text:
# The Standard Model hierarchy, fine-tuning, and negativity of the Higgs mass squared

## 1 Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics is in very good agreement with all experimental observations made thus far. Nevertheless, a common view continues that the SM can not be a valid, complete theory of Nature for energies just above the one TeV scale.

Where does this view come from? Why does the model that so elegantly fits all low energy phenomena need to be embedded into a yet unknown but supposedly more fundamental framework for energies around the TeV scale? Traditionally, it is trusted that the reason lies in the SM hierarchy and fine-tuning problems.

First I review the hierarchy and fine-tuning problems in their traditional form. Second I discuss the more realistic SM case. I do so by using two approaches which give identical results: the Veltman method with a hard Euclidean cutoff and a method that uses effective potential in the dimensional regularization minimal substraction ($`\overline{MS}`$) scheme. I explain why these approaches are equivalent and how they offer two different interpretations of the fine-tuning problem.

Then, I suggest how the hierarchy and fine-tuning problems might be resolved by the SM itself, i.e. without a need for supplementing exotic new physics at the one TeV scale. The only new, however key, element is the presence of at least one additional requirement on the structure of the theory at the low energies. The trivial reason for the additional requirement is that it may institute the effective SM (including the Higgs mass) to be a self-contained, self-consistent structure up to highest energies. Finally, I analyze three models on these lines: Toy, Master and Interesting standard models. The favorite Higgs pole mass predictions are $`39`$ GeV, $`138`$ GeV, and about $`116`$ GeV respectively.

## 2 The Hierarchy and Fine-Tuning: Warm Up With Traditional Views

The well-known non-zero vacuum expectation value (vev) of the scalar Higgs field, $`v_{EW}=2.462\times 10^2`$ GeV, sets the scale of the electroweak interactions. Another well-known energy scale is the Planck scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{planck}1.2\times 10^{19}`$ GeV, probably setting the scale of the unified theory incorporating gravity. Obviously, many orders of magnitude separate these numbers. Traditionally, this fact is considered a serious obstacle for the SM. The problem termed hierarchy problem expresses doubts that the SM alone can provide a good physical description over such a broad range of energies.

Why is that a problem? It is well known that many physical theories give excellent descriptions of the phenomena over a broad range of distance and energy scales. The Newtonian theory of gravity covers more than fifteen orders of distance magnitude. With electromagnetism and photon propagation the range is even more impressive. So, why would the SM be the exception and fail at the energies in the reach of the next generation of accelerators? The traditional, incomplete answer is that the Higgs (along with Z and W’s) field is massive and the photon is massless. In other words, the scalar mass squared receives an additive renormalization contribution; mass squared is not protected from the quadratic “infinities!”

But so what? This fact itself does not make the existing hierarchy look any worse or any better. The truth is that hierarchy does not constitute a problem of any kind. Only when united with the fine-tuning problem can the hierarchy look persuasive as an obstacle to the SM at high energies.

Chronologically, the SM fine-tuning problem was introduced when technicolor models originated . The logarithmic running of the strong technicolor gauge coupling is offered as a solution to this problem. The problem in its original form is reproduced now.

To characterize the fine-tuning problem it is useful to introduce the dimensionless mass parameter $`\mu =m_H^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The parameter $`m_H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ represents a renormalized Higgs mass at the cut-off energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The mass running is rudely simplified by

$$m_{H0}^2m_H^2=g^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2),$$
(2.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is some large fundamental scale at which new physics (i.e. a more fundamental framework) parameterizes the SM. Mass runs quadratically, $`g`$ is approximated with a constant (!), and non-zero vev is formed when $`m_H^2\lambda v_{EW}^2`$, i.e. $`\mu _{EW}\lambda `$; here, in the same spirit, scalar’s quartic coupling $`\lambda `$ is approximated with a constant (!).

Now, one may solve for $`\mu _0=\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ with $`h=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2/v_{EW}^2`$ and obtain

$$\mu _0=g^2+(\lambda g^2)h^1.$$
(2.2)
Clearly, if a large hierarchy, for example at the Planck scale where $`h=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{planck}^2/v_{EW}^210^{34}`$, is plugged into this formula a tremendous “fine-tuning” is found. In other words, new physics at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{planck}`$ could “potentially” position $`\mu _0`$ anywhere in between $`g^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ (if outside this region, the electroweak symmetry would be unbroken), but new physics has chosen a value that is tuned to $`g^2`$ with a precision of one in $`10^{34}`$. In addition, the more the theory is finely tuned the larger the hierarchy becomes. This is roughly sketched in Fig. 1.a.

If there is no reasonable explanation (by the SM alone or new physics) that may accommodate such tremendous tuning (and with such small numbers one would think that there is none) the conclusion is that $`h`$ should not be very large. Therefore, from this line of reasoning, i.e. fine-tuning as originally postulated, it may be concluded that the SM can be a good description only up to very small energies, maybe ten or so times larger than a physical Higgs mass!

## 3 The Hierarchy and Fine-Tuning: The Standard Model Realm

The quantity $`m_H(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, introduced above, is sometimes described as a quantity that as a matter of principle  cannot be calculated. This suggests that the whole fine-tuning problem cannot be quantified (ill-posed problem?). A matter of principle refers to the fact that the calculation of $`m_H^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is regularization scheme dependent; if one chooses two different and supposedly equally good regularization schemes, one might get two different and supposedly equally good answers.

The solution to this problem is to pick one regularization scheme and then check whether a tremendous fine-tuning exists at all. Clearly, this is a legitimate thing to do - the tremendous fine-tunning should not be regularization scheme dependent! Here we will use two methods and show that the results are essentially identical.

In the hard cutoff Euclidean regularization scheme the integrals of the type

$$d^dp,\frac{d^dp}{p^2}\mathrm{}$$
(3.3)
are nonzero while in dimensional regularization due to the dilatation property are identically zero. In logarithmic terms the two regularization methods agree. This interplay may be easily seen if one dimensionally continues and regularizes propagators by the method of Pauli-Villars. Then one finds  for example for $`d<4`$

$$I_\gamma =\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{q^2(p+q)^2}\frac{\left[(p^2)^{(d/2)2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{d4}\right]}{8\pi ^2(4d)}$$
(3.4)
Fixing the cutoff and taking the limit $`d=4`$ one obtains $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ instead of a pole at $`d4`$. Vice versa, by fixing $`d4`$ and taking the cutoff to infinity one obtains the continuation of the initial integral.

As is standard, in the hard Euclidean cutoff method (which does not support the Lorentz symmetry) one obtains the running scalar mass that runs quadratically. In contrast, dimensional regularization results in only logarithmic running. One may think that this property of dimensional regularization may solve the fine-tuning problem. However, that is not the case. They are really just two different ways of organizing terms in the expansion or if you prefer, two different interpretations.

The fine-tuning may be analyzed from the $`\overline{MS}`$ dimensional regularization point of view. The quantities $`m_H^2`$ and $`f=dm_H^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })/d\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ (paralleling the “constant” $`g^2`$ in the previous section) may be calculated using the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme effective potential $`V_{eff}`$ at the one-loop level, with all coupling constants running logarithmically at the two-loop level. Here, it is important to make a distinction between the $`\overline{MS}`$ parameters $`m`$ and $`m_H`$. The $`\overline{MS}`$ mass parameter $`m`$, as is standard, has intrinsic logarithmic running. The parameter $`m_H^2`$ running quadratically is analyzed in the context of the fine-tuning problem. It is defined by the tree-level form of the effective potential, i.e. $`V_{eff}(\varphi _{cl})=V(\varphi _R)=m_H^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi _R)\varphi _R^2/4+\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi _R)\varphi _R^4/8`$, where $`\varphi _{cl}`$ and $`\varphi _R`$ stand for classical and renormalized scalar fields. So to speak $`m_H^2`$ is a quantity where one loop correction to the effective potential is lumped together with the $`\overline{MS}`$ parameters $`m`$. Evolution of the SM dimensionless mass parameter $`\mu `$ for the physical Higgs masses in the range $`140230`$ GeV is shown in the Fig. 2..

Although both methods give the same result (with exceptional agreement) it is probably more instructive to look at the fine tuning problem from the perspective of the hard Euclidean cutoff method. As done in  one could express the quadratic running as polynomial in the SM masses

$$\frac{dm_H^2}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=\frac{3g_2^2}{64\pi ^2M_W^2}\left[m_H^2+2M_W^2+M_Z^24\left(\frac{n_f}{3}\right)m_f^2\right]+\mathrm{}.$$
(3.5)
where $`n_f=3(1)`$ for quarks(leptons). The same expression may be rewritten as polynomial in the SM couplings (where the tree level relationship $`\lambda =m_H^2/v_{EW}^2`$ is used)

$$\frac{dm_H^2}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\left[12g_t^26\lambda \frac{9}{2}g_2^2\frac{3}{2}g_1^2\right]+\mathrm{}.$$
(3.6)
The quantities $`\mu `$ and $`f=dm_H^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })/d\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ are by definition related as

$$\frac{d\mu }{d\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}=f\mu .$$
(3.7)
Obviously, if $`f`$ is a constant it would represent an ultraviolet fixed point. However $`f`$ is scale dependent and this introduces some small difference. For large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the quantity $`\mu `$ quickly approaches the function

$$f_{UVfixed}=ff^{(1)}+f^{(2)}\mathrm{}$$
(3.8)
where all higher derivatives of $`f`$, i.e. $`f^{(n)}=d^nf/d(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)^n`$, are also expressible as polynomials in the SM couplings111Strictly speaking only the one loop level running has a clear physical meaning (i.e. the couplings may be entangled only at the one loop level ). The higher loops are affected by the regularization method - however these corrections, in sense of the final result are rather negligible. However, we do assume that there is a preferred way how Nature is expressing physically observable effects at high energies.. Therefore, given the SM couplings we may imagine that we could calculate $`f_{UVfixed}`$ and then if we look at the physics of very large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we should realize that the parameter $`\mu `$ is extremely close to the value of this function at that scale. We may also answer how close by calculating the difference

$$\mu (m_{H(pole)}^2)f_{UVfixed}=\lambda (m_{H(pole)})(1+\text{few}\%).$$
(3.9)
The size of this difference is important because it tell us the particular solution $`\mu _p=\text{const.}/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ of the differential equation (3.7). Combining these two equations we get

$$\text{const.}m_{H(pole)}^2$$
(3.10)
Therefore at some larger scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we may write

$$\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)=f_{UVfixed}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)+\frac{m_{H(pole)}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$
(3.11)
If we vary obtained solution by some function $`\delta \mu `$ we also see that

$$\frac{d\delta \mu }{d\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}=\delta \mu .$$
(3.12)
In other words tiny perturbation at large scale causes gigantic changes at low energies.

At which scale is the theory said to be finely tuned? One may define the measure of the fine tuning via

$$\mu _p(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)/(\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)f_{UVfixed}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)).$$
(3.13)
Both quantities in the denominator run slowly, i.e. logarithmically, and therefore the one percent tuning is reached quickly, an order of magnitude or so above the $`m_{H(pole)}`$.

However, why is the size of the particular solution so important? The point is that it is not defined by the SM couplings (running logarithmically) and therefore the new physics should explain it somehow. The question is how the new physics can explain the quantity that is getting so small at the largest scales. Well isn’t that a good sign that the SM should be ruled out at energies above the TeV scale if we want things to look natural? Isn’t that a good sign that the new physics scale must be one TeV?

Well, not necessarily. The case may be that we asked a wrong question. It should be clear by now that we don’t really worry about the existence of fixed point behavior but really about the size of the particular solution and its connection to the new physics. Maybe the SM itself may explain the size of particular solution - then no new physics is needed to perform that job and fine-tuning is removed. Clearly the new physics could exist but its scale then doesn’t need to be one TeV. I discuss the above possibility in the next section and analyze three models where this property is implemented.

## 4 Toy, Master and Interesting Standard Models

The SM structure seems to be too perfect and quite general to fail at some finite energy scale-it clearly supports (and is built on) the idea of the infinite range of validity. In a sense the fine-tuning problem itself originates from this fact. If we believe that something new should happen at least around the Planck scale, we run the parameters of the theory and then we see that the theory is finely tuned there. This is a consequence of the SM structure and the presence of the cutoff that we introduced. Maybe what we need is a less perfect and a less general four dimensional theory that is somehow more compatible with the cutoff idea and/or we need an additional constraint on the theory.
a) Toy Standard Model
Consider first a toy model which in every aspect resembles the SM except for the missing $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ interactions at the minimum of the effective potential. On the classical tree level this theory obviously cannot exhibit the phenomenon of electroweak symmetry breaking. However, on the quantum level it can. This is possible if there is, for example, one fermion with large Yukawa coupling - translated to the SM numerology, i.e. using observed $`W`$ and $`Z`$ masses, this situation corresponds to the existence of a fermion with a mass larger than roughly $`\sqrt{3/n_c}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}72.6}`$ GeV (where $`n_c`$ is the number of colors), i.e. Yukawa coupling that is larger than $`\sqrt{3/n_c}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.41}\sqrt{3/n_c}\sqrt{1/6}`$. Well, that is promising - we have exactly such a candidate at our disposal. The above numerology follows from the Higgs mass running, equations (3.5-3.6), 222It is interesting to note that if both space time dimension and Dirac trace were set to 2 (they were both set to 4 in the original calculation ) the Higgs mass running would be proportional to $`6m_t^22M_W^2M_Z^23m_H^2`$. If that is the right thing to consider, then the above result changes and the minimal fermion mass needs to be $`\sqrt{3/n_c}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}59.3}`$ GeV, or in terms of the Yukawa coupling $`\sqrt{3/n_c}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.34}`$. and the minimum of the effective potential which in this case is roughly given as

$$\frac{dV_{eff}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{1}{2}m_H^2\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{2}\frac{dm_H^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }^3.$$
(4.14)
What does this funny theory have to do with the fine-tuning problem? Basically, it explains why the hierarchy can be so large. In the effective constrained SM picture of this type the electroweak symmetry is by definition driven by the “technical” parameter $`\lambda `$ running logarithmically that at some scale, which we then call vev, goes to zero (more precisely to $`(1/4)d\lambda /\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ so that quartic sector is removed). Or alternatively, by neglecting the quartic contributions altogether, by the scale at which one Yukawa coupling becomes large enough that it overcomes the effect of gauge bosons!

It is amusing to note that this toy model gives a prediction of the Higgs mass that is in very good agreement with global electroweak precision fit prediction coming from “all data” except hadronic asymmetry determination of the effective leptonic weak mixing angle (sets C and D in ), i.e. $`m_H39.2`$ GeV. This value is obtained from the second derivative of $`V_{eff}`$ (with $`d\lambda /\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term being considered as well).
b) Master Standard Model
Another example is the nonrenormalizable model where the fundamental Higgs sector is essentially excluded. Here the non-SM interactions are expected to introduce a specific type of dimensional transmutation through color singlet SM fermion attractive channels that trigger electroweak symmetry breaking at low energies. Without specifying the type of these interactions we will assume this situation to be describable as effective SM theory of a composite scalar field which gets the vev in the usual way through the interplay of effective $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ parameters. Again, as in the last example there will be an additional constraint on this structure at the electroweak symmetry breaking scale (more precisely at the scale of electroweak vev) - we will require the sum of Yukawa couplings squared/top Yukawa coupling to be approximately one (up to smallish radiative corrections). Well this sounds promising as we have exactly such a situation in hand!

Instead of bothering with the notorious complication of many flavors, we will concentrate on just the top sector with $`T_L=(t,b)_L`$ and $`T_R=t_R`$ and consider a color singlet composite scalar field that has exactly the right quantum number of the usual Higgs scalar field. This scenario share some features of the top-mode model of . However, instead of expecting parameters of this model to essentially blow up at the high energy compositeness scale, as in , we will require perturbative, smooth decoupling of the scalar sector at high energies, i.e. $`\mu ,\lambda 0`$ in actual calculation. In addition we set by definition (or if you prefer by hand) the top Yukawa couplings to be one. By doing so we assume that $`g_t1`$ is not accidentally related to the ultraviolet loop dynamics but rather that it represents an important characteristic of the vacuum.

What does this situation have to do with the fine-tuning problem? It removes it! The fact that electroweak symmetry breaking is now defined by two constraints means that scalar mass is completely defined at any energy scale by the SM itself. It cannot be varied as two constraints ($`g_t=1`$ and $`V_{eff}^(1)=0`$) would not coincide. This picture means that our type of universe belongs to a much smaller subset of universes defined by the general SM structure (with a requirement on the minimum of the effective potential alone) - this fact indeed is what can make Planck mass hierarchy natural.

Our main accent here is clearly to present the possibility of the existence of an additional defining principle for our effective SM realization that solves the hierarchy and fine-tuning problems. We are not trying to give the physical description of potential non standard physics at high energies and its exact matching to the effective SM theory in the infrared - that would require much work for even a decent understanding. However we could make a small excursion for reasons of completeness and hypothesize that as in the top-mode model  one can start at high energies with the “true fundamental” or again effective theory (reflecting however the ground state) containing dimension six 4-fermion operators like

$$_{int}\left(\overline{T}T\right)\left(\overline{T}T\right)$$
(4.15)
and no fundamental scalar field.333At this point it is worth noticing that this is a renormalizable interaction in two dimensions. One may then use the old recipe  and rewrite this interaction with the use of static auxiliary scalar fields and obtains static scalar mass squared terms plus Yukawa terms. That is in principle a valid procedure if the classical equations of motion are indeed satisfied at the cutoff scale (and therefore one would expect the one loop corrections to be small and physical description to be perturbative). Going toward smaller energy scales, one then obtains the non-zero quartic scalar coupling terms and dynamical scalar fields. It is believed that this theory is strongly attracted to the effective SM infrared description.

Concentrating only on the top sector, these scalar fields will be represented by nine weak doublet fields; nine due to the color combinations and weak doublets because of the $`\overline{T_L}T_R`$ form. The eight color sensitive fields decouple quickly below the cutoff due to the strong interaction (and are represented as a tremendously massive object in the low energy description, i.e. without breaking the color interactions)444At the cutoff scale their fixed point is somewhat larger, due to the strong interactions, than the one for a color invariant scalar field. Therefore they necessarily gain huge negative mass squared and decouple an order or so below the cutoff. For them the standard logic is applicable - they are not naturally finely tuned at the cutoff scale. while a color invariant scalar, i.e. standard Higgs,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{redred}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{blueblue}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{greengreen}\right)$$
(4.16)
survives and triggers the electroweak symmetry breaking. The contribution to the Z, W vacuum polarization sets $`v_{colorcolor}=v_{ew}/\sqrt{3}142`$ GeV.

How about the leftover degree of freedom corresponding to the propagating physical Higgs particle? What is the mass of the Higgs in this picture? The natural guess would be that it should be of the order $`v_{ew}/\sqrt{3}142`$ GeV. It is interesting to realize that if the condition on vacuum stability, in particular on quadratic divergences, is imposed on each color separately555Possibility that quadratic divergences cancels if sensitivity on color interaction is omitted was considered in the past . one obtains the relationship

$$\frac{4}{3}m_t^22M_W^2M_Z^2m_H^2=0$$
(4.17)
implying the Higgs mass $`m_H138.9`$ GeV!666It is hard not to notice that this value happens to be extremely close to $`v_{ew}/\sqrt{\pi }`$. However this is probably just a numerical curiosity. The contribution from top loops changes by factor $`(n_f/3)(1/\sqrt{3})^2=1/3`$ compared to equation (3.5). The electroweak gauge bosons contributions is unchanged due to identical electroweak coupling. The quartic contribution is also unchanged as may be directly checked.

What is missing here is the standard picture on the composite objects, i.e. bound states. What is Higgs exactly made of? How could it have a mass smaller than the top quark? What is top made of? We believe that the answer might be related to space time dimensionality of the field theory needed for the appropriate description of the electroweak symmetry breaking. Anyhow, we analyze next the SM renormalization flow and try to infer proper answers from the very high energies.

Naively one can simply require the quartic coupling to go to zero and in this way define the cutoff scale versus physical Higgs mass. This has some chance to be a good description but one needs to be aware that close to the cutoff scale the SM renormalizion flow could be a bit deceptive - partially due to the cutoff effects by themselves and also due to the presence of the color octet fields and maybe some other objects that we are not aware of at this point. Until this cutoff sensitivity is properly physically understood the results obtained from pure SM flow must be taken with a grain of salt. Anyhow, the SM solution incorporating quartic scalar coupling that goes to zero at some scale below the Planck scale exists for the physical Higgs masses roughly smaller than 138 GeV! The larger the physical Higgs mass the larger the cutoff scale. That is a well-known result for the quartic coupling flow and we refer interested reader to references . In this picture any Higgs pole mass roughly below 138 GeV is allowed and the heavier Higgses are excluded.

However, some spice can be added to this picture by requiring in addition that quantum corrections need to be smaller than the tree-level values as we approach the cutoff energy. From the perspective of $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme that would suggest that

one loop correction, i.e. parameter $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ roughly, needs to be on the order of the running $`\overline{MS}`$ mass at the cutoff scale. It is worth pointing out that the presence of the small parameter $`\mu `$ has nothing to do with an explanation of the fine-tuning - without requiring two constraints that define the electroweak breaking as a master principle, one is not able to explain why $`\mu `$ should be so close to $`f_{UVfixed}`$.

Numerically, to our level of precision, we notice that there is no solution that satisfies both conditions $`\mu =0`$ and $`\lambda =0`$ at any cutoff scale.777The parameter $`\mu `$ at the Planck scale is equal zero for $`m_H=146`$ GeV. The manner in which the curves (do not) intersect reminds one somewhat of the GUT case . As shown in Fig. 3. the three curves $`f_1=\mu `$, $`f_2=\lambda `$ and $`f_3=0`$ come extremely close in the vicinity of the Planck scale being the cutoff and for the physical Higgs masses in the vicinity of 138 GeV. As the author does not know of a better experimentally motivated cutoff scale it is the author’s strong feeling that this observation constitutes a good candidate for the mass of the last missing ingredient in the SM!

As promised a few thoughts on the negativity of the Higgs mass squared are in order. The negativity of the effective Higgs mass should not be considered a bad feature of the theory. Nor should the theory be expected to necessarily break down at the energy scale at which there is a transition from positive to negative values. It is not the pole mass that is negative and the real physical description does not suffer from the tachionic degrees of freedom. It is simply a mass squared in the effective propagator of the effective tree-level description defined at a particular energy scale. Nothing more and nothing else. If effective mass is negative the process of interest will be more suppressed at that energy scale.

It is particularly useful to consider this “negativity” from the unbroken phase point of view. Consider raising the temperature of the field theory. Through the standard Higgs mechanism this process is supposed to bring us to the true minimum of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ potential that lies at zero. And the natural description contains the broken phase negative mass squared that we now label as positive in an unbroken phase point of view. At energy scales much larger than the temperature, the mass squared is the same in both unbroken and broken theory descriptions (up to the minus sign). Therefore, if we associate some fundamental meaning to the non-zero temperature description and expect this theory to have an effective scalar mass squared of the same sign up to the cutoff scale then it should come with no surprise that broken phase contains negative effective mass squared at high energies as some type of memory on the unbroken phase physics. Again, we are not proving that this must be true. However, we find this to be very natural feature of the healthy effective SM theory.
c) Interesting Standard Model
If the dynamical Higgs mechanism is fully realized in two dimensions, it opens the opportunity that the vacuum energy problem may be resolved - the condition on non-zero vev of the effective scalar field may be then confined only along the path of physically propagating objects. Here we take both space time dimension and Dirac trace to be two and reproduce the previous analysis for the Master SM (with now renormalizable four fermion interactions).

The requirement on the vacuum stability, paralleling the one in equation (4.17), is now

$$2m_t^22M_W^2M_Z^23m_H^2=0$$
(4.18)
suggesting $`m_H=114.8`$ GeV.

Here we conjecture the particular kind of equivalence in between the two pictures: toy model in two dimension with critical (two dimensional) fermion Yukawa coupling and standard electroweak symmetry breaking in four dimensions. The hope is that the critical fermion may be thought as a constituent of the physical Higgs degree of freedom as standard relativistic composite algebra seems to suggest, i.e.

$$m_H=2m_{critical}(1\text{few}\%),$$
(4.19)
where $`m_{critical}=\sqrt{3/n_c}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}59.3}`$ GeV. Furthermore this opens a possibility that the top quark may be thought as a composite object, i.e. bound state of three two-dimensional critical fermions. As interactions are rather weak the natural guess on the top quark mass is then

$$m_t=3m_{critical}(1\text{few}\%)v_{EW}/\sqrt{2}$$
(4.20)
Finally the requirement on the quartic scalar coupling being zero suggests the cutoff scale of roughly $`10^6`$ GeV.

The picture with both Higgs and top quark being composite objects might have interesting implications. If we think on the scalar sector as an “order parameter” tool we expect $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>=0`$ in the unbroken phase (unbroken phase clearly dominates majority of the “empty” space in this picture). The electroweak symmetry is triggered by the large Yukawa coupling in two dimensions that at some energy scale becomes critical - fermion contribution balances the gauge boson contributions to the $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>`$. Immediately when fermion contribution start dominating i.e. $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>`$ differs just infinitely small from zero, the process of condensation quickly develops and top quark and physical Higgs as bound states of massive fermions are formed! If that is the right picture then the correct way of thinking is not to impose the tree level $`g_t=1`$ as requirement but rather

$$g_t3\sqrt{\frac{\frac{9}{2}g_2^2+\frac{3}{2}g_1^2}{18}}(1\text{few}\%)=\frac{3g_2}{2}\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{g_1}{g_2}\right)^2}(1\text{few}\%)1.025(1\text{few}\%)$$
(4.21)
which is after all maybe just by accident so close to one. Anyhow, this relationship is our second constraint on the SM defining $`v_{EW}`$ (and $`m_H`$) and removing the hierarchy and fine-tuning problems.

Whether the two-dimensional large Yukawa coupling fermion, building the vacuum structure of the theory (expected not to suffer from the vacuum energy problem), can be observed as physically propagating object or not seems at this point very moot. From dimensional analysis we would conclude that this is not the case. However we postpone answering this question until better understanding is reached.

## 5 Conclusion

The SM hierarchy and fine-tuning problems may supplement valid motivation for the existence of drastically new physics description beyond the one TeV scale. However, the SM structure can also be a good candidate for a self-consistent high energy representation of Nature if additional relationship(s) at low energies is(are) realized. Then new physics is not needed to explain the size of the Higgs mass as this mass may be explained by the SM itself. If that is the case the new physics may become important only at very high energies.

I presented three models on these lines. In the first exemplary toy model the scalar quartic interactions were required to decouple at the scale of the electroweak breaking vev so that the ground state is completely determined by the quadratic term and quantum radiative corrections. The physical Higgs mass in this toy model is predicted to be about $`39`$ GeV.

The second model suggests that there is no fundamental scalar but that the Higgs is a composite object composed out of the top quark degree of freedom. The top Yukawa coupling is required to be one at the lowest energies. The SM structure is run up to high energies at the two loop level and it is found that the requirement of the scalar sector completely decoupling is very closely reached for the Higgs mass in the vicinity of 138 GeV and the physical cutoff on the order of the Planck scale. The $`m_H138`$ GeV value roughly fall in the $`90\%`$ CL intervals from both leptonic and hadronic asymmetry measurements and it is in very good agreement with $`\chi ^2`$ distribution obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ alone .

The third model has a two dimensional mechanism of condensation. Both Higgs and top quark are thought to be the composite objects. The top Yukawa coupling is predicted to be $`g_t=\frac{3g_2}{2}\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{g_1}{g_2}\right)^2}(1\text{few}\%)1.025(1\text{few}\%)`$ where $`g_2`$, $`g_1`$ are electroweak $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge couplings and the Higgs mass is expected to be somewhat larger than $`114.8`$ GeV in an unpleasant, hopefully accidental, proximity to the late LEP Higgs signal candidate .

If Higgs happens to weight either around $`116`$ or $`138`$ GeV, and if nature has chosen the large SM high-energy desert in front of us, the hopes for discovery of new phenomena should not be lost. It is my strong belief that this exciting challenge will motivate a new set of interesting, clever and successful ways to study nature. It might be a somewhat longer journey than the one with new physics waiting for us at the 1 TeV scale, but we may be surprised.

## Acknowledgments

I thank the particle physics theory groups at Harvard University and Boston University for their reactions to some of the ideas presented in this work. I am grateful to the biomechatronics group of MIT’s AI Lab for partial financial support. I am thankful to Ms. Wendy Gu and Mr. Matthew Malchano for the proofreading of the manuscript. I am indebted to my family for their love.


format: text

text:
# On Quantum Radiation in Curved Spacetime

## I Introduction.

The issue of quantum field theories of elementary particles in curved spacetime has shown a tremendously important role of understanding quantum phenomenon of particle creations in the presence of gravitational field. The Hawking radiationhawking75  is one of such phenomena occurring around black hole’s horizon. It has advocated a numerous studies in the last three decadesbook . Briefly and broadly speaking, in these studies there are two approaches to the Hawking radiation. In the first, one considers an incoming and outgoing wave destoried in a collapse geometry, and the Hawking radiation can explicitly and implicitly be approached by an appropriate boundary condition. In the second, one treats a black hole immersed in a thermal bath, implying the Hawking radiation from black holes by the detail balance. These approaches do not very directly reveal the genuine quantum process taking place for the source of the Hawking radiation, although, the Hawking radiation is heuristically considered as pair-creations of particles and antiparticles by a quantum effect of tunnelingpair , analogous to the Euler-Heisenberg-Schwinger process in QEDsw . In recent studiesthooft ; wilczk00 , the semi-classical WKB-method for quantum tunneling process is adopted to reveal the quantum tunneling nature of the Hawking radiation and its back reactionwilczk00 . For explicitly revealing the genuine origin of quantum radiation in curved spacetime, it is essential to analyze the effect in the context of quantum field theories. This is also very important for understanding microscopic origin of entropy in black hole thermodynamics and the problem of unitality.

In a path-integral framework of quantum field theories, we compute the effective action of transition amplitude from vacuum to vacuum in curved spacetime. With the Schwarzschild geometry, we obtain the imaginary part of effective action, which gives rise to the probability of vacuum decay via quantum tunneling process for pair-creations of particles and anti-particles. We discuss that this quantum emission is dynamically attributed to (i) quantum-field fluctuations of positive- and negative-energy virtual particles in vacuum are polarized by external gravitational field, (ii) such a vacuum polarization gains gravitational energy and (iii) effective mass-gap separating positive-energy particles from negative-energy particles is very small. The energy spectrum of vacuum is discretized by external gravitational field. The spectrum of particle creations is determined by quantum emissions(absorptions) from(into) vacuum, in unit of quanta of the discrete energy spectrum of vacuum.

## II General formulation.

We assume that the structure of spacetime is described by the pseudo-Riemannian metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ associated with the line element

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3,$$
(1)
and the spacetime point is coordinated by $`x=(x^0,x^i)=(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$. The special geometrical symmetries of the spacetime $`𝒮`$ are described by using Killing vectors $`\xi ^\mu `$, which are solutions of Killing’s equation

$$_\xi g_{\mu \nu }(x)=0,\xi _{\mu ;\nu }+\xi _{\nu ;\mu }=0,$$
(2)
where $`_\xi `$ is the Lie derivative along the vector field $`\xi ^\mu `$, orthogonal to the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ ($`t=`$constant) of the spacetime $`𝒮`$. A static observer $`𝒪`$ is at rest in this hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. We consider quantum-field fluctuations interacting with curved spacetime.

In order to clearly illustrate physics content, we first consider a complex scalar field $`\varphi `$ in curved spacetime. The simplest coordinate-invariant action is given by ($`\mathrm{}=c=G=k=1`$)

$$S=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }^{}+(m^2+\xi )\varphi \varphi ^{}\right],$$
(3)
where $`m`$ is particle mass and $``$ the Riemann scalar. The quantum scalar field $`\varphi `$ can be in principle expressed in terms of a complete and orthogonal basis of quantum-field states $`u_k(x)`$:

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{k}{}\left(a_ku_k(x)+a_k^{}u_k^{}(x)\right),[a_k,a_k^{}^{}]=\delta _{k,k^{}}$$
(4)
where $`a_k^{}`$ and $`a_k`$ are creation and annihilation operators of the $`k`$-th quantum-field state $`u_k(x)`$. This quantum field state obeys the following equation of motion,

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_x+m^2+\xi )u_k(x)=0,$$
(5)
and appropriate boundary conditions for selected values of $`k`$. In Eq.(5), $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ is the Laplacian operator in curved spacetime:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \left[\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \right].$$
(6)
In Eq.(4), we assume that $`u_k(x)`$ are positive energy ($`\omega `$) states, satisfying

$$_\xi u_k(x)=i\omega u_k(x),\omega >0,$$
(7)
with respect to the timelike Killing vector field $`\xi ^\mu `$ (2) associated to the static observer $`𝒪`$.

We assume that in the remote past $`(t\mathrm{})`$, massive dust is uniformly distributed that the spacetime is approximately flat. Quantum-field states $`u_k(x)`$ (5) in the remote past $`(t\mathrm{})`$ are asymptotically free states $`\overline{u}_k(x)`$, obeying Eq.(5) for $`g_{\mu \nu }(1,1,1,1)`$. Then, the quantum scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$ is an asymptotically free field in the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the spacetime $`𝒮`$:

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}(x)=\underset{k}{}\left(\overline{a}_k\overline{u}_k(x)+\overline{a}_k^{}\overline{u}_k^{}(x)\right),[\overline{a}_k,\overline{a}_k^{}^{}]=\delta _{k,k^{}}$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\overline{a}_k^{}`$ and $`\overline{a}_k`$ are creation and annihilation operators of the $`k`$-th asymptotically free quantum-field state $`\overline{u}_k(x)`$. Corresponding Lie derivative along the Killing vector (2) is $`_t`$, positive energy states are $`\overline{u}_k(x)`$, satisfying Eq.(7). Then we may construct the standard Minkowski space quantum vacuum state $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$:

$$\overline{a}_k|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}=0,\overline{0},\mathrm{in}|\overline{a}_k^{}=0.$$
(9)
$`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$ is an initial quantum vacuum state in the remote past $`(t\mathrm{})`$ with respect to the static observer $`𝒪`$.

In the remote future $`(t+\mathrm{})`$, a massive object is formed and stable that the spacetime is curved and stationary, described by the geometry $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. We assume that quantum-field states $`u_k(x)`$ (5) in the remote future $`(t+\mathrm{})`$ are asymptotical states $`\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x)`$, obeying Eq.(5) for a stationary geometry $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. In the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\mathrm{}`$ of the spacetime $`𝒮`$, the asymptotical quantum scalar field $`\varphi `$ in the remote future $`(t+\mathrm{})`$ is expressed in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x)`$:

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}(x)=\underset{k}{}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}_k\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x)+\stackrel{~}{a}_k^{}\stackrel{~}{u}_k^{}(x)\right),[\stackrel{~}{a}_k,\stackrel{~}{a}_k^{}^{}]=\delta _{k,k^{}}$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_k^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_k`$ are creation and annihilation operators of the $`k`$-th quantum-field state $`\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x)`$. Corresponding Lie derivative along the Killing vector is $`\xi ^\mu `$ (2), positive energy states are $`\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x)`$ satisfying Eq.(7). Then we may construct the quantum vacuum state $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_k|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}=0,\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}|\stackrel{~}{a}_k^{}=0,$$
(11)
in curved spacetime. $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$ is an final quantum vacuum state in the remote future $`(t+\mathrm{})`$ with respect to the same static observer $`𝒪`$.

It is worthwhile to note that $`\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}(x)`$($`\{\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x)\}`$) are not asymptotically free field(states), instead they are asymptotical field(states) in the presence of external stationary gravitational field, so that the final vacuum state $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$ (11) is different from the initial vacuum state $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$ (9). As will be seen, such a difference is not only a unitary phase. The final vacuum state $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$ (11), may not necessarily be measured as devoid of particles, in contrast to the initial vacuum state $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$ defined by Eq.(9) relating to the asymptotically free field $`\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}(x)`$. In fact, as will be shown, the final vacuum state $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$ is a quantum-field state of particle and antiparticle creations upon the initial vacuum state $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$. This indicates gravitational field interacting with quantum-field fluctuations of positive and negative energy states of the initial vacuum $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$, and the quantum scalar field evolves throughout intermediate states $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ (4) for $`\mathrm{}<t<+\mathrm{}`$. We speculate that this evolution is adiabatic for the reasons that gravitational-field energy involved is very small and the evolution takes infinite time.

To deal with all possible intermediate states, represented by $`\varphi (x)`$ or $`u_k(x)`$ in Eq.(4), for $`\mathrm{}<t<+\mathrm{}`$, we use path-integral representation to study the transition amplitude between the initial vacuum state and final vacuum state:

$$\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}=[𝒟\varphi 𝒟\varphi ^{}]\mathrm{exp}(iS),$$
(12)
where

$$[𝒟\varphi 𝒟\varphi ^{}]=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}<t<+\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\stackrel{}{x}\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}[d\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)\varphi ^{}(\stackrel{}{x},t)].$$
(13)
The intermediate states contributions to the transition amplitude (12) can be formally path-integrated,

$$\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}=\stackrel{1}{det}\left(\right),=\mathrm{\Delta }_x+m^2+\xi .$$
(14)
This result is in terms of $`\varphi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ (8) and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}`$ (10), which are not explicitly written. The effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is defined as

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=i\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}|\overline{0},\mathrm{in},$$
(15)
which relates to the phase of the $`S`$-matrix transition from the initial vacuum state $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$ to the final vacuum state $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$. We focus on the calculations of the effective action (15) in this article.

In order to evaluate the path-integral (12) over all intermediate states $`\varphi (x)`$ (4), it is convenient to introduce operators $`\widehat{X}_\mu `$ and $`\widehat{K}_\mu `$ defined on the states $`|x`$ and $`|k`$:

$$\widehat{X}_\mu |x=x_\mu |x;\widehat{K}_\mu |k=k_\mu |k.$$
(16)
They enjoy the canonical communication,

$$[\widehat{X}_\mu ,\widehat{K}_\nu ]=ig_{\mu \nu }.$$
(17)
The states $`|x`$ and $`|k`$ satisfy:

$`x|x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (xx^{}),{\displaystyle 𝑑x|xx|}=1`$
$`k|k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta (kk^{}),{\displaystyle 𝑑k|kk|}=1,`$ (18)
and intermediate quantum-field state $`u_k(x)`$ can be represented as

$$u_k(x)=x|k.$$
(19)
Using these matrix notations, we write the operator $`(\widehat{X},\widehat{K})`$ (14) as a hermitian matrix

$`_{k,k^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x^{}k|xx|(\widehat{X},\widehat{K})|x^{}x^{}|k^{}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑xu_k^{}(x)(x,\widehat{K})u_k^{}(x)}.`$
In this representation, diagonizing this hermitian matrix $`_{k,k^{}}`$, we formally compute the effective action $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ given in Eqs.(15,14):

$$iS_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}()=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\lambda _k^2,$$
(21)
where the $`\{\lambda _k^2\}`$ is the diagonal element of the matrix (20)

$$\lambda _k^2=\sqrt{g}d^4x\stackrel{~}{u}_k^{}(x)(x,\widehat{K})\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x),$$
(22)
in the phase space ($`k`$) of the quantum field states $`\{\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x)\}`$. The operator $`\lambda _k^2`$ (22) and the number of quantum-field states $`\sqrt{g}d^4xd^4k/(2\pi )^4`$ are invariant in arbitrary coordinate systems, later is the Liouville theorem for the phase-space invariance. In Eqs.(21) and (22), the term that is independent of non-trivial geometry $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ has been dropped.

## III Spectrum of vacuum.

At the remote future $`(t+\mathrm{})`$, we assume the geometry of the spacetime “’$`𝒮`$’ outside of a massive object $`M`$ ($`r>2M`$) is stationary and spherical, e.g., the Schwarzschild geometry,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{tt}dt^2+g_{rr}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega },`$
$`g_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{rr})^1=g(r)(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}})`$ (23)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the spherical solid angle and $`r,\theta ,\varphi ,t`$ are the Schwarzschild coordinates. The static observer located at $`𝒪`$ at $`x=(t,r,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, whose four velocity $`u_\mu `$ and Killing vector $`\xi _\mu `$ are given by,

$$u_\mu =(g_{tt}^{\frac{1}{2}}(r),0,0,0),\xi _\mu =(g_{tt}(r),0,0,0),$$
(24)
which are orthogonal to the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ ($`t=`$constant, $`\stackrel{}{x}=(r.\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$). We will respectively discuss the static observers locates at finite radius ($`r=r^{}<\mathrm{}`$) and at infinity ($`r=r^{}\mathrm{}`$) of the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. The Riemann scalar $`=0`$. The Laplacian operator (6) is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ $`=`$ $`g^{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}r^2g^{rr}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}^2}{r^2}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`g^1(r){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+g(r)\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}^2}{r^2}},`$
where $`\widehat{L}^2`$ is the angular momentum operator.

The final vacuum state $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$ of this geometry is usually denoted as the Schwarzschild vacuum $`|0_S`$. The appropriate basis of asymptotical quantum field $`\varphi _{\mathrm{out}}(x)`$ (10) is chosen as

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x)=t,r,\theta ,\varphi |\omega ,k_r,l,m=R_{l\omega }(r)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )e^{i\omega t},$$
(26)
where $`k`$ indicates a set of quantum numbers $`(\omega ,k_r,l,m)`$. $`\omega `$ is the energy-spectrum and $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is the standard spherical harmonic function: $`\widehat{L}^2Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )=l(l+1)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$. The radial function $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$ obeys the following differential equation for $`r>2M`$,

$$\left[\omega ^2g^2(r)\widehat{k}_r^2+i\frac{2M}{r^2}g(r)\widehat{k}_rg(r)V_l(r)\right]R_{l\omega }(r)=0,$$
(27)
where the hermitian radial momentum operator,

$$\widehat{k}_r=\frac{1}{ir}\frac{}{r}r,(\widehat{k}_r)^2=\left(\frac{^2}{r^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{}{r}\right),$$
(28)
and potential

$$V_l(r)=\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}+\frac{2M}{r^3}+m^2.$$
(29)
Eq.(27) is exactly equivalent to the Regge and Wheeler equation. The radial function $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$ is orthogonal and asymptotically behaves as the Hankel function $`h_{l\omega }(r)`$ for $`r2M`$.

The matrix operator $``$ in Eq.(22) is given by,

$$(r,\widehat{k}_r)=\omega ^2g^2(r)\widehat{k}_r^2+i\frac{2M}{r^2}g(r)\widehat{k}_rg(r)V_l(r).$$
(30)
Eqs.(26-30) define a complex eigen-value problem to find the energy spectrum of the vacuum state (11) in an external gravitation field. The imaginary part of the operator $`(r,\widehat{k}_r)`$ (30), giving rise to an imaginary part of the effective action (15), implies that the gravitating quantum-field system (3) be energetically unstable and quantum-field tunneling could occur, leading to the productions of particles and antiparticles.

Up to an irrelevant constant in Eq.(21), the diagonal matrix $`\lambda _k^2`$ (22) is given by:

$`\lambda _k^2`$ $``$ $`N_k^1{\displaystyle \sqrt{g}d^4x\stackrel{~}{u}_k(x)(\mathrm{\Delta }_x+m^2)\stackrel{~}{u}_k^{}(x)},`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`N_k^1{\displaystyle 𝑑rr^2R_{l\omega }^{}(r)(r,\widehat{K}_r)R_{l\omega }(r)},`$
where the normalization factor is

$$N_k=𝑑rr^2R_{l\omega }^{}(r)R_{l\omega }(r).$$
(32)
The elements of the diagonal matrix $`\lambda _k^2`$ (31) is related to the inverse propagator (spectrum) of particles in the external gravitation field. We write Eq.(31) as,

$$\lambda _k^2=\omega ^2\kappa _k^2m_k^2+i2Mϵ_k,$$
(33)
where we define the average values $`\kappa _k^2`$, $`ϵ_k`$ and effective mass-gap $`m_k`$ of the quantum field state $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$:

$`\kappa _k^2`$ $``$ $`N_k^1{\displaystyle 𝑑rr^2R_{l\omega }^{}(r)g^2(r)\widehat{k}_r^2R_{l\omega }(r)};`$ (34)
$`m_k^2`$ $``$ $`N_k^1{\displaystyle 𝑑rr^2R_{l\omega }^{}(r)g(r)V_l(r)R_{l\omega }(r)};`$ (35)
$`ϵ_k`$ $``$ $`N_k^1{\displaystyle 𝑑rr^2R_{l\omega }^{}(r)\frac{g(r)}{r^2}\widehat{k}_rR_{l\omega }(r)}.`$ (36)
By the definition (36), the sign of $`ϵ`$ is determined by the sign of the radial momentum $`k_r`$ of quantum field state $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$,

$$k_rN_k^1𝑑rr^2R_{l\omega }^{}(r)\widehat{k}_rR_{l\omega }(r).$$
(37)
$`ϵ_k>0`$ indicates that the radial momentum of the state $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$ is positive ($`k_r>0`$), standing for outgoing states of positive-energy particles $`\omega >0`$. Whereas, $`ϵ_k<0`$ indicates that the radial momentum of the state $`R_{l\omega }^{}(r)`$ is negative ($`k_r<0`$), standing for incoming states of negative energy particles $`\omega <0`$. This is in accordance with Feynman’s $`\omega \omega \pm i2Mϵ_k`$ prescription for particles(+) and antiparticles(-), latter are outgoing states with positive energy $`(\omega >0)`$ and positive radial momentum, traveling backward in time. In this prescription, we have positive energy $`\omega >0`$ and positive radial momentum $`|k_r|`$ (37) for both particles and antiparticles.

## IV Effective action.

Given $`\lambda _k^2`$ (31), we can write the effective action (21) as,

$$iS_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _k^2)=\frac{d\omega dk_r}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{l,m}{}\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _k^2).$$
(38)
Using the identity:

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{b}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}\left(e^{is(b+iϵ)}e^{is(a+iϵ)}\right).$$
(39)
we are able to write the effective action (38)

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=i\frac{d\omega dk_r}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{l,m}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}e^{is(\lambda _k^2+iϵ)}(M=0),$$
(40)
where the expression of the second part indicated by $`(M=0)`$ is the same as the expression of the first part with $`M=0`$. The logarithmatic function in Eq.(38) is represented by an $`s`$-integration in Eq.(40) and infrared convergence at $`s0`$ is insured by $`iϵ`$ prescription ($`ϵ0`$).

We begin with the computation of summing over quantum numbers “$`l,m`$” of angular momenta in Eq.(40). Eqs.(29,30,31) show that $`\lambda _k^2`$ (31) depends on “$`l`$” in terms of $`l(l+1)/r^2`$ and $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$. We find that the $`l`$-dependence is dominated by the quadratic term $`l(l+1)/r^2`$, in contrast with this, $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$ is a smooth function in varying “$`l`$”. Thus, to achieve the leading contribution to the effective action (40), we approximate the quantum-field state $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$ in $`\lambda _k^2`$ (31) as:

$$R_{l\omega }(r)R_{l^{}\omega }(r)$$
(41)
where $`l^{}`$ is a particular value of angular quantum number, for an example, $`l^{}=0`$ for the spherically symmetric state. Then, in Eq.(40) we approximately have,

$$\underset{l,m}{}e^{is(\lambda _k^2+iϵ)}e^{is(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2+iϵ)}\underset{l,m}{}e^{is\beta _\omega l(l+1)},$$
(42)
where

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _k^2+\beta _kl(l+1)`$ (43)
$`\beta _k`$ $`=`$ $`N_k^1{\displaystyle 𝑑rr^2|R_{l^{}\omega }(r)|^2\left(\frac{g(r)}{r^2}\right)}.`$ (44)
In addition, we introduce continuous and dimensionless transverse momenta $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ and $`k_{}^2=l(l+1)`$ so that,

$$\underset{lm}{}e^{is\beta _kl(l+1)}4\pi \frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}e^{is\beta _kk_{}^2}=\frac{1}{is\beta _k},$$
(45)
where $`\beta _k`$ is analytically continued to complex value and $`\mathrm{Im}(\beta _k)<0`$. As a result, we obtain the effective action (40),

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{d\omega dk_r}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{\beta _k}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s^2}e^{is(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2+iϵ)}(M=0).$$
(46)
In order to compute the integration over “$`s`$” in Eq.(46), we introduce a complex variable $`z=1+\delta `$ ($`|\delta |0`$), and use the following integral representation of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)`$-function by an analytical continuation for $`\mathrm{Im}(\alpha )>0`$:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\alpha s}s^{z1}𝑑s=(i\alpha )^z\mathrm{\Gamma }(z).$$
(47)
This analytical continuation is equivalent to the analytical continuation of dimensionality of the transverse momentum-space,

$$\frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^{2+\delta }k_{}}{(2\pi )^{2+\delta }},$$
(48)
in Eq.(45). In the neighborhood of singularity, where $`|\delta |0`$ and $`z1`$ in Eq.(47), we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta }}1+\gamma +O(\delta ),`$
$`\alpha ^z`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha e^{\delta \mathrm{ln}\frac{\alpha }{\mu ^2}},`$
$`(i)^z`$ $`=`$ $`ie^{i\delta (\frac{\pi }{2}+2\pi n^{})},`$
$`n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,1,2,3\mathrm{}`$ (49)
where the Euler constant $`\gamma 0.577`$ and $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary scale of dimensional transmutation in the dimensional regularization. The singular term $`1/\delta `$ corresponds to the ultra-violet divergence of summing over $`(l,m)`$ in Eq.(40).

Analogously to the treatment of dimensional and $`\zeta `$-functional regularization schemes, using Eqs.(47,49) to calculate integration over “$`s`$” in Eq.(46) and keeping up to the order $`O(\delta ^{})`$, we cast the effective action Eq.(46) to be:

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega dk_r}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2}{\beta _k}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}2\pi n^{}`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta }}+1\gamma \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2}{\mu ^2}})](M=0).`$
In the normal prescription of renormalization of quantum field theories, we consistently add an appropriate counterterm to cancel the ultra-violet divergent term $`1/\delta `$ at the energy-scale $`\mu `$ in the minimum subtraction scheme.

## V Imaginary part of the effective action.

We are interested in the imaginary part of the effective action for studying the vacuum decay via quantum tunneling through the effective energy gap $`m_k`$, leading to pair-creations of particles and anti-particles. Given $`\lambda _k^2`$ (33) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2`$ (43), we have

$`\mathrm{Im}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi n^{\prime \prime }+\theta ,n^{\prime \prime }=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3\mathrm{},`$ (51)
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)}{\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)}}\right],`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2Mϵ_k,`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2\kappa _k^2m_k^2,`$ (54)
where and henceforth the effective mass-gap $`m_k^2`$ is Eq.(35) without the angular term $`l(l+1)/r^2`$. Using Eqs.(36,44), we define,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_k\frac{ϵ_k}{\beta _k}=\frac{𝑑rg(r)R_{l^{}\omega }^{}(r)\widehat{k}_rR_{l^{}\omega }(r)}{𝑑rg(r)|R_{l^{}\omega }(r)|^2}.$$
(55)
As a result, the imaginary part of the effective action (50) is given by,

$`\mathrm{Im}(S_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega dk_r}{(2\pi )^2}}[2M|\mathrm{\Pi }_k|({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+\theta 2\pi n)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)}{\beta _k}}(1\gamma \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2|}{\mu ^2}})](M=0),`$
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`1,2,3,4,5,\mathrm{},`$ (56)
We take the absolute value $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_k|`$ of Eq.(55) for both particles and antiparticles, as $`|k_r|>0`$ discussed in the end of section 3. The integer “$`n`$” in Eq.(56) describes all possible quantum bound states of the vacuum in the presence of negative gravitational potential well.

These quantum bound states “$`n`$” of vacuum in the presence of gravitational potential well can be understood by an analogue of semi-classical quantization of a particle confined in a negative spherical potential $`U(r)<0`$,

$$^{r_c}𝑑r|p_r|=^{r_c}𝑑r\sqrt{EU(r)}(n+\frac{1}{2}),$$
(57)
where $`E<0`$ is the negative energy of particles. $`p_r`$ is the radial momentum conjugated to radius $`r`$ and integration in Eq.(57) is limited by the classical point: $`U(r_c)=E`$.

Quantum-field states tunneling to infinity are free particles and antiparticles in mass-shell $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)=0`$. Whereas the quantum-field states $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$ of vacuum in the presence of gravitational field are bound states due to negative gravitational potential well, this indicates for these states

$$\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)=\omega ^2\kappa _k^2m_k^20^{},$$
(58)
which we will have more discussions in the last section. The approximate “mass-shell condition” (58) leads to $`\theta \frac{\pi }{2}`$ in Eq.(52), and gives an approximate dispersion relationship $`\omega \omega (|k_r|)`$ between energy $`\omega `$ and radial momentum $`|k_r|`$ of states $`R_{l\omega }(r)`$. This allows us to approximately make integration $`\frac{d\omega dk_r}{(2\pi )^2}`$ in Eq.(56) with a proper measure $`2\pi \delta [\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)]`$ in the energy-momentum phase space $`(\omega ,|k_r|)`$. As a result, the effective action $`\mathrm{Im}(S_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ (56) is approximately given by,

$$\mathrm{Im}(S_{\mathrm{eff}})\left(4\pi M|\mathrm{\Pi }_k|n\right).$$
(59)
per unit of the number of quantum-field states in the range of $`\omega \omega +d\omega `$.

## VI Vacuum decay.

The imaginary part of $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ determines the probability of vacuum decay caused by quantum tunneling of virtual particles:

$$|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}|^2=e^{2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}S_{\mathrm{eff}}},$$
(60)
per unit of the number of quantum-field states in $`\omega \omega +d\omega `$. We sum over all possible quantum states “$`n`$” in Eq.(56) with respect to Bose-distribution in the occupation of these quantum states of vacuum. The total probability of vacuum decay, leading to pair-creations of real particles and antiparticles, is then given as,

$$|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}|^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(8M\pi |\mathrm{\Pi }_k|\right)1}.$$
(61)
Regarding these outgoing states of particles as an outward radiation flux, Eq.(61) gives the spectrum of such a radiation, with respect to a static observer located at infinity. The characteristic energy scale (temperature) of the spectrum of radiation is the Hawking temperature $`1/(8\pi M)`$.

As a particular case, we adopt the spherically symmetric solution $`l^{}=0`$ in Eq.(41) and approximate $`\frac{2M}{r}0`$ in the differential equation Eq.(27) so that the spherically symmetric solution $`R_{0\omega }(r)\frac{e^{ik_rr}}{r}`$ is the eigenstate of the radial momentum operators $`\widehat{k}_r`$ and $`\widehat{k}_r^2`$:

$`\widehat{k}_rR_{0\omega }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`k_rR_{0\omega }(r),`$
$`\widehat{k}_r^2R_{0\omega }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`k_r^2R_{0\omega }(r).`$ (62)
We approximately have $`\kappa _k^2k_r^2`$ and $`m_k^2m^2`$ in Eqs.(34,35). As a result of this approximation and Eq.(58), we obtain Eq.(55):

$$|\mathrm{\Pi }_k||k_r|\sqrt{\omega ^2m^2},$$
(63)
and the spectrum of outward radiation Eq.(61), for $`m=0`$ massless radiative field, is the black-body spectrum of the Hawking radiation.

We consider a local observer $`𝒪`$ (24) rest at $`r^{}>2M`$. With respect to this local observer, we introduce a spherical shell whose radial size $`\mathrm{\Delta }rr^{}`$, indicating the variation of the external gravitational field is very small within the shell. We can approximately treat the external gravitational field as a constant field in the shell. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is much larger than the infrared cutoff of quantum field theories. Given approximate constancy of gravitational field in the shell, we can approximately make substitution $`rr^{}`$ and $`𝑑rr^2\mathrm{\Delta }r(r^{})^2`$, in the definitions $`N_k`$ (32), $`m_k^2`$ (35) and $`\beta _k`$ (44). $`k_r`$ (37), $`\kappa _k^2`$ (34), and $`ϵ_k`$ (36) become:

$`k_r(r^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{R_{l\omega }^{}(r)\widehat{k}_rR_{l\omega }(r)}{|R_{l\omega }(r)|^2}}\right]_{r=r^{}},`$ (64)
$`\kappa _k^2(r^{})`$ $`=`$ $`g^2(r^{})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{R_{l\omega }^{}(r)\widehat{k}_r^2R_{l\omega }(r)}{|R_{l\omega }(r)|^2}}\right]_{r=r^{}};`$ (65)
$`ϵ_k(r^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g(r^{})}{(r^{})^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{R_{l\omega }^{}(r)\widehat{k}_rR_{l\omega }(r)}{|R_{l\omega }(r)|^2}}\right]_{r=r^{}}.`$ (66)
With respect to this local observer, the effective mass-gap $`m_k`$ (35) is,

$$m_k^2(r^{})=g(r^{})V_l(r^{}),$$
(67)
and the approximate “mass-shell condition” (58) becomes

$$\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)(r^{})=\omega ^2\kappa _k^2(r^{})m_k^2(r^{})0^{},$$
(68)
where $`\kappa _k^2(r^{})`$ is given by Eq.(65) and $`m_k^2(r^{})`$ by Eq.(67). And $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ (55) becomes,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_k(r^{})=\left[\frac{R_{l^{}\omega }^{}(r)\widehat{k}_rR_{l^{}\omega }(r)}{|R_{l^{}\omega }(r)|^2}\right]_{r=r^{}}=k_r(r^{}).$$
(69)
Analogously to Eq.(61), the probability of vacuum decay via pair-production is given by,

$$|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}|^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(8M\pi |\mathrm{\Pi }_k(r^{})|\right)1},$$
(70)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k(r^{})=k_r(r^{})`$ (69) and $`k_r(r^{})`$ is determined by Eq.(68). For spherically symmetric case $`l^{}=0`$ (62), $`r^{}2M`$, $`m=0`$ and $`|k_r(r^{})|\omega `$, the probability of vacuum decay with respect to the local observer is

$$|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}|^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(8M\pi |k_r|\right)1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\omega _{\mathrm{loc}}}{T_{\mathrm{loc}}}\right)1},$$
(71)
where $`\omega _{\mathrm{loc}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ are the energy-spectrum and temperature:

$$\omega _{\mathrm{loc}}=g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r^{})\omega ,T_{\mathrm{loc}}=\frac{1}{8\pi M}g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r^{}),$$
(72)
with respect to the local observer rest at $`r^{}`$. $`\omega _{\mathrm{loc}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ with respect to the local observer $`𝒪`$ are gravitationally red-shifted from their counterparts $`\omega `$ and $`T`$ with respect to the static observer at infinity.

It is worthwhile to compare the some results of this article with the WKB-method adopted in the brick wall modelthooft ; brick , where the solution to Eq.(27) in the vicinity of black horizon was found. The radial wave-vector $`k_r`$ (37) or $`k_r(r^{})`$ (64) we define is consistent with that given in refs.thooft . Actually, the value of the radial wave-vector $`k_r(r^{})`$ determined by Eq.(68) is the exactly same as the wave-vector (8.9) obtained by directly solving Eq.(27) in refs.thooft . The oscillatory behaviour of the quantum field $`\varphi `$ (8.7) in refs.thooft  for describing quantum tunneling by the WKB-method coincides with the imaginary part of effective action (59) obtained in this article. The total number $`\nu `$ of radial wave-solution up to a given energy, discussed in refs.thooft , is equivalent to the radial quantum number “$`n`$” (energy-state) discussed in Eqs.(56,59). In both schemes, these states “$`n`$” are occupied by non-negative number of quanta $`|k_r|`$ to give rise to the energy-spectrum of quantum radiation.

## VII Discussions.

We turn to discussions of the dynamical reason for such a vacuum decay and particle creations. In the framework of quantum field theories, quantum-filed fluctuations in vacuum indicate pair creations and annihilations of positive- and negative-energy virtual particles, represented by closed fermion-loops in Feynman diagrams. We point out that in the presence of external gravitational field, such an pair-creation process is energetically favorable for it gains a gravitational energy $`\delta E<0`$. Setting $`\delta rr^{}`$ is the quantum separation of positive- and negative-energy virtual particles in the radial direction, $`\delta t`$ and $`\delta \omega `$ are time and energy variation of the pair-creation process, we can approximately compute the gravitational energy gain $`\delta E`$ per quantum state $`2\pi `$:

$`\delta E`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{|\delta r|}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{|\delta \omega _{\mathrm{loc}}|}{2\pi }}g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{|\delta r|}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{|\delta \omega _{\mathrm{loc}}|}{2\pi }}`$ (73)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2\pi (r^{})^2}}|\delta \omega ||\delta r|g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r^{}){\displaystyle \frac{M}{2\pi (r^{})^2}}g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r^{}),`$ (74)
where the first and second terms in Eq.(73) are gravitational energies respectively for positive ($`\delta \omega _{\mathrm{loc}}>0`$) and negative energy ($`\delta \omega _{\mathrm{loc}}<0`$) virtual particles. $`\delta \omega _{\mathrm{loc}}=g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r^{})\delta \omega `$ is the energy variation in a local rest frame of the static observer $`𝒪`$ (24) at $`r^{}`$. In Eq.(74), we adopt $`|\delta \omega ||\delta k_r|`$ and the Heisenberg uncertainty relationships:

$$\delta t\delta \omega 1;\delta r\delta k_r1,$$
(75)
which are invariant in any arbitrary coordinate frames. Analogously, given the gravitational potential $`\frac{M}{r^{}}`$ in the Newtonian limit and $`\delta \omega \delta \omega _{\mathrm{loc}}`$, we have

$`\delta E`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M\frac{|\delta \omega _{\mathrm{loc}}|}{2\pi }}{r^{}\frac{|\delta r|}{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M|\frac{|\delta \omega _{\mathrm{loc}}|}{2\pi }}{r^{}+\frac{|\delta r|}{2}}}`$ (76)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2\pi (r^{})^2}}|\delta \omega ||\delta r|{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2\pi (r^{})^2}}.`$
This shows that the gravitational field polarizes the vacuum by displacing $`\frac{|\delta r|}{2}`$ for positive energy virtual particles and $`\frac{|\delta r|}{2}`$ for negative energy virtual particles, such a displacement gains gravitational energy. As a consequence of gravitational vacuum polarization, vacuum possibly decays via pair-creation process to create real particles and anti-particles, leading to quantum radiation in curved spacetime. This is analogous to the phenomenon of an external electric field polarizing vacuum, leading to possible pair-creations of particles and anti-particles, as described by the Schwinger mechanismsw .

This gravitational vacuum polarization is characterized by the gravitational energy-gain $`|\delta E|`$ (74) with respect to the local observer at $`r^{}`$. In the proper frame of a free-falling observer, whose acceleration $`a=g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r^{})\frac{M}{(r^{})^2}`$ at $`r^{}`$, the energy-gain is,

$$|\delta E|=\frac{M}{2\pi (r^{})^2}g^{\frac{1}{2}}(r^{})=\frac{a}{2\pi }.$$
(77)
This is reminiscent of the Unruh effectueffect  and indicates that its origin has the same dynamical nature of gravitational vacuum polarization. An accelerating observer finds gravitational vacuum polarization leading to pair-creations in his/her proper frame, as required by the equivalent principle.

With respect to an infinity observer, the gravitational energy-gain for pair-creations is $`\frac{M}{2\pi (r^{})^2}`$, which can be found in Eq.(74) consistently with Eq.(72). In the neighborhood of an eternal black hole horizon ($`r^{}2M`$), the gravitational energy-gain is maximum and in fact determines the Hawking temperature $`1/(8\pi M)`$, which is very small, compared with neutrino masses $`m_\nu `$. However, the effective mass-gap $`m_k(r^{})`$ (67) vanishes in the vicinity of black hole’s horizon. As the result of this vanishing effective mass-gap, virtual particles that are in quasi zero-energy states $`\omega 0^{}`$ just bellow the zero-energy level of vacuum, by quantum-field fluctuations, turn to be real particles that are in quasi zero-energy states $`\omega 0^+`$ just above the zero-energy level of vacuum, since it almost costs no energy for such a quantum tunneling process crossing the zero-energy level of vacuum and leading to pair-creations. These particles in quasi zero-energy states have a typical energy-scale $`\frac{M}{2\pi (r^{})^2}`$ ($`r^{}2M`$), $`\frac{1}{8\pi M}`$ the Hawking temperature. We emphasize three properties of particle pair-creation in the vicinity of black hole horizon: (i) gravitational energy-gain is maximum; (ii) the effective mass-gap of virtual particles in the vacuum is vanishing; (iii) these lead to the largest probability of particle pair-creations, the rate and spectrum of the Hawking radiation (71).

Due to the smallness of the effective mass-gap $`m_k0`$, real particles and antiparticles created, are in the mass-shell condition $`\omega =|k_r|`$, which are quasi zero-energy states $`\omega 0^+`$. By the continuation of energy-momentum dispersion relation, virtual particles and antiparticles, which are in quasi zero-energy states $`\omega 0^{}`$, must be in an approximate mass-shell condition $`\omega |k_r|0^{}`$. This justifies the “mass-shell condition” $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)0^{}`$ (58) and (68). $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)<0`$ is due to virtual particles bound by negative gravitational potential.

In the region away from black hole’s horizon ($`r^{}>2M`$) and massless particles $`m=0`$, the effective mass-gap $`m_k(r)\left(\frac{2M}{(r)^3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is extremely small and comparable with the gravitational energy-gain $`\frac{M}{2\pi (r^{})^2}`$. Pair-creation rate is given by Eq.(70) in very low-energy regime ($`1/r^{}`$). This could be case for extremely low-energy emission of massless particles. With respect to an infinity observer, the characteristic energy of such low-energy emissions is given by

$$T=|\delta E|=\frac{M}{2\pi (r^{})^2}=\frac{1}{8\pi M}\left(\frac{2M}{r^{}}\right)^2,$$
(78)
which is smaller than the Hawking temperature $`\frac{1}{8\pi M}`$. The power of such low-energy emissions (black body radiation) is

$$P=4\pi (r^{})^2\sigma _BT^4,$$
(79)
where $`\sigma _B`$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The life-time of a gravitational body $`M`$, describing its instability against this radiation, is approximately given by

$$\tau \frac{M}{P}.$$
(80)
We examine two examples: the Earth $`\frac{2M_{}}{r_{}}=710^{10}`$ where $`M_{}`$ is Earth’s mass and $`r_{}`$ Earth’s radius, a proton $`\frac{M_p}{r_p}=810^{37}`$ where $`M_p`$ is proton’s mass and $`r_p`$ proton’s classical radius. We find the temperature, power and life-time of the Earth ($``$) and a proton ($`p`$):

$`T_{}`$ $``$ $`410^{20}K^{},P_{}710^{65}\mathrm{ergs}/\mathrm{sec},\tau _{}210^{85}\mathrm{years};`$ (81)
$`T_p`$ $``$ $`210^{22}K^{},P_p310^{122}\mathrm{ergs}/\mathrm{sec},\tau _p210^{111}\mathrm{years}.`$ (82)
Compared with the life-time of the Universe $`10^{10}`$ years, these show that gravitational bodies are stable against such quantum radiation attributed to gravitational vacuum-polarization. On the other hand, all known fermion masses ($`m`$) are not zero and much larger than $`1/r^{}`$. As a consequence, the rate (70) of quantum tunneling effect (quantum radiation) is exponentially suppressed ($`e^{8\pi Mm}0`$).

Attributed to the nature of quantum-field fluctuations of virtual particles tunneling through a very small effective mass-gap, vacuum decays, leading to pair-creations of real particles and antiparticles. Accordingly, the nature of quantum-field fluctuations of real particles and anti-particles, clearly implies the inverse process: pairs of real particles and antiparticles annihilate into virtual particles and antiparticles in vacuum. The rate of pair-annihilation process must be the same as the rate of pair-creation process, as the CPT invariance is preserved in such processes. In these emission(creation) and absorption(annihilation) processes, the vacuum acts as a reserve of temperature given by the gravitational energy-gain Eq.(74). In the presence of gravitational field, the spectrum of this reserve(vacuum) is quantized and described by the integer $`n`$ and quanta $`|k_r|`$ (see Eqs.(56,69)). Particle creations(emissions) from vacuum and annihilation(absorptions) into vacuum are permitted, if these processes take place in unit of quanta $`|k_r|`$. The detail balance of these emission and absorption processes in unit of quanta $`|k_r|`$, leads to the black-body spectrum (70) of particle creations. In general, such a spectrum is different from black-body one up to a gray factor, since $`\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2)`$ is not exactly zero for virtual particles in quasi zero-energy states ($`\omega 0^{}`$) and the approximation (41) is made. This is actually because of particle creation and annihilation processes scattered by the potential terms $`\frac{2M}{r^3}`$, $`l(l+1)/r^2`$ and $`g(r)`$ in the effective mass-gap.

In this article, we discuss that with respect to a static local observer at $`r^{}<\mathrm{}`$ and a static observer at infinity, the transition amplitude between the vacuum state $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$ (11) of curved spacetime and the vacuum state $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$ (9) of flat spacetime, showing the vacuum state $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$ is unstable against the vacuum state $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$. This is attributed to the nature of gravitational field polarizing the vacuum state $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$ and such polarizations gaining gravitational energy, leading to particle and antiparticle productions. As a consequence, the static observer $`𝒪`$ (24) in curved spacetime measures the vacuum state $`|\stackrel{~}{0},\mathrm{out}`$ (11) as thermal radiation of particle and antiparticle productions upon the vacuum state $`|\overline{0},\mathrm{in}`$ (9). Although such an effect is in general extremely small (81,82), it converts the gravitational energy (matter) into the energy of radiation fields.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A time-dependent Hamiltonian system of $`m`$ degrees of freedom is called a completely integrable system (henceforth CIS) if it admits $`m`$ independent first integrals in involution. In order to provide it with action-angle coordinates, we use the fact that a time-dependent CIS of $`m`$ degrees of freedom can be extended to an autonomous Hamiltonian system of $`m+1`$ degrees of freedom where the time is regarded as a dynamic variable . We show that it is an autonomous CIS. However, the classical theorem  on action-angle coordinates can not be applied to this CIS since its invariant manifolds are never compact because of the time axis. Generalizing this theorem, we first prove that there is a system of action-angle coordinates on an open neighbourhood $`U`$ of a regular invariant manifold $`M`$ of an autonomous CIS if Hamiltonian vector fields of first integrals on $`U`$ are complete and the foliation of $`U`$ by invariant manifolds is trivial. If $`M`$ is compact, these conditions always hold . Afterwards, we show that, if a regular connected invariant manifold of a time-dependent CIS is compact at each instant, it is diffeomorphic to the product of the time axis $`R`$ and an $`m`$-dimensional torus $`T^m`$, and it admits an open neighbourhood equipped with the time-dependent action-angle coordinates , $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, where $`t`$ is the Cartesian coordinate on $`R`$ and $`\varphi ^i`$ are cyclic coordinates on $`T^m`$. Written with respect to these coordinates, a Hamiltonian and first integrals of a time-dependent CIS are functions only of action coordinates $`I_i`$.

For instance, there are action-angle coordinates $`(\overline{I}_i;\overline{\varphi }^i)`$ such that a Hamiltonian of a time-dependent CIS vanishes. They are paticular initial data coordinates, constant along trajectories of a Hamiltonian system. Furthermore, given an arbitrary smooth function $``$ on $`R^m`$, there exist action-angle coordinates $`(I_i;\varphi ^i)`$, obtained by the relevant time-dependent canonical transformations of $`(\overline{I}_i;\overline{\varphi }^i)`$, such that a Hamiltonian of a time-dependent CIS with respect to these coordinates equals $`(I_i)`$. Thus, time-dependent action-angle coordinates provide a solution of the problem of representing a Hamiltonian of a time-dependent CIS in terms of first integrals . However, this representation need not hold with respect to any coordinate system because a Hamiltonian fails to be a scalar under time-dependent canonical transformations.

## 2 Time-dependent completely integrable Hamiltonian systems

Recall that the configuration space of a time-dependent mechanical system is a fibre bundle $`QR`$ over the time axis $`R`$ equipped with the bundle coordinates $`(t,q^k)`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$. The corresponding momentum phase space is the vertical cotangent bundle $`V^{}Q`$ of $`QR`$ endowed with holonomic coordinates $`(t,q^k,p_k=\dot{q}_k)`$ \[8-10\]. The cotangent bundle $`T^{}Q`$, coordinated by $`(q^\lambda ,p_\lambda )=(t,q^k,p_0,p_k)`$, is the homogeneous momentum phase space of time-dependent mechanics. It is provided with the canonical Liouville form $`\mathrm{\Xi }=p_\lambda dq^\lambda `$, the canonical symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=dp_\lambda dq^\lambda `$, and the corresponding Poisson bracket

$$\{f,f^{}\}_T=^\lambda f_\lambda f^{}_\lambda f^\lambda f^{},f,f^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}Q).$$
(1)
There is the one-dimensional trivial affine bundle

$$\zeta :T^{}QV^{}Q.$$
(2)
Given its global section $`h`$, one can equip $`T^{}Q`$ with the global fibre coordinate $`r=p_0h`$. The fibre bundle (2) provides the vertical cotangent bundle $`V^{}Q`$ with the canonical Poisson structure $`\{,\}_V`$ such that

$`\zeta ^{}\{f,f^{}\}_V=\{\zeta ^{}f,\zeta ^{}f^{}\}_T,f,f^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(V^{}Q),`$ (3)
$`\{f,f^{}\}_V=^kf_kf^{}_kf^kf^{}.`$ (4)
A Hamiltonian of time-dependent mechanics is defined as a global section

$`h:V^{}QT^{}Q,p_0h=(t,q^j,p_j),`$
of the affine bundle $`\zeta `$ (2) . It yields the pull-back Hamiltonian form

$$H=h^{}\mathrm{\Xi }=p_kdq^kdt$$
(5)
on $`V^{}Q`$. Then there exists a unique vector field $`\gamma _H`$ on $`V^{}Q`$ such that

$`\gamma _Hdt=1,\gamma _HdH=0,`$
$`\gamma _H=_t+^k_k_k^k.`$ (6)
Its trajectories obey the Hamilton equation

$$\dot{q}^k=^k,\dot{p}_k=_k.$$
(7)
A first integral of the Hamilton equation (7) is a smooth real function $`F`$ on $`V^{}Q`$ whose Lie derivative

$`𝐋_{\gamma _H}F=\gamma _HdF=_tF+\{,F\}_V`$
along the vector field $`\gamma _H`$ (6) vanishes, i.e., $`F`$ is constant on trajectories of $`\gamma _H`$. A time-dependent Hamiltonian system $`(V^{}Q,H)`$ is said to be completely integrable if the Hamilton equation (7) admits $`m`$ first integrals $`F_k`$ which are in involution with respect to the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}_V`$ (4), and whose differentials $`dF_k`$ are linearly independent almost everywhere (i.e., the set of points where this condition fails is nowhere dense). One can associate to this CIS an autonomous CIS on $`T^{}Q`$ as follows.

Let us consider the pull-back $`\zeta ^{}H`$ of the Hamiltonian form $`H`$ (5) onto the cotangent bundle $`T^{}Q`$. It is readily observed that

$$^{}=_t(\mathrm{\Xi }\zeta ^{}h^{}\mathrm{\Xi })=p_0+$$
(8)
is a function on $`T^{}Q`$. Let us regard $`^{}`$ as a Hamiltonian of an autonomous Hamiltonian system on the symplectic manifold $`(T^{}Q,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ . Its Hamiltonian vector field

$$\gamma _T=_t_t^0+^k_k_k^k$$
(9)
is projected onto the vector field $`\gamma _H`$ (6) on $`V^{}Q`$ so that

$`\zeta ^{}(𝐋_{\gamma _H}f)=\{^{},\zeta ^{}f\}_T,fC^{\mathrm{}}(V^{}Q).`$
An immediate consequence of this relation is the following.

Theorem 1. (i) Given a time-dependent CIS $`(;F_k)`$ on $`V^{}Q`$, the Hamiltonian system $`(^{},\zeta ^{}F_k)`$ on $`T^{}Q`$ is a CIS. (ii) Let $`N`$ be a connected regular invariant manifold of $`(;F_k)`$. Then $`h(N)T^{}Q`$ is a connected regular invariant manifold of the autonomous CIS $`(^{},\zeta ^{}F_k)`$.

Hereafter, we assume that the vector field $`\gamma _H`$ (6) is complete. In this case, the Hamilton equation (7) admits a unique global solution through each point of the momentum phase space $`V^{}Q`$, and trajectories of $`\gamma _H`$ define a trivial fibre bundle $`V^{}QV_t^{}Q`$ over any fibre $`V_t^{}Q`$ of $`V^{}QR`$. Without loss of generality, we choose the fibre $`i_0:V_0^{}QV^{}Q`$ at $`t=0`$. Since $`N`$ is an invariant manifold, the fibration

$$\xi :V^{}QV_0^{}Q$$
(10)
also yields the fibration of $`N`$ onto $`N_0=NV_0^{}Q`$ such that $`NR\times N_0`$ is a trivial bundle.

## 3 Time-dependent action-angle coordinates

Let us introduce the action-angle coordinates around an invariant manifold $`N`$ of a time-dependent CIS on $`V^{}Q`$ by use of the action-angle coordinates around the invariant manifold $`h(N)`$ of the autonomous CIS on $`T^{}Q`$ in Theorem 2. Since $`N`$ and, consequently, $`h(N)`$ are non-compact, we first prove the following.

Theorem 2. Let $`M`$ be a connected invariant manifold of an autonomous CIS $`\{F_\lambda \}`$, $`\lambda =1,\mathrm{},n`$, on a symplectic manifold $`(Z,\mathrm{\Omega }_Z)`$. Let $`U`$ be an open neighbourhood of $`M`$ such that: (i) the differentials $`dF_\lambda `$ are independent everywhere on $`U`$, (ii) the Hamiltonian vector fields $`\vartheta _\lambda `$ of the first integrals $`F_\lambda `$ on $`U`$ is complete, and (iii) the submersion $`\times F_\lambda :UR^n`$ is a trivial bundle of invariant manifolds over a domain $`V^{}R^n`$. Then $`U`$ is isomorphic to the symplectic annulus

$$W^{}=V^{}\times (R^{nm}\times T^m),$$
(11)
provided with the action-angle coordinates

$$(I_1,\mathrm{},I_n;x^1,\mathrm{},x^{nm};\varphi ^1,\mathrm{},\varphi ^m)$$
(12)
such that the symplectic form on $`W^{}`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Z=dI_adx^a+dI_id\varphi ^i,`$
and the first integrals $`F_\lambda `$ depend only on the action coordinates $`I_\alpha `$.

Proof. In accordance with the well-known theorem , the invariant manifold $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to the product $`R^{nm}\times T^m`$, which is the group space of the quotient $`G=R^n/Z^m`$ of the group $`R^n`$ generated by Hamiltonian vector fields $`\vartheta _\lambda `$ of first integrals $`F_\lambda `$ on $`M`$. Namely, $`M`$ is provided with the group space coordinates $`(y^\lambda )=(s^a,\phi ^i)`$ where $`\phi ^i`$ are linear functions of parameters $`s^\lambda `$ along integral curves of the Hamiltonian vector fields $`\vartheta _\lambda `$ on $`U`$. Let $`(J_\lambda )`$ be coordinates on $`V^{}`$ which are values of first integrals $`F_\lambda `$. Let us choose a trivialization of the fibre bundle $`UV`$ seen as a principal bundle with the structure group $`G`$. We fix its global section $`\chi `$. Since parameters $`s^\lambda `$ are given up to a shift, let us provide each fibre $`M_J`$, $`JV`$, with the group space coordinates $`(y^\lambda )`$ centred at the point $`\chi (J)`$. Then $`(J_\lambda ;y^\lambda )`$ are bundle coordinates on the annulus $`W^{}`$ (11). Since $`M_J`$ are Lagrangian manifolds, the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Z`$ on $`W^{}`$ is given relative to the bundle coordinates $`(J_\lambda ;y^\lambda )`$ by the expression

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Z=\mathrm{\Omega }^{\alpha \beta }dJ_\alpha dJ_\beta +\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^\alpha dJ_\alpha dy^\beta .$$
(13)
By the very definition of coordinates $`(y^\lambda )`$, the Hamiltonian vector fields $`\vartheta _\lambda `$ of first integrals take the coordinate form $`\vartheta _\lambda =\vartheta _\lambda ^\alpha (J_\mu )_\alpha `$. Moreover, since the cyclic group $`S^1`$ can not act transitively on $`R`$, we have

$$\vartheta _a=_a+\vartheta _a^i(J_\lambda )_i,\vartheta _i=\vartheta _i^k(J_\lambda )_k.$$
(14)
The Hamiltonian vector fields $`\vartheta _\lambda `$ obey the relations

$$\vartheta _\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_Z=dJ_\lambda ,\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha _\beta \vartheta ^\beta _\lambda =\delta ^\alpha _\lambda .$$
(15)
It follows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^\alpha `$ is a non-degenerate matrix and $`\vartheta _\lambda ^\alpha =(\mathrm{\Omega }^1)_\lambda ^\alpha `$, i.e., the functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^\alpha `$ depend only on coordinates $`J_\lambda `$. A substitution of (14) into (15) results in the equalities

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^a=\delta _b^a,\vartheta _a^\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^i=0,`$ (16)
$`\vartheta _i^k\mathrm{\Omega }_k^j=\delta _i^j,\vartheta _i^k\mathrm{\Omega }_k^a=0.`$ (17)
The first of the equalities (17) shows that the matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k^j`$ is non-degenerate, and so is the matrix $`\vartheta _i^k`$. Then the second one gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k^a=0`$. By virtue of the well-known Künneth formula for the de Rham cohomology of a product of manifolds, the closed form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Z`$ (13) on $`W^{}`$ (11) is exact, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Z=d\mathrm{\Xi }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }^\alpha (J_\lambda ,y^\lambda )dJ_\alpha +\mathrm{\Xi }_i(J_\lambda )d\phi ^i+_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }(J_\lambda ,y^\lambda )dy^\alpha ,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a function on $`W^{}`$. Taken up to an exact form, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is brought into the form

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }^\alpha (J_\lambda ,y^\lambda )dJ_\alpha +\mathrm{\Xi }_i(J_\lambda )d\phi ^i.$$
(18)
Owing to the fact that components of $`d\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Omega }_Z`$ are independent of $`y^\lambda `$ and obey the equalities (16) – (17), we obtain the following.

(i) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^a=_i\mathrm{\Xi }^a+^a\mathrm{\Xi }_i=0`$. It follows that $`_i\mathrm{\Xi }^a`$ is independent of $`\phi ^i`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Xi }^a`$ is affine in $`\phi ^i`$ and, consequently, is independent of $`\phi ^i`$ since $`\phi ^i`$ are cyclic coordinate. Hence, $`^a\mathrm{\Xi }_i=0`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$ is a function only of coordinates $`J_j`$.

(ii) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^k=_i\mathrm{\Xi }^k+^k\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$. Similarly to item (i), one shows that $`\mathrm{\Xi }^k`$ is independent of $`\phi ^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^k=^k\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$, i.e., $`^k\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$ is a non-degenerate matrix.

(iii) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^a=_b\mathrm{\Xi }^a=\delta _b^a`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^a=s^a+D^a(J_\lambda )`$.

(iv) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^i=_b\mathrm{\Xi }^i`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Xi }^i`$ is affine in $`s^a`$.

In view of items (i) – (iv), the Liouville form $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ (18) reads

$`\mathrm{\Xi }=x^adJ_a+[D^i(J_\lambda )+B_a^i(J_\lambda )s^a]dJ_i+\mathrm{\Xi }_i(J_j)d\phi ^i,`$
where we put

$$x^a=\mathrm{\Xi }^a=s^aD^a(J_\lambda ).$$
(19)
Since the matrix $`^k\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$ is non-degenerate, one can introduce new coordinates $`I_i=\mathrm{\Xi }_i(J_j)`$, $`I_a=J_a`$. Then we have

$`\mathrm{\Xi }=x^adI_a+[D^i(I_\lambda )+B_a^i(I_\lambda )s^a]dI_i+I_id\phi ^i.`$
Finally, put

$$\varphi ^i=\phi ^i[D^i(I_\lambda )+B_a^i(I_\lambda )s^a]$$
(20)
in order to obtain the desired action-angle coordinates

$`I_a=J_a,I_j(J_j),x^a=s^a+S^a(J_\lambda ),\varphi ^i=\phi ^i+S^i(J_\lambda ,s^b).`$
These are bundle coordinates on $`UV^{}`$ where the coordinate shifts (19) – (20) correspond to a choice of another trivialization of $`UV^{}`$.

Of course, the action-angle coordinates (12) by no means are unique. For instance, let $`_a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},nm`$ be an arbitrary smooth function on $`R^m`$. Let us consider the canonical coordinate transformation

$$I_a^{}=I_a_a(I_j),I_k^{}=I_k,x^a=x^a,\varphi ^i=\varphi ^i+x^a^i_a(I_j).$$
(21)
Then $`(I_a^{},I_k^{};x^a,\varphi ^k)`$ are action-angle coordinates on the symplectic annulus which differs from $`W^{}`$ (11) in another trivialization.

Now, we apply Theorem 3 to the CISs in Theorem 2.

Theorem 3. Let $`N`$ be a connected regular invariant manifold of a time-dependent CIS on $`V^{}Q`$, and let the image $`N_0`$ of its projection $`\xi `$ (10) be compact. Then the invariant manifold $`h(N)`$ of the autonomous CIS on $`T^{}Q`$ has an open neighbourhood $`U`$ obeying the condition of Theorem 3.

Proof. (i) We first show that functions $`i_0^{}F_k`$ make up a CIS on the symplectic leaf $`(V_0^{}Q,\mathrm{\Omega }_0)`$ and $`N_0`$ is its invariant manifold without critical points (i.e., where first integrals fail to be independent). Clearly, the functions $`i_0^{}F_k`$ are in involution, and $`N_0`$ is their connected invariant manifold. Let us show that the set of critical points of $`\{i_0^{}F_k\}`$ is nowhere dense in $`V_0^{}Q`$ and $`N_0`$ has none of these points. Let $`V_0^{}Q`$ be equipped with some coordinates $`(\overline{q}^k,\overline{p}_k)`$. Then the trivial bundle $`\xi `$ (10) is provided with the bundle coordinates $`(t,\overline{q}^k,\overline{p}_k)`$ which play a role of the initial date coordinates on the momentum phase space $`V^{}Q`$. Written with respect to these coordinates, the first integrals $`F_k`$ become time-independent. It follows that

$$dF_k(y)=di_0^{}F_k(\xi (y))$$
(22)
for any point $`yV^{}Q`$. In particular, if $`y_0V_0^{}Q`$ is a critical point of $`\{i_0^{}F_k\}`$, then the trajectory $`\xi ^1(y_0)`$ is a critical set for the first integrals $`\{F_k\}`$. The desired statement at once follows from this result.

(ii) Since $`N_0`$ obeys the condition in item (i), there is an open neighbourhood of $`N_0`$ in $`V_0^{}Q`$ isomorphic to $`V\times N_0`$ where $`VR^m`$ is a domain, and $`\{v\}\times N_0`$, $`vV`$, are also invariant manifolds in $`V_0^{}Q`$ . Then

$$W=\xi ^1(V\times N_0)V\times N$$
(23)
is an open neighbourhood in $`V^{}Q`$ of the invariant manifold $`N`$ foliated by invariant manifolds $`\xi ^1(\{v\}\times N_0)`$, $`vV`$, of the time-dependent CIS on $`V^{}Q`$. By virtue of the equality (22), the first integrals $`\{F_k\}`$ have no critical points in $`W`$. For any real number $`r(\epsilon ,\epsilon )`$, let us consider a section

$`h_r:V^{}QT^{}Q,p_0h_r=(t,q^j,p_j)+r,`$
of the affine bundle $`\zeta `$ (2). Then the images $`h_r(W)`$ of $`W`$ (23) make up an open neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`h(N)`$ in $`T^{}Q`$. Because $`\zeta (U)=W`$, the pull-backs $`\zeta ^{}F_k`$ of first integrals $`F_k`$ are free from critical points in $`U`$, and so is the function $`^{}`$ (8). Since the coordinate $`r=p_0h`$ provides a trivialization of the affine bundle $`\zeta `$, the open neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`h(N)`$ is diffeomorphic to the product

$`(\epsilon ,\epsilon )\times h(W)(\epsilon ,\epsilon )\times V\times h(N)`$
which is a trivialization of the fibration

$`^{}\times (\times \zeta ^{}F_k):U(\epsilon ,\epsilon )\times V.`$
(iii) It remains to prove that the Hamiltonian vector fields of $`^{}`$ and $`\zeta ^{}F_k`$ on $`U`$ are complete. It is readily observed that the Hamiltonian vector field $`\gamma _T`$ (9) of $`^{}`$ is tangent to the manifolds $`h_r(W)`$, and is the image $`\gamma _T=Th_r\gamma _H\zeta `$ of the vector field $`\gamma _H`$ (6). The latter is complete on $`W`$, and so is $`\gamma _T`$ on $`U`$. Similarly, the Hamiltonian vector field

$`\gamma _k=_tF_k^0+^iF_k_i_iF_k^i`$
of the function $`\zeta ^{}F_k`$ on $`T^{}Q`$ with respect to the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}_T`$ (1) is tangent to the manifolds $`h_r(W)`$, and is the image $`\gamma _k=Th_r\vartheta _k\zeta `$ of the Hamiltonian vector field $`\vartheta _k`$ of the first integral $`F_k`$ on $`W`$ with respect to the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}_V`$ (4). The vector fields $`\vartheta _k`$ on $`W`$ are vertical relative to the fibration $`WR`$, and are tangent to compact manifolds. Therefore, they are complete, and so are the vector fields $`\gamma _k`$ on $`U`$. Thus, $`U`$ is the desired open neighbourhood of the invariant manifold $`h(N)`$.

In accordance with Theorem 3, the open neighbourhood $`U`$ of the invariant manifold $`h(N)`$ of the autonomous CIS in Theorem 3 is isomorphic to the symplectic annulus

$$W^{}=V^{}\times (R\times T^m),V^{}=(\epsilon ,\epsilon )\times V,$$
(24)
provided with the action-angle coordinates $`(I_0,\mathrm{},I_m;t,\varphi ^1,\mathrm{},\varphi ^m)`$ such that the symplectic form on $`W^{}`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=dI_0dt+dI_kd\varphi ^k`$
By the construction in Theorem 2, $`I_0=J_0=^{}`$ and the corresponding generalized angle coordinate is $`x^0=t`$, while the first integrals $`J_k=\zeta ^{}F_k`$ depend only on the action coordinates $`I_i`$.

Since the action coordinates $`I_i`$ are independent of the coordinate $`J_0`$, the symplectic annulus $`W^{}`$ (24) inherits the fibration

$$W^{}\stackrel{\zeta }{}W^{\prime \prime }=V\times (R\times T^m).$$
(25)
By the relation similar to (3), the product $`W^{\prime \prime }`$ (25), coordinated by $`(I_i;t,\varphi ^i)`$, is provided with the Poisson structure

$`\{f,f^{}\}_W=^if_if^{}_if^if^{},f,f^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(W^{\prime \prime }).`$
Therefore, one can regard $`W^{\prime \prime }`$ as the momentum phase space of the time-dependent CIS in question around the invariant manifold $`N`$.

It is readily observed that the Hamiltonian vector field $`\gamma _T`$ of the autonomous Hamiltonian $`^{}=I_0`$ is $`\gamma _T=_t`$, and so is its projection $`\gamma _H`$ (6) on $`W^{\prime \prime }`$. Consequently, the Hamilton equation (7) of a time-dependent CIS with respect to the action-angle coordinates take the form $`\dot{I}_i=0`$, $`\dot{\varphi }^i=0`$. Hence, $`(I_i;t,\varphi ^i)`$ are the initial data coordinates. One can introduce such coordinates as follows. Given the fibration $`\xi `$ (10), let us provide $`N_0\times VV_0^{}Q`$ in Theorem 3 with action-angle coordinates $`(\overline{I}_i;\overline{\varphi }^i)`$ for the CIS $`\{i_0^{}F_k\}`$ on the symplectic leaf $`V_0^{}Q`$. Then, it is readily observed that $`(\overline{I}_i;t,\overline{\varphi }^i)`$ are time-dependent action-angle coordinates on $`W^{\prime \prime }`$ (25) such that the Hamiltonian $`(\overline{I}_j)`$ of a time-dependent CIS relative to these coordinates vanishes, i.e., $`^{}=\overline{I}_0`$. Using the canonical transformations (21), one can consider time-dependent action-angle coordinates besides the initial date ones. Given a smooth function $``$ on $`R^m`$, one can provide $`W^{\prime \prime }`$ with the action-angle coordinates

$`I_0=\overline{I}_0(\overline{I}_j),I_i=\overline{I}_i,\varphi ^i=\overline{\varphi }^i+t^i(\overline{I}_j)`$
such that $`(I_i)`$ is a Hamiltonian of a time-dependent CIS on $`W^{\prime \prime }`$.