerically. The calculations become lighter due to fact that the Bessel’s functions of second kind with half-integer indexes are polynomial with simple exponent factor . In the second sum we use the uniform expansion of the integrand over inverse power of index $`\nu `$. Since we have already subtracted first three terms $`N_1,N_2`$ and $`N_3`$, the uniform expansion of integrand will start from $`\nu ^4`$ and we obtain the following expression

$$\underset{l=N+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _l=\underset{l=N+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\nu ^2_{\beta /\nu }^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\sqrt{x^2\frac{\beta ^2}{\nu ^2}}\frac{}{x}\underset{p=4}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\nu )^pN_p[t],$$
(B5)
where $`N_p[t]`$ is the polynomial of $`3p`$ degree:

$$N_p[t]=\underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}a_{p,k}t^{p+2k}.$$
(B6)
The coefficients $`a_{p,k}`$ for $`p=1,2,3`$ may be singled out from Eq. (A11).

Then one takes derivatives and integrals in Eq. (B5) and changes the sums over $`p`$ and $`l`$. After this we arrive at the following formula

$$\underset{l=N+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _l=\underset{p=4}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{N}_p,$$
(B7)
where

$`\overline{N}_p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}}(1)^{3p}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}}a_{p,k}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{p}{2}\frac{1}{2}+k\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{p}{2}+k\right)}}h[p,p+2k,\beta ,N],`$ (B8)
$`h[p,q,\beta ,N]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=N+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\nu ^{2p}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\nu ^2}}\right)^{(q1)/2}.`$ (B9)
The function $`h`$ may be found in closed form for integer $`p`$ and $`q`$.

The above function $`h`$ may be estimated by

$$h[p,q,\beta ,N]\left(N+\frac{3}{2}\right)^{2p},$$
(B10)
and the series (B7) is fast convergent for great $`N`$. We use $`N=10`$ and in order to work with precision $`10^{10}`$ it is enough to take expansion up to $`p=8`$ (five terms). In fact, this procedure converts the low convergent series to fast convergent series over $`N^{2p}`$.

To illustrate above approach we reproduce in Fig. 3 the three steps of calculation of $`\overline{A}_f`$: (i) the zero term (thick curve), (ii) the contribution of first eleven terms up to $`l=10`$ (middle thickness) and (iii) exact curve (up to $`p=8`$ in uniform expansion, thin curve). Ten terms $`l=1÷10`$ gives us the correction of 36% for zero term, and the series from $`l=11`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ gives us 4% correction.


format: text

text:
# X-rays from the jet in 3C 273: clues from the radio–optical spectra

## 1 Introduction

Recent Chandra observations have shown that X-rays from large-scale extragalactic jets are more common than expected from earlier observations using the *Einstein Observatory* and ROSAT (Harris & Krawczynski 2002). They are most likely of non-thermal origin, but for many cases is has been impossible to establish the relative contributions from synchrotron and inverse Compton emission.

One of these is the jet of the quasar 3C 273. Due to its large angular extent of over 20″($``$ 60 kpc at $`z`$=0.158111$`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$) and its high surface brightness in the radio, optical and in X-rays, it is readily observable and serves as a sample case for the study of extragalactic jets. The high degree of optical polarisation (10%–20%; Röser & Meisenheimer 1991) and the overall agreement with the radio polarisation properties (Röser et al. 1996) imply that the bulk of the jet’s optical light is synchrotron emission from the same electron population responsible for the radio emission. However, the X-rays could be synchrotron emission from this same electron population only for regions A and B of the jet (Röser et al. 2000; Marshall et al. 2001). Since self-Compton scattering of the radio-optical emission can account only for a small fraction of the observed X-ray fluxes, Röser et al. (2000) suggested to consider the X-rays as synchrotron emission from a second, higher-energy electron population. As an alternative, a contribution by beamed inverse Compton scattering of the cosmic microwave background has been suggested (Marshall et al. 2001; Sambruna et al. 2001). A distinction between these models is not possible based on the currently available X-ray data. Both require somewhat exotic physical conditions. In this letter, we present new radio-optical observations which suggest a common origin for the X-rays and part of the jet’s ultraviolet emission.

We employ observations at wavelengths of 3.6$`\mathrm{cm}`$, 2.0$`\mathrm{cm}`$, 1.3$`\mathrm{cm}`$ (VLA222The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.), 1.6$`\mu `$m (HST-NICMOS333Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract No. NAS5-26555. These observations are associated with proposals #5980 and #7848.), 620$`\mathrm{nm}`$ and 300$`\mathrm{nm}`$ (HST-WFPC233footnotemark: 3). The WFPC2 data have been described in Jester et al. (2001). Details of the NICMOS data are contained in Jester (2001) and will be reported elsewhere Jester *et al., in prep.*, as will the full VLA data set Perley *et al., in prep.*.

## 2 Observed spectra

We have performed photometry for circular Gaussian beams at common FWHM of 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3. We make sure that the relative alignment of photometric apertures across all wavelengths is better than 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$03, so that identical volumes are sampled. We first consider the observed shape of the spectral energy distribution before describing it with a theoretical model.

Figure 1 shows the run of spectral indices along the optically bright part of the jet (setting on at $`r=12\mathrm{}`$ from the quasar core). It shows remarkable features. Firstly, variations in $`\alpha _{1.3}^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ are much smaller than in other indices, *i. e.,*  the overall spectral shape is amazingly constant within the entire jet (apart from the radio hot spot). This reflects the jet’s similar appearance over more than four decades in frequency. It implies that there is a physical mechanism maintaining a similar electron distribution everywhere in the jet. Secondly, in regions A ($`r13\mathrm{}`$) and B2 ($`r15\stackrel{}{.}2`$), both the ultraviolet-optical spectral index $`\alpha _{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ and the infrared-optical index $`\alpha _{\mathrm{IR}}^{\mathrm{opt}}`$ are flatter, *i. e.,*  $`|\alpha |`$ is smaller, than the radio-infrared spectral index $`\alpha _{1.3}^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ (see also Fig. 2). In regions C2 to D2/H3, from $`r18\mathrm{}`$ to $`r20\mathrm{}`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ is flatter than $`\alpha _{\mathrm{IR}}^{\mathrm{opt}}`$, although both are now steeper than the radio-infrared spectral index. A similar flattening was already seen between $`\alpha _{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ determined with the HST and the optical spectral index determined on ground-based data at slightly lower frequencies (Fig. 4 in Jester et al. 2001).

To assess the significance of this flattening, it is necessary to distinguish between various error sources. The shot noise is less than 0.5% per 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3 beam in all bands. The HST data have flat-field errors of 1% (WFPC2) – 3% (NICMOS; compare the error discussion in Perlman et al. 2001). The uncertainty in the background estimation is estimated from the scatter in blank sky regions as 0.01 $`\mu `$Jy per 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3 beam for WFPC2, and 0.03 $`\mu `$Jy for NICMOS, forming an error floor significant only for the faintest parts of the jet. An error source unique to the interferometric radio data is the image fidelity, *i. e.,*  errors in the sense that the inferred brightness distribution does not correspond to the true distribution on sky, in particular for the fainter parts of the jet. We use a 3% error to account for this. All these error sources limit the accuracy of relative photometry within one waveband, and the error bars in Fig. 1 show these errors. In addition, all wavebands will suffer an error from the absolute photometric calibration, typically 2%. This calibration error changes all measurements within one filter by the same factor, *i. e.,*  it is a systematic error. Its effect is to offset an entire spectral index run by a constant amount. The absolute photometry errors are too small to allow matching the run of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{opt}}^{\mathrm{UV}}`$ with that of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{IR}}^{\mathrm{opt}}`$ in C2–H3, which in any case would not remove the flattening of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{IR}}^{\mathrm{opt}}`$ below $`\alpha _{1.3}^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ in A and B2. The observed flattening is thus real.

Observed synchrotron spectra are commonly described as power laws, and are thought to arise from a power-law electron energy distribution. Since synchrotron losses increase with the square of the electron energy, any non-ideal electron distribution will give rise to a spectrum with convex shape in $`\mathrm{log}S_\nu `$ against $`\mathrm{log}\nu `$, *i. e.,*  higher-frequency spectral indices are steeper than those at lower frequencies, and any high-frequency flux must lie below a power-law extrapolation from lower frequencies. The observed high-frequency flattening in A, B2, and C2–D2/H3 excludes that the jet emission can be described using a simple, single electron population. Instead, a two-component model is required. The radio and optical fluxes are dominated by the first component. A second component must contribute in excess of this, either mainly in the infrared, or mainly in the ultraviolet and at higher frequencies.

## 3 Is there an infrared or ultraviolet excess?

We describe the lower-frequency component by fitting model spectra according to Heavens & Meisenheimer (1987), which have been applied successfully to observations of hot spots (Meisenheimer et al. 1997). These spectra self-consistently account for synchrotron losses arising from a Fermi-accelerated electron population which is continuously injected into a loss region, and include losses even during the acceleration phase. The resulting finite maximum particle energy leads to a quasi-exponential cutoff at the synchrotron frequency corresponding to the highest electron energies. These spectra are appropriate here as the optically radiating electrons must be accelerated within the jet itself (Jester et al. 2001).

The original aim of these fits is the determination of the synchrotron cutoff frequency and hence the maximum particle energy along the jet; a detailed description and results will be published separately (Jester *et al., in prep.*, and Jester 2001). Here, we consider the excess of the observed infrared or ultraviolet emission above the spectrum arising from the lower-energy electron population, and its implications for the X-ray emission mechanism.

We fit the observed radio-optical spectral energy distribution at 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3 beam size for all locations of the optical jet, performing two separate fits which differ in the determination of the cutoff frequency (Fig. 2): either the cutoff is described by the optical-ultraviolet spectral index leading to an infrared excess (Model A), or conversely, the true cutoff is described by the infrared-optical spectrum and there is additional flux in the ultraviolet (Model B).

Model A disregards the near-infrared flux point in the data set. This is motivated by the indication that the radio cocoon around the jet (Röser et al. 1996) may also be detectable at 2.1$`\mu `$m (Neumann et al. 1997), suggesting that the flux from the jet at 1.6$`\mu `$m may be contaminated by emission from the cocoon as well. However, the residuals in Model A contribute up to 30% of the observed infrared flux, which is a much larger fraction than expected for a cocoon spectral energy distribution peaking at radio frequencies. Moreover, a comparison of the residuals with our new high-resolution radio polarisation map Perley *et al., in prep.* shows that the largest residuals are not cospatial with those regions showing the highest fractional polarisation (Jester 2001). These properties make this component very different from the original cocoon, which has a steep spectrum (hence low flux at the short wavelengths considered here) and high polarisation. In this model, the upward curvature of the observed spectra at the inner end of the optical jet, in regions A–B, remains unexplained. There is no plausible alternative infrared emission process or source. Model A is therefore discarded.

Model B assigns a low weight to the ultraviolet flux point, so that the location of the cutoff is dominated by the infrared and optical points at 1.6$`\mu `$m and 620$`\mathrm{nm}`$, respectively. There is a significant ultraviolet excess above the fitted infrared-optical cutoff or the radio-infrared power-law extrapolation in all parts of the jet. As the actual cutoff could be steeper than the fit including the UV point, the ultraviolet excess determined in this way is actually a lower limit to the true excess. At 300$`\mathrm{nm}`$, already a significant fraction of the observed flux may be contributed by this additional component. A smaller fraction of the optical emission will be contributed by the same component. Unlike the cocoon, which would be expected to contribute only in a limited part of the jet, the presumed additional ultraviolet component may be present in the entire jet and can account for the discrepancy between infrared-optical and optical-ultraviolet spectrum everywhere it is observed.

As is the case for the X-ray emission, the origin of this excess ultraviolet flux is unknown. Instead of postulating yet another emission component, we suggest a common non-thermal origin for the ultraviolet excess and the X-ray emission. To assess quantitatively whether both could stem from the same electron population, we consider whether the emission in both wavelength regions can be explained by a single simple model.

## 4 Discussion: The X-ray emission from the jet

The three high-frequency data points presented here are not sufficient to fully disentangle contributions from two different processes. We therefore only consider whether the UV excess derived using our spectral fits is consistent with an extrapolation of the X-ray flux and spectral index.

The best current X-ray data have been presented by Marshall et al. (2001). They have a spatial resolution of 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$7. The comparison is therefore carried out only for two regions of the jet for which Marshall et al. (2001) quote an X-ray flux and spectral index (their Table 2) and for which the association with optical features is clear: Region A1 and Region D2+H3 (beware of slightly different nomenclature). We sum the near-infrared, optical and ultraviolet flux and the ultraviolet excess above the radio-infrared power law for A and the fitted cutoff for D2/H3, respectively (Tab. 1), and compare these with a power-law extrapolation from X-rays. As evidenced by Fig. 3, there is a surprisingly good match in both regions between the UV excess determined here and the extrapolation of the X-ray observations, suggesting a common origin.

We thus propose a two-component model for the emission of this jet: a “low-energy” synchrotron component and a second “high-energy” component, which accounts for the X-rays and is already noticeable at ultraviolet wavelengths, either synchrotron emission (the observed X-ray spectral index is in the typical range for synchrotron emission from jets; Meisenheimer et al. 1997) or beamed inverse Compton emission (microwave photons are upscattered into the UV by electrons with Lorentz factors of 5–10 for jet Lorentz factors of 20–5). As synchrotron spectra are necessarily convex in $`\mathrm{log}S_\nu `$ against $`\mathrm{log}\nu `$, the observed high-frequency flattening implies the presence of a second emission component in the UV even for different model spectra from those assumed here. Only the magnitude of the excess depends on the spectral shape, and hence the proposed common origin of UV excess and X-rays. As evidenced by the small changes in the radio-infrared spectral index, the shape of the “low-energy” electron energy distribution is kept constant within the entire jet by some unknown physical mechanism.

With the present radio-optical data, no statements can be made about the spectral shape of the “high-energy” component beyond the plausibility argument presented here. In order to confirm the reality of the UV excess and to characterise its spectrum, it is both necessary to constrain the run of the optical synchrotron spectrum more accurately by further observations in the near-infrared and optical, and to characterise the spectrum of the UV excess by far-ultraviolet observations. Deeper Chandra observations are needed to establish the detailed X-ray morphology of the outermost part of the jet and confirm the tentative detection of X-ray spectral index changes H. Marshall, priv.comm., and thus test our model of a common origin for the ultraviolet excess and the jet’s X-ray emission. Ideally, X-ray polarimetry would provide the most stringent test for the X-ray emission mechanism beyond our spectral studies. However, such a study will have to await the construction of X-ray polarimeters with sufficient sensitivity and resolution, which are currently in the development stage.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge fruitful discussions with Herman Marshall. We thank the referee, Dan Harris, for rapid and thorough criticism.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum electrodynamics in one-space and one-time dimension with massless charged fermion is known as the Schwinger model. It is the one of the very few models of field theory which can be solved analytically . The Fock-space content of the physical states depends crucially on the coordinate system and on the gauge. It is only in the front form that a simple constituent picture emerges  as well as it is an important example of the type of simplification that we hope will occur for QCD in physical space-time. The investigations of similar model with massive fermion and for non-abelian theory, where the fermion is in the fundamental and adjoint representation, revealed that many properties are unique to the Schwinger model . During last years light-cone quantization of quantum field theory has emerged as a promising method for solving problems in the strong coupling regime . The front-form Hamiltonian and BRST formulation  and recently the extended Hamiltonian formalism of the pure space-like axial gauge Schwinger model  were investigated. The Schwinger model in the front form possesses a set of three first-class constraints . In the instant form it has two first-class constraints .

Hamilton-Jacobi formalism was subjected to various investigations during the last years. The formalism was applied for strings and p-Branes  and for strongly coupled gravitational systems  and in addition the quantum Hamilton-Jacobi formulation was obtained from the equivalence principle . A new method of quantization of the system with constraints based on the $`Carath\stackrel{´}{e}odory`$’s equivalent Lagrangians method  was initiated  by one of us.

Recently this formalism was generalized to the singular systems with higher order Lagrangians and to systems which have elements of the Berezin algebra . The quantization of the systems with constraints was investigated using this approach . Recently, the connection between the integrability conditions and Dirac’s consistency conditions  were established . Importance of the surface terms  was analyzed as well as the relation between Batalin-Fradkin-Tyutin  and Hamilton-Jacobi formalism . Even more recently the formalism was applied to investigate the nonholonomic-constrained systems with second-class constraints  as well as Proca’s model .

The advantage of the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism is that we have no difference between first and second class constraints and we do not need gauge-fixing term because the gauge variables are separated in the processes of constructing an integrable system of total differential equations. In addition the action provided by the formalism can be used in the process of path integral quantization method of the constrained systems.

The main aim of this paper is to investigate the quantization of the front-form Schwinger model and its BRST extension using Hamilton-Jacobi formalism.

The plan of the paper is the following:

In sec. 2 the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism is presented. In sect. 3 the front-form Schwinger model and its BRST extension are analyzed using Hamilton-Jacobi formalism. In sec. 4 conclusions are given.

## 2 Hamilton-Jacobi formalism

Let us assume that the Lagrangian L is singular and the Hessian supermatrix has rank n-r. The Hamiltonians to start with are

$$H_\alpha ^{^{}}=H_\alpha (t_\beta ,q_a,p_a)+p_\alpha ,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =nr+1,\mathrm{},n`$,$`a=1,\mathrm{}nr`$. The usual Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ is defined as

$$H_0=L(t,q_i,\dot{q}_\nu ,\dot{q}_a=w_a)+p_aw_a+\dot{q}_\mu p_\mu _{p_\nu =H_\nu },\nu =0,nr+1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(2)
which is independent of $`\dot{q}_\mu `$.Here $`\dot{q}_a=\frac{dq_a}{d\tau }`$,where $`\tau `$ is a parameter. The equations of motion are obtained as total differential equations in many variables as follows

$`dq_a`$ $`=(1)^{P_a+P_aP_\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{_rH_\alpha ^{^{}}}{p_a}}dt_\alpha ,dp_a=(1)^{P_aP_\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{_rH_\alpha ^{^{}}}{q_a}}dt_\alpha ,`$ (3)
$`dp_\mu `$ $`=(1)^{P_\mu P_\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{_rH_\alpha ^{^{}}}{t_\mu }}dt_\alpha ,\mu =1,\mathrm{},r,`$ (4)
$$dz=(H_\alpha +(1)^{P_a+P_aP_\alpha }p_a\frac{_rH_\alpha ^{^{}}}{p_a})dt_\alpha ,$$
(5)
where $`z=S(t_\alpha ,q_a)`$ and $`P_i`$ represents the parity of $`a_i`$.

Determination of the degrees of freedom in the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation really needs elaboration. Although one starts with a system of n degrees of freedom the theory forces to reduce it due to the integrability conditions. In other words, variations of constraints may cause new constraints and again their variations leads one to a degree of freedom which is less than n. If the variations vanish identically, of course degrees of freedom do not change.

## 3 The front-form Schwinger model

The Lagrangian density of the Schwinger model in one-space, one -time dimension is

$$L^{^{}}=\psi \gamma ^\mu (i_\mu +gA_\mu )\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }$$
(6)
where $`F^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu `$.

The bosonised version has the following Lagrangean density .

$$L^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi )^2gϵ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi A_\nu ,$$
(7)
where $`g^{\mu \nu }=diag(1,1)`$, $`ϵ^{01}=ϵ^{10}=1`$, or in the component form (7) becomes

$$L^{^{\prime \prime \prime }}=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\varphi }^2\varphi _{}^{^{}}{}_{}{}^{2})+g(\varphi ^{^{}}A_0\dot{\varphi }A_1)+\frac{1}{2}(\dot{A}_1\dot{A}_0^{^{}})^2.$$
(8)
The light-cone coordinates are defined as

$$x^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^0\pm x^1).$$
(9)
The Lagrangian (8) in the light-cone coordinate form becomes

$$L=(_+\varphi )(_{}\varphi )+g(_+\varphi )A^+g(_{}\varphi )A^{}+\frac{1}{2}(_+A^+_{}A^{})^2.$$
(10)
Here $`A_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A_0\pm A_1)`$ and $`_\pm \varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\dot{\varphi }\pm \varphi ^{^{}})`$.

¿From (10) we calculate the canonical momenta as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^+=0,\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=_+A^+_{}A^{},\mathrm{\Pi }=_{}\varphi +gA^+,$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+,\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are conjugate to $`A^{},A^+`$ and $`\varphi `$ respectively. ¿From (11) the Hamiltonian densities to start with are

$$H_1^{^{}}=\mathrm{\Pi }^+,H_2^{^{}}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\varphi gA^+$$
(12)
The canonical Hamiltonian density is

$$H_c=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{})^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(_{}A^{})+g(_{}\varphi )A^{}.$$
(13)
In Hamiltonian-Jacobi formalism we have , at this stage, three Hamiltonians densities

$`H_1^{^{}}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }^+,H_2^{^{}}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\varphi gA^+,`$ (14)
$`H_0^{^{}}`$ $`=p_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{})^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(_{}A^{})+g(_{}\varphi )A^{}`$ (15)
The gauge variables are $`A^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the independent one is $`A^+`$. The equations of motion corresponding to (14) are

$`dA^+`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H_0^{^{}}}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{}}}d\tau =(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}+_{}A^{})d\tau ,`$ (16)
$`d\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{H_0^{^{}}}{A^+}}d\tau {\displaystyle \frac{H_2^{^{}}}{A^+}}d\mathrm{\Phi }=gd\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (17)
¿From $`dH_1^{^{}}=0`$ we find that

$$H_3^{^{}}=_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{}g_{}\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(18)
Constraint (18) is not suitable for Hamilton-Jacobi but if we consider it as a density the contribution to the action is zero. At this point we can see the main difference between Dirac’s formulation and Hamilton-Jacobi formalism for fields. To keep the physical interpretation in Hamilton-Jacobi formulation we must have all the constraints in the form of $`p_\alpha +H_\alpha `$. In our concrete case the constraints are not in the form required but they are first class. The system is integrable on the surface of constraints, in other words when $`H_1^{^{}}=H_2^{^{}}=H_3^{^{}}=0`$. For this model the reduced phase-space is suitable in the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism. In this case we have

$$H_0^{^{}}=p_0+\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{})^2.$$
(19)
### 3.1 BRST Invariance

The main aim of this section is to find a way to relate BRST transformation  to the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. The first problem is the Lagrangian to start with. The starting point is the BRST invariant Lagrangian

$`L^{^{}}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }^{}_+A^++\mathrm{\Pi }_u_+u+\mathrm{\Pi }_v_+v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{})^2\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(_{}A^{})gA^{}(_{}\varphi )`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`(_{}\varphi +gA^+)_+\varphi .`$ (21)
obtained from the total Hamiltonian

$$H_T=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{})^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(_{}A^{})+g(_{}\varphi )A^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }^+u+(\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }gA^+)v.$$
(22)
Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }_u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_v`$ are the momenta corresponding to Lagrange’s multipliers u and v.

The BRST and anti- BRST symmetries for Schwinger model have the forms

$`\delta \varphi =0`$ $`,\delta A^+=_{}c,\delta A^{}=_+c,\delta u=_+_+c,\delta v=0,`$ (23)
$`\delta \mathrm{\Pi }=g\delta _{}c`$ $`,\delta \mathrm{\Pi }^+=0,\delta \mathrm{\Pi }^{}=0,\delta \mathrm{\Pi }_u=0,\delta \mathrm{\Pi }_v=0`$ (24)
$`\delta c=0`$ $`,\delta \overline{c}=0,\delta b=0,`$ (25)
$`\overline{\delta }\varphi =0`$ $`,\overline{\delta }A^+=_{}\overline{c},\overline{\delta }A^{}=_+\overline{c},\overline{\delta }u=_+_+\overline{c},\overline{\delta }v=0,`$ (26)
$`\overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Pi }=g\overline{\delta }_{}\overline{c}`$ $`,\overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Pi }^+=0,\overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=0,\overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Pi }_u=0,\overline{\delta }\mathrm{\Pi }_v=0`$ (27)
$`\overline{\delta }\overline{c}=0`$ $`,\overline{\delta }\overline{c}=0,\overline{\delta }b=0,`$ (28)
where $`c`$, $`\overline{c}`$ are Grassmann variables, b is a bosonic variable and in addition $`\delta ^2=0`$, $`\overline{\delta }^2=0`$.

The supercharges corresponding to (23) and (26) are

$$Q=𝑑x^{}[ic(_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{}g_{}\varphi )i_+c(\mathrm{\Pi }^++\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\varphi gA^+)],$$
(29)
$$\overline{Q}=𝑑x^{}[i\overline{c}(_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{}g_{}\varphi )+i_+\overline{c}(\mathrm{\Pi }^++\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\varphi gA^+)],$$
(30)
After adding a gauge-fixing term to (20) we obtain

$$L_{BRST}=L^{^{}}+\delta (\overline{c}(_+A^++\frac{1}{2}bgA^++\mathrm{\Pi }))$$
(31)
or

$`L_{BRST}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }^{}_+A^++\mathrm{\Pi }_u_+u+\mathrm{\Pi }_v_+v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{})^2\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(_{}A^{})`$ (32)
$``$ $`gA^{}(_{}\varphi )+(_{}\varphi +gA^+)_+\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b^2+b(_+A^{}gA^++\mathrm{\Pi })`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`(_+\overline{c})(_+c).`$ (34)
Since the Lagrangian (32) is degenerate on the extended phase-space, we can apply Hamilton-Jacobi formulation.

The Hamiltonian densities corresponding to (32) are

$`H_1^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }^+b,H_2^{^{\prime \prime }}=\mathrm{\Pi }_c_+\overline{c},H_3^{^{\prime \prime }}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{c}}_+c,H_4^{^{\prime \prime }}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }gA^+,`$ (35)
$`H_0^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ $`=p_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{})^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(_{}A^{})+g(_{}\varphi )A^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }_c\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{c}}`$ (36)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+(\mathrm{\Pi }gA^+){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Pi }^+)^2`$ (37)
We mention that in (35) all Hamiltonians are BRST- anti- BRST invariant if $`\delta p_0=\overline{\delta }p_0=0`$.

The corresponding equations of motion for independent variables are

$$d\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=g\mathrm{\Pi }^+dx^+gd\mathrm{\Phi },dA^+=(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}+_{}A^{})dx^+$$
(38)
The variations of $`H_1^{^{\prime \prime }},H_2^{^{\prime \prime }},H_3^{^{\prime \prime }},H_4^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ gives

$$d\mathrm{\Pi }^+=db,d\mathrm{\Pi }=_{}d\mathrm{\Phi }+gdA^+$$
(39)
$$d\mathrm{\Pi }_c=_+d\overline{c},d\mathrm{\Pi }_{\overline{c}}=_+dc,$$
(40)
¿From (40) we obtain

$$_+(_+c)=0,_+(_+\overline{c})=0,$$
(41)
On the other hand $`d\mathrm{\Phi }=g\mathrm{\Pi }^+dx^+gd\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+=0`$. From (39) we obtain $`b=0`$. The equation of motion corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ is

$$d\mathrm{\Pi }^+=_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{}g_{}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(42)
As a consequence a new constraint appears and it is considered as a new Hamiltonian density

$$H_5^{^{\prime \prime }}=_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{}g_{}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(43)
Solving $`H_2^{^{\prime \prime }}=0,H_3^{^{\prime \prime }}=0`$ we obtain c and $`\overline{c}`$ as

$$c(x^+)=Ax^++B,\overline{c}(x^+)=A^{^{}}x^++B^{^{}}.$$
(44)
Let $`\psi >`$ be the physical state of the model. All Hamiltonians from (35) annihilate the physical state. We mention that this condition is the same as

$$Q\psi >=0,\overline{Q}\psi >=0.$$
(45)
Taking into account (40) we obtain that the physical states are described by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^+\psi >=0`$ $`,(\mathrm{\Pi }_{}\varphi gA^+)\psi >=0,`$ (46)
$`(_{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{}g_{}\varphi )\psi >`$ $`=0.`$ (47)
The result is the same as obtained in .

## 4 Conclusions

Despite of many attempts to clarify the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism for the systems with constraints a lot of problems remained unsolved. In this paper we analyzed the front-form Schwinger model with Hamilton-Jacobi and the results are the same as those obtained with Dirac’s formalism. Using the consistency conditions we found three first class constraints but one of them is not in a form required by Hamilton-Jacobi formalism. As a consequence in this case we cannot calculate the action. To solve the problem we find the reduced phase-space. We mention that $`H_3^{^{}}`$ becomes a total divergence in Hamilton-Jacobi formalism. This model is an example of a constrained system such that all the constraints are first class but its physical interpretation from Hamilton-Jacobi point of view is missing. In the second part of the paper we started with a BRST invariant Lagrangian. Since the Lagrangian is singular on the extended phase-space we apply Hamilton-Jacobi formalism. All Hamiltonian densities are BRST- anti- BRST invariant provided that $`\delta p_0=\overline{\delta }p_0=0`$. The equations for c and $`\overline{c}`$ were obtained and the results are in agreement with those obtained in literature.

## 5 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank M. Henneaux and S.T. Hong for reading the manuscript and for encouragement. This work is partially supported by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey.

## 6 Appendix

Let us consider the Lagrangian $`L(q,\dot{q})`$ be an even function of N variables $`q^I`$ that are elements of Berezin algebra. The variation of $`S=L𝑑t`$ leads us to the equations of motion

$$\frac{\delta _rS}{\delta q^i}=\frac{_rL}{q^i}\frac{d}{dt}\frac{_rL}{\dot{q^i}}=0,$$
(48)
The Hamiltonian becomes

$$H=p_i\dot{q}^iL,$$
(49)
where the momenta are defined using the right derivatives

$$p_i=\frac{_rL}{\dot{q}^i},$$
(50)
and Hamilton’s equations are

$$\dot{q}^i=\frac{_lH}{p_i}=(1)^{P_{(i)}}\frac{_rH}{p_i},\dot{p}^i=\frac{_rH}{q_i}=(1)^{P_{(i)}}\frac{_lH}{q_i}.$$
(51)
The Berezin bracket is defined as

$$\{F,G\}_B=\frac{_rF}{q^i}\frac{_lG}{p_i}(1)^{P_{(F)}P_{(G)}}\frac{_rG}{q^i}\frac{_lF}{p_i}$$

and has the following properties

$$\{F,G\}_B=(1)^{P_{(F)}P_{(G)}}\{G,F\}_B,$$
(52)
$$\{F,GK\}_B=\{F,G\}_BK+(1)^{P_FP_G}\{F,K\}_B,$$
(53)
$`(1)^{P_{(F)}P_{(K)}}\{F,\{G,K\}_B\}_B`$ $`+`$ $`(1)^{P_{(G)}P_{(F)}}\{G,\{K,F\}_B\}_B`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`(1)^{P_{(K)}P_{(G)}}\{K,\{F,G\}_B\}_B=0.`$ (55)
Here (54) represents the Jacobi’s identity.