text:
# Quantum critical behavior in disordered itinerant ferromagnets: Instability of the ferromagnetic phase

## I Introduction

In two recent papers,Belitz et al. (2001a, b) hereafter denoted by I and II, respectively, an effective field theory has been developed that describes the quantum ferromagnetic transition in disordered itinerant electron systems, and the exact critical behavior was determined for all spatial dimensions $`d>2`$. Soft modes in addition to the order parameter fluctuations, viz., diffusive particle-hole excitations (“diffusons”), were found to play a crucial role in the determination of the critical behavior. This theory studied the transition as it is approached from the paramagnetic phase. The critical behavior in the ferromagnetic phase, in particular the exponent $`\beta `$, was obtained from scaling arguments. This raises the following question: In the ferromagnetic phase of a Heisenberg magnet, the existence of spin waves, which are the Goldstone modes that result from the spontaneous breaking of the rotational symmetry in spin space, changes the soft-mode spectrum compared to the paramagnetic phase. Given the importance of the soft modes for the critical behavior, will the Goldstone modes invalidate the scaling arguments based on a theory for the paramagnetic phase?

A related question follows from the fact that the Goldstone modes, contrary to the soft particle-hole excitations, exist at nonzero temperature as well as at $`T=0`$. Therefore, if there were an observable whose leading critical behavior depended on the Goldstone modes, then one would expect that observable to exhibit classical critical behavior on the ferromagnetic side of the phase transition, even at temperatures low enough for the system to otherwise exhibit quantum critical behavior. In such a case, the scaling arguments used in II might still be formally correct, but their region of validity would vanish.

In the present paper we investigate the validity of the scaling arguments used before. We will find that they were correct, and the critical behavior obtained in II was indeed exact, even on the ferromagnetic side of the transition. To this end, we develop the ferromagnetic analog of the theory described in I and II. The general strategy is to derive a theory that expresses the system in terms of the order parameter fluctuations, and any other soft modes that couple to them. We then analyze the resulting theory to determine the critical behavior of the system as it approaches the transition from the ferromagnetic phase.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we present a simple generalized mean-field theory that allows an explicit description of the ferromagnetic phase based on the theory developed in I. Its results agree with those obtained in II, except that it does not reproduce the logarithmic corrections to power-law scaling found in the latter paper. In Sec. III we present and motivate an effective action for itinerant quantum ferromagnets that describes the instability of the ferromagnetic phase. This action is analyzed by means of renormalization-group methods in Sec. IV. It is shown that the generalized mean-field theory yields indeed the exact critical behavior except for logarithms. In Sec. V we summarize and discuss our results. Several technical points related to a derivation of the effective action from a microscopic model are relegated to an appendix.

## II Generalized mean-field theory

In this section we present a simple way to obtain an approximate theory for the ferromagnetic phase from the formalism of I. It will turn out that this simple theory produces essentially the correct result, and the technically more involved development in the later sections will serve to show this.

### II.1 A simplified effective action

We recall that the effective action $`𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in I took the form of a Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson (LGW) functional of the order parameter field $`𝑴`$, a generalized nonlinear sigma-model for the soft fermionic degrees of freedom $`q`$, and a term that couples these fields,

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝒜_{\mathrm{LGW}}[𝑴]+𝒜_{\mathrm{NL}\sigma \mathrm{M}}[q]+𝒜_\mathrm{c}[𝑴,q].$$
(1)
We simplify the expressions given in I for these terms by making a mean-field approximation for the order parameter field, i.e., we replace the fluctuating vector field $`𝑴`$ by its expectation value, which is characterized by a number $`m`$,

$`𝑴^\alpha (𝒙,\tau )`$ $``$ $`𝑴^\alpha (𝒙,\tau )=m\widehat{z},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{i}M_{n}^{\alpha }(𝒌)`$ $``$ $`\delta _{i3}\delta _{n0}\sqrt{V/T}m.`$ (2)
Here $`(𝒙,\tau )`$ denote the dependence of $`𝑴`$ on real space and imaginary time, $`𝒌`$ and $`n`$ are the wavevector and the Matsubara frequency index, respectively, of the Fourier transform of $`𝑴`$, $`\alpha `$ is a replica index, $`V`$ denotes the system volume, and we have assumed that the magnetization orders in the $`z`$ or $`3`$-direction. With this approximation, the LGW part of the action becomes simply a Landau theory,

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{LGW}}\frac{V}{T}\left[\frac{t}{2}m^2+\frac{u}{4}m^4+O(m^6)\right].$$
(3)
The coupling term in the action (Eq. (2.25c) in I) simplifies to

$`𝒜_\mathrm{c}`$ $``$ $`m\sqrt{\pi K_t}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{r=0,3}{}(\sqrt{1})^r}`$ (4)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\text{tr}\left[(\tau _rs_3)\widehat{Q}_{mm}^{\alpha ,\alpha }(𝒙)\right].`$
Here $`K_t`$ is the spin-triplet interaction amplitude of the underlying fermionic model; the spin-triplet interaction term has been decoupled by introducing the Hubbard-Stratonovich field $`𝑴`$. $`\widehat{Q}`$ is a composite fieldBelitz and Kirkpatrick (1997) that originates from the fermion variables, 111We use the notation, $`ab`$ for “$`a`$ approximately equals $`b`$”, $`ab`$ for “$`a`$ is isomorphic to $`b`$”, and $`ab`$ for “$`a`$ scales like $`b`$”.

$`Q_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\psi _1\overline{\psi }_2& \psi _1\overline{\psi }_2& \psi _1\psi _2& \psi _1\psi _2\\ \psi _1\overline{\psi }_2& \psi _1\overline{\psi }_2& \psi _1\psi _2& \psi _1\psi _2\\ \overline{\psi }_1\overline{\psi }_2& \overline{\psi }_1\overline{\psi }_2& \overline{\psi }_1\psi _2& \overline{\psi }_1\psi _2\\ \overline{\psi }_1\overline{\psi }_2& \overline{\psi }_1\overline{\psi }_2& \overline{\psi }_1\psi _2& \overline{\psi }_1\psi _2\end{array}\right).`$ (5e)
(5f)
Here the $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ are the fermionic, i.e., Grassmann-valued fields that provide the basic description of the electrons,Negele and Orland (1988) and all fields are understood to be taken at position $`𝒙`$. The indices $`1`$, $`2`$, etc. denote the dependence of the Grassmann fields on fermionic Matsubara frequencies $`\omega _{n_1}=2\pi T(n_1+1/2)`$ and replica indices $`\alpha _1`$, etc., and the arrows denote the spin projection. It is convenient to expand the $`4\times 4`$ matrix in Eq. (5f) in a spin-quaternion basis,Efetov et al. (1980)
$$Q_{12}=\underset{r,i=0}{\overset{3}{}}(\tau _rs_i){}_{r}{}^{i}Q_{12}^{},$$
(5g)
with $`\tau _0=s_0=𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚}`$ the $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix, and $`\tau _j=s_j=i\sigma _j`$, $`(j=1,2,3)`$, with $`\sigma _{1,2,3}`$ the Pauli matrices. In this basis, $`i=0`$ and $`i=1,2,3`$ describe the spin-singlet and spin-triplet degrees of freedom, respectively. The $`r=0,3`$ components correspond to the particle-hole channel (i.e., products of $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$), while $`r=1,2`$ describe the particle-particle channel (i.e., products of $`\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }`$ or $`\psi \psi `$). For our purposes the latter are not important, and we therefore drop the $`r=1,2`$ from the spin-quaternion basis, as was done in I and II. In terms of the remaining fields, the spin density can be expressed as
$`n_\mathrm{s}^i(𝒙,i\mathrm{\Omega }_n)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{T}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}\overline{\psi }_{m,a}(𝒙)\sigma _{ab}^i\psi _{m+n,b}(𝒙)`$
$`=\sqrt{T}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=0,3}{}}(\sqrt{1})^r\text{tr}\left[(\tau _rs_i)Q_{m,m+n}(𝒙)\right],`$
and the magnetization couples linearly to the spin density, cf. Eq. (4). The difference between $`Q`$ and $`\widehat{Q}`$ is that the former contains all fermionic degrees of freedom, while the latter contains the soft fermion excitations only. The latter can be parametrized in terms of a matrix field $`q`$,Belitz and Kirkpatrick (1997); Belitz et al. (2001a)
$$\widehat{Q}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{1qq^{}}& q\\ q^{}& \sqrt{1q^{}q}\end{array}\right).$$
(5i)
The elements of this block matrix, clockwise from upper left, denote those elements of $`\widehat{Q}`$ that have frequency labels $`n_1,n_2>0`$; $`n_1>0,n_2<0`$; $`n_1,n_2<0`$; and $`n_1<0,n_2>0`$, respectively.

The nonlinear sigma-model can be expressed in terms of $`\widehat{Q}`$ asWegner (1979); Efetov et al. (1980); Finkelstein (1983); Belitz and Kirkpatrick (1997); Belitz et al. (2001a)

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{NL}\sigma \mathrm{M}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2G}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\text{tr}\left(\widehat{Q}(𝒙)\right)^2}`$ (6a)
$`+2H{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\text{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{Q}(𝒙)\right)}+𝒜_{\mathrm{int}}^{(s)}[\widehat{Q}],`$
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a frequency matrix with elements
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}=\left(\tau _0s_0\right)\delta _{12}\omega _{n_1}.$$
(6b)
The coupling constants $`G`$ and $`H`$ are proportional to the inverse conductivity and the specific heat coefficient, respectively. $`𝒜_{\mathrm{int}}^{(s)}`$ is the spin-singlet interaction,
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{int}}^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi TK_\mathrm{s}}{4}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\underset{r=0,3}{}(1)^r\underset{n_1,n_2,m}{}\underset{\alpha }{}}`$ (6c)
$`\times \left[\text{tr}\left((\tau _rs_0)\widehat{Q}_{n_1,n_1+m}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝒙)\right)\right]`$
$`\times \left[\text{tr}\left((\tau _rs_0)\widehat{Q}_{n_2+m,n_2}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝒙)\right)\right],`$
with a coupling constant $`K_\mathrm{s}`$. At the level of the bare effective action, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{NL}\sigma \mathrm{M}}`$ does not contain any spin-triplet interaction term, since the Hubbard-Stratonovich decoupling turned the latter into the terms containing $`𝑴`$. For later reference we note, however, that under renormalization a spin-triplet interaction will be generated as long as $`K_s0`$. We therefore add to the action a term
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{int}}^{(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi T\stackrel{~}{K}_t}{4}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\underset{r=0,3}{}(1)^r\underset{n_1,n_2,m}{}\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}`$ (6d)
$`\times \left[\text{tr}\left((\tau _rs_i)\widehat{Q}_{n_1,n_1+m}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝒙)\right)\right]`$
$`\times \left[\text{tr}\left((\tau _rs_i)\widehat{Q}_{n_2+m,n_2}^{\alpha \alpha }(𝒙)\right)\right],`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{K}_t`$ the spin-triplet interaction constant generated by renormalization.

### II.2 Generalized Landau theory

We now can obtain a generalized mean-field or Landau free energy density, $`f(m)`$, that takes into account the effects of the fermionic soft modes by formally integrating out $`q`$,

$$f(m)=\underset{N0}{lim}\frac{T}{VN}\mathrm{ln}D[q]e^{𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}},$$
(7)
with $`N`$ the number of replicas. Since $`𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ contains $`q`$ to all orders, the integral in Eq. (7) can be performed only in terms of a loop expansion. The lowest-order term is obtained by expanding $`\widehat{Q}`$ to second order in $`q`$. The integration can then be done exactly. The Gaussian propagators that are needed for this calculation have been given in I (the generalization to the case $`\stackrel{~}{K}_t0`$ is straightforward, and can also be found in Ref. Belitz and Kirkpatrick, 1994), and we therefore only give the result,

$$f(m)f(m=0)+\frac{t}{2}m^2+\frac{u}{4}m^4+\frac{2}{V}\underset{𝒌}{}T\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\left(𝒌^2+G(H+\stackrel{~}{K}_t)\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right)^2+\pi G^2K_tm^2}{(𝒌^2+GH\mathrm{\Omega }_n)^2+\pi G^2K_tm^2}\right).$$
(8)
By minimizing $`f(m)`$ with respect to $`m`$, we obtain a generalized mean-field equation of state. If we introduce suitable units, drop non-essential constants, and add an external magnetic field $`h`$, the latter can be written

$`h`$ $`=`$ $`tm+um^3`$
$`m{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{const}}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}T{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒌^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_n}{\left[(𝒌^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_n)^2+m^2\right]^2}},`$
with $`\mathrm{const}>0`$. An inspection of the integral shows that the leading term for small $`m`$ is finite for $`d>2`$, and that the leading nonanalytic $`m`$-dependence is given by $`m^{(d2)/2}`$. The generalized mean-field equation of state thus reads
$$h=tm+vm^{d/2}+um^3,$$
(9b)
with $`v>0`$.

We see that for $`2<d<6`$ the nonanalytic term dominates over the $`m^3`$ contribution. The exponents $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$, defined by $`m(h=0)(t)^\beta `$ and $`m(t=0)h^{1/\delta }`$, respectively, for $`2<d<6`$ in this approximation are

$$\beta =2/(d2),\delta =d/2.$$
(10)
These values agree with the ones found in II, apart from logarithmic corrections to scaling that the generalized mean-field theory misses. Equation (LABEL:eq:2.9a) is also very similar to the effective equation of state that was obtained in Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 1996, and it has the same qualitative properties. Notice, however, that the derivation of Eq. (LABEL:eq:2.9a) did not involve any divergent integrals, while the equivalent result in Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 1996 was obtained by resumming an infinite series of divergent terms. We will discuss the relation between these theories in more detail in Sec. V.

While the above procedure provides a fast and simple way to incorporate soft-mode effects into the equation of state, and the agreement with prior results is encouraging, our mean-field approximation is of course uncontrolled. Furthermore, since it neglects the order parameter fluctuations, it does not shed any light on the role played by the Goldstone modes. In the following two sections we will therefore construct an effective field theory for the ferromagnetic phase, and perform a renormalization-group analysis to study the critical behavior. We will find that the results of the generalized mean-field theory are indeed exact apart from logarithmic corrections to scaling.

## III Effective field theory for ferromagnets

In this section we present an effective field theory for the ferromagnetic phase in analogy to the one for the paramagnetic phase given in I. The structure of such a theory can be deduced without a calculation by combining various existing results for disordered itinerant ferromagnets. In the interest of brevity and clarity, we pursue this route. We have also checked the result by means of a derivation from a microscopic model, using the methods of I and Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 2000. We summarize the salient points of this derivation in Appendix A; a complete account has been given in Ref. Sessions, 2002.

In I it was shown how to derive an effective long-wavelength and low-frequency field theory for a disordered metal that approaches a ferromagnetic instability. We now give the corresponding action for a ferromagnetic metal, which we will motivate below. We denote the fluctuations of the longitudinal part of the order parameter field $`𝑴`$ about its expectation value $`m`$ by $`\delta M_{\mathrm{}}`$, and the transverse part by $`M_t`$. Similarly, we denote the spin-singlet and the longitudinal spin-triplet components of the fermionic field $`q`$ by $`q_{\mathrm{}}`$, and the transverse spin-triplet components by $`q_t`$. The action then has the general form

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{eff}}[𝑴,q]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{G}[\delta M_{\mathrm{}},q_{\mathrm{}}]+𝒜_t^\mathrm{G}[M_t,q_t]`$ (11a)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜[\delta M_{\mathrm{}},M_t,q_{\mathrm{}},q_t].`$
Here the superscript G denotes the action at the Gaussian level, where the longitudinal and transverse fields decouple, separated into longitudinal and transverse contributions. $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜`$ represents contributions of higher than bilinear order in the fields. We now specify the various terms in this action in the same schematic notation is in I (cf. Eq. (3.8) of I), suppressing everything that is not necessary for power counting, and considering all fields as functions of real space position $`𝒙`$ and Matsubara frequencies. The Gaussian contributions are then given by
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{G}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\left[|t|+a_{\mathrm{},d2}_𝒙^{d2}+a_{\mathrm{},2}_𝒙^2\right](\delta M_{\mathrm{}})^2}`$ (11b)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\left[\frac{1}{G_{\mathrm{}}}_𝒙^2+H_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }+TK\right]q_{\mathrm{}}^2}`$
$`+c_{\mathrm{},1}\sqrt{T}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\delta M_{\mathrm{}}q_{\mathrm{}}},`$
$`𝒜_t^\mathrm{G}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\left[a_{t,d2}m^{(d4)/2}_𝒙^2+a_{t,2}_𝒙^2\right]M_t^2}`$ (11c)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\left[\frac{1}{G_t}_𝒙^2+H_t\mathrm{\Omega }+Km\right]q_t^2}`$
$`+c_{t,1}\sqrt{T}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙M_tq_t}.`$
Here $`K`$ is a generic coupling constant that is equal to $`K_\mathrm{s}`$ in the spin-singlet channel, $`\stackrel{~}{K}_\mathrm{t}`$ in the longitudinal spin-triplet channel, and $`K_\mathrm{t}`$ in the transverse spin-triplet channels. We now motivate this form of the Gaussian effective action.

First of all, the magnetic order breaks the rotational symmetry in spin space and forces us to distinguish between the longitudinal and transverse components of all fields. The soft-mode structures in the longitudinal channels are similar to those in a paramagnet. The spin-singlet and the longitudinal spin-triplet fermionic fields are known to be unaffected by the presence of a nonzero magnetization (see, e.g., Ref. Belitz and Kirkpatrick, 1994); the vertex for $`q_{\mathrm{}}`$ thus has the same form as in I. The same is true for the longitudinal order parameter fluctuations. The distance from criticality, $`t`$, is actually magnetization dependent, but this is irrelevant for power counting purposes. The coupling between $`\delta M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{}}`$ is also unaffected. Notice that this coupling provides the leading frequency dependence of the $`\delta M_{\mathrm{}}`$ propagator, viz., a term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }/𝒌^2`$ with $`𝒌`$ a wavevector. We will refer to this propagator as the longitudinal magnon. That is, in Fourier space and for small wavenumbers and frequencies the longitudinal magnon propagator has the form

$`\delta M_{\mathrm{}}(𝒌)\delta M_{\mathrm{}}(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|t|+a_{\mathrm{},d2}|𝒌|^{d2}+a_{\mathrm{},2}𝒌^2+G_{\mathrm{}}c_{\mathrm{},1}^2\mathrm{\Omega }/𝒌^2}}.`$
For this reason we have left the less leading direct frequency dependence ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) out of the $`\delta M_{\mathrm{}}`$ vertex.

The Eqs. (11) and (12) demonstrate an important point that was discussed in detail in I and II. Namely, there is more than one time scale in the problem, and hence more than one dynamical exponent $`z`$. 222$`z`$ is defined by the scaling relation between frequency and wavenumber, $`\mathrm{\Omega }|𝒌|^z`$. The diffusive dynamics of the fermions are described by an exponent $`z=2`$, while the critical $`z`$, which describes the critical dynamics of the order parameter field, has a different value. This will be important in what follows.

The soft-mode structure in the transverse spin-triplet channel is qualitatively different compared to the paramagnetic phase. The transverse fermion fields acquire a mass proportional to $`m`$, see, Ref. Belitz and Kirkpatrick, 1994 or Eq. (4). The order parameter vertex, on the other hand, is massless due to the presence of ferromagnetic Goldstone modes. The structure of the fermionic vertex suggests that the magnetization can scale like a gradient squared. For the transverse magnetization vertex, we expect terms that represent the classic dispersion relation,Moriya (1985)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }m𝒌^2,$$
(13a)
as well as terms that reflect the nonanalytic magnetization dependence of the magnon effective mass,Belitz et al. (1998)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }m^{(d2)/2}𝒌^2.$$
(13b)
Again the leading dynamics come from the coupling to the fermions, which here produces a term $`\mathrm{\Omega }/m`$ due to the mass in the $`q_t`$ vertex. Eqs. (13) therefore show that we must include a simple gradient-sqared term, as well as a gradient-squared term with a coefficient proportional to $`m^{(d4)/2}`$ in the $`M_t`$ vertex in order to accurately represent the Goldstone modes. The latter reflects the same nonanalyticity as the $`_𝒙^{d2}`$ term in the longitudinal channel (recall that $`m_𝒙^2`$). The transverse magnon or Goldstone mode thus has the form

$`M_t(𝒌)M_t(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{t,d2}m^{(d4)/2}𝒌^2+a_{t,2}𝒌^2+c_{t,1}^2\mathrm{\Omega }/m}}.`$
Beyond Gaussian order, the transverse and singlet/longitudinal spin channels are coupled. By analyzing the spin structure of the action as given in I, we find, schematically,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`c_{2,1}\sqrt{T}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\delta M_{\mathrm{}}q_{\mathrm{}}^2}+c_{2,2}\sqrt{T}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\delta M_{\mathrm{}}q_t^2}+c_{2,3}\sqrt{T}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\delta M_tq_{\mathrm{}}q_t}`$ (15)
$`+u_1T{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙(\delta M_{\mathrm{}})^4}+u_2T{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙(\delta M_{\mathrm{}})^2(\delta M_t)^2}+u_3T{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙(\delta M_t)^4}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\left[\frac{1}{G_{4,1}}_𝒙^2+H_{4,1}\mathrm{\Omega }\right]q_{\mathrm{}}^4}+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\left[\frac{1}{G_{4,2}}_𝒙^2+H_{4,2}\mathrm{\Omega }+m\right]q_{\mathrm{}}^2q_t^2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒙\left[\frac{1}{G_{4,3}}_𝒙^2+H_{4,3}\mathrm{\Omega }+m\right]q_t^4}.`$
The first and the third class of terms are the $`Mq^2`$ and $`q^4`$ vertices, respectively, that were found to be important in describing the critical behavior as the transition is approached from the paramagnetic phase. The $`Mq^2`$-vertices would generate the nonanalyticities in the $`M^2`$-vertices if they had not been included in the bare action, and together with the $`q^4`$-vertices they give rise to log-log-normal corrections to power laws. We also include an $`M^4`$-vertex since its coupling constant, $`u`$, is a dangerously irrelevant operator with respect to the magnetization.Ma (1976)

## IV Renormalization-group analysis

We now conduct a power-counting analysis of the action given in Sec. III. The purpose of this exercise is to determine the role of the Goldstone modes in the ferromagnetic transition, and thus compare the critical behavior on the ferromagnetic side of the transition with the results from the paramagnetic theory.

For the following analysis, we assign lengths $`L`$ a scale dimension of $`[L]=1`$. Rescaling lengths by a factor $`b`$ under a renormalization-group transformation will change all other quantities according to $`Ab^{[A]}A`$, with $`[A]`$ the scale dimension of $`A`$. In particular, the temperature $`T`$ and frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ have a scale dimension $`[T]=[\mathrm{\Omega }]z`$. The scale dimensions of the fields we characterize as usual by means of exponents $`\eta `$,Ma (1976)

$`[\delta M_{\mathrm{}}]`$ $`=`$ $`(d2+\eta _{\mathrm{}})/2,`$ (16a)
$`\left[M_t\right]`$ $`=`$ $`(d2+\eta _t)/2,`$ (16b)
$`\left[q_{\mathrm{},t}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`(d2+\eta _{\mathrm{},t}^{})/2.`$ (16c)
As in Sec. III we consider all fields functions of frequency and real space position. Throughout this section we use Ma’s technique of choosing scale dimensions, and then checking self-consistently whether this choice leads to a physical fixed point.Ma (1976)

### IV.1 Stable fixed point

Before considering the critical fixed point that describes the ferromagnetic transition, it is illustrative to discuss the stable fixed point that corresponds to the system deep in the ferromagnetic phase. We start with the longitudinal degrees of freedom.

The natural choice for $`t`$ is to be marginal at the stable fixed point.Ma (1976) This choice determines the scale dimension of $`\delta M_{\mathrm{}}`$, so we have

$$[t]=0,\eta _{\mathrm{}}=2.$$
(17a)
$`q_{\mathrm{}}`$ we expect to be unaffected by the magnetization, so we choose its scale dimension to be consistent with diffusive behavior,
$$\eta _{\mathrm{}}^{}=0.$$
(17b)
By the same argument, the dynamics of $`q_{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e., the scale dimensions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`T`$ in the $`q_{\mathrm{}}`$ vertex, should be governed by a dynamical exponent $`z=2`$. We further choose the coupling $`c_{\mathrm{},1}`$ to be marginal, which implies that the dynamics of $`\delta M_{\mathrm{}}`$, as represented by the factor $`\sqrt{T}`$ in the last term in Eq. (11b), are also governed by a $`z=2`$. We thus have
$$[c_{\mathrm{},1}]=0,z_{\mathrm{diff}}=z_{\mathrm{}}=2.$$
(17c)
From Eq. (11b) we then find that $`G_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`K`$ are all marginal,
$$[G_{\mathrm{}}]=[H_{\mathrm{}}]=[K]=0,$$
(17d)
while $`a_{\mathrm{},d2}`$ and $`a_{\mathrm{},2}`$ are irrelevant with scale dimensions $`[a_{\mathrm{},d2}]=(d2)`$ and $`[a_{\mathrm{},2}]=2`$, respectively.

We now turn to the transverse degrees of freedom. $`q_t`$ is expected to be a massive fluctuation deep in the ferromagnetic phase, which means we choose

$$\eta _t^{}=2.$$
(18a)
This, together with the marginality of $`K`$, implies that $`m`$ is marginal, as one would expect on physical grounds, and so is $`h`$, since $`[h]=[m]+[t]`$, see the equation of state, Eqs. (9),
$$[m]=[h]=0,$$
(18b)
while $`1/G_t`$ and $`H_t`$ are irrelevant with scale dimensions $`[1/G_t]=[H_t]=2`$. We further choose $`a_{t,2}`$ and $`c_{t,1}`$ to be marginal. This renders $`a_{t,d2}`$ marginal as well,
$$[a_{t,2}]=[a_{t,d2}]=[c_{t,1}]=0,$$
(18c)
and it leads to
$$\eta _t=0,$$
(18d)
and to a transverse time scale governed by a dynamical exponent
$$z_t=2.$$
(18e)
We see that at the stable fixed point the various time scales coincide, and there is only one dynamical exponent, $`z=2`$. This reflects the fact that, deep in the ferromagnetic phase, the diffusive electron dynamics, the frequency dependence of the longitudinal magnon propagator, Eq. (12), and the dispersion of the Goldstone modes, Eqs. (13), all lead to the same scaling of the frequency with the wavenumber. From Eq. (15) it is then easily seen that all non-Gaussian terms in the action are irrelevant with respect to the stable fixed point, with the least irrelevant operators having scale dimensions equal to $`(d2)/2`$. Temperature and frequency are relevant operators, of course. This establishes the description of the ferromagnetic phase within our formalism.

### IV.2 Critical fixed point

We now turn to the critical fixed point that describes the ferromagnet-to-paramagnet transition. Since this is a symmetry-restoring transition, any sensible candidate for the critical fixed point must have the feature that the longitudinal and transverse fields have the same scale dimensions. We demand that the fermion fields be diffusive,

$$\eta _{\mathrm{}}^{}=\eta _t^{}=0,$$
(19a)
with a time scale given by
$$z_{\mathrm{diff}}=2.$$
(19b)
Equations (11b,11c) then imply

$$[G_{\mathrm{}}]=[G_t]=[H_{\mathrm{}}]=[H_t]=[K]=0.$$
(20)
We furthermore require that $`c_{1,\mathrm{}}`$ and $`c_{1,t}`$ are marginal, which implies

$$[\delta M_{\mathrm{}}]=[M_t]=1+(dz)/2.$$
(21)
Here $`z`$ is the dynamical exponent associated with the factor of $`\sqrt{T}`$ in either of the coupling terms in Eqs. (11b,11c). As was explained in I, this $`z`$ can equal to $`z_{\mathrm{diff}}`$, e.g. in terms in perturbation theory where the longitudunal magnon propagator is convoluted with a diffusive one, which makes the frequency in Eq. (12) scale like a wavenumber squared, making the longitudinal magnon effectively massive. The critical longitudinal magnon, on the other hand, we expect to be massless. In this case, we choose $`a_{\mathrm{},d2}`$ to be marginal for $`2<d<4`$, and $`a_{\mathrm{},2}`$ for $`d>4`$. This implies a critical time scale

$$z_\mathrm{c}=\{\begin{array}{cc}d\hfill & \text{for }2<d<4\hfill \\ 4\hfill & \text{for }d>4,\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
as well as a critical exponent $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{}}=\eta _t`$,

$$\eta =\{\begin{array}{cc}4d\hfill & \text{for }2<d<4\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }d>4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
$`t`$ is by definition the only relevant operator (apart from the temperature/frequency and the external magnetic field) at a physical critical fixed point, and its scale dimension determines the correlation length exponent $`\nu =1/[t]`$. We thus have

$$\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}1/(d2)\hfill & \text{for }2<d<4\hfill \\ 1/2\hfill & \text{for }d>4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
We now turn to the scale dimension of $`m`$. From Eq. (11c), in conjunction with Eqs. (19a) and (20), we have

$$[m]=2.$$
(25a)
However, in order to determine the physical order parameter exponents $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$, we need to take into account that the critical behavior of the magnetization is affected by dangerous irrelevant variables. From the equation of state, Eq. (9b), we see that $`m(h=0)v^{2/(d2)}`$ for $`2<d<6`$, and $`m(h=0)u^{1/2}`$ for $`d>6`$. 333We note that it is permissible at this point to use the generalized mean-field equation of state, whose validity we want to establish. The point is that the equation of state serves only to obtain the values of the exponents $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$ from $`[m]`$, while the fact that $`[m]=2`$ suffices to justisfy the scaling arguments used in I, which in turn establishes the validity of the equation of state up to logarithmic corrections. See also the last paragraph of this section. The effective scale dimension of $`m`$ is therefore $`[m]_{\mathrm{eff}}=[m]+2[v]/(d2)`$ for $`2<d<6`$, and $`[m]_{\mathrm{eff}}=[m]+[u]/2`$ for $`d>6`$. But from the equation of state we have $`[u]=[t]2[m]=2`$ and $`[v]=[t](d2)[m]/2`$. This yields $`[u]=2`$ for $`d>6`$, and $`[v]=0`$ for $`2<d<4`$, and $`[v]=4d`$ for $`4<d<6`$. Therefore,
$$[m]_{\mathrm{eff}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\hfill & \text{for }2<d<4\hfill \\ 4/(d2)\hfill & \text{for }4<d<6\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{for }d>6,\hfill \end{array}$$
(25b)
which leads to
$$\beta =\{\begin{array}{cc}2/(d2)\hfill & \text{for }2<d<6\hfill \\ 1/2\hfill & \text{for }d>6.\hfill \end{array}$$
(25c)
Finally, the effective scale dimension of the external magnetic field $`h`$ is

$$[h]_{\mathrm{eff}}=[t]+[m]_{\mathrm{eff}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}d\hfill & \text{for }2<d<4\hfill \\ 2d/(d2)\hfill & \text{for }4<d<6\hfill \\ 3\hfill & \text{for }d>6,\hfill \end{array}$$
(26a)
which implies
$$\delta =\{\begin{array}{cc}d/2\hfill & \text{for }2<d<6\hfill \\ 3\hfill & \text{for }d>6.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26b)
An inspection of Eq. (15) shows that all corrections to the Gaussian action are irrelevant with respect to the Gaussian fixed point, except that the $`c_2`$ are marginal in the event that the factor $`\sqrt{T}`$ in this coupling carries the diffusive time scale. It was shown in I and II that this can indeed happen, and that this makes $`c_2`$ marginally relevant with respect to the Gaussian fixed point. The actual critical fixed point therefore contains the effects of $`c_2`$. This is a result of the existence of two time scales in the problem. Furthermore, the terms of $`O(q^4)`$, which are irrelevant by power counting, turn out to be effectively marginal as well. This was also shown in I and II, and the logarithmic corrections to scaling that result from these marginal operators were explicitly determined.

There is no need to repeat the discussion of the logarithmic corrections to scaling, since it is now clear how this solution carries over to the present case. Above we have shown explicitly that scaling works in the ferromagnetic phase, with the magnetization having a scale dimension $`[m]=2`$. This means in particular that the results obtained in II from scaling arguments for the free energy were correct. For instance, the exponent $`\beta `$ is given by the result of the generalized Landau theory, Eq. (10), with logarithmic corrections as given in Eq. (3.6e) of II.

## V Discussion and Conclusion

We conclude with a summary of our results, and some additional remarks.

### V.1 Summary

In summary, we have constructed an effective theory for the instability of the ferromagnetic phase of a disordered itinerant Heisenberg ferromagnet at the quantum critical point. We have shown that the presence of ferromagnetic Goldstone modes, or spin waves, does not change the critical behavior compared to the one obtained by supplementing results from the paramagnetic phase with scaling arguments. We have also given a very simple generalized Landau theory for this problem, which takes into accout the effects of soft fermionic modes independent of the order parameter, and which yields the correct critical behavior in all dimensions $`d>2`$ apart from logarithmic corrections to power-law scaling. The results of the Landau theory are the same as those originally obtained from a nonlocal order parameter theory in Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 1996.

### V.2 Hertz’s fixed point

We briefly discuss how Hertz’s fixed pointHertz (1976) relates to the above discussion. Suppose one ignored the mode-mode coupling effects that are represented by the coefficients $`a_{\mathrm{},d2}`$ and $`a_{t,d2}`$ in the Gaussian action, Eqs. (11), and by $`v`$ in the equation of state, Eq. (9b). Then one has, for all $`d>2`$,

$$[t]=[m]=2,[u]=2,$$
(27a)
which leads to
$$[m]_{\mathrm{eff}}=1,[h]_{\mathrm{eff}}=3.$$
(27b)
The dynamical critical exponent is then

$$z_\mathrm{c}=4,$$
(28a)
and all static exponents have mean-field values,
$$\eta =0,\nu =\beta =1/2,\delta =3.$$
(28b)
Of course, for $`2<d<4`$ this fixed point is unstable against the mode-mode coupling effects as was discussed in detail in I. For $`4<d<6`$ it is actually stable, and the only reason why Hertz’s theory does not yield the correct critical behavior is that it misses the leading dangerous irrelevant variable for the magnetization, which is $`v`$ rather than $`u`$. For $`d>6`$ the exact critical behavior is mean-field like.

### V.3 General remarks

We finally come back to some of the points mentioned in the Introduction. We have shown, by explicitly considering the ordered phase, that the scaling arguments used in I and II to extract the critical behavior of the magnetization were correct, and can be justified by a RG analysis. In particular, the presence of magnetic Goldstone modes does not invalidate these arguments since the transverse fermionic modes and the magnetic Goldstone modes essentially just switch roles as one goes into the ferromagnetic phase. We mention, however, that we have not addressed the question of the size of the quantum scaling region for any particular observable. This question can only be answered by an explicit crossover calculation for the observable of interest, which follows the behavior of the observable through the entire critical region at $`T>0`$.

Another point of interest is the relation between the theory developed here and Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 1996. Like Hertz’s theory, the latter was a pure Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson theory, i.e., a field theory formulated entirely in terms of the order parameter field; the fermionic degrees of freedom had been integrated out. This integrating out of soft modes resulted in nonlocal vertices that made the theory unsuitable for explicit calculations, but the critical behavior could be extracted by a combination of power counting and scaling arguments. It is interesting to see that the current series of papers has completely vindicated this treatment. In particular, the equation of state derived in Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 1996 was Eq. (LABEL:eq:2.9a) expanded in powers of $`m^2`$, and the critical behavior determined in the nonlocal theory was indeed exact except for the logarithmic corrections to scaling in $`2<d<4`$ that were discussed in II. It is also interesting to see that the much simpler generalized Landau theory of Sec. II.2, which is based on a Gaussian approximation, reproduces the results of Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 1996, and thus is also exact except for the logarithms. The reason is that, as we have seen, only two classes of non-Gaussian terms ultimately contribute to the critical fixed point, namely, the terms of $`O(Mq^2)`$ and those of $`O(q^4)`$, and both of these lead only to logarithmic corrections to the Gaussian critical behavior. Section II therefore provides a very simple way to obtain the essentially exact critical behavior, but of course this is clear only a posteriori once the RG analysis has been performed.

###### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge discussions with Ted Kirkpatrick and John Toner. This work was supported by the NSF under grant No. DMR-01-32555 and by the NSF IGERT fellowship program, grant No. DGE-0114419.

## Appendix A Derivation of the effective action

In this appendix we give the exact effective action at the Gaussian level, as it emerges from a derivation from the microscopic theory. A schematic version of this result that is sufficient for power counting was given in Eqs. (11), and motivated by general arguments in Sec. III. We start with the general field theory, Eqs. (2.10) of I. The first step is to find a saddle-point solution that is appropriate for a ferromagnetic phase. One then separates soft and massive modes, and integrates out the latter in tree approximation. The result is the desired effective field theory for the soft modes.

### A.1 Stoner saddle point

Equations (2.10) of I allow for a homogeneous saddle-point solution that reproduces Stoner theory. This is the saddle point considered in Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 2000, supplemented with a saddle-point value for the order parameter field $`M`$,

$`{}_{r}{}^{i}Q_{12}^{}(𝒙)|_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{12}[\delta _{r0}\delta _{i0}Q_{n_1}^0+\delta _{r3}\delta _{i3}Q_{n_1}^3],`$ (29a)
$`{}_{r}{}^{i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{12}^{}(𝒙)|_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{12}[\delta _{r0}\delta _{i0}i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n_1}+\delta _{r3}\delta _{i3}i\mathrm{\Delta }_{n_1}],`$
$`{}_{}{}^{i}M_{1}^{}(𝒙)|_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{n_10}\delta _{i3}m/\sqrt{T}.`$ (29c)
Here we use the same notation as in I, with $`1(n_1,\alpha _1)`$, etc., comprising both frequency and replica indices. By substituting Eqs. (29) into the effective action $`𝒜`$ (Eqs. (2.10) in paper I), and using the saddle-point conditions $`\delta 𝒜/\delta Q=\delta 𝒜/\delta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\delta 𝒜/\delta M=0`$, one obtains the saddle-point equations

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`4i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}{2}}\right)^{1/2}T{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}Q_m^3e^{i\omega _m0},`$ (30a)
$`Q_n^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}G_n^0(𝒌),`$ (30b)
$`Q_n^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}G_n^3(𝒌),`$ (30c)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi N_\mathrm{F}\tau _{\mathrm{el}}}}Q_n^04iT\mathrm{\Gamma }_s{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}Q_m^0e^{i\omega _m0},`$ (30d)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi N_\mathrm{F}\tau _{\mathrm{el}}}}Q_n^3+\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (30e)
with
$`\mathrm{\Delta }=(2\mathrm{\Gamma }_t)^{1/2}m.`$ (30f)
Here

$`G_n^0(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[𝒢_n^+(𝒌)+𝒢_n^{}(𝒌)],`$ (31a)
$`G_n^3(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[𝒢_n^+(𝒌)𝒢_n^{}(𝒌)],`$ (31b)
are Green functions given in terms of
$`𝒢_n^\pm (𝒌)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\omega _n\xi _𝒌\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_n\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}},`$ (31c)
with $`\xi _𝒌=𝒌^2/2m\mu `$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s,t}`$ are the interaction amplitudes proportional to $`K_{s,t}`$ that were defined in I. Upon substituting Eqs. (30a) and (30f) into (30e), one recovers the saddle-point equations of Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 2000, and hence Stoner theory.

It is useful to define various transport and thermodynamic quantities in terms of these Green functions. We will need

$`\sigma _0^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi mV}}\underset{n,m0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝒢_n^\pm (𝒌)+𝒢_m^\pm (𝒌))`$ (32a)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{dm}}𝒌^2𝒢_n^\pm (𝒌)𝒢_m^\pm (𝒌)],`$
and
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi mV}}\underset{n,m0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝒢_n^\pm (𝒌)+𝒢_m^{}(𝒌))`$ (32b)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{dm}}𝒌^2𝒢_n^\pm (𝒌)𝒢_m^{}(𝒌)],`$
as well as
$$N_\mathrm{F}^\pm =\frac{i}{\pi V}\underset{n0+}{lim}\underset{𝒌}{}𝒢_n^\pm (𝒌).$$
(32c)
These quantities represent the Born approximation for various conductivities and densities of states in the split-band system of Stoner theory. They are generalizations of the analogous quanties defined in Ref. Belitz and Kirkpatrick, 1997. For a physical interpretation of these quantities, see Ref. Sessions, 2002.

### A.2 Gaussion soft-mode theory

The separation of soft and massive modes works in analogy to I, although the procedure is more cumbersome in the presence of a nonzero magnetization. The massive modes are integrated out in tree approximation to arrive at an effective soft-mode action, and the soft fermion modes are expanded in powers of $`q`$ (cf. Eq. (5i)), again in analogy to I. The complete procedure and result can be found in Ref. Sessions, 2002. Here we list the Gaussian (i.e., bilinear in $`𝑴`$ and $`q`$) contribution to the effective action. The higher order terms are obtained analogously.

The Gaussian action has the general form

$$𝒜^\mathrm{G}[q,M]=𝒜_{\mathrm{NL}\sigma \mathrm{M}}[q]+𝒜_{\mathrm{LGW}}[M]+𝒜_c[q,M].$$
(33)
We expand the $`q`$ matrices in a spin-quaternion basis, see Eq. (5g). The fermionic part of the action, which is the Gaussian part of a generalized nonlinear sigma model, is given by

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{NL}\sigma \mathrm{M}}[q]`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=0,3}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{3}{}}}[\delta _{n_1n_3}\delta _{n_2n_4}[\kappa _{ij,rs}^0(\delta _{i0}+\delta _{i3})(𝒌^2/G^\mathrm{s}+H^\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_1n_2})`$ (34)
$`+\kappa _{ij,rs}^0(\delta _{i1}+\delta _{i2})(𝒌^2/\stackrel{~}{G}^\mathrm{s}+H^\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_1n_2})+\kappa _{ij,rs}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒌^2/G^\mathrm{a}+H^\mathrm{a}\mathrm{\Omega }_{n_1n_2})+\kappa _{ij,rs}^t(𝒌^2/\stackrel{~}{G}^a+2iH^\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Delta })]`$
$`\delta _{n_1n_2,n_3n_4}\delta _{\alpha \beta }T\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\pi ^2[\kappa _{ij,rs}^0[(N_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{s})^2\delta _{i0}+(N_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{a})^2\delta _{i3}]+\kappa _{ij,rs}^{\mathrm{}}N_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{s}N_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{a}]]^i_rq_{n_1n_2}^{\alpha \beta }(𝒌)^j_sq_{n_3n_4}^{\alpha \beta }(𝒌).`$
Here the $`\kappa `$ represent traces in spin-quaternion space,

$`\kappa _{ij,rs}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\text{tr}(\tau _r\tau _s^{})\text{tr}(s_is_j^{}),\kappa _{ij,rs}^{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\text{tr}(\tau _3\tau _r\tau _s^{})[\text{tr}(s_3s_is_j^{})+\text{tr}(s_is_3s_j^{})],`$ (35a)
$`\kappa _{ij,rs}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\text{tr}(\tau _3\tau _r\tau _s^{})[\text{tr}(s_3s_is_j^{})\text{tr}(s_is_3s_j^{})],\kappa _{ij,rs}^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\text{tr}(\tau _r\tau _s^{})\text{tr}(s_3s_is_3s_j^{}).`$ (35b)
The coupling constants $`G`$ and $`H`$ in Eq. (34), as well as the densities of states $`N_\mathrm{F}`$, are magnetization dependent generalizations of the analogous quantities in I. They are given by

$`G^\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`16/\pi (\sigma _0^++\sigma _0^{}),G^\mathrm{a}=16/\pi (\sigma _0^+\sigma _0^{}),\stackrel{~}{G}^\mathrm{s}=16/\pi (\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0^++\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0^{}),\stackrel{~}{G}^\mathrm{a}=16/\pi (\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0^+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0^{}),`$ (36a)
$`N_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`(N_\mathrm{F}^++N_\mathrm{F}^{})/2,N_\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{a}=(N_\mathrm{F}^+N_\mathrm{F}^{})/2,`$ (36b)
$`H^{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi N_\mathrm{F}^{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{a}}/4.`$ (36c)
As can be seen by a direct comparison, the schematic action given by Eq. (11) reflects all qualitative features of the complete result. Notice that the mass, $`H\mathrm{\Delta }`$, in the transverse vertex comes from the coupling between $`M`$ and $`q`$, cf. Eq. (4), but has been included in $`𝒜_{\mathrm{NL}\sigma \mathrm{M}}`$ since it contains only fermionic fluctuations.

The LGW part of the action that results from integrating out the massive modes is

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{LGW}}[M]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}(2\delta _{n0}){\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\{\delta _{ij}+(\delta _{i1}\delta _{j1}+\delta _{i2}\delta _{j2}i\kappa _{12,ij}^t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_tT{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}^{}}(_{m+n,m}^++()^{i+j}_{m+n,m}^{})`$
$`+\delta _{i3}\delta _{j3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_tT{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}^{}}(𝒟_{m+n,m}^++𝒟_{m+n,m}^{})+\delta _{i3}\delta _{j3}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\left[T_m^{}\left(𝒟_{m+n,m}^+𝒟_{m+n,m}^{}\right)\right]^2}{1\mathrm{\Gamma }_sT_m^{}\left(𝒟_{m+n,m}^++𝒟_{m+n,m}^{}\right)}}\}^iM^\alpha _n(𝒌)^jM^\alpha _n(𝒌).`$
Here, we have adopted the notation of Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 2000; $`𝒟`$ and $``$ correspond to modified “diffusons” in the longitudinal and transverse spin channels, respectively. They are given by

$`𝒟_{nm}^\pm (𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{nm}^\pm (𝒌)/[1\varphi _{nm}^\pm (𝒌)/2\pi N_\mathrm{F}\tau ],`$ (38a)
$`_{nm}^\pm (𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{nm}^\pm (𝒌)/[1\eta _{nm}^\pm (𝒌)/2\pi N_\mathrm{F}\tau ],`$ (38b)
with
$`\varphi _{nm}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`(\phi _{nm}^{00}+\phi _{nm}^{33})\pm (\phi _{nm}^{03}+\phi _{nm}^{30}),`$ (38c)
$`\eta _{nm}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`(\phi _{nm}^{00}\phi _{nm}^{33})\pm (\phi _{nm}^{03}\phi _{nm}^{30}),`$ (38d)
and
$$\phi _{nm}^{uv}=\frac{1}{V}\underset{𝒑}{}G_n^u(𝒑)G_m^v(𝒑+𝒌);(u,v=0,3),$$
(38e)
with $`G^{0,3}`$ given by Eqs. (31). We have also introduced the notation

$$T\underset{m}{}^{}[\mathrm{}]T\underset{m}{}\mathrm{\Theta }(m(m+n))[\mathrm{}].$$
(39)
The LGW vertex simplifies in the limit of long wavelengths and small frequencies. By usingKirkpatrick and Belitz (2000)

$$T\underset{m}{}𝒟_{mm}^\pm (𝒌=0)=N_\mathrm{F}^\pm ,$$
(40a)
and
$$T\underset{m}{}_{mm}^\pm (𝒌=0)=1/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_t,$$
(40b)
one recovers the functional form given in Eqs. (11), except for the nonanalytic terms that emerge only at one-loop order and were added in Sec. III.

Finally, the coupling between $`M`$ and $`q`$ to bilinear order is

$`𝒜_c[M,q]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{12}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r,s=0,3}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}}4\pi \sqrt{2T\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}`$
$`\times \left[\kappa _{ij,rs}^0(N_\mathrm{F})^2+\kappa _{ij,rs}^{\mathrm{}}(N_\mathrm{F}^a)^2\right]_r^ib_{12}(𝒌)_s^jq_{12}(𝒌).`$
Here, $`b`$ is a field with components
$`{}_{r}{}^{i}b_{12}^{}(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\alpha _1\alpha _2}()^{r/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\delta _{n,n_1n_2}[^iM_n^{\alpha _1}(𝒌)`$ (41b)
$`+()^{r+1}{}_{}{}^{i}M_{n}^{\alpha _1}(𝒌).`$
Again, this has the same functional form as the schematic representation in Eqs. (11).

### A.3 Gaussian propagators

The Gaussian propagators can be obtained by inverting the quadratic form given by the Gaussian action in the previous subsection. We do not list the complete propagators here, which can be found in Ref. Sessions, 2002, but give only the hydrodynamic parts of the diffusons, which are needed in the calculation. For $`nm<0`$ one finds

$$𝒟_{nm}^\pm (𝒌)=\frac{2\pi N_\mathrm{F}^\pm }{D^\pm 𝒌^2+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{nm}|}.$$
(42a)
Here, $`D^\pm =1/G^\pm H^\pm `$ with
$`1/G^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`1/G^\mathrm{s}\pm 1/G^\mathrm{a},`$ (42b)
$`H^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`H^\mathrm{s}\pm H^\mathrm{a},`$ (42c)
can be interpreted as the Boltzmann diffusivities in the upper and lower Stoner band, respectively.

Similarly, one finds for $`n>0`$ and $`m<0`$,

$$_{nm}^\pm (𝒌)=\frac{2\pi N_\mathrm{F}}{[\mathrm{\Omega }_{nm}+\stackrel{~}{D}^\pm 𝒌^2]\frac{1}{1\pm 2i\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }\pm 2i\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(43a)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{D}^\pm =D/(1\pm 2i\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )=1/\stackrel{~}{G}^\pm H`$, with
$$1/\stackrel{~}{G}^\pm =1/\stackrel{~}{G}^\mathrm{s}\pm 1/\stackrel{~}{G}^\mathrm{a}.$$
(43b)
Notice that Eq. (43a) holds only for $`n>0`$ and $`m<0`$. The result for $`n<0`$, $`m>0`$ is given by the relation 444This distinction between the cases $`n>0`$, $`m<0`$ and $`n<0`$, $`m>0`$ was not made in Ref. Kirkpatrick and Belitz, 2000.
$$_{nm}^\pm (𝒌)=_{mn}^{}(𝒌).$$
(43c)
By means of these expressions, one readily finds that the propagators have functional forms as given in Sec. III. Again, the nonanalytic dependences on $`𝒌`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are not included in the Gaussian theory, and have been added in Sec. III.


format: text

text:
# Thermodynamics of 𝑑-dimensional charged rotating black brane and AdS/CFT correspondence

## I Introduction

The thermodynamics of asymptotically anti de-Sitter (AAdS) black holes has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years. First this is due to the fact that it produces an aggregate of ideas from thermodynamics, quantum field theory and general relativity, and second because of its role in the AdS/CFT duality Mal . According to this duality the low energy limit of string theory in AAdS (times some compact manifold) is equivalent to quantum field theory living on the boundary of AAdS. This equivalence between the two formulations means that, at least in principle, one can obtain complete information on one side of the duality by performing a computation on the other side. For example, one can gain some insight into the thermodynamic properties and phase structures of strong ’t Hooft coupling conformal field theories by studying the thermodynamics of AAdS black holes. An interesting application of the AdS/CFT correspondence is the interpretation of Hawking-Page phase transition between thermal AdS and AAdS black hole as the confinement-deconfinement phases of the Yang-Mills (dual gauge) theory defined on the AdS boundary Wit .

This conjecture is now a fundamental concept that furnishes a means for calculating the action and thermodynamic quantities intrinsically without reliance on any reference spacetime Sken1 ; BK ; Od1 . It has extended to the case of asymptotically de Sitter spacetimes Stro ; Deh1 . Although the (A)dS/CFT correspondence applies for the case of a specially infinite boundary, it was also employed for the computation of the conserved and thermodynamic quantities in the case of a finite boundary Deh2 . This conjecture has also been applied for the case of black objects with constant negative or zero curvature horizons Deh3 ; Deh4 .

For AAdS spacetimes, the presence of a negative cosmological constant makes it possible to have a large variety of black holes/branes, whose event horizons are hypersurfaces with positive, negative, or zero scalar curvatures Man1 . The AAdS rotating solution of Einstein’s equation with cylindrical and toroidal horizon and its extension to include the electromagnetic field have been considered in Ref. Lem1 . The generalization of this AAdS charged rotating solution of Einstein-Maxwell’s equation to the higher dimensions has been done in Ref. Awad2 . Many authors have been considered thermodynamics and stability conditions of these black holes Pec ; Deh3 . In this paper, we study the phase behavior of the charged rotating black branes in $`(n+1)`$ dimensions with zero curvature horizon and show that there is no Hawking-Page phase transition in spite of the angular momentum of the branes. This is in commensurable with the fact that there is no Hawking-Page phase transition for black object whose horizon is diffeomorphic to $`^p`$ ($`p`$-brane solution) and therefore the system is always in the high temperature phase Wit . According to the AdS/CFT dictionary, this means that the corresponding field theory, which now lives on $`S^1\times ^p`$, has no phase transition as a function of temperature in the large $`𝒩`$ limit.

The outline of our paper is as follows. We review the basic formalism in Sec. II. In Sec. III we consider the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional AAdS charged rotating black brane. We also compute the Euclidean actions of the system both in the canonical and the grand-canonical ensemble, and obtain the logarithmic divergences associated to the Weyl anomalies and matter fields. In Sec. IV, we study the thermodynamics of the brane, and perform a thermal stability analysis. Also, the logarithmic correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black brane is obtained. We finish our paper with some concluding remarks.

## II General Formalism

The gravitational action for Einstein-Maxwell theory in $`(n+1)`$ dimensions for AAdS spacetimes is

$$I_G=\frac{1}{16\pi }_{}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{}g}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right)+\frac{1}{8\pi }_{}d^nx\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{}\gamma }K(\gamma ),$$
(1)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ is the electromagnetic tensor field and$`A_\mu `$ is the vector potential. The first term is the Einstein-Hilbert volume term with negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n(n1)/2l^2`$ and the second term is the Gibbons Hawking boundary term which is chosen such that the variational principle is well defined. The manifold $``$ has metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and covariant derivative $`_\mu `$. $`K`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature $`K^{\mu \nu }`$ of any boundary(ies) $``$ of the manifold $``$, with induced metric(s) $`\gamma _{i,j}`$. The AdS/CFT correspondence states that if the metric near the conformal boundary ($`x0`$) can be expanded in the AAdS form

$$ds^2=\frac{dx^2}{l^2x^2}+\frac{1}{x^2}h_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(2)
with nondegenerate metric $`h_{ij}`$, then one may remove the non logarithmic divergent terms in the action by adding a counterterm action $`I_{ct}`$ which is a functional of the boundary curvature invariants. It is worthwhile to mention that the induced metric on the boundary is $`\gamma _{ij}=h_{ij}/ϵ^2`$ where $`ϵ1`$. The counterterm for asymptotically AdS spacetimes up to seven dimensions is

$`I_{ct}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _{_{\mathrm{}}}}d^nx\sqrt{\gamma }\{{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{l}}{\displaystyle \frac{l\mathrm{\Theta }(n3)}{2(n2)}}R`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{l^3\mathrm{\Theta }(n5)}{2(n4)(n2)^2}}(R_{ab}R^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4(n1)}}R^2)+\mathrm{}\},`$
where $`R`$, $`R_{abcd}`$, and $`R_{ab}`$ are the Ricci scalar, Riemann, and Ricci tensors of the boundary metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the step function which is equal to one for $`x0`$ and zero otherwise. Although other counterterms (of higher mass dimension) may be added to $`I_{ct}`$, they will make no contribution to the evaluation of the action or Hamiltonian due to the rate at which they decrease toward infinity, and we shall not consider them in our analysis here. These counterterms have been used by many authors for a wide variety of the spacetimes, including Schwarzschild-AdS, topological Schwarzschild-AdS, Kerr-AdS, Taub-NUT-AdS, Taub-bolt-AdS, and Taub-bolt-Kerr-AdS EJM .

Of course, for even $`n`$ one has logarithmic divergences in the partition function which can be related to the Weyl anomalies in the dual conformal field theory Sken1 . These logarithmic divergences associated with the Weyl anomalies of the dual field theory for $`n=4`$ and $`n=6`$ are Sken2

$`I_{\mathrm{log}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{64\pi l^3}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h^0}\left[(R_{ij}^0)R^{(0)ij}\frac{1}{3}(R^0)^2\right]},`$ (4)
$`I_{\mathrm{log}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{8^4\pi l^3}}{\displaystyle }d^6x\sqrt{h^0}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{50}}(R^0)^3+R^{(0)ij}R^{(0)kl}R_{ijkl}^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^0R^{(0)ij}R_{ij}^0`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}R^{(0)ij}D_iD_jR^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^{(0)ij}\mathrm{}^0R_{ij}^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{20}}R^0\mathrm{}^0R^0\}.`$
In Eqs. (4) and (5) $`R^0`$ and $`R^{(0)ij}`$ are the Ricci scalar and Ricci tensor of the leading order metric $`h^0`$ in the following expansion:

$$h_{ij}=h_{ij}^0+x^2h_{ij}^2+x^4h_{ij}^4+\mathrm{},$$
(6)
and $`D_i`$ is the covariant derivative constructed by the leading order metric $`h^0`$. Also, one should note that the inclusion of matter fields in the gravitational action produces an additional logarithmic divergence in the action for even $`n`$. This logarithmic divergence for $`n=4`$ and $`n=6`$ are Robin

$`I_{\mathrm{log}}^{\mathrm{em}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{64\pi l}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h^0}F^{(0)ij}F_{ij}^0},`$ (7)
$`I_{\mathrm{log}}^{\mathrm{em}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{8\pi l^3}}{\displaystyle }d^6x\sqrt{h^0}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}R^0F^{(0)ij}F_{ij}^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R^{(0)ij}F_i^{(0)l}F_{jl}^0`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}F^{(0)ij}(D_jD^kF_{ki}^0D_iD^kF_{kj}^0)\}.`$
where $`F_{ij}^0`$ is the leading term of electromagnetic field on the conformal boundary. All the contractions in Eqs. (7) and (8) should be done by the leading order metric $`h^0`$. In $`4<n<7`$ the matter field will cause a power law divergence in the action which can be removed by a counterterm of the form Robin

$$I_{ct}^{\mathrm{em}}=\frac{1}{256\pi }d^nx\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{}\gamma }\frac{(n8)}{(n4)}\mathrm{\Theta }(n5)F^{ij}F_{ij}.$$
(9)
Thus, the total action can be written as a linear combination of the gravity term (1), the logarithmic divergences (43), (44), (7), and (8) and the counterterms (3) and (9). We will show that for the charged rotating black branes investigated in this paper, all the logarithmic divergences and the counterterm $`I_{\mathrm{ct}}^{\mathrm{em}}`$ are zero and therefore the total renormalized action is

$$I=I_G+I_{\mathrm{ct}}.$$
(10)
In order to obtain the Einstein-Maxwell equations by the variation of the volume integral with respect to the fields, one should impose the boundary condition $`\delta A_\mu =0`$ on $``$. Thus the action (10) is appropriate to study the grand-canonical ensemble with fixed electric potential Cal . To study the canonical ensemble with fixed electric charge one should impose the boundary condition $`\delta (n^aF_{ab})=0`$, and therefore the total action is Haw1

$$\stackrel{}{I}=I\frac{1}{4\pi }_{_{\mathrm{}}}d^nx\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{}\gamma }n_aF^{ab}A_b.$$
(11)
Having the total finite action, one can use the Brown and York definition Brown  to construct a divergence free stress-energy tensor as

$`T^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\{(K^{ab}K\gamma ^{ab}){\displaystyle \frac{n1}{l}}\gamma ^{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{n2}}(R^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R\gamma ^{ab})`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{l^3\mathrm{\Theta }(n5)}{(n4)(n2)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^{ab}(R^{cd}R_{cd}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4(n1)}}R^2){\displaystyle \frac{n}{(2n2)}}RR^{ab}`$
$`+2R_{cd}R^{acbd}{\displaystyle \frac{n2}{2(n1)}}^a^bR+^2R^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(n1)}}\gamma ^{ab}^2R]+\mathrm{}\}.`$
The above stress-tensor is divergence free for $`n6`$, but we can always add more counterterms to have a finite action in higher dimensions (see e.g. Ref. Krau ).

The conserved charges associated to a Killing vector $`\xi ^a`$ is

$$𝒬(\xi )=_{}d^nx\sqrt{\sigma }n^aT_{ab}\xi ^b,$$
(13)
where $`\sigma `$ is the determinant of the metric $`\sigma _{ij}`$ and $`N`$ is the lapse function, appearing in the ADM-like decomposition of the boundary metric

$$ds^2=N^2dt^2+\sigma _{ab}(dx^a+N^adt)(dx^b+N^bdt).$$
(14)
For boundaries with timelike Killing vector ($`\xi =/t`$) and rotational Killing vector field $`(\zeta =/\varphi )`$ one obtains the conserved mass and angular momentum of the system enclosed by the boundary $``$. In the context of AdS/CFT correspondence, the limit in which the boundary $``$ becomes infinite $`(_{\mathrm{}})`$ is taken, and the counterterm prescription ensures that the action and conserved charges are finite. No embedding of the surface $``$ in to a reference of spacetime is required and the quantities which are computed are intrinsic to the spacetimes.

## III The Action and Thermodynamic Quantities of AAdS Charged Rotating Black Brane

The metric of $`(n+1)`$-dimensional AAdS charged rotating black brane with $`k`$ rotation parameters is Awad2

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f(r)\left(\mathrm{\Xi }dt{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}a_id\varphi _i\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\left(a_idt\mathrm{\Xi }l^2d\varphi _i\right)^2`$ (15)
$`\text{ }+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{f(r)}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{k}{}}}(a_id\varphi _ja_jd\varphi _i)^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\sqrt{1+_i^ka_i^2/l^2}`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the Euclidean metric on the $`\left(n1k\right)`$-dimensional submanifold. The maximum number of rotation parameters in $`(n+1)`$ dimensions is $`[(n+1)/2]`$, where $`[x]`$ denotes the integer part of $`x`$. In Eq. (15) $`f(r)`$ is

$$f(r)=\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{m}{r^{n2}}+\frac{q^2}{r^{2n4}},$$
(16)
and the gauge potential is given by

$$A_\mu =\sqrt{\frac{n1}{2n4}}\frac{q}{r^{n2}}\left(\mathrm{\Xi }\delta _\mu ^0\delta _\mu ^ia_i\right),(\text{no sum on }i).$$
(17)
As in the case of rotating black hole solutions of Einstein’s gravity, the above metric given by Eqs. (15)-(17) has two types of Killing and event horizons. The Killing horizon is a null surface whose null generators are tangent to a Killing field. It was proved that a stationary black hole event horizon should be a Killing horizon in the four-dimensional Einstein gravity Haw1 . This fact is also true for this $`(n+1)`$-dimensional metric and the Killing vector

$$\chi =_t+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_i_{\varphi _i},$$
(18)
is the null generator of the event horizon. The metric of Eqs. (15)-(17) has two inner and outer event horizons located at $`r_{}`$ and $`r_+`$, if the metric parameters $`m`$ and $`q`$ are chosen to be suitable Awad2 . For later use in the thermodynamics of the black brane, it is better to present an expression for the critical value of the charge in term of the radius of the event horizon $`r_+`$. It is easy to show that the metric has two inner and outer horizons provided the charge parameter, $`q`$ is less than $`q_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ given as

$$q_{\mathrm{crit}}=\sqrt{\frac{n}{n2}}\frac{r_+^{n1}}{l}.$$
(19)
In the case that $`q=q_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, we will have an extreme black brane.

The mass, the angular momenta, the Hawking temperature and the angular velocities of the outer event horizon have been calculated in Ref. Awad2 . We bring them here for later use

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{n1}}{16\pi }}m\left[n\mathrm{\Xi }^21\right],`$ (20)
$`J_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{n1}}{16\pi }}n\mathrm{\Xi }ma_i,`$ (21)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _+}}={\displaystyle \frac{nr_+^{(2n2)}(n2)q^2l^2}{4\pi l^2\mathrm{\Xi }r_+^{(2n3)}}},`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_j}{\mathrm{\Xi }l^2}},`$ (23)
where $`V_{n1}`$ denotes the volume of the hypersurface boundary $``$ at constant $`t`$ and $`r`$, and $`\beta _+`$ is the inverse Hawking temperature. Equation (19) shows that the temperature $`T`$ in Eq. (22) is positive for the allowed values of the metric parameters and vanishes for the extremal solution.

To obtain the total action we first calculate the logarithmic divergences due to the Weyl anomaly and matter field given in Eqs. (4), (5), (7), and (8). The leading metric $`h_{ij}^0`$ can be obtained as

$$h_{ij}^0dx^idx^j=\frac{1}{l^2}dt^2+d\varphi ^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(24)
Therefore the curvature scalar $`R^0(h^0)`$ and Ricci tensor $`R_{ij}^0(h^0)`$ are zero. Also it is easy to show that $`F_{ij}^0`$ in Eqs. (7) and (8) vanishes. Thus, all the logarithmic divergences for the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional charged rotating black brane are zero. It is also a matter of calculation to show that the counterterm action due to the electromagnetic field in Eq. (9) is zero. Thus, using Eqs. (1), (3), (10), and (11), the Euclidean actions in the grand-canonical and the canonical ensemble can be calculated as

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _+V_{n1}}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^{(2n2)}+q^2l^2}{r_+^{(n2)}l^2}},`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{}{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _+V_{n1}}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^{(2n2)}(2n3)q^2l^2}{r_+^{(n2)}l^2}}.`$ (26)
The electric charge $`Q`$, can be found by calculating the flux of the electromagnetic field at infinity, yielding

$$Q=\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }V_{n1}}{4\pi }\sqrt{\frac{(n1)(n2)}{2}}q.$$
(27)
The electric potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, measured at infinity with respect to the horizon, is defined by Cal

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=A_\mu \chi ^\mu |{}_{r\mathrm{}}{}^{}A_\mu \chi ^\mu |_{r=r_+},$$

where $`\chi `$ is the null generators of the event horizon given by Eq. (18). One obtains

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{\frac{(n1)}{2(n2)}}\frac{q}{\mathrm{\Xi }r_+^{(n2)}}.$$
(28)
Since the area law of the entropy is universal, and applies to all kinds of black holes/branes Beck , the entropy is

$$S=\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }V_{n1}}{4}r_+^{(n1)}.$$
(29)
For $`n=3`$, these quantities given in Eqs. (20)-(29) reduce to those calculated in Ref. Deh3 .

## IV Thermodynamics of black brane

### IV.1 Energy as a function of entropy, angular momentum, and charge

We first obtain the mass as a function of the extensive quantities $`S`$, $`J`$, and $`Q`$. Using the expression for the entropy, the mass, the angular momenta, and the charge given in Eqs. (20), (21), (27), (29), and the fact that $`f(r_+)=0`$, one can obtain a Smarr-type formula as

$$M(S,J,Q)=\frac{(nZ1)\sqrt{_i^kJ_i^2}}{nl\sqrt{Z(Z1)}},$$
(30)
where $`Z=\mathrm{\Xi }^2`$ is the positive real root of the following equation:

$$\left(Z1\right)^{(d2)}\frac{Z}{16S^2}\left\{\frac{4\pi (n1)(n2)lSJ}{n[(n1)(n2)S^2+2\pi ^2Q^2l^2]}\right\}^{(2n2)}=0.$$
(31)
One may then regard the parameters $`S`$, $`J`$, and $`Q`$ as a complete set of extensive parameters for the mass $`M(S,J,Q)`$ and define the intensive parameters conjugate to $`S`$, $`J`$ and $`Q`$. These quantities are the temperature, the angular velocities, and the electric potential

$$T=\left(\frac{M}{S}\right)_{J,Q},\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\left(\frac{M}{J_i}\right)_{S,Q},\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\frac{M}{Q}\right)_{S,J}.$$
(32)
It is a matter of straightforward calculation to show that the intensive quantities calculated by Eq. (32) coincide with Eqs. (22), (23), and (28) found in Sec. (III). Thus, the thermodynamic quantities calculated in Sec. (III) satisfy the first law of thermodynamics

$$dM=TdS+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_idJ_i+\mathrm{\Phi }dQ.$$
(33)
### IV.2 Thermodynamic potentials

We now obtain the thermodynamic potential in the grand-canonical and canonical ensembles. Using the definition of the Gibbs potential $`G(T,\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi })=I/\beta `$ , we obtain

$$G=\frac{V_{n1}}{16\pi }\left(\frac{2}{n^2(n1)(1_i^kl^2\mathrm{\Omega }_i^2)}\right)^{n/2}\left(\gamma ^2+n^2(n2)\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)(\gamma l)^{(n2)},$$
(34)
where

$$\gamma =\sqrt{2n2}T\pi l+\sqrt{2(n1)\pi ^2T^2l^2+n(n2)^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2}.$$
(35)
Using the expressions (22), (23), and (28) for the inverse Hawking temperature, the angular velocities and the electric potential, one obtains

$$G(T,\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi })=MTS\underset{i}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_iJ_i\mathrm{\Phi }Q,$$
(36)
which means that $`G(T,\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is, indeed, the Legendre transformation of the $`M(S,J_i,Q)`$ with respect to $`S,`$ $`J_i`$, and $`Q`$. It is a matter of straightforward calculation to show that the extensive quantities

$$J_i=\left(\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}\right)_{T,\mathrm{\Phi }},Q=\left(\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)_{T,\mathrm{\Omega }},S=\left(\frac{G}{T}\right)_{\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(37)
turn out to coincide precisely with the expressions (21), (27), and (29).

For the canonical ensemble, the Helmholtz free energy $`F(T,J,Q)`$ is defined as

$$F(T,J,Q)=\frac{\stackrel{}{I}}{\beta }+\underset{i}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_iJ_i,$$
(38)
where $`\stackrel{}{I}`$ is given by Eq. (26). One can verify that the conjugate quantities

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\left(\frac{F}{J_i}\right)_{T,Q},\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\frac{F}{Q}\right)_{T,J},S=\left(\frac{F}{T}\right)_{J,Q},$$
(39)
agree with expressions (23), (28), and (29). Also it is worthwhile to mention that $`F(T,J,Q)`$ is the Legendre transformation of the $`M(S,J_i,Q)`$ with respect to $`S`$, i.e

$$F(T,J,Q)=MTS.$$
(40)
### IV.3 Stability in the canonical and the grand-canonical ensemble

The stability of a thermodynamic system with respect to the small variations of the thermodynamic coordinates, is usually performed by analyzing the behavior of the entropy $`S(M,J,Q)`$ around the equilibrium. The local stability in any ensemble requires that $`S(M,J,Q)`$ be a convex function of their extensive variables or its Legendre transformation must be a concave function of their intensive variables. Thus, the local stability can in principle be carried out by finding the determinant of the Hessian matrix of $`S`$ with respect to its extensive variables $`X_i`$, $`𝐇_{X_iX_j}^S=[^2S/X_iX_j]`$, or the determinant of the Hessian of the Gibbs function with respect to its intensive variables $`Y_i`$, $`𝐇_{Y_iY_j}^G=[^2G/Y_iY_j]`$ Cvet ; Cal . Also, one can perform the stability analysis through the use of the Hessian matrix of the mass with respect to its extensive parameters Gub . In our case the entropy $`S`$ is a function of the mass, angular momenta, the charge. The number of thermodynamic variables depends on the ensemble which is used. In the canonical ensemble, the charge and the angular momenta are fixed parameters, and therefore the positivity of the thermal capacity $`C_{J,Q}=T(S/T)_{J,Q}`$ is sufficient to assure the local stability. The thermal capacity $`C_{J,Q}`$ at constant charge and angular momenta is

$`C_{J,Q}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Xi }V_{n1}}{4}}r^{(n1)}[nr^{(2n2)}(n2)q^2l^2][r^{(2n2)}+q^2l^2]`$ (41)
$`\times [(n2)\mathrm{\Xi }^2+1]\{(n2)q^4l^4[(3n6)\mathrm{\Xi }^2(n3)]`$
$`2q^2l^2r^{(2n2)}[(3n6)\mathrm{\Xi }^2n^2+3]+nr^{(4n4)}[(n+2)\mathrm{\Xi }^2(n+1)]\}^1.`$
Figure 1 shows the behavior of the heat capacity as a function of the charge parameter. It shows that $`C_{J,Q}`$ is positive in various dimensions and goes to zero as $`q`$ approaches its critical value (extreme black brane). Thus, the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional AAdS charged rotating black brane is locally stable in the canonical ensemble.

In the grand-canonical ensemble, we find it more convenient to work with the Gibbs potential $`G(T,\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Here the thermodynamic variables are the temperature, the angular velocities, and the electric potential. After some algebraic manipulation, we obtain

$$\left|𝐇_{T,\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }}^G\right|=\left(\frac{n3}{n}\right)\left[\frac{nm}{16\pi }\right]^k\left[\frac{(n2)\mathrm{\Xi }^2+1}{r_+^n+(\frac{n2}{2})ml^2}\right](l\mathrm{\Xi })^{2k+2}\mathrm{\Xi }^2r^{3n4}.$$
(42)
As one can see from Eq. (42), $`\left|𝐇_{T,\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }}^G\right|`$ is positive for all the phase space, and therefore the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional AAdS charged rotating black brane is locally stable in the grand-canonical ensemble. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, one can also perform the local stability analysis through the use of the determinant of the Hessian matrix of $`M`$ with respect to $`S`$, $`J`$ and $`Q`$, which has the same result, since $`\left|𝐇_{S,J_i,Q}^M\right|=\left|𝐇_{T,\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }}^G\right|^1`$.

### IV.4  Logarithmic correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy

In recent years, there are several works in literature suggesting that for a large class of black holes, the area law of the entropy receives additive logarithmic corrections due to thermal fluctuation of the object around its equilibrium Maj . Typically, the corrected formula has the form

$$S=S_0K\mathrm{ln}(S_0)+\mathrm{},$$
(43)
where $`S_0`$ is the standard Bekenstein-Hawking term and $`K`$ is a number. In Ref. Das  an expression has been found for the leading-order correction of a generic thermodynamic system in terms of the heat capacity $`C`$ as Das

$$S=S_0K\mathrm{ln}(CT^2).$$
(44)
Equation (44) has been considered by many authors for Schwarzschild-AdS, Reissner-Nordstrom-AdS, BTZ, and slowly Kerr-AdS spacetimes Od2 . Thus, it is worthwhile to investigate its application for the charged rotating black brane considered in this paper. Using Eqs. (22), (29), and (41) with $`q=0`$, one obtains

$$S=S_0\frac{n+1}{2(n1)}\mathrm{ln}(S_0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(\mathrm{\Xi }),$$
(45)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(\mathrm{\Xi })`$ is a positive constant depending on $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`n`$. Equation (45) shows that the correction of the entropy is proportional to the logarithm of the area of the horizon. For small values of $`q`$ the logarithmic correction in Eq. (44) can be expanded in terms of the power of $`S_0`$ as

$$S=S_0\frac{n+1}{2(n1)}\mathrm{ln}(S_0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(\mathrm{\Xi })+\frac{l^2\mathrm{\Xi }^2[(n4)\mathrm{\Xi }^2+2]}{16[(n+2)\mathrm{\Xi }^2n1]}\frac{q^2}{S_0^2}+\mathrm{}$$
(46)
Again the leading term is a logarithmic term of the area.

## V CLOSING REMARKS

In this paper, we calculated the conserved quantities and the Euclidean actions of the charged rotating black branes both in the canonical and the grand-canonical ensemble through the use of counterterms renormalization procedure. Also we obtained the charge and electric potentials of the black brane in an arbitrary dimension. We found that the logarithmic divergencies associated with the Weyl anomalies and matter field are zero. We obtained a Smarr-type formula for the mass as a function of the extensive parameters $`S`$, $`J`$ and $`Q`$, calculated the temperature, angular velocity, and electric potential, and showed that these quantities satisfy the first law of thermodynamics. Using the conserved quantities and the Euclidean actions, the thermodynamics potentials of the system in the canonical and grand-canonical ensemble were calculated. We found that the Helmholtz free energy $`F(T,J,Q)`$ is a Legendre transformation of the mass with respect to $`S`$ and the Gibbs potential is a Legendre transformation of the mass with respect to $`S,`$ $`J`$ and $`Q`$ in the grand-canonical ensemble.

Also, we studied the phase behavior of the charged rotating black branes in $`(n+1)`$ dimensions and showed that there is no Hawking-Page phase transition in spite of the angular momentum of the branes. Indeed, we calculated the heat capacity and the determinant of the Hessian matrix of the Gibbs potential with respect to $`S`$, $`J`$, and $`Q`$ of the black brane and found that they are positive for all the phase space, which means that the brane is stable for all the allowed values of the metric parameters discussed in Sec. III. This analysis has also be done through the use of the determinant of the Hessian matrix of $`M(S,J,Q)`$ with respect its extensive variables and we got the same phase behavior. This phase behavior is commensurate with the fact that there is no Hawking-Page transition for a black object whose horizon is diffeomorphic to $`^p`$ and therefore the system is always in the high temperature phase Wit .

Finally, we obtained the logarithmic correction of the entropy due to the thermal fluctuation around the thermal equilibrium. For the case of uncharged rotation black brane, we found that only a term which is proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{area})`$ will appear. But we found that for the charged rotating black brane, the correction contains other powers of the $`area`$ including the logarithmic term. Verlinde drew a fundamental connection between the holographic principle, the entropy formula for conformal field theory, and the Friedman-Robertson-Walker equations for a closed radiation dominated universe Ver . Therefore the investigation of the effect of the logarithmic corrections to the Cardy-Verlinde formula when thermal fluctuations of the AAdS black brane are taken into account and their influence on the braneworld cosmology remains a subject for future.


text:
# References

On the uncertainty principle for proper time and mass

B. RAM

Physics Department, New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA

and

Umrao Institute of Fundamental Research

A2/214 Janak Puri, New Delhi, 110 058, India

## Abstract

In \[J. Math. Phys. 40, 1237 (1999)\] Kudaka and Matsumoto derive the uncertainty relation $`c^2\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \mathrm{}/2`$ between the rest mass $`m`$ and the proper time $`\tau `$, by considering the Lagrangian $`M(\dot{\tau }c^1\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu })+eA_\mu (x)\dot{x}^\mu `$. In this note we give an alternative derivation based on a special case of the time-like geodesic equation obtained using the general relativistic Lagrangian $`g_{\mu \nu }\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }\frac{dx^\nu }{d\tau }`$.

correspondence address

In an interesting paper  published in this journal, Kudaka and Matsumoto derive the uncertainty relation

$$c^2\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}$$
(1)
between the rest mass $`m`$ and the proper time $`\tau `$, by considering a Lagrangian in which the proper time is included as a dynamic variable like the positions $`x^i`$. Specifically, they consider the Lagrangian

$$L=M(\dot{\tau }c^1\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }(x)\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu })+eA_\mu (x)\dot{x}^\mu $$
(2)
and find, as a result of their analysis, that the energy $`E=mc^2`$ is the generalized momentum conjugate to the proper time, and that $`\tau ,E,x^i,`$ and $`p_i`$ are canonical variables of the system. Consequently the corresponding operators

$$\widehat{\tau },\widehat{E},\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{p}_i(i=1,2,3),$$

satisfy the commutation relations

$$[\widehat{E},\widehat{\tau }]=[\widehat{x}^i,\widehat{p}_i]=i\mathrm{},$$
(3)
the relation $`[\widehat{E},\widehat{\tau }]=i\mathrm{}`$ in (3) giving the uncertainty relation (1).

In the present note we give an alternative derivation of Eq. (1).

It is well-known  that in general relativity the equations governing the time-like geodesics in a space-time with the line element

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(4)
can be derived from the Lagrangian

$$2=g_{\mu \nu }\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }\frac{dx^\nu }{d\tau },$$
(5)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time. For the Schwarzschild space-time, the Lagrangian is (from now on we use units in which $`c=\mathrm{}=G=1`$)

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)\dot{t}^2\frac{\dot{r}^2}{1\frac{2m}{r}}r^2\dot{\theta }^2(r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )\dot{\varphi }^2\right],$$
(6)
where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to $`\tau `$. The corresponding canonical momenta are

$`p_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{t}}}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}\right)\dot{t},`$ (7a)
$`p_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{r}}}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}\right)^1\dot{r},`$ (7b)
$`p_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{\varphi }}}=(r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )\dot{\varphi },`$ (7c)
and
$$p_\theta =\frac{}{\dot{\theta }}=r^2\dot{\theta }.$$
(7d)
The resulting Hamiltonian is

$$H=p_t\dot{t}(p_r\dot{r}+p_\theta \dot{\theta }+p_\varphi \dot{\varphi })=.$$
(7h)
From the equality of the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian it follows that

$$H==\mathrm{constant}.$$
(7i)
For time-like geodesics, $`2`$ has the value +1. Integrating the equations

$$\frac{dp_t}{d\tau }=\frac{}{t}=0\mathrm{and}\frac{\mathrm{dp}_\varphi }{\mathrm{d}\tau }=\frac{}{\varphi }=0$$
(7j)
one gets

$$p_t=\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)\dot{t}=\mathrm{constant}=(\mathrm{say})$$
(7k)
and

$$p_\varphi =r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \dot{\varphi }=\mathrm{constant}.$$
(7l)
Moreover, from the equation

$$\frac{dp_\theta }{d\tau }=\frac{d}{d\tau }(r^2\dot{\theta })=\frac{}{\theta }=(r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\dot{\varphi }^2,$$
(7m)
it follows that if we choose $`\theta =\pi /2`$ when $`\dot{\theta }=0`$, then $`\ddot{\theta }`$ will also be zero; and $`\theta `$ will maintain the value $`\pi /2`$. In other words, the geodesic is described in an invariant plane given by $`\theta =\pi /2`$. Equation (12) then gives

$$p_\varphi =r^2\dot{\varphi }=\mathrm{constant}=\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{say}),$$
(7n)
where $`L`$ denotes the angular momentum about an axis normal to the invariant plane, say the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. With (11), (14) and $`=1/2`$, Eq. (6) for the time-like geodesic becomes

$$\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{^2}{1\frac{2m}{r}}\frac{\dot{r}^2}{1\frac{2m}{r}}\frac{L^2}{r^2}\right]=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(7o)
For the special case when both the constants of integration $``$ and $`L`$ are zero, Eq. (15) reduces to

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{r}^2\frac{m}{r}=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(7p)
It is easy to see that Eq. (16) describes the region $`r2m`$, $`\dot{r}`$ being zero at $`r=2m`$.

For the Kerr space-time the Lagrangian in the equatorial plane (for which $`\dot{\theta }=0`$ and $`\theta =`$ a constant $`=\pi /2`$) is

$$2=\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)\dot{t}^2+\frac{4am}{r}\dot{t}\dot{\varphi }\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\dot{r}^2\left[(r^2+a^2)+\frac{2a^2m}{r}\right]\dot{\varphi }^2,$$
(7q)
where $`a`$ is the angular momentum per unit mass of the inner region and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=r^22mr+a^2.$$
(7r)
Following (see pp. 326-328 of ref. ) in an analogous manner as in the Schwarzschild case, one obtains, in terms of the constants of integration $``$ and $`L`$,

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{r}^2\frac{m}{r}+\frac{1}{2}\left(1^2\right)\left(1+\frac{a^2}{r^2}\right)+\frac{L^2}{2r^2}\frac{m}{r^3}(La)^2=0$$
(7s)
as the equation for the time-like geodesic. For the special case when both the constants of integration $``$ and $`L`$ are zero, Eq. (19) reduces to

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{r}^2+\frac{a^2}{2r^2}\frac{m}{r}=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(7t)
Note that Eq. (20) reduces to Eq. (16) when $`a=0`$, signifying that the Schwarzschild solution is a special case of the Kerr solution. Note also that Eq. (20) can be rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\stackrel{}{r}}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{m}{r}=\frac{1}{2},$$
(7u)
$`\stackrel{}{r}`$ being given the meaning of a Euclidean vector. Equation (21) is simply a generalization of Eq. (16). It describes the region $`r2m`$, $`\dot{\stackrel{}{r}}`$ being zero at $`r=2m`$. With

$$x_1=r\mathrm{sin}\theta _{in}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{in},x_2=r\mathrm{sin}\theta _{in}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{in},x_3=r\mathrm{cos}\theta _{in},$$

$$r^2=x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2,\mathrm{and}v^2=\dot{x}_1^2+\dot{x}_2^2+\dot{x}_3^2=\dot{\stackrel{}{r}}^2,$$

Eq. (21) is rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{2}v^2\frac{m}{r}=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(7v)
It is also well-known  that the three-dimensional Kepler problem, Eq. (22), is equivalent to a four-dimensional harmonic oscillator. Below we briefly sketch how it is so, by use of a matrix transformation known as the Kustaanheimo-Stiefel (KS) transformation .

Let us define the column matrices

$$X=\left(\begin{array}{c}x_1\\ x_2\\ x_3\\ 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}S=\left(\begin{array}{c}s_1\\ s_2\\ s_3\\ s_4\end{array}\right),$$
(7w)
$$\dot{X}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{x}_1\\ \dot{x}_2\\ \dot{x}_3\\ 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}\dot{S}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{s}_1\\ \dot{s}_2\\ \dot{s}_3\\ \dot{s}_4\end{array}\right),$$
(7x)
where $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ and $`s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4`$ are, respectively the three-dimensional and four-dimensional Cartesian coordinates, and $`\dot{x}_1,\dot{x}_2,\dot{x}_3`$ and $`\dot{s}_1,\dot{s}_2,\dot{s}_3,\dot{s}_4`$ are the corresponding velocity components. The KS transformation which transforms the coordinates is given by

$$X=AS,$$
(7y)
and that which transforms the velocities (or momenta) is given by

$$\dot{X}=\frac{1}{2}s^2A\dot{S},$$
(7z)
where $`s^2=s_1^2+s_2^2+s_3^2+s_4^2`$,

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}s_3& \hfill s_4& \hfill s_1& \hfill s_2\\ s_4& \hfill s_3& \hfill s_2& \hfill s_1\\ s_1& \hfill s_2& \hfill s_3& \hfill s_4\\ s_2& \hfill s_1& \hfill s_4& \hfill s_3\end{array}\right),$$
(7aa)
and

$$s^2\stackrel{~}{A}A=\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(7ab)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ being the transposed matrix and 1 the unit matrix. It is to be emphasized that (25) and (26) are independent transformations. From Eqs. (25), (26) and (28), one obtains

$$r^2=x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2=s^4$$
(7ac)
and

$$v^2=\dot{x}_1^2+\dot{x}_2^2+\dot{x}_3^2=\frac{1}{4s^2}\dot{s}^2=\frac{1}{4s^2}\left(\dot{s}_1^2+\dot{s}_2^2+\dot{s}_3^2+\dot{s}_4^2\right).$$
(7ad)
Using (29) and (30) it is straightforward to show that Eq. (21) transforms into

$$\frac{1}{2}m_{ho}\dot{s}^2+\frac{1}{2}m_{ho}\omega ^2s^2=m,$$
(7ae)
with $`m_{ho}`$ mass of the four-dimensional harmonic oscillator =1/4 and $`\omega =2`$.

Note that in Eq. (31) $`m`$ corresponds to the total classical energy $`(E)`$, the proper time $`\tau `$ to the Newtonian time ($`t`$), and the quantum equation that corresponds to (31) is

$$\frac{1}{2m_{ho}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(\frac{^2}{s_i^2}m_{ho}^2\omega ^2s^2\right)\psi =(n+1)\psi $$
(7af)
In (32) $`(n+1)`$, $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ are the eigenvalues of the operator $`m`$. Consequently the Heisenberg uncertainty relation  $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}/2`$ (inserting $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$) simply translates into

$$c^2\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$

For application of the quantum equations that correspond to (16) and (21) to the black hole physics, the interested reader may refer to refs. \[6-8\].

Acknowledgements

The author thanks S.R. Choudhury, N. Mukunda and S.M. Roy for conversations, R.S. Bhalerao for a critical reading of the manuscript leading to an improved version and the Tata Institute for a pleasant stay.