text:
# BeppoSAX observations of the EXS 1737.9-2952 region

## 1 Introduction

The existence of black hole candidates near the Galactic Centre (GC), such as 1E1740.7$``$2942 (see Sunyaev et al. Sun91 (1991)), has lead us to predict an increasing number of such X-ray objects with improving observing sensitivity. The discovery of 10 previously undetected objects within the SAX MECS field of view centred at EXS 1737.9$``$2952 (Huovelin et al. 1999, Paper I ) was nevertheless a surprise, since the region had revealed no clues as to their existence at any wavelength, except one transient in hard X-rays observed by the EXITE balloon experiment (Grindlay et al. Gri93 (1993)).

The analysis of the new sources is not straightforward, since we have only one energy region (MECS, 1.65$``$10.5 keV) where we can utilise spatially resolved BeppoSAX data to derive source spectra and study their variability (see Paper I ). Lack of spatial resolution and the large field of view of PDS and HPGSPC make the interpretation of the hard X-ray data difficult.

As pointed out in Paper I , it can not be taken for granted that the new sources really are physically near the GC. It would, however, strengthen this scenario, if $`N_H`$ were clearly enhanced for the X-ray spectra of sources overlapping with a molecular cloud near the GC. There is, indeed, another source of potentially useful data of this sky area, provided by our submillimeter (SEST) observations at CO emission lines by Vilhu et al. (Vil94 (1994)). They found a dense molecular cloud moving at a peculiar velocity near EXS 1737.9$``$2952. In 1990’s, there have also been several other studies at different wavelengths, which are summarized in Durouchoux et al. (Dur98 (1998)).

Most of the observed SAX spectra contain the iron K-shell line (at 6-7 keV). K-shell emission can be produced by either by fluorescence or radiative recombination. The line strength, width and position depend on several parameters of the emitting gas, e.g. temperature, ionization state, and iron abundance. Thus the iron line provides a valuable diagnostic of the physical properties of the gas.

In this paper we report on the spectral and time variability analysis of the new BeppoSAX sources identified in Paper I , discuss alternatives as to their nature, and also study the emission of the region divided in larger subfields.

## 2 Observations

The observations were made on 1998 April 12$``$13, using the co-aligned narrow field instruments LECS (Parmar et al. Par97 (1997)), MECS (Boella et al. Boe97 (1997)), PDS (Frontera et al. Fro97 (1997)), and HPGSPC (Manzo et al. Man97 (1997)) of the BeppoSAX satellite. The time interval of the observing programme was from 12/04/98 14:00 to 13/04/98 07:30 (UTC), including 13200, 30500, 14300, and 51700 seconds of effective source observing time (i.e. sum of good time intervals, GTI’s) with LECS, MECS, PDS and HPGSPC, respectively. Final, separately reduced data from MECS2 and MECS3 were summed. A more detailed description of the observations and reductions is given in Paper I .

For the MECS data we extracted the events from circular areas of $`3^{}`$ radius centred at the 10 source positions. The extraction circles overlap slightly for several sources (see Fig. 1 of Paper I ). Due to the small fraction of overlapping (less than 10% of area in all cases), the effect of duplicating a fraction of the source fluxes is not significant. The background spectra for all sources were extracted from the standard MECS background event list, which is relevant to observations made after May 7, 1997, provided by the SAX ftp site on the WWW. The source spectra were rebinned in energy for data between 1.65$``$10 keV so that each bin contains at least 20 source events. Finally, the data files for individual sources were used for further spectral and timing analysis.

As already pointed out in Paper I , the data of the LECS detector contained too few events for an independent source analysis. However, since the LECS data must be consistent with the results derived with the MECS, the lack of signal can be used as an additional constraint. Taking the spectral fits derived with the MECS data as the baseline, the low signal in the LECS band is used as a lower limit criterion for interstellar absorption, which is briefly described in Section 3.

Since the HPGSPC and PDS data are spatially unresolved, a further analysis of the sources at hard X-rays is not plausible. There is also a major complication due to the fact that sources outside the LECS and MECS field of view, especially the very strong source 1E1740.9$``$2942, most probably dominate the PDS spectrum. This is supported by the observed PDS spectrum in Fig. 2, and discussed in Section 3.

## 3 Results

The combined spectra of MECS detectors 2 and 3 were analysed using the XANADU/XSPEC version 10 software package (see http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/). As there is no a priori explanation for the X-ray emission in the sources, we tried several alternative spectral models. The spectrum models with interstellar absorption tried on each source were powerlaw, powerlaw with a Gaussian line (Fe $`K_\alpha `$), Raymond-Smith, thermal bremsstrahlung, and blackbody radiation. Generally, the best models were Raymond-Smith, and powerlaw with or without a Gaussian. The powerlaw with a Gaussian line was applied mainly to obtain an estimate on the centroid energy (position) of the iron K-shell emission line. The best fitted spectral models are presented with the observed spectra in Fig. 1 and the numerical results are shown in Table 1. Most of the spectra are characterized by high hydrogen column density, and a strong iron line is observed in several sources.

The time variability of the sources was tested by calculating the $`\chi ^2`$ from a constant fit to MECS data binned in $`100`$ photon bins. The length of time bins varies from 2 to 6 hours. Two sources, SAXJ1741.3-2948 and SAXJ1743.0-2956, were found to be variable at confidence above 99.99 $`\%`$, and one, SAXJ1740.8-2950, at confidence 99.67 $`\%`$.

The very low signal in the LECS data suggests high interstellar absorption, which is consistent with the spectral models fitted to MECS data. Quantitative comparisons of the expected LECS counts with those derived from the range of $`N_H`$ from the MECS spectral fits indicate that the interstellar absorption is more probably above the fit average than below it, and $`N_H`$ could even be as high as $`10^{23}10^{24}`$ cm-2.

As the PDS instrument has no spatial resolution, we can only make estimates for the contributions of known sources in the field to estimate the total hard X-ray flux from the new sources. Apart from our new sources, the main contributor in the PDS field is probably 1E1740.7$``$2942. Using the PDS spectrum slope (powerlaw with $`\alpha =1.87\pm 0.02`$, see Fig. 2) and the flux ($`1.410^9\text{erg}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ between 15-200 keV) from the EXS field, we can make comparisons to other existing data from this source. If we take into account the effect of the PDS collimator efficiency for off-axis objects (50% efficiency at $`40^{}`$) we find that a major fraction of the total PDS flux can be covered with the flux of 1E1740.7$``$2942. An estimate interpolated in time from the nearly simultaneous (MJD 50915.45) Rossi XTE All Sky Monitor (ASM) count rate of 1E1740.7$``$2942 is $`1.5\pm 0.5`$ ASM counts/s, which corresponds to $`0.85\pm 0.2510^9\text{erg}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ (15$``$200 keV). The estimate is uncertain due to the fact that the ASM data covers a lower energy range (2$``$10 keV) than the PDS spectrum (15$``$200 keV), and the spectrum slope may be different for these two energy regions. The PDS spectrum slope suggests a harder spectrum than the typical range of slopes ($`\alpha 23`$) for different states of 1E1740.7$``$2942. This could be explained by the high energy contribution of our new SAX sources. Estimating the total flux from the 10 sources at the PDS energy range we obtain a flux $`0.510^9\text{erg}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ summing up an average of the observed spectrum slopes ($`\alpha 1.2`$). This covers $``$ 50% of the observed PDS flux. Thus, with the uncertainties in the above estimates, the observed PDS spectrum can be well explained with the contributions from our new SAX sources and the contribution of 1E1740.7$``$2942.

Additional uncertainty in the PDS spectrum may be caused by a strong source in the PDS background field. One of the two fields which were used as background includes SLX 1735-269. It has been observed e.g. by Sigma (see Goldwurm et al. Gol96 (1996)), and clear variations have been detected in hard X-rays. Using the average Sigma spectrum at range 30$``$200 keV, we derived an estimate for the PDS energy range, taking into account the collimator efficiency at the position offset of SLX 1735-296 during our background observation. It turned out that SLX 1735-296 could have been as bright as $`0.410^9\text{erg}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ at 15-200 keV. Conclusively, the uncertainty in the total hard X-ray flux of the new sources is at least several tens of percent.

## 4 Previous observations of the EXS1737.9$``$2952 region

There are a number of previously known sources in the observed region. These are shown in Fig. 3 and discussed case by case below.

Sources 11-16: A part of the SAX/EXS field has been mapped with the VLA at 20 cm and 6 cm (Durouchoux et al. Dur98 (1998), DVC981-6) and with the SEST in $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{CO}`$ (Vilhu et al. Vil94 (1994)). One of the VLA sources (DVC986) overlaps with an X-ray source (source 1), and it is thus possible that the radio source DVC986 is actually the same physical source as SAXJ1740.8-2950.

EXS 1737.9$``$2952 is close to the Sgr E complex, and in the field of our X-ray observations there are 5 known radio and infrared sources which belong to Sgr E (sources 17, 18,23,24, and 25 in Fig. 3).

Source 17: A VLA map at 1.6164 MHz of the Sagittarius region (Liszt Lis92 (1992)) covers a fraction of the EXS field with four new SAX sources, SAXJ1742.2$``$2958, SAXJ1742.3$``$3003, SAXJ1742.6$``$2956 and SAXJ1743.0$``$2956 (sources 6,7,9 and 10, respectively). The closest match between the radio and the X-ray sources is Sgr E 19 (Liszt Lis92 (1992)) which is at $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{}`$ from SAXJ1742.3$``$3003 nominal position. E 19 is the brightest radio source in Sgr E, and its estimated ionized hydrogen mass is $`28.4M_{}`$ (Liszt Lis92 (1992)). With the uncertainty of the X-ray source position, sources E 19 and SAXJ1742.3$``$3003 could be the same physical source.

Sources 18,23,24, and 25: Source 14 in Liszt (Lis92 (1992)), or Sgr E 30 (source 18 here) is less than $`1^{}`$ from SAXJ1742.6$``$2956 (source 9) nominal position. It is a star-forming region, with an estimated HII mass of $`500M_{}`$ ($`515M_{}`$, Liszt (Lis92 (1992); $`474M_{}`$, Gray et al. Gra93 (1993)). Sources from other surveys near SAXJ1742.6$``$2956 are the infrared and water maser source IRAS 17392$``$2954 (source 23 here) (Codella et al. Cod95 (1995)), HSNH 7 of the Nobeyama 10 GHz survey (Handa et al. Han87 (1987), source 24 here), and the HII region 358.797+0.058 (Lockman et al. Loc96 (1996)),source 25 here). HSNH 7 is an extended source of size $`3^{}.42\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^{}.35`$. All these radio and IR observations support the scenario where SAXJ1742.6$``$2956 is embedded in the ISM, which would also explain the high hydrogen column density.

Source 19: GRS 1736$``$297, also known as RXJ 1739.4$``$2942, is a Be-type X-ray binary (Motch et al. Mot98 (1998)). It was discovered with the ART-P X-ray telescope on GRANAT (Pavlinsky et al. Pav94 (1994)) and also detected with ROSAT (Motch et al. Mot98 (1998)). In the ART-P observation, GRS 1736$``$297 had a flux of $`4.410^3\text{photons}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ (4$``$20 keV), and the spectrum was a powerlaw with photon index $`\alpha =1.8`$. If $`N_H`$ is set to $`10^{22}\text{cm}^2`$, this corresponds to a flux of $`4.510^3\text{photons}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ between 2$``$10 keV for SAX MECS, which is clearly above the detection limit. In our SAX MECS observations GRS 1736$``$297 was not detected, indicating that the source is highly variable. The estimated upper limit for the X-ray flux of GRS 1736$``$297 is $`2.510^4\text{photons}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ (2$``$10 keV). This variation of the X-ray flux by at least one order of magnitude indicates that GRS 1736$``$297 could be a Be X-ray transient, with a compact star in an elliptical orbit.

Source 20: 1RXS J174034.3$``$293749 is a weak X-ray source discovered in the ROSAT all-sky survey (Voges et al. Vog99 (1999)). It is not detected in the LECS or MECS observations, although it is in the observed field. This may be due to the softness of its X-ray emission, and possible variability with low intensity state during our observations.

Source 22: GPSR5 358.310+0.272 is a radio source detected in the VLA 5 GHz Galactic plane survey (Becker et al. Bec94 (1994)). It is at $`0^{}.5`$ from SAXJ1740.5$``$3013 (source 8) nominal position. The proximity of these two sources indicates that they may actually be the same object.

Source 26: A molecular cloud reported by Vilhu et al. (Vil94 (1994)) is close to the centre of our SAX field, with SAXJ1741.6$``$2952 (source 3) at the edge of the cloud. A comparison of the molecular hydrogen column density in the CO map ($`N_{H_2}210^{21}\text{cm}^2`$) and our SAX/MECS spectral fit for atomic hydrogen (1 $`\sigma `$ limits taken from Table 1, $`N_H0.64.810^{22}\text{cm}^2`$) suggests that the X-ray source is probably behind the molecular cloud.

## 5 Interpretation and discussion

The common X-ray spectrum characteristics of the sources are the following. 2$``$10 keV flux above $`10^{12}\text{erg}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$, corresponding to an unabsorbed luminosity of $`10^{32}\text{erg}\text{s}^1D_{kpc}^2`$, where $`D_{kpc}`$ is the distance in kiloparsecs. The X-ray spectrum matches to a powerlaw model with line emission at 6-7 keV or Raymond-Smith thin plasma model. The spectrum is in both cases modified with significant interstellar absorption, $`N_H10^{23}\text{cm}^2`$.

A step towards understanding the nature of these objects is via an explanation for the high interstellar absorption. Vilhu et al. (Vil97 (1997)) have demonstrated that the $`N_H`$ values derived from CO radio maps match well with the absorption derived from spectral fits to X-ray data for 1E1740.9$``$2942 and are close to the values derived for our new sources ($`10^{22}10^{23}`$ cm-2). Therefore we have a good reason to assume that our new sources really are close to, or behind, the GC, and the X-ray luminosities are probably above $`10^{34}\text{erg}\text{s}^1`$.

Taking the luminosity level estimate as a new baseline still does not lead to a clear interpretation as to the nature of the new sources. It is also obvious, that there is no common explanation for the nature of all ten sources, since the X-ray spectra are not similar. The spectrum slope, possible variability, and characteristics of the iron line are the remaining classification criteria, which must be considered for each source separately. Also, the emission from the region outside the sources

We next summarize the iron line formation as background information for further discussion, and the following subsections will be devoted to detailed discussion of possible source classes.

K-shell iron lines at 6-7 keV are usually prominent in cosmic plasmas with temperatures of $`10^710^8`$ K, and iron lines have indeed been detected in large scale structures such as clusters of galaxies and Seyfert I galaxies as well as stellar-scale objects such as supernova remnants, X-ray pulsars and X-ray binaries (e.g. Stella Ste89 (1989), and references therein), cataclysmic variables (Yoshida, Inoue and Osaki Yos92 (1992)), and also low mass stars with active coronae (Singh, White and Drake Sin96 (1996)).

In the case of a collapsed object with associated strong X-ray flux and accreting matter around the object, the nature of iron K line formation depends on the ratio of incident X-ray flux and gas pressure, i.e. the ionisation parameter $`\mathrm{\Xi }=F/(P_{gas}c)`$ (Krolik, McKee and Tarter, Kro81 (1989)). The general dependence of the line energy on the corresponding process can be summarized as follows (Stella, Ste89 (1989)). If the plasma temperature is high ($`T10^710^8`$ K) e.g. due to high flux density of the incident radiation, and the gas is highly ionized (ionisation parameter is high), the K-line emission is predominantly due to recombination onto Fe XXVI or Fe XXV, and the line energy is $`6.66.9`$ keV. For low plasma temperatures (ionisation parameter is low, and $`T10^4`$ K), the K-line comes mainly from fluorescence of weakly ionized gas, and the line is at $`6.4`$ keV. For the case of significantly lower line energy (e.g., around 6 kev), the explanation can be gravitational redshift near the compact object. The equivalent width of the line depends mainly on the angular extent of the line emitting gas as seen by the source of the incident X-rays.

### 5.1 Chromospherically active stars and cataclysmic variables

The X-ray spectra of chromospherically active stars usually show thin plasma emission with temperature up to several keV (Vilhu Vil94 (1994)). Those of magnetic cataclysmic variables show a soft (a few tens of eV) blackbody continuum and a hard thermal brehmsstrahlung component (in excess of 10 keV) with weak or nonexistent line emission, while non-magnetic CV’s have optically thin thermal plasma and/or bremmstrahlung continuum with typically 1-10 keV temperatures and an iron K line in many cases (for a review,see e.g. Mauche Mau97 (1997) and Cordova Cor95 (1995)). The observed X-ray continuum spectra of our new sources are relatively hard and most of them show a strong line at 6-7 keV. Non-magnetic CV’s, and even chromospherically active stars may thus show spectrum characteristics relatively close to those of our sources.

For chromospherically active field stars and cataclysmic variables the X-ray luminosities are typically $`10^{29}10^{32}\text{erg}\text{s}^1`$ (Vilhu Vil94 (1994); Verbunt et al. Ver97 (1997) ). For our new sources, the interstellar absorption indicates that their distance is close to, or bigger than 10 kpc, leading to X-ray luminosities of at least $`L_x2510^{34}`$ erg/s (2$``$10 keV) derived from the source intensities in the MECS band. The unabsorbed X-ray luminosities is even somewhat higher, although the effect of the interstellar absorption above 2 keV is not big (the enhancement could be as much as $`40`$%). Using the luminosity criterion we may thus conclude that the new SAX sources are probably not chromospherically active field stars or cataclysmic variables.

### 5.2 X-ray binaries

The luminosities of X-ray binaries with neutron stars or black holes are above the level of $`L_x10^{34}`$ erg/s (2$``$10 keV), and they can be even several orders of magnitude brighter (e.g. White, Nagase and Parmar Whi95 (1995)). Using this criterion, the new sources could be, albeit faint, X-ray binaries.

The continuum spectral hardness for X-ray binaries can vary significantly from fairly soft to very hard, even for a single object (e.g., black hole candidates) (see White, Nagase and Parmar Whi95 (1995)). Therefore all our new sources suit to the range of X-ray binary spectral slopes.

As discussed previously in section 5, Fe $`K_\alpha `$ line energy can be used as a tracer for the physical processes involved. Considering LMXB’s, the line is more probably produced by recombination in the accretion disk corona, and should be near 6.7 keV. On the other hand, in HMXBs the fluorescent emission from an optically thick accretion disk is a plausible explanation for the iron line near 6.4 keV (or even at lower energies due to gravitational redshift). A study of X-ray spectra in public data archives for both HMXB’s and LMXB’s shows, however, that reality is not so simple, and classification of these systems by the iron line energy is not possible. HMXB’s can have an iron line well above 6.4 keV, and LMXB’s even below 6.4 keV, respectively (see e.g. Gottwald et al. Got95 (1995)).

As for our observations, seven of the ten new sources have prominent iron lines. For the remaining three sources (4,5,8), iron line position could not be determined from the powerlaw plus line model, although the data and the best fit Raymond-Smith model show indications of its existence. The Fe $`K_\alpha `$ line energy varies from source to source in the range 6.1 to 7 keV, indicating possible differences in the line formation, but all sources remain candidates for both low and high mass X-ray Binaries.

X-ray binaries also show time variability, the period (or time scale) of which is indicative of its nature. The observed variability in sources 1, 2 and 10 (of the order of hours) suits well for typical LMXB’s, but lacking good enough statistics to demonstrate an X-ray light curve, is not a proof for the explanation.

### 5.3 Diffuse emission and X-ray scattering

The ASCA/SIS observations of the diffuse emission from the GC region (Koyama et al. Koy94 (1994), Tanaka et al. Tan00 (2000)) offer an alternative interpretation for the new sources.

According to the ASCA observations, the spectrum of the diffuse emission is a hard continuum (thermal bremsstrahlung temperature $``$ 14 keV) with strong emission lines of iron and lighter elements. No estimate for the absorption is given, but it is assumed that absorption is insignificant. Typical fluxes of a $`3^{}\times 3^{}`$ region (corresponding to the SAX/MECS point spread function) are of the order $`10^{10}10^{12}\text{erg}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$. Spatial variations in the intensity and energy of Fe $`K_\alpha `$ line and absorbing column are seen, but the overall shape of the spectrum does not vary over the ASCA/SIS field of view ($`20^{}`$). A strong correlation between the radio and the X-ray structures is also seen in Fig.1 of Koyama et al. (Koy94 (1994)).

Fitting of a thermal bremsstrahlung model to our MECS spectra yields temperatures between 10 and 50 keV for the 10 new sources. Fits to Raymond-Smith model (See Table 1) yield even larger scatter in temperature, 8 to 60 keV. Large scatter in the iron line flux and position among the new sources also evident (see Fig. 1 and Table 1), but the high uncertainty does not allow a more quantitative analysis of the differences. The fluxes of the sources in the EXS region are similar to the diffuse emission of the GC, but the variations in spectral parameters in scales of a few arcminutes argues against the diffuse emission interpretation. In addition, three of our sources are temporally variable. Only SAXJ1742.6$``$2956 (source 9) has a spectrum consistent with diffuse emission. It has, however, a better local explanation. The radio source Sgr E 30 in the same position may be associated with the X-ray source, thus being an example of a compact interstellar cloud around an X-ray binary. The cloud could be exposed by the high energy radiation from the binary, and the scattering of X-rays by the cloud would then result to a spectrum of diffuse emission.

We also analysed two larger subfields in our MECS observations to find possible evidence for extended source scenarios. One of the subfields includes most of the new sources, and the other one is void.

A region with 15’ radius centred at source 3 includes 8 of the 10 new sources, added with emission in the field between them. The region is labeled as “subfield 1” in Table 1, and the observed spectrum with the spectrum fit (power-law plus line) is plotted in Fig. 4. Bremsstrahlung and Raymond-Smith models for the spectrum of this field yielded poorer fits. In addition to the strong line at 6.8 keV, there are signs of other lines at several energies between 2 and 5 keV. The 6.8 keV (iron) line and the other lines fit poorly to the lines in a Raymond-Smith spectrum for a single source. This supports our impression that the region contains a range of different sources, and the resulting spectrum is a combination of their spectra. Comparing the power-law indices of the spectra, the average spectrum in this subfield is harder than the average of the individual sources. It should be mentioned that a major part (over 70 per cent) of the emission in subfield 1 is external to the 8 new sources (i.e. it originates in the field between them). Thus there is a strong component of emission, which is diffuse in nature. However, the average hydrogen column density in this subfield ($`10^{22}`$cm-2) is fairly high, which is not consistent with the diffuse emission observed by Koyama et al. (Koy94 (1994)).

The other region of 10’ radius (“subfield 2” in Table 1) does not contain any sources in our MECS observations, and it has a significantly weaker emission than “subfield 1” (the flux is approximately one third of that in “subfield 1”). The power-law index of this subfield is 1.8. The emission in subfield 2 is softer than average diffuse background. The photon index of the diffuse background is approximately 1.4, corresponding to a bremsstrahlung temperature of 40 keV (e.g. Gendreau et al. Gen95 (1995)). Since diffuse background does not contain strong line contributions, and the spectrum slope of subfield 2 also does not correspond to it, subfield 2 is probably not dominated by diffuse background. On the contrary, the spectrum slope, as well as the level of emission are close to the “local” diffuse emission at the GC region observed by Koyama et al. (Koy94 (1994)). The only difference is the high interstellar absorption ($`2\times 10^{22}`$cm-2), which is typical of the whole MECS field observed by us.

A model for reflection and Compton scattering has recently been introduced by Churazov, Sunyaev, and Sazonov (Chu01 (2001)) to explain the observed X-ray spectrum of Sgr B2 cloud. It is near the GC and could be emitting reprocessed radiation due to a big X-ray flare at GC which may have occured a few hundred years ago. The “X-ray reflection nebula” model includes Compton scattering of an external hard X-ray continuum and fluorescence on the surface of the cloud. This process could, in principle, contribute to the X-ray spectra of our new sources. However, the slope of the observed continuum (clearly decreasing) below 7 keV does not support this scenario. Also the position of the iron line (above 6.5 keV) for sources 1-3 is not consistent with fluorescence. Since the spectrum signal is very low at energies above 7 keV, the possible iron absorption edge cannot be distinguished, and also the spectrum slope is uncertain above the edge. Considering these uncertainties, and the iron line position, we cannot exclude the possibility that there is significant contribution from X-ray reflection above 6 keV, most probably in sources 6, 7, and 9.

Conclusively, it is difficult to match our SAX MECS observations with diffuse emission near the Galactic Centre excluding X-ray point sources.

### 5.4 Supernova remnants

SNR’s typically have $`L_x10^{35}`$ erg/s. Two of such young SNRs, Kepler and Tycho, are characterized by $`\mathrm{k}T\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}9\text{keV}`$ and $`\mathrm{k}T\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}7\text{keV}`$ , respectively (Smith et al. Smi89 (1989)). The spectrum slope of the Crab Nebula corresponds to a power law with photon index 2.1 (e.g. Cox Cox00 (2000)), and another SNR of similar age, 3C 58, has a slope with photon index 1.7 (Helfand et al. Hel95 (1995)). An example of a very young SNR is SN 1987A, which has been observed recently with the Chandra satellite by Burrows et al. (Bur00 (2000)). They report on X-ray spectrum with strong line emission concentrated at soft X-rays ( $`L_x(0.52keV)=1.5\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s, $`L_x(0.510keV)=1.9\times 10^{35}`$ erg/s), corresponding to a softer X-ray spectrum than for the older SNRs. SN 1987A shows an X-ray luminosity $`L_x=4\times 10^{34}`$ erg/s (2-10 keV), which makes it more difficult to use the luminosity criterion for distinguishing between low luminosity X-ray binaries and young SNRs.

Hardening of X-ray spectrum and an increase in the X-ray luminosity are probably general features in the time evolution of an SNR. The reason for this is the fact that a hard spectrum component due to deceleration of the shock wave begins to show only after the shock front has reached interstellar medium of sufficient density, and after that the hard spectrum component from shock heating increases with the volume of ISM involved. The time evolution of the remnant’s X-ray luminosity, as well as the shape of the X-ray emitting volume reflects the distribution of ISM around the exploded star. The ISM consists of not only matter ejected by the star via stellar wind during the giant phase, but also more ISM of different origin. Therefore the secular time evolution of the X-ray emission, and the observed morphologies of SNRs are strongly case dependent.

The new SAX sources have marginally harder spectra than a typical SNR, and three of the sources show variability at time-scales of hours, which are in contrast with the SNR interpretation. Two known supernova remnants, Cas A and N132D, have also been observed with BeppoSAX (Favata et al. 1997A , 1997B ), which provides a reliable comparison without differences in instrumental effects. According to Favata et al., both Cas A and N132D were found to have cooler CSM thermal spectrum components (3.5-4.2 keV, and 1.8-6.0 keV, respectively) than those found for our new BeppoSAX sources.

Given the uncertainties of our observations, nothing conclusive can be said for or against an SNR explanation for individual sources, except for the three variable sources, which definitely can be removed from the possible SNR list.

The possibility of one supernova remnant being responsible for all the emission should also be considered. If the whole field with all sources were interpreted as an SNR with an angular extent of half a degree, the distance of an SNR similar to Tycho would be about 60 pc. This is definitely not the case, since such young and nearby SNR could not have remained unobserved until now. Furthermore, for any nearby (distance less than 1 kpc) SNR, the high hydrogen column densities would be difficult to explain. Finally, variations of the spectrum within the suspected SNR shell, as well as the observed time variability are not characteristic to an SNR.

### 5.5 Extragalactic sources

The class of extragalactic sources, which would fit best to our observations, is dust-obscured Seyfert galaxies. A strong iron line is typical of a dust-obscured AGN. Also a typical slope of an AGN X-ray continuum (spectral hardness) is also similar to what we observed. The spectrum characteristics of our new sources would thus not rule out the extragalactic source hypothesis.

For our sources, the hydrogen column densities derived from the MECS spectral fits correspond closely with values derived from CO measurements of Galactic Centre region (e.g. Vilhu et al. Vil94 (1994)). Significantly higher values would be expected from extragalactic sources behind the GC. Such values are not ruled out, if we account for the bias towards higher column densities caused by the nonexistence of the sources in the LECS image of the same field. Thus the best candidates for extragalactic sources are among those of our sources with the highest hydrogen column densities.

The expected number of extragalactic sources brighter than $`10^{12}\text{erg}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$ (2$``$10 keV) in the MECS field of view is 0.2. This estimate is based on the logN-logS-relation of Ueda et al. (Ued99 (1999)). Thus, from statistical point of view, finding ten extragalactic sources from a MECS field is very unlikely, and this category is ruled out as a common explanation for our observations.

## 6 Conclusions

On the basis of the X-ray spectral fitting of our MECS observation, the new BeppoSAX sources are characterised by high hydrogen column density. Thus they are probably close to the Galactic Centre or behind it. Deriving from the nondetection of sources in the LECS observation of the same field, the hydrogen column density may be so high that even extragalactic origin might be possible. Using the assumption that the sources are near the GC, the (absorbed) X-ray luminosities of the sources are in the range $`L_x2510^{34}`$ erg/s (2$``$10 keV), and the maximum unabsorbed luminosities are $``$40% higher.

The rough indications of X-ray spectrum slope and iron line properties from the observation do not allow to find conclusive evidence for any specific interpretation as to the nature of the sources. It is, however, reasonable to consider case by case different types of sources as possible explanations for our observation. The following conclusions include first our considerations of a common explanation (diffuse emission near the GC, and a SNR) for the whole observed field.

The average emission spectrum of the region including 8 of the 10 new sources is hard (powerlaw photon index 1.3) and it includes a strong iron line at 6.8 keV (subfield 1 in Table 1, and Fig. 4). It also shows a strong interstellar absorption component (N$`{}_{H}{}^{}10^{22}`$). These features do not match the diffuse emission near the GC observed by Koyama et al. (Koy94 (1994)), and thus the diffuse emission scenario is improbable.

Taking into account the observed time variability of sources 1, 2, and 10, and the differences between the spectra of individual sources, an explanation of the whole field consisting of a supernova remnant is also very improbable. The minimum distance derived from the hydrogen column density would lead to to a size scale for the source, which is far too large for any single SNR. The spatial and temporal fluctuations of the X-ray spectrum also speaks for existence of a group of independent sources superimposed by a spectrum component due to the radiation and absorption by interstellar medium.

Considering explanations for the nature of individual sources in the field, one source category can be readily ruled out. The X-ray luminosities of the new sources are well above those of chromospherically active stars and cataclysmic variables.

From the remaining possible source categories, X-ray binaries are the most favourable explanation for all 10 sources. The observed luminosities of the new sources, assuming that they are near the GC or further away from us, are well within the range of X-ray binaries. X-ray binaries also provide a plausible explanation for the variability in the order of hours for three of the new sources (1,2, and 10), and the fairly hard X-ray spectra with 6$``$7 keV iron line emission suit well for typical XRBs.

The remaining seven sources (3-9), where variability could not be verified, might as well be supernova remnants or extragalactic sources (AGN), if just the spectrum characteristics are considered. However, the low probability of finding ten AGNs in a SAX MECS field makes the extragalactic explanation too far fetched. Judging from the expected number (0.2) of extragalactic sources with the observed luminosity of our sources, and the lack of identifications of extragalactic sources with any previous observations of our MECS field, we strongly suggest that the new SAX sources are all galactic.

Looking at the remaining exlanations, any of the sources 3$``$9 could be either a SNR or an X-ray binary. For the SNR scenario, it is not plausible to make further suggestions, since the soft X-ray emission, which would be a good diagnostic of different types of SNR, is strongly depressed, very probably by interstellar absorption. Also, the angular resolution of our observation is not good enough to distinguish any spatial features of a SNR at the GC distance.

The identification of the source for the hard X-ray transient (Grindlay et al. Gri93 (1993)) is still not possible on the basis of the presented observations, and the nature of EXS 1737.9-2952 remains an enigma.

Even a short observing time of the EXS region with large X-ray satellites like Chandra or XMM-Newton would improve significantly the classification of these new X-ray sources. Unfortunately we have not been successful enough to get observing time for our project with these facilities.

###### Acknowledgements.

The BeppoSAX satellite is a joint Italian and Dutch programme. We acknowledge the SAX instrument team for providing the results of the standard supervised analysis, and Drs Fabrizio Fiore and Luigi Piro for useful advice in our data analysis. This work is supported by a project research grant for Osmi Vilhu, and an appropriation for senior scientists for Juhani Huovelin, both provided by the Academy of Finland. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services.


format: text

text:
# Radiation reaction in quantum field theory

## I Introduction

Although classical electrodynamics is a well established theory, there has been some controversy over the nature of the reaction of a point charge to its own radiation. The standard equation for the radiation-reaction force, the Lorentz-Dirac equation Lorentz ; Dirac , admits runaway solutions which describe the charged particle accelerating on its own and reaching the speed of light in a very short time. (See, e.g., Refs. Jackson ; Rohrlich  for a review of the Lorentz-Dirac theory.) Although it has been shown that there is a unique solution that does not exhibit the runaway behaviour for any bounded time-dependent force acting only for a finite interval of time Plass  (see also Refs. Rohr ; Jackson ), this solution violates causality. It is generally believed that these problems will be absent once the finite-size effect is properly taken into account. For example, an analysis of a charged sphere has led Yaghjian Yagh  to the conclusion that the radiation-reaction 4-force is modified at the onset of acceleration in such a way that there is no causality violation in the unique non-runaway solution. There is also an approach based on “reduction of order” Landau  which excludes runaway solutions without introducing causality violation. In this method the radiation-reaction force is re-expressed in terms of the external force. This approach has recently been advocated by several authors FlanWald ; Poisson .

Thus, it may be fair to say that the aspects of the Lorentz-Dirac theory that were traditionally regarded as problematic have been clarified. However, there are other counter-intuitive aspects in the Lorentz-Dirac theory which are not discussed very often. These aspects persist in reformulations of the Lorentz-Dirac equation mentioned before. For example, the radiation-reaction force vanishes if the acceleration of the charge is constant. Although this is not so serious a problem as existence of runaway solutions or causality violation, it is certainly counter-intuitive since the charge radiates energy away continuously while being accelerated. A related fact is that the radiation-reaction force makes the kinetic energy of the charge increase if the acceleration of the charge increases in time, as we will see in the next section, despite the fact that the charge is radiating in the meantime.

In view of these counter-intuitive features of the Lorentz-Dirac theory, it is natural to ask whether or not this theory reproduces the classical limit for a point charge in quantum electrodynamics (QED). (Moniz and Sharp have studied QED in this context and concluded that the Lorentz-Dirac theory is reproduced in the classical limit by studying the Heisenberg equations for an extended charge and taking the zero-size limit Sharp .) It is well known that the loopwise expansion in quantum field theory is an expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ Nambu ; BB . Therefore the classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ in this sense is the tree approximation. However, one should not use this limit in the problem at hand. For example, this limit is taken with the mass parameter $`mc/\mathrm{}`$ held fixed (see, e.g., Ref. IZ ). Thus, the mass $`m`$ also tends to zero in this limit. In the radiation-reaction problem the mass as well as the electric charge $`e`$ must be kept fixed in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$. Therefore, the limit we would need to consider is certainly not the tree approximation and, in fact, does not exist as emphasized recently by Julia Julia . This fact can readily be seen by noting that the fine structure constant $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi \mathrm{}c1/137`$ is of order $`\mathrm{}^1`$. Thus, perturbation theory would break down in the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit with $`e`$ fixed. For example, the one-loop correction to the electron magnetic moment, $`\alpha /2\pi `$, would diverge despite the fact that it is a very small fixed number.

Although the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ with $`m`$ and $`e`$ fixed would be divergent, one can still compare some quantities in QED with classical ones at order $`\alpha `$. At this order in $`\alpha `$, physical quantities of interest are of finite order in $`\mathrm{}^1`$, and there are some quantities of order $`\mathrm{}^0`$, which can be compared with the corresponding quantities in classical electrodynamics. We note, however, that these quantities are much smaller in reality than some quantities which vanish in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$. The following example illustrates this paradoxical feature. Let $`\omega `$ be the frequency of an electromagnetic wave. Then the energy of a single photon $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ tends to zero as $`\mathrm{}0`$, but $`\alpha \mathrm{}\omega =e^2\omega /4\pi c`$ remains finite. Thus, the quantity $`\alpha \mathrm{}\omega `$ is meaningful in classical electrodynamics even though it is much smaller than $`\mathrm{}\omega `$.

In this paper we examine the behaviour of a wave packet of a charged scalar field undergoing acceleration due to an external potential realized as a position dependent mass term to first order in $`\alpha `$. In particular, we calculate the change in the position of the final-state wave packet, the position shift, as a result of radiation using the WKB approximation. We demonstrate that the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit of this quantity disagrees with the corresponding result in the Lorentz-Dirac theory. Then we show that it agrees instead with the result in classical electrodynamics obtained by assuming that the kinetic energy of the particle is lost to the radiation given by the classical Larmor formula at each moment of time in the rest frame of the potential. We also point out that the electromagnetic correction to the potential is of order $`\mathrm{}^1`$ and, therefore, cannot be calculated in classical electrodynamics. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we review the Lorentz-Dirac theory and calculate the position shift of a charged particle due to radiation in the nonrelativistic approximation in this theory. In Sec. III we calculate the transition amplitude for a charged scalar particle emitting a photon using the WKB approximation. This is used in Sec. IV to calculate the position shift in scalar quantum electrodynamics. Here, we closely follow an unpublished paper Higuchi . Then in Sec. V we examine the one-loop effect (with no emission of photons) which results in a correction to the external potential. We summarize our results and make some concluding remarks in Sec. VI. The calculations are performed using conveniently chosen physical polarization vectors for photons, but they are shown to agree with the results obtained without choosing physical polarizations in Appendix A. A formula used to compute the position shift is justified in Appendix B. Our metric signature is $`+`$.

## II The position shift in the Lorentz-Dirac theory

We first motivate the standard Lorentz-Dirac theory briefly. We do not derive it but describe how it naturally arises in classical electrodynamics. (See, e.g. Ref. Rohrlich  for a derivation.) Suppose that a classical charged particle with charge $`e`$ and 4-velocity $`u^\mu `$ is accelerated by an external 4-force $`F_{\mathrm{ext}}^\mu `$. \[The 4-velocity of a particle moving in the $`z`$-direction with speed $`v`$ is $`(\gamma c,0,0,\gamma v)`$ with $`\gamma (1v^2/c^2)^{1/2}`$. Note that $`u^\mu u_\mu =c^2`$.\] The 4-velocity $`u^\mu `$ satisfies the following equation:

$$m\frac{du^\mu }{d\tau }=F_{\mathrm{ext}}^\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the rest mass of the particle and where $`\tau `$ is the proper time along the world line of the particle. The particle emits electromagnetic radiation with 4-momentum $`P^\mu =(E/c,𝐏)`$, where $`E`$ is the energy and $`𝐏`$ is the momentum, given by the relativistic generalization of the Larmor formula:

$$\frac{dP^\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^5}a^2u^\mu ,$$
(2)
where $`a=\sqrt{\dot{u}^\mu \dot{u}_\mu }`$ (with $`\dot{u}^\mu =du^\mu /d\tau `$) is the proper acceleration of the particle (see, e.g., Ref. Jackson ; Rohrlich ). Since it is the particle that radiates, one expects that its 4-momentum should be reduced by the amount carried away by the radiation. It is natural to describe this effect in terms of a 4-force. Thus, one is led to modify the equation of motion of the particle as

$$m\frac{du^\mu }{d\tau }=F_{\mathrm{ext}}^\mu +K^\mu ,$$
(3)
where $`K^\mu `$ is the radiation-reaction 4-force which represents the back reaction of the radiation on the charged particle. It may seem that the 4-force $`K^\mu `$ should be equal to the negative of the right-hand side of Eq. (2) because of energy-momentum conservation. However, this cannot be the case because this 4-force would not satisfy the condition $`u_\mu K^\mu =0`$, which is a consequence of the equation $`u_\mu \dot{u}^\mu =0`$. Therefore, one is led to require only that the total loss of 4-momentum of the particle be equal to the total 4-momentum radiated away assuming that the acceleration occurs only for a finite time. Thus, one requires that

$$K^\mu =\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^5}a^2u^\mu +\frac{dC^\mu }{d\tau }$$
(4)
for some vector $`C^\mu `$ because the second term does not contribute to the total change in the 4-momentum, $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}K^\mu 𝑑\tau `$. By using the condition $`u_\mu K^\mu =0`$ one arrives at the following equation:

$$u_\mu \frac{dC^\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}a^2.$$
(5)
Noting that $`a^2=\dot{u}_\mu \dot{u}^\mu =u_\mu \ddot{u}^\mu `$, one finds

$$\frac{dC^\mu }{d\tau }=\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}\frac{d^2u^\mu }{d\tau ^2}+\frac{d\stackrel{~}{C}^\mu }{d\tau },$$
(6)
where $`d\stackrel{~}{C}^\mu /d\tau `$ is orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$. Letting $`\stackrel{~}{C}^\mu =0`$, one arrives at

$$K^\mu =\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}\left(\frac{d^2u^\mu }{d\tau ^2}\frac{1}{c^2}a^2u^\mu \right).$$
(7)
This is known as the Abraham 4-vector Abraham , and Eq. (3) with this 4-force is the Lorentz-Dirac equation.

To illustrate counter-intuitive features of this equation let us consider one-dimensional motion parametrized by the rapidity $`\beta `$ with $`u^\mu =(u^0,u^1)=(c\mathrm{cosh}\beta ,c\mathrm{sinh}\beta )`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{ext}}^\mu =(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mathrm{ext}}\mathrm{sinh}\beta ,\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mathrm{ext}}\mathrm{cosh}\beta )`$. Then Eq. (3) reads

$$\frac{d\beta }{d\tau }=\frac{1}{mc}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mathrm{ext}}+\frac{e^2}{6\pi mc^3}\frac{d^2\beta }{d\tau ^2}.$$
(8)
The second term represents the radiation-reaction force. Notice that it vanishes if the acceleration is constant and is positive if the acceleration increases. Thus, the radiation-reaction force pushes the particle forward if the acceleration increases even though the particle is radiating. This is rather counter-intuitive.

Now, let us describe the classical counterpart of our model. In this model a particle with mass $`m`$ and charge $`e`$ moves in the $`z`$-direction from $`z=\mathrm{}`$ to $`z=+\mathrm{}`$ and is accelerated by a static potential $`V(z)`$ whose derivative is nonzero only in a finite interval. We define $`V_{\mathrm{}}V(\mathrm{})`$ and let $`V(+\mathrm{})=0`$. We work in the nonrelativistic approximation. Thus, the energy is given by $`\frac{1}{2}mv^2+V(z)`$, where $`v`$ is the velocity of the particle. We assume that the kinetic energy is much larger than the potential energy, and we retain only the terms up to second order in $`V(z)`$. Note that the particle moves in the positive $`z`$-direction forever under this assumption. We assume also that at $`t=0`$ the particle has passed the region with $`V^{}(z)0`$ and that it moves at constant velocity for $`t>0`$. Let us denote the position and velocity of the particle without radiation by $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$, respectively, and define $`\delta zz\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`\delta vv\stackrel{~}{v}`$. One has $`\delta z|_{t=\mathrm{}}=0`$ and $`\delta v|_{t=\mathrm{}}=0`$ by definition. We will calculate the position shift due to radiation at $`t=0`$ denoted by $`\delta z|_{t=0}`$ using the Lorentz-Dirac equation. We emphasize that this position shift is measured after the acceleration because there is no acceleration for $`t>0`$ by assumption.

The rate of change in the energy of the particle according to the Lorentz-Dirac theory is

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{1}{2}mv^2+V(z)\right]=\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}\ddot{v}v,$$
(9)
where the dot indicates differentiation with respect to time $`t`$. By writing $`\ddot{v}v`$ as $`d(\dot{v}v)/dt\dot{v}^2`$ and integrating with respect to $`t`$, we find

$$\frac{1}{2}mv^2+V(z)=E+\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}v\dot{v}\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}_{\mathrm{}}^t\dot{v}^2𝑑t,$$
(10)
where $`E`$ is the initial energy. By subtracting the equation $`\frac{1}{2}m\stackrel{~}{v}^2+V(\stackrel{~}{z})=E`$ from Eq. (10) we find to lowest order in $`e^2`$

$$m\stackrel{~}{v}\delta v+V^{}(\stackrel{~}{z})\delta z=\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}\stackrel{~}{v}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{v}}{dt}\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}_{\mathrm{}}^t\stackrel{~}{a}^2𝑑t,$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}=d\stackrel{~}{v}/dt`$. By substituting $`V^{}(\stackrel{~}{z})=md\stackrel{~}{v}/dt`$ in Eq. (11) and dividing by $`\stackrel{~}{v}^2`$, we obtain

$$m\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\delta z}{\stackrel{~}{v}}\right)=\frac{e^2}{6\pi \stackrel{~}{v}c^3}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{v}}{dt}\frac{e^2}{6\pi \stackrel{~}{v}^2c^3}_{\mathrm{}}^t\stackrel{~}{a}^2𝑑t.$$
(12)
By integrating this formula from $`t=\mathrm{}`$ to $`t=0`$ we have, to second order in $`V(z)`$,

$$\delta z|_{t=0}=\frac{e^2}{6\pi mc^3}v_f\mathrm{log}\frac{v_f}{v_i}\frac{e^2}{6\pi pc^3}I,$$
(13)
where $`v_i`$ and $`v_f`$ are the initial and final velocities, respectively, without radiation, and where

$$I_{\mathrm{}}^0\left\{_{\mathrm{}}^t[\stackrel{~}{a}(t^{})]^2𝑑t^{}\right\}𝑑t.$$
(14)
We have replaced $`m\stackrel{~}{v}`$ by the final momentum $`p=mv_f`$ in the second term in Eq. (13) because we retain the terms only up to second order in $`V(z)`$ (and consequently to second order in the acceleration $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$). Integrating by parts and using the assumption that $`\stackrel{~}{a}(t)=0`$ for $`t>0`$, we find

$$I=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}t[\stackrel{~}{a}(t)]^2𝑑t.$$
(15)
Now, the power of radiation can be found from Eq. (2) as

$$P_r(t)=\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}[\stackrel{~}{a}(t)]^2$$
(16)
in the nonrelativistic approximation. (This is the Larmor formula.) Then the position shift can be expressed as

$$\delta z|_{t=0}=\frac{e^2}{6\pi mc^3}v_f\mathrm{log}\frac{v_f}{v_i}+\frac{1}{p}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}tP_r(t)𝑑t.$$
(17)
In terms of the Fourier transform $`\widehat{a}_p(\omega )`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{a}(t)`$ defined by

$$\widehat{a}_p(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t\stackrel{~}{a}(t)e^{i\omega t},$$
(18)
we have

$$I=i_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\widehat{a}_p(\omega )^{}\frac{d}{d\omega }\widehat{a}_p(\omega ),$$
(19)
where $`A^{}`$ denotes the complex conjugate of $`A`$. (The subscript “$`p`$” in $`\widehat{a}_p(\omega )`$ has been inserted to emphasize that this quantity depends on the momentum of the particle. This notation will turn out to be useful later.) Thus, to second order in $`V(z)`$ we have

$`\delta z|_{t=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{6\pi mc^3}}v_f\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{v_f}{v_i}}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{6\pi pc^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\widehat{a}_p(\omega )^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\omega }}\widehat{a}_p(\omega ).`$
The first term is first-order in the potential because $`v_fv_i`$ is. It is rather puzzling because the position shift is an effect caused by radiation which is second-order in $`V(z)`$. On the other hand, the second term is clearly second-order. Note also that the first term would be absent if $`v_f=v_i`$, i.e. if $`V_{\mathrm{}}=0`$. In Sec. IV we will derive the position shift $`\delta z|_{t=0}`$ in the WKB approximation in scalar QED. We will find that the first term in Eq. (20) is absent in the classical limit even if $`v_fv_i`$.

## III The transition amplitude

We consider a complex scalar field $`\psi (t,𝐱)`$ which is coupled to the electromagnetic field $`A_\mu (t,𝐱)`$ and accelerated by an external potential $`V(z)`$ with the properties described in the previous section. This model is given by the following Lagrangian density:

$``$ $`=`$ $`[_\mu i(e/\mathrm{}c)A_\mu ]\psi ^{}[^\mu +i(e/\mathrm{}c)A^\mu ]\psi `$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}[m^2c^2+2mV(z)]\psi ^{}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu },`$
with $`_0c^1_t`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$. The mode functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,𝐱)`$ for the free scalar field (with $`e=0`$) satisfy

$$\left[_\mu ^\mu +m^2c^2/\mathrm{}^2+2mV(z)/\mathrm{}^2\right]\mathrm{\Phi }(t,𝐱)=0.$$
(22)
The energy $`p_0^{\mathrm{cl}}`$ and the momentum $`𝐩^{\mathrm{cl}}`$ of the corresponding classical particle satisfy

$$(p_0^{\mathrm{cl}}/c)^2+(𝐩^{\mathrm{cl}})^2+m^2c^2+2mV(z)=0.$$
(23)
(Note that the time component of the 4-momentum $`p_\mu ^{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is not $`p_0^{\mathrm{cl}}`$ but $`p_0^{\mathrm{cl}}/c`$.) In the nonrelativistic approximation with $`m^2c^2(𝐩^{\mathrm{cl}})^2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}m|V(z)|`$, we have

$$p_0^{\mathrm{cl}}mc^2+(𝐩^{\mathrm{cl}})^2/2m+V(z).$$
(24)
Thus, the particle moves under the influence of the nonrelativistic potential $`V(z)`$, and the quantum model given by Eq. (21) corresponds to the classical one analyzed in the previous section. Later we will assume $`m^2c^2(𝐩^{\mathrm{cl}})^22m|V(z)|`$ — this condition implies that the particle is nonrelativistic but the kinetic energy is much larger than the potential energy — but we do not use this assumption for the moment.

The solutions of Eq. (22) which are relevant here can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{p,𝐩_{}}(t,𝐱)=\varphi _p(z)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(p_0t+i𝐩_{}𝐱_{})\right],$$
(25)
where $`𝐱_{}=(x,y)`$, $`𝐩_{}=(p^x,p^y)`$ and

$$p_0/c=\sqrt{m^2c^2+p^2+𝐩_{}^2}$$
(26)
with $`p>0`$. Thus, the quantity $`p`$ is the $`z`$-component of the momentum in the region with large and positive $`z`$ for which the potential $`V(z)`$ vanishes. The function $`\varphi _p(z)`$ satisfies

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dz^2}+V(z)\right]\varphi _p(z)=\frac{p^2}{2m}\varphi _p(z).$$
(27)
This function can be given in the WKB approximation (see, e.g., Ref. Schiff ) as

$$\varphi _p(z)=\sqrt{\frac{p}{\kappa _p(z)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_0^z\kappa _p(z^{})𝑑z^{}+g(z)\right]$$
(28)
with

$$\kappa _p(z)[p^22mV(z)]^{1/2},$$
(29)
where $`g(z)`$ is the correction term of order $`\mathrm{}`$. We let $`g(z)=0`$ to work to lowest nontrivial order in $`\mathrm{}`$. The wave function (28) is normalized so that

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑z\varphi _p^{}(z)^{}\varphi _p(z)=2\pi \mathrm{}\delta (pp^{}).$$
(30)
Strictly speaking, this formula is not correct because the WKB approximation is not valid for some values of $`p`$. However, since we use only the modes for which the WKB approximation is valid, the final result will not be affected even if we formally use this approximation for all range of $`p`$, as we do here. Then, the field $`\psi `$ can be expanded using these modes as

$$\psi (x)=\mathrm{}c\frac{d^3𝐩}{2p_0(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\left[A(𝐩)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(x)+B^{}(𝐩)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(x)^{}\right],$$
(31)
where $`x(t,𝐱)`$, $`𝐩(p,𝐩_{})`$. The modes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(t,𝐱)`$ are orthonormal:

$$i\mathrm{}d^3𝐱\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(t,𝐱)^{}\stackrel{}{_t}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩^{}(t,𝐱)=2p_0(2\pi \mathrm{})^3\delta ^3(𝐩𝐩^{}),$$
(32)
where $`\stackrel{}{_t}\stackrel{}{_t}\stackrel{}{_t}`$. By imposing the usual canonical commutation relations on $`\psi (t,𝐱)`$,

$`[\psi (t,𝐱),_t\psi ^{}(t,𝐱^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}c^2\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱^{}),`$ (33a)
$`[\psi ^{}(t,𝐱),_t\psi (t,𝐱^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}c^2\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱^{}),`$ (33b)
with all other equal-time commutators vanishing, one finds

$`[A(𝐩),A^{}(𝐩^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`2p_0(2\pi \mathrm{})^3\delta ^3(𝐩𝐩^{}),`$ (34a)
$`[B(𝐩),B^{}(𝐩^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`2p_0(2\pi \mathrm{})^3\delta ^3(𝐩𝐩^{}).`$ (34b)
All other commutators of the creation and annihilation operators vanish. The electromagnetic field in the Feynman gauge can be expanded in the usual manner as

$$A_\mu (t,𝐱)=c\frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega (2\pi )^3}[b_\mu (𝐤)e^{i\omega t+i𝐤𝐱}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],$$
(35)
where $`\omega =c𝐤`$. The operators $`b_\mu (𝐤)`$ satisfy

$`[b_\mu (𝐤),b_\nu (𝐤^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (36a)
$`[b_\mu (𝐤),b_\nu ^{}(𝐤^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }2\mathrm{}\omega (2\pi )^3\delta ^3(𝐤𝐤^{}),`$ (36b)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric of the Minkowski spacetime. Notice that we have used the wave number $`𝐤`$ instead of the momentum to label the modes. This is more convenient because the frequency and wave number of the emitted photon are classically well defined, the former being related to how rapidly the acceleration changes. Thus, the momentum of the photon is of order $`\mathrm{}`$.

We perform our calculations with physical polarization vectors $`ϵ^{(j)\mu }(𝐤)`$, $`j=1,2`$, of the photon with wave number $`𝐤`$, which are real and with vanishing time components. We choose them so that $`ϵ^{(2)z}(𝐤)=0`$. It is shown in Appendix A that the calculations using the Fock space with indefinite metric in the Feynman gauge yield the same results. We define the transition amplitude from the initial state consisting of a charged particle with momentum $`𝐩(p,𝐩_{})`$ to the final state consisting of a charged particle with momentum $`𝐏(P,𝐏_{})`$ and a photon with wave number $`𝐤`$ and polarization vector $`ϵ^{(j)\mu }(𝐤)`$ by

$`𝒜(j,𝐤,𝐏,𝐩)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle d^4x0|b^{(j)}(𝐤)A(𝐏)_I(x)A^{}(𝐩)|0},`$
where

$$b^{(j)}(𝐤)ϵ^{(j)\mu }(𝐤)b_\mu (𝐤),$$
(38)
with the following interaction Lagrangian density:

$$_I=\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}A^\mu \left(\psi ^{}_\mu \psi _\mu \psi ^{}\psi \right).$$
(39)
We only need the transition amplitude with the initial state satisfying $`p𝐩_{}`$ because we will use a wave-packet state with this condition satisfied. By a straightforward calculation we find

$`𝒜(j,𝐤,𝐏,𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`ec^2{\displaystyle }dz\{(𝐩_{}+𝐏_{})\mathit{ϵ}_{}^{(j)}(𝐤)\varphi _P(z)^{}\varphi _p(z)`$ (40)
$`i\mathrm{}ϵ^{(j)z}(𝐤)\varphi _P(z)^{}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\varphi _p(z)\}e^{ik_zz}`$
$`\times (2\pi \mathrm{})^3\delta ^2(𝐏_{}+\mathrm{}𝐤_{}𝐩_{})`$
$`\times \delta (P_0+\mathrm{}\omega p_0)`$
with $`𝐤_{}(k^x,k^y)`$, $`\mathit{ϵ}_{}^{(j)}(ϵ^{(j)x},ϵ^{(j)y})`$ and $`\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}\underset{z}{\overset{}{}}`$. We will calculate this transition amplitude to leading order in $`\mathrm{}`$. Since we know on physical grounds that the energy and momentum of the photon emitted are of order $`\mathrm{}`$ and, therefore, much smaller than those of the charged particle, we can assume that $`P𝐏_{}`$ for the final state because of the assumption that $`p𝐩_{}`$ for the initial state. Thus, we neglect the term proportional to $`(𝐩_{}+𝐏_{})\mathit{ϵ}_{}^{(j)}(𝐤)`$ in Eq. (40). Then, to lowest nontrivial order in $`\mathrm{}`$ we find

$`𝒜(j,𝐤,𝐏,𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`ec^2ϵ^{(j)z}(𝐤)G(k_z,P,p)`$ (41)
$`\times (2\pi \mathrm{})^3\delta ^2(𝐏_{}+\mathrm{}𝐤_{}𝐩_{})`$
$`\times \delta (P_0+\mathrm{}\omega p_0),`$
where

$$G(k_z,P,p)𝑑z\varphi _P(z)^{}\left[\kappa _p(z)+\kappa _P(z)\right]\varphi _p(z)e^{ik_zz}.$$
(42)
Next we evaluate the integral $`G(k_z,P,p)`$ to lowest nontrivial order in $`\mathrm{}`$. We keep only the terms which are first-order in $`V(z)`$ because $`G(k_z,P,p)`$ will be squared in the position shift for which we need only the second-order terms. First we note that to first order in $`V(z)`$ we can write

$$G(k_z,P,p)=2\sqrt{Pp}𝑑z\mathrm{exp}\left\{i_0^zK(z^{})𝑑z^{}\right\},$$
(43)
where

$$K(z)\left[\kappa _p(z)\kappa _P(z)\right]/\mathrm{}k_z.$$
(44)
This follows from the fact that $`[\kappa _p(z)/\kappa _P(z)]^{1/2}+[\kappa _P(z)/\kappa _p(z)]^{1/2}2`$ is second-order in $`V(z)`$. Now, for any function $`g(z)`$, one has

$$_a^b𝑑ze^{ig(z)}=i\left[\frac{e^{ig(z)}}{g^{}(z)}\right]_a^bi_a^b𝑑z\frac{g^{\prime \prime }(z)}{\left[g^{}(z)\right]^2}e^{ig(z)}.$$
(45)
We use this formula with $`g(z)=_0^zK(z)𝑑z+iϵ|z|`$, where the term $`iϵ|z|`$ with $`ϵ>0`$ has been inserted to regularize the integral. The boundary terms vanish because one cannot have $`K(z)=0`$ as well as

$`p_0`$ $`=`$ $`P_0+\mathrm{}\omega ,`$ (46a)
$`𝐩_{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐏_{}+\mathrm{}𝐤_{},`$ (46b)
which are enforced by the $`\delta `$-functions in Eq. (41), without violating the mass-shell conditions. Hence we have

$`G(k_z,P,p)`$ $`=`$ $`2i\sqrt{Pp}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}(z)}{\left[K(z)\right]^2}}`$ (47)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle _0^z}K(z^{})𝑑z^{}\right].`$
Let us find a small $`\mathrm{}`$ approximation for $`K(z)`$. By squaring the energy-conservation equation (46a), we find

$$p^2+𝐩_{}^2P^2+𝐏_{}^2+2m\mathrm{}\omega $$
(48)
in the nonrelativistic approximation and to first order in $`\mathrm{}`$. By using the inequality

$$|𝐩_{}^2𝐏_{}^2|𝐩_{}𝐏_{}𝐩_{}+𝐏_{}$$
(49)
and Eq. (46b), we find

$$|𝐩_{}^2𝐏_{}^2|\mathrm{}\omega /c𝐩_{}+𝐏_{}m\mathrm{}\omega .$$
(50)
Using this in Eq. (48) we have

$$p^2P^22m\mathrm{}\omega .$$
(51)
Hence we obtain the following approximate formula:

$$\kappa _p(z)\kappa _P(z)\frac{\kappa _P(z)}{P^2}(p^2P^2)\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{v_p(z)},$$
(52)
where

$$v_p(z)\kappa _p(z)/m=\sqrt{p^22mV(z)}/m$$
(53)
is the speed of the corresponding classical particle. Hence,

$$K(z)\frac{\omega }{v_p(z)}k_z.$$
(54)
Furthermore, since the charged particle is nonrelativistic, we have $`\omega /v_p(z)=c𝐤/v_p(z)k_z`$. Thus,

$$K(z)\frac{\omega }{v_p(z)}.$$
(55)
By substituting Eq. (55) in Eq. (47) and letting $`\sqrt{Pp}p`$, we obtain

$`G(k_z,P,p)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2ip}{\omega }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑zv_p^{}(z)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\omega {\displaystyle _0^z}[v_p(z^{})]^1𝑑z^{}\right\}.`$
(56)
Let us define the function $`T(z)`$ by

$$T_0^z[v_p(z^{})]^1𝑑z^{}+T_0,$$
(57)
where $`T_0`$ is a constant. Then by using

$$dzv_p^{}(z)=dz\frac{dv_p}{dz}=dT\frac{dv_p}{dT}$$
(58)
and noting that $`T\pm \mathrm{}`$ as $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$ because $`v_p(z)`$ is always positive, we obtain

$$G(k_z,P,p)=\frac{2ip}{\omega }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑T\frac{dv_p}{dT}e^{i\omega (TT_0)}.$$
(59)
Now, Eq. (57) implies that $`dz/dT=v_p`$. Thus, the quantity $`T`$ can be identified with the time coordinate of the classical particle if the constant $`T_0`$ is chosen appropriately. Recall that we need to evaluate $`G(k_z,P,p)`$ only to first order in $`V(z)`$. Since the acceleration $`dv_p/dT`$ is first-order in $`V(z)`$, we need to find $`T_0`$ only to zeroth order in $`V(z)`$, i.e. we may neglect the potential. Since $`T=T_0`$ for $`z=0`$, the constant $`T_0`$ is the time when the particle is at $`z=0`$. Letting the particle be at $`z=z_0`$ for $`T=0`$, we have $`z_0/T_0=v_p=p/m`$. Hence $`T_0=mz_0/p`$. By substituting this in Eq. (59) we find

$$G(k_z,P,p)=\frac{2ip}{\omega }\widehat{a}_p(\omega )\mathrm{exp}(im\omega z_0/P),$$
(60)
where the Fourier transform of the acceleration, $`\widehat{a}_p(\omega )`$, is defined by Eq. (18) \[with the identification $`dv_p/dT=\stackrel{~}{a}(t)`$\]. One may replace $`p`$ by $`P`$ and vice versa in Eq. (60) because the difference $`pP`$ is of order $`\mathrm{}`$.

It is instructive to compare this result with the transition amplitude for radiation due to a classical current with the following interaction Lagrangian density:

$$_{I\mathrm{cl}}=(e/c)A_\mu (t,𝐱)j^\mu (t,𝐱).$$
(61)
Here, the current density $`j^\mu (x)`$ is given by

$`j^0(t,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`c\delta ^2(𝐱_{})\delta [zz(t)],`$ (62a)
$`j^z(t,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`v(t)\delta ^2(𝐱_{})\delta [zz(t)]`$ (62b)
with $`j^x(t,𝐱)=j^y(t,𝐱)=0`$, where $`z(t)`$ is the position of the charged particle at time $`t`$ and where $`v(t)=z^{}(t)`$ is its velocity in the $`z`$-direction. The transition amplitude from the zero-photon state $`|0_\gamma `$ to a one-photon state $`b^{(j)}(𝐤)|0_\gamma `$ is

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{cl}}(j,𝐤)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle }d^4x{}_{\gamma }{}^{}0|b^{(j)}(𝐤)_{I\mathrm{cl}}(x)|0_{\gamma }^{}`$
$`=`$ $`eϵ^{(j)z}(𝐤){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑tv(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\omega tik_zz(t)\right].`$
By integrating by parts with a damping factor $`e^{ϵ|t|}`$ and dropping the surface terms because $`\omega k_zv(z)0`$ for all $`z`$, we obtain

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{cl}}(j,𝐤)=ieϵ^{(j)z}(𝐤)\omega _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t\frac{v^{}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\omega tik_zz(t)\right]}{\left[\omega k_zv(t)\right]^2}.$$
(64)
Since $`\omega =c𝐤k_zv(t)`$ and $`\omega tk_zz(t)`$, we find

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{cl}}(j,𝐤)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ieϵ^{(j)z}(𝐤)}{\omega }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑tv^{}(t)e^{i\omega t}`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ieϵ^{(j)z}(𝐤)}{\omega }}\widehat{a}_p(\omega ).`$
Notice the similarity of this expression with Eq. (60). Our result obtained in the small $`\mathrm{}`$ approximation is closely related to the emission process by the corresponding classical particle.

## IV The position shift in quantum electrodynamics

Now, let us consider an initial wave-packet state given by

$$|i=\frac{d^3𝐩}{\sqrt{2p_0}(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}f(𝐩)A^{}(𝐩)|0.$$
(66)
The normalization condition $`i|i=1`$ leads to

$$\frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}|f(𝐩)|^2=1.$$
(67)
The function $`f(𝐩)`$ will be identified later as the nonrelativistic one-particle wave function in the momentum representation. We choose the following form:

$$f(𝐩)=|f(𝐩)|e^{ipz_0/\mathrm{}}$$
(68)
with

$$|f(𝐩)|=N\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(p\overline{p})^2+𝐩_{}^2}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2}\right],$$
(69)
where $`N`$ is the normalization constant. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ and $`\overline{p}(>0)`$ are the width of the wave packet in the momentum space and the average momentum \[in the region with $`V(z)=0`$\], respectively. The constant $`z_0`$ will turn out to be the average $`z`$-coordinate at $`t=0`$. We now assume that $`m^2c^2\overline{p}^2m|V(z)|`$. We also assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }p\overline{p}`$. The transverse momentum $`𝐩_{}`$ is much smaller than $`\overline{p}`$ under this assumption. This wave packet describes a nonrelativistic charged particle moving in the positive $`z`$-direction with its kinetic energy much larger than $`|V(z)|`$. The initial state $`|i`$ given by Eq. (66) leads to the following one-photon final state according to the standard time-dependent perturbation theory in the interaction picture:

$`|f,1\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{2\mathrm{}\omega (2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3𝐏}{2P_0(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}`$ (70)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{\sqrt{2p_0}(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}f(𝐩)𝒜(j,𝐤,𝐏,𝐩)`$
$`\times b^{(j)}(𝐤)A^{}(𝐏)|0,`$
where $`P_0/c\sqrt{m^2c^2+P^2+𝐏_{}^2}`$. The amplitude $`𝒜(j,𝐤,𝐏,𝐩)`$ is defined by Eq. (41) with $`G(k_z,P,p)`$ given by Eq. (60). By substituting Eq. (41) in Eq. (70) and using, for any function $`F(𝐩)`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{\sqrt{2p_0}}F(𝐩)\delta ^2(𝐩_{}+\mathrm{}𝐤_{}𝐏_{})\delta (P_0+\mathrm{}\omega p_0)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2p_0}}{2pc^2}}F(𝐩),`$ (71)
where $`𝐩`$ on the right-hand side is expressed in terms of $`𝐏`$ and $`𝐤`$ through the relations (46), and recalling that $`ϵ^{(2)z}(𝐤)=0`$, we obtain

$`|f,1\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega (2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3𝐏}{2P_0(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{\sqrt{2p_0}}{2p}f(𝐩)}`$ (72)
$`\times ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)G(k_z,P,p)b^{(1)}(𝐤)A^{}(𝐏)|0.`$
Now, from Eq. (51) we have $`pPm\mathrm{}\omega /P`$. By using this approximation in Eq. (68) we find

$$f(𝐩)|f(𝐩)|\mathrm{exp}\left(iPz_0/\mathrm{}im\omega z_0/P\right).$$
(73)
By substituting this equation and Eq. (60) in Eq. (72) we obtain

$`|f,1\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega ^2(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3𝐏}{\sqrt{2P_0}(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}`$ (74)
$`\times |f(𝐩)|\mathrm{exp}\left(iPz_0/\mathrm{}\right)ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)\widehat{a}_p(\omega )`$
$`\times b^{(1)}(𝐤)A^{}(𝐏)|0,`$
where

$$𝐩=(p,𝐩_{})=(P+m\mathrm{}\omega /P,𝐏_{}+\mathrm{}𝐤_{}).$$
(75)
We have approximated $`p_0`$ by $`P_0`$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (74).

The emission probability can be obtained to leading order in $`\mathrm{}`$ from Eq. (74) as

$`𝒫_r`$ $``$ $`f,1\gamma |f,1\gamma `$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega ^3(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3𝐏}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}`$
$`\times |f(𝐩)|^2\left[ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)\right]^2|\widehat{a}_p(\omega )|^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega ^3(2\pi )^3}\left[ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)\right]^2|\widehat{a}_{\overline{p}}(\omega )|^2},`$
where we have used the fact that the function $`|f(𝐩)|`$ is sharply peaked about $`(p,𝐩_{})=(\overline{p},0)`$. Recalling that $`d^3𝐤=d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤\omega ^2d\omega /c^3`$, where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐤`$ is the solid-angle element in the $`𝐤`$ space, and that the average of $`|ϵ^{(j)z}(𝐤)|^2`$ for each value of $`\omega `$ is $`2/3`$, we find

$$𝒫_r=\frac{e^2}{3\pi \mathrm{}c^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi \omega }|\widehat{a}_{\overline{p}}(\omega )|^2.$$
(77)
Notice that this probability is infrared divergent unless $`\widehat{a}_{\overline{p}}(0)=V_{\mathrm{}}/\overline{p}=0`$. However, the expected energy of the photon is finite and is given by

$`E_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{3\pi \mathrm{}c^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi \omega }}\mathrm{}\omega |\widehat{a}_{\overline{p}}(\omega )|^2`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t\left[a_{\overline{p}}(t)\right]^2,`$
where $`a_{\overline{p}}(t)`$ is the acceleration of the corresponding classical particle at time $`t`$. This is nothing but the Larmor formula (16).

For the classical current discussed at the end of the previous section, the one-photon final state is

$`|f,1\gamma _{\mathrm{cl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega (2\pi )^3}𝒜_{\mathrm{cl}}(1,𝐤)b^{(1)}(𝐤)|0_\gamma }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega ^2(2\pi )^3}ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)\widehat{a}_p(\omega )b^{(1)}(𝐤)|0_\gamma }.`$
The emission probability calculated from this state agrees with Eq. (77).

Now, we derive the quantum expression of the position shift to order $`e^2`$ in the small $`\mathrm{}`$ approximation and compare it with the result in the Lorentz-Dirac theory derived in Sec. II. We assume that the constant $`z_0`$ in Eq. (68) is larger than any $`z`$ with $`V(z)0`$ and that the wave packet is far into the region with $`V(z)=0`$ at $`t=0`$. First we note that the expected value of the $`z`$-coordinate at $`t=0`$ with the electromagnetic field turned off is given by

$$z_{t=0}^{\mathrm{off}}=\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\left[f(𝐩)^{}\frac{f(𝐩)}{p}\frac{f(𝐩)^{}}{p}f(𝐩)\right],$$
(80)
where $`f(𝐩)`$ is defined by Eq. (68). This formula can be understood as the statement that the function $`f(𝐩)`$ is the momentum representation of the one-particle wave function. The derivation of Eq. (80) is given in Appendix B. Since

$$\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\left[f(𝐩)^{}\frac{f(𝐩)}{p}\frac{f(𝐩)^{}}{p}f(𝐩)\right]=z_0|f(𝐩)|^2,$$
(81)
we find

$$z_{t=0}^{\mathrm{off}}=z_0.$$
(82)
Next we calculate the expected value of the $`z`$-coordinate at $`t=0`$ with the electromagnetic field turned on. At lowest nontrivial order in $`e`$, the final state can be given as

$$|f=|f,0\gamma +|f,1\gamma ,$$
(83)
where $`|f,1\gamma `$ is the one-photon final state given by Eq. (74) and where the zero-photon final state $`|f,0\gamma `$ can be written as

$$|f,0\gamma =\frac{d^3𝐩}{\sqrt{2p^0}(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}[1+i(𝐩)]f(𝐩)A^{}(𝐩)|0.$$
(84)
We will not explicitly evaluate the one-loop forward-scattering amplitude $`(𝐩)`$, which is of order $`e^2`$. The expected value of the $`z`$-coordinate at $`t=0`$ is the sum of the zero-photon and one-photon contributions. The zero-photon contribution, $`z_{t=0}^{(0)}`$, can be obtained by replacing $`f(𝐩)`$ by $`[1+i(𝐩)]f(𝐩)`$ in Eq. (80). The result is

$$z_{t=0}^{(0)}=\frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}|f_𝐩|^2\left[z_0(12\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m})\mathrm{}\frac{}{p}\mathrm{Re}\right],$$
(85)
where we have written $`f(𝐩)f_𝐩`$ and used Eq. (81). The contribution from the one-photon state, $`z_{t=0}^{(1)}`$, is similar except that one needs to trace over the photon states. Recall that we have calculated $`G(k_z,P,p)`$ in Eq. (60) to lowest order in $`\mathrm{}`$. We define $`\widehat{a}_1(𝐤,𝐩)`$ as a quantity such that the expression for $`G(k_z,P,p)`$ in that equation will be valid to next order in $`\mathrm{}`$ if $`ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)\widehat{a}_p(\omega )`$ is replaced by it. (Introduction of $`\widehat{a}_1(𝐤,𝐩)`$ is necessary because $`z_{t=0}^{(0)}`$ and $`z_{t=0}^{(1)}`$ are of order $`\mathrm{}^1`$.) Then, we have, to order $`\mathrm{}^0`$,

$`z_{t=0}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega ^3(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3𝐏}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}`$
$`\times \left[\right|\widehat{a}_1(𝐤,𝐩)|^2(f_𝐩^{}{\displaystyle \frac{f_𝐩}{P}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_𝐩^{}}{P}}f_𝐩)`$
$`+|ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)|^2\left|f_𝐩\right|^2`$
$`\times (\widehat{a}_p(\omega )^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_p(\omega )}{P}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_p(\omega )^{}}{P}}\widehat{a}_p(\omega ))],`$
where $`𝐩`$ is related to $`𝐏`$ by Eq. (75). The integration variables $`𝐏`$ can be changed to $`𝐩`$ if we change the derivative $`/P`$ to $`/p`$ at the same time. Then by using Eq. (81) again we find

$`z_{t=0}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩|f_𝐩|^2}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega ^3(2\pi )^3}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^2z_0}{\mathrm{}}}\right|\widehat{a}_1(𝐤,𝐩)|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{2}}|ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)|^2`$
$`\times (\widehat{a}_p(\omega )^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_p(\omega )}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{a}_p(\omega )^{}}{p}}\widehat{a}_p(\omega ))],`$
Unitarity implies that $`f,0\gamma |f,0\gamma +f,1\gamma |f,1\gamma =1`$ at order $`e^2`$. This results in the following relation:

$$2\mathrm{Im}=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{d^3𝐤}{2\omega ^3(2\pi )^3}|\widehat{a}_1(𝐤,𝐩)|^2.$$
(88)
Both sides are equal to the emission probability, which is given by Eq. (77) at leading order in $`\mathrm{}`$. By adding $`z_{t=0}^{(0)}`$ and $`z_{t=0}^{(1)}`$ given by Eqs. (85) and (LABEL:one-ph), respectively, using Eq. (88) and recalling that the function $`f_𝐩`$ is sharply peaked about $`(p,𝐩)=(\overline{p},0)`$ we have

$`z_{t=0}`$ $``$ $`z_0\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}\mathrm{Re}|_{p=\overline{p},𝐩_{}=0}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤|ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)|^2}{2\omega ^3(2\pi )^3}}`$
$`\times \left[\widehat{a}_p(\omega )^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}\widehat{a}_p(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}\widehat{a}_p(\omega )^{}\widehat{a}_p(\omega )\right]_{p=\overline{p}}.`$
Now we note that the classical acceleration depends on $`p`$ and $`t`$ through $`z=pt/m+z_0`$. \[One can use the free-particle approximation here because the last term in Eq. (LABEL:intmed), where $`\widehat{a}_p(\omega )`$ appears, is already second-order in $`V(z)`$.\] Thus,

$$\left(t\frac{}{t}p\frac{}{p}\right)_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\widehat{a}_p(\omega )e^{i\omega t}=0.$$
(90)
Then we find

$$\frac{}{p}\widehat{a}_p(\omega )=\frac{1}{p}\widehat{a}_p(\omega )\frac{\omega }{p}\frac{}{\omega }\widehat{a}_p(\omega ).$$
(91)
From this formula and the fact that $`\widehat{a}_p(\omega )=\widehat{a}_p(\omega )^{}`$ \[because the acceleration is real\], we obtain

$`z_{t=0}`$ $``$ $`z_0\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}\mathrm{Re}|_{p=\overline{p},𝐩_{}=0}`$ (92)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{6\pi pc^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\widehat{a}_{\overline{p}}(\omega )^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega }}\widehat{a}_{\overline{p}}(\omega ).`$
The forward-scattering amplitude $``$ arises in the one-loop diagram without photon emission. Therefore, the second term in Eq. (92) comes from the quantum correction to the potential rather than from the reaction to radiation. (We will discuss this term in the next section.) Thus, the position shift due to radiation can be given as

$`\delta z|_{t=0}^{\mathrm{Quantum}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2}{6\pi pc^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\widehat{a}_{\overline{p}}(\omega )^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega }}\widehat{a}_{\overline{p}}(\omega )`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{p}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ttP_r(t),`$
where $`P_r(t)`$ given by Eq. (16) is the power radiated.

One can readily see that Eq. (93) does not agree with Eq. (20) derived in the Lorentz-Dirac theory. However, these equations would be identical if we removed the first term proportional to $`\mathrm{log}(v_f/v_i)`$ from Eq. (20). This term can be traced back to the term proportional to $`v\dot{v}`$ in Eq. (10) which has arisen due to the substitution $`\ddot{v}v=d(\dot{v}v)/dt\dot{v}^2`$. Therefore, Eq. (93) is reproduced in the classical theory by modifying the energy-conservation equation (9) as

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\frac{1}{2}mv^2+V(z)\right]=\frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}\dot{v}^2=P_r(t).$$
(94)
This formula can be interpreted as stating that the energy of the charged particle is lost through radiation at each time. In other words, the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit of scalar QED at order $`e^2`$ can be reproduced by classical electrodynamics if momentum conservation is disregarded and energy conservation is used at each moment of time, as far as the position shift is concerned. This seems reasonable because in the quantum theory the energy is conserved in the rest frame determined by the potential $`V(z)`$ but the momentum is not conserved since the potential is $`z`$-dependent.

## V Some comments on the forward-scattering amplitude

The imaginary part $`\mathrm{Im}`$ of the forward-scattering amplitude is related to the photon emission probability by unitarity, as we mentioned before. The real part $`\mathrm{Re}`$ represents the quantum correction to the potential (which may be nonlocal). To illustrate this fact let us compute the forward-scattering amplitude due to a slight change in the potential in the form $`V(z)V(z)+\delta V(z)`$, with $`\delta V(z)`$ regarded as perturbation. We find

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2mc^2}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐏}{2P_0(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}d^4x\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐏^{}\delta V(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩}`$ (95)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{}p}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z\delta V(z)`$
to lowest order in $`V(z)`$ and $`\delta V(z)`$. The position shift due to this change in the potential is

$$\mathrm{}\frac{}{p}\mathrm{Re}=\frac{m}{p^2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑z\delta V(z).$$
(96)
It can readily be verified that the position shift is given by the same formula in the classical theory. We have not been able to find $`\mathrm{Re}`$ to order $`\mathrm{}^0`$ in our model but will show that the quantum correction to the potential is of order $`\mathrm{}^1`$. This will imply that the electromagnetic correction to the potential at order $`e^2`$ cannot be obtained in the classical theory.

Since the potential is part of the mass term in our model, its quantum correction is related to the mass renormalization. If we let $`V(z)=0`$ in the mass function given by

$$[m^2c^2+2mV(z)]/\mathrm{}^2[m(z)]^2c^2/\mathrm{}^2,$$
(97)
its quantum correction can be computed in the dimensional regularization with $`D=42ϵ`$ as

$$\delta m^2=\frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2\mathrm{}c}m^2\left(\frac{3}{ϵ}3\gamma +73\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}\right),$$
(98)
where $`\mu `$ is the renormalization scale and $`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant. The mass function is corrected according to this formula for large and positive $`z`$ for which $`V(z)=0`$. For large and negative $`z`$, the squared mass is $`m^2+2mV_{\mathrm{}}/c^2`$. Therefore the quantum correction to the mass term is obtained by replacing $`m^2`$ by this value in Eq. (98). This implies that the difference between the quantum corrections to the potential at $`z=\pm \mathrm{}`$ is of order $`\mathrm{}^1`$. Hence, this correction cannot be obtained in classical electrodynamics <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 The corresponding correction to the forward-scattering amplitude is of order $`\mathrm{}^2`$. Since the imaginary part of $``$ is of order $`\mathrm{}^1`$, the correction to the potential does not have an imaginary part at leading order in $`\mathrm{}`$..

If the potential is slowly varying so that the WKB approximation is valid, it is reasonable to expect that the quantum correction to the mass term at leading order in $`\mathrm{}`$ is obtained by replacing $`m^2`$ by $`[m(z)]^2`$ in Eq. (98) for all $`z`$. Then,

$$\delta [m(z)]^2=\frac{e^2[m(z)]^2}{16\pi ^2\mathrm{}c}\left(\frac{3}{ϵ}3\gamma +73\mathrm{ln}\frac{[m(z)]^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}\right).$$
(99)
The quantum correction to the potential can be expressed by using this formula and Eq. (98) as

$`\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{V(z)}{mc^2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{[m(z)]^2}{m^2}}\right)`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e^2}{32\pi ^2\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle \frac{[m(z)]^2}{m^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{[m(z)]^2}{m^2}}`$
to lowest order in $`e^2`$. Since the acceleration is $`V^{}(z)/m`$, this formula shows that the correction to the acceleration is ultraviolet finite at leading order in $`\mathrm{}`$.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper we studied a wave packet of a charged scalar particle moving in the $`z`$-direction and accelerated by a potential which depends only on $`z`$. Our main conclusion is that, in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$, the position shift due to the reaction to radiation agrees not with the formula in the Lorentz-Dirac theory but with that obtained by assuming that the kinetic energy is lost to radiation according to the Larmor formula at each moment of time, at leading order in $`e^2`$ and in the nonrelativistic approximation. It will be interesting to study a more general system and see if the result obtained here can be generalized.

Finally, let us discuss the magnitude of the position shift in comparison with the width of the wave packet. As we have seen in the introduction, the position shift may be much smaller than indicated by the fact that it is of order $`\mathrm{}^0`$. First we note that the first term in Eq. (17), which represents the discrepancy between the Lorentz-Dirac theory and the quantum theory, is in fact much smaller than the Compton wavelength of the particle:

$$\frac{e^2}{6\pi mc^3}v_f\mathrm{log}\frac{v_f}{v_i}=\frac{2\alpha \mathrm{}}{3mc}\left(\frac{v_f}{c}\right)\mathrm{log}\frac{v_f}{v_i}\frac{\mathrm{}}{mc}.$$
(101)
Thus, it is much smaller than the width of any nonrelativistic wave packet. Hence, this term would be practically unobservable even if it was present. The second term, which is the position shift in the quantum theory, grows linearly as a function of the time $`|T_0|`$ after the acceleration has taken place. For large $`|T_0|`$ this term is approximately $`E_r|T_0|/p`$, where $`E_r`$ is the classical energy of the radiation. If the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ of the wave packet is narrowest with $`\mathrm{\Delta }z\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ when the particle is going through acceleration <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2The wave packet (68) is narrowest at $`t=0`$ when the position is measured. One can make this wave packet more general so that the case considered here, which is more realistic, is included by changing the factor $`e^{ipz_0/\mathrm{}}`$ to $`e^{ih(p)/\mathrm{}}`$ with $`h^{}(\overline{p})=z_0`$. The position shift will be unchanged with this modification., then after time $`|T_0|`$ its square behaves like $`(\mathrm{\Delta }z)^2(\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }p)^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }p/m)^2|T_0|^2`$. The second term dominates for large enough $`|T_0|`$. Therefore, in theory, one can make the position shift larger than the width of the wave packet by making $`|T_0|`$ large and letting $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p<\frac{mE_r}{p}\frac{\alpha \mathrm{}ma^2t_a}{pc^2},$$
(102)
where $`a`$ is the typical acceleration and where $`t_a`$ is the duration of the acceleration <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3Since the second term in Eq. (17) is the lowest-order term in $`V(z)`$ that grows linearly in $`|T_0|`$, the fact that it is much larger than the first term, which is of lower order in $`V(z)`$, does not imply that our approximation breaks down since the latter is independent of $`|T_0|`$.. Then, with $`p=mv`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }z\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}\frac{1}{\alpha }\left(\frac{c}{at_a}\right)^2z_az_a,$$
(103)
where $`z_a=vt_a`$ is the length of the interval in $`z`$ where the acceleration occurs. Thus, the wave packet would be much wider than the region of acceleration if the position shift were to be larger, in theory, than the width of the wave packet at a later time.

## VII Erratum

In finding the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit of the scattering amplitude \[Eq. (59)\] we erroneously discarded surface terms. We correct this error here. This correction changes our conclusion completely: the position shift in the Lorentz-Dirac theory agrees with that in quantum field theory in the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit.

Since the function $`K(z)`$ in Eq. (43) can be approximated in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ by $`\omega /v_p(z)`$ \[see Eq. (55)\] we have

$`G(k_z,P,p)`$ $`=`$ $`2p{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle _0^z}\omega /v_p(z^{})𝑑z^{}\right)`$ (104)
$`=`$ $`2p{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}v_p(t)e^{i\omega t}.`$
(Note that $`Pp`$ in the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit.) Since this integral is ill-defined, we insert a damping factor $`\chi (t)`$ which takes the value 1 while $`a_p(t)=v_p^{}(t)0`$ and goes to zero smoothly as $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$. Thus,

$$G(k_z,P,p)=2p_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}v_p(t)\chi (t)e^{i\omega t}.$$
(105)
The quantity $`\widehat{a}_p(\omega )`$ in Eq. (LABEL:intmed) needs to be replaced by

$$i\omega _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}v_p(t)\chi (t)e^{i\omega t}=\widehat{a}_p(\omega )+_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}v_p(t)\chi ^{}(t)e^{i\omega t}.$$

Then the contribution of radiation reaction to the position shift is

$`z_{t=0}^{\mathrm{rad}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}`$
$`\times \left[\widehat{a}_p(\omega )+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}v_p(t^{})\chi ^{}(t^{})e^{i\omega t^{}}𝑑t^{}\right]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dt{\displaystyle \frac{v_p(t)}{p}}\chi (t)e^{i\omega t}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{6\pi c^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t`$
$`\times \left\{a_p(t){\displaystyle \frac{v_p(t)}{p}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_p(t){\displaystyle \frac{v_p(t)}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[\chi (t)\right]^2\right\}.`$
The quantity $`v_p(t)/p`$ can be found as follows. Note that

$$t=_{z_0}^z\frac{m}{\sqrt{p^22mV(\xi )}}𝑑\xi $$
(107)
and hence

$$dt=\frac{1}{v_p(t)}dz_p\frac{v_f}{m}\left(_0^t\frac{d\tau }{\left[v_p(\tau )\right]^2}\right)dp.$$
(108)
This can be re-arranged as

$$dz_p=v_p(t)dt+\frac{v_f}{m}v_p(t)\left(_0^t\frac{d\tau }{\left[v_p(\tau )\right]^2}\right)dp.$$
(109)
By using equality of mixed partial derivatives,

$$\frac{}{p}\left(\frac{z_p}{t}\right)=\frac{}{t}\left(\frac{z_p}{p}\right),$$
(110)
we obtain

$$\frac{}{p}v_p(t)=\frac{v_f}{m}\left[\frac{1}{v_p(t)}+a_p(t)_0^t\frac{d\tau }{\left[v_p(\tau )\right]^2}\right].$$
(111)
By substituting this in Eq. (LABEL:crit) we find

$`z_{t=0}^{\mathrm{rad}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2v_f}{6\pi mc^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t`$
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{a_p(t)}{v_p(t)}}+\left[a_p(t)\right]^2{\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\left[v_p(\tau )\right]^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[a_p(t){\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\left[v_p(\tau )\right]^2}}\right]\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2v_f}{6\pi mc^3}}\{\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{v_f}{v_i}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\left[v_p(\tau )\right]^2}}\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\tau }\left[a_p(t)\right]^2dt\right)\},`$
where we have used the assumption that $`a_p(t)=0`$ if $`t0`$. This is exactly the formula obtained by integrating Eq. (12) found using the Lorentz-Dirac theory from $`t=\mathrm{}`$ to $`t=0`$. Notice that we did not use the assumption that $`2m|V(z)|p^2`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks Bernard Julia and Mitch Pfenning for useful discussions and the anonymous referee for helpful comments.

## Appendix A Calculations without choosing physical polarization states

If we do not use physical polarization states for photons and stick to the Fock space with indefinite metric for the Feynman gauge, the one-photon final state is not given by Eq. (70) but by

$`|f,1\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{2\mathrm{}\omega (2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3𝐏}{2P_0(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{d^3𝐩}{\sqrt{2p_0}(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}`$ (113)
$`\times f(𝐩)𝒜^\mu (𝐤;𝐏;𝐩)b_\mu ^{}(𝐤)A^{}(𝐏)|0,`$
where

$$𝒜_\mu (𝐤;𝐏;𝐩)=ie\mathrm{}c^2𝑑td^3𝐱\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐏(t,𝐱)^{}\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(t,𝐱).$$
(114)
One may assume that $`𝐏_{}`$ and $`𝐩_{}`$ are negligibly small as before. Let us define $`G_\mu (k_z,P,p)`$ by

$`𝒜_\mu (𝐤,𝐏,𝐩)`$
$`ec^2G_\mu (k_z,P,p)`$
$`\times (2\pi \mathrm{})^3\delta ^2(𝐏_{}+\mathrm{}𝐤_{}𝐩_{})\delta (P_0+\mathrm{}\omega p_0).`$
It is clear that $`G_x`$ and $`G_y`$ are negligibly small and that $`G_0`$ and $`G_z`$ are independent of the direction of $`𝐤_{}`$. We have

$$G_z(k_z,P,p)=G(k_z,P,p),$$
(116)
where $`G(k_z,P,p)`$ is defined by Eq. (42). The $`0`$-component $`G_0(k_z,P,p)`$ is

$`G_0(k_z,P,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{Pp}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0+P_0}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\left[\kappa _P(z)\kappa _p(z)\right]^{1/2}}}`$ (117)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle _0^z}K(z^{})𝑑z^{}\right],`$
where $`K(z)`$ is defined by Eq. (44). Using a formula similar to Eq. (45), we arrive at

$`G_0(k_z,P,p)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{Pp}{\displaystyle \frac{p_0+P_0}{c}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z}`$ (118)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}\left\{\left[\kappa _P(z)\kappa _p(z)\right]^{1/2}K(z)\right\}^1`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle _0^z}K(z^{})𝑑z^{}\right].`$
At lowest order in $`\mathrm{}`$ we can let $`P=p`$, $`P_0=p_0`$, $`\kappa _P(z)=\kappa _p(z)mv_p(z)`$ and use the approximation (54). Thus, we find

$`G_0(k_z,P,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ipp_0}{c}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{k_zv_p^{}(z)}{m\left[\omega v_p(z)k_z\right]^2}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle _0^z}\left[\omega /v_p(z^{})k_z\right]𝑑z^{}\right\}.`$
Then, by letting $`p_0=mc^2`$ and $`k_z=0`$ on the right-hand side \[because $`\omega v_p(z)k_z`$\] and comparing the result with Eq. (56) we find

$$G_0(k_z,P,p)=\frac{ck_z}{\omega }G(k_z,P,p).$$
(120)
Thus, the only difference between the calculations here and those in Secs. III and IV is that the factor $`|ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)G(k_z,P,p)|^2`$ is replaced here by $`G_\mu (k_z,P,p)G^\mu (k_z,P,p)=(1k_z^2c^2/\omega ^2)|G(k_z,P,p)|^2`$ in the $`𝐤`$-integral for the final results. For a given $`\omega `$ the average of $`1k_z^2c^2/\omega ^2`$ over the solid angle is $`2/3`$. Since the average of $`|ϵ^{(1)z}(𝐤)|^2`$ is also $`2/3`$, we arrive at the same transition probability (77) and position shift (93).

## Appendix B A derivation of the position expectation value

In this Appendix we derive Eq. (80) which was used to find the expected value of the $`z`$-coordinate of the particle. A systematic method to obtain a wave function for a one-particle state in the scalar field theory has been given by Feshbach and Villars FV ; Dav . We will not use this method explicitly, but the derivation we describe here is based on the idea spelled out in Ref. FV .

Recall that the charge density operator is

$$\rho =\frac{i}{\mathrm{}c^2}\left(\psi ^{}_t\psi \psi _t\psi ^{}\right).$$
(121)
Let us define

$$\rho _i(t,𝐱)i|\rho (t,𝐱)|i,$$
(122)
where the state $`|i`$ is defined by Eq. (66). Since this state is a one-particle state, the charge density $`\rho _i(t,𝐱)`$ coincides with the probability density function for the position of the particle at each time up to a normalization factor (which will turn out to be one). By a straightforward calculation we find

$$\rho _i(t,𝐱)=i\mathrm{}\varphi _i(t,𝐱)^{}\stackrel{}{_t}\varphi _i(t,𝐱),$$
(123)
where

$`\varphi _i(t,𝐱)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}0|\psi (t,𝐱)|i`$ (124)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{\sqrt{2p_0}(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}f(𝐩)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(t,𝐱)}.`$
Then it follows from orthonormality (32) of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(t,𝐱)`$ and the normalization condition (67) for $`f(𝐩)`$ that

$$d^3𝐱\rho _i(t,𝐱)=1.$$
(125)
Thus, the function $`\rho _i(t,𝐱)`$ is the normalized probability density function for the position of the particle. By substituting Eq. (124) in Eq. (123) we obtain

$`\rho _i(t,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{d^3𝐩^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\left(\sqrt{\frac{p_0^{}}{p_0}}+\sqrt{\frac{p_0}{p_0^{}}}\right)}`$ (126)
$`\times f(𝐩^{})^{}f(𝐩)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩^{}(t,𝐱)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(t,𝐱),`$
where $`p_0`$ is defined by Eq. (26) with $`p_0^{}`$ similarly defined.

The expected value of the $`z`$-coordinate at $`t=0`$ is

$$z_{t=0}^{\mathrm{off}}=d^3𝐱z\rho _i(0,𝐱).$$
(127)
By using the assumption that the wave packet is located far into the region where $`V(z)=0`$ at $`t=0`$ we may approximate the mode function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(0,𝐱)`$ at $`t=0`$ in Eq. (126) as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(0,𝐱)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\left(pz+𝐩_{}𝐱_{}\right)\right].$$
(128)
With this approximation we can write

$$z\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(0,𝐱)i\mathrm{}\frac{}{p}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(0,𝐱).$$
(129)
By substituting this formula in Eq. (127) and integrating by parts we find

$`z_{t=0}^{\mathrm{off}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{d^3𝐩^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{}{p}\left[\left(\sqrt{\frac{p_0}{p_0^{}}}+\sqrt{\frac{p_0^{}}{p_0}}\right)f(𝐩^{})^{}f(𝐩)\right]d^3𝐱\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩^{}(0,𝐱)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐩(0,𝐱)}`$ (130)
$`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\frac{d^3𝐩^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p_0^{}p_0}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p_0^{}}{p_0^3}}}\right)f(𝐩^{})^{}f(𝐩)+f(𝐩^{})^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p}}f(𝐩)\right](2\pi \mathrm{})^3\delta ^3(𝐩𝐩^{})`$
$`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}f(𝐩)^{}\frac{}{p}f(𝐩)}.`$
We immediately obtain Eq. (80) from this formula by integration by parts.