text:
# Measurement of direct photon emission in 𝐾⁺→𝜋⁺𝜋⁰𝛾 decay using stopped positive kaons

## 1 Introduction

The chiral anomaly , which is a basic feature of quantum field theory, has been the subject of extensive theoretical investigations. There are a number of calculations for decays of the pseudoscalar mesons – $`\pi `$, $`\eta `$, and $`K`$ ; however few experimental studies of this anomaly have been performed so far. With the increased interest in chiral perturbation theory (ChPT) , the chiral anomaly has attracted renewed attention. In particular, non-leptonic kaon decays are well-suited for the study of ChPT. It is known, however, that the genuine manifestation of the chiral anomaly in non-leptonic decays is restricted to the radiative decay of $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\gamma `$ ($`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$) for the charged kaon .

The $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ ($`K_{\pi 2}`$) decay is hindered because it violates the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$=1/2 rule. As a consequence, the internal bremsstrahlung (IB) contribution to $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ decay is suppressed, although it is still dominant. This feature, in turn, could enhance the direct photon emission (DE) which is sensitive to meson structure. Here, the chiral anomaly appears as the magnetic component of DE. In terms of ChPT, it enters the magnetic amplitude at $`O(p^4`$), while IB arises from $`O(p^2)`$ . Also, the electric amplitude of DE may arise from $`O(p^4`$), which one can identify through the interference pattern (INT) with IB. Thus the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ decay channel is one of the most interesting and important channels in determining the low energy structure of QCD.

Three in-flight-$`K^+`$ experiments  and one stopped-$`K^+`$ experiment  have reported on the DE branching ratio in the $`\pi ^+`$ kinetic energy region of $`55<T_{\pi ^+}<90`$ MeV. These experiments restricted the $`T_{\pi ^+}`$ region to avoid backgrounds from $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ ($`K_{\pi 3}`$) decay, although the DE component is significantly enhanced with decreasing $`\pi ^+`$ energy. The weighted average of the in-flight $`K^+`$ experiments is $`Br(K_{\pi 2\gamma },\mathrm{DE})=(18\pm 4)\times 10^6`$  which is much larger than the result from the stopped $`K^+`$ experiment $`Br(K_{\pi 2\gamma },\mathrm{DE})=(4.7\pm 0.8\pm 0.3)\times 10^6`$ . Therefore, further experimental studies are necessary to settle this discrepancy of the DE branching ratio. It is also desirable to check the existence of the INT component which has not yet been observed.

In this letter, we present a new measurement of direct photon emission in $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ decay. The experiment used a stopped $`K^+`$ beam in conjunction with a superconducting toroidal spectrometer with a 12-sector iron-core . We measured the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ events by extending the $`T_{\pi ^+}`$ region ($`T_{\pi ^+}>`$35 MeV) below the $`K_{\pi 3}`$ upper threshold ($`T_{\pi ^+}^{\mathrm{max}}=`$55 MeV).

## 2 Experiment

The experiment was performed at the KEK 12 GeV proton synchrotron. The experimental apparatus was based on the E246 experiment searching for $`T`$-violating transverse muon polarization in $`K^+\pi ^0\mu ^+\nu `$ ($`K_{\mu 3}`$) decay . Besides the $`T`$-violation search, spectroscopic studies for $`K^+\pi ^0e^+\nu `$ ($`K_{e3}`$), $`K_{\mu 3}`$, and $`K_{\pi 3}`$ decays have been carried out using the same detector system . A schematic cross sectional view of the detector is shown in Fig. 1. Because of the rotational symmetry of the 12 identical gaps in the spectrometer and the large directional acceptance of the photon detector , distortions of the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ spectra due to instrumental misalignment, if any, were drastically reduced.

A separated 660 MeV/$`c`$ $`K^+`$ beam ($`\pi ^+/K^+7`$) was used. Each $`K^+`$ was discriminated from pion background by a $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov counter with an efficiency of more than 99%. The typical $`K^+`$ beam intensity was $`1.5\times 10^5`$ over a 2 s spill duration with a 4 s repetition rate. The kaons were slowed down by a degrader and stopped in an active target located at the center of the detector system.

The $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ events were identified by analyzing the $`\pi ^+`$ momentum with the spectrometer and detecting three photons in the CsI(Tl) calorimeter. Charged particles from the target were tracked and momentum-analyzed using multi-wire proportional chambers at the entrance (C2) and exit (C3 and C4) of the magnet gap, as well as an array of ring counters  surrounding the active target system. The $`\pi ^+`$s were discriminated from $`e^+`$ and $`\mu ^+`$ by calculating the mass squared ($`M_{\mathrm{TOF}}^2`$) of the charged particles from the time-of-flight between TOF1 and TOF2 counters. Counter TOF1 surrounded the active target and counter TOF2 was located at the exit of the spectrometer. The measurement was carried out for the central magnetic field strength B=0.65 T which was chosen to match the spectrometer acceptance to the $`\pi ^+`$ momentum distribution due to the DE process.

The photon detector, an assembly of 768 CsI(Tl) crystals, covered 75% of the total solid angle. There were 12 holes for outgoing charged particles to enter the spectrometer and 2 holes for beam entrance and exit, as shown in Fig. 1. The photon energy and hit position were obtained, respectively, by summing the energy deposits and taking the energy-weighted centroid of the crystals sharing a shower. Timing information from each module was used to identify a photon cluster and to suppress accidental backgrounds due to beam particles. A Pb-plastic sandwich detector with 2.6 radiation length was set at the outer radius of the magnet pole to monitor photons passing through the photon detector holes, as shown in Fig. 1.

## 3 $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ event selection

$`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ decays at rest were obtained by the following procedure which was carefully studied in a Monte Carlo simulation (see below). The $`K^+`$ decay time, defined as the $`\pi ^+`$ signal at the TOF1 counter, was required to be more than 1.4 ns later than the $`K^+`$ arrival time measured by the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$erenkov counter. This reduced the fraction of $`K^+`$ decays in-flight contamination to the level of $`10^3`$. Events with $`\pi ^+`$ decays in-flight and scattering of charged particles from the magnet pole faces were eliminated by requiring the hit position in ring counters to be consistent with the charged particle track. The selection of $`\pi ^+`$, by $`15000<M_{\mathrm{TOF}}^2<30000`$ MeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}/c^4`$, rejected $`e^+`$s and $`\mu ^+`$s. To remove $`K_{\pi 2}`$ events, the reconstructed $`\pi ^+`$ momentum $`p_{\pi ^+}`$ (Fig. 2(a)), corrected for the energy loss in the target, was required to be $`p_{\pi ^+}<`$175 MeV/$`c`$. Events with three clusters in the CsI(Tl) calorimeter were selected by assigning two photons from $`\pi ^0\gamma _1+\gamma _2`$ and a radiated photon ($`\gamma _3`$), while events with other cluster number were rejected. The opening angle between the two photons was required to be larger than 37 to eliminate photon conversion backgrounds in the active target system. Also, the photon conversion events could be removed by selecting only events in which there was one charged particle hit in TOF1 as well as in ring counters. The total $`K^+`$ energy $`M_{K^+}=E_{\pi ^+}+_{i=1}^3E_{\gamma _i}`$ and momentum vector $`𝒑_{K^+}=𝒑_{\pi ^+}+_{i=1}^3𝒑_{\gamma _i}`$ were used to reject background contaminations. The windows of $`420<M_{K^+}<500`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ and $`|(𝒑_{K^+})_{x,y,z}|<`$50 MeV/$`c`$ were imposed.

The final step in reconstructing $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ was to determine which photons were a pair from a $`\pi ^0`$, because there are three possible combinations to form the $`\pi ^0`$. The IB events with incorrect pairing mimic the DE decay and might introduce a systematic error. In order to find the correct pairing, a quantity $`Q^2`$ defined as,

$`Q^2`$ $`=`$ $`(M_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}\stackrel{~}{M}_{\pi ^0})^2/\sigma _{M_{\pi ^0}}^2+(E_{\pi ^0}+E_{\gamma _3}+E_{\pi ^+}\stackrel{~}{M}_{K^+})^2/\sigma _{M_{K^+}}^2`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^+\gamma _3}^{\mathrm{CALC}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^+\gamma _3}^{\mathrm{MEAS}}\delta _1)^2/\sigma _{\pi ^+\gamma _3}^2`$
$`+`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^+\pi ^0}^{\mathrm{CALC}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^+\pi ^0}^{\mathrm{MEAS}}\delta _2)^2/\sigma _{\pi ^+\pi ^0}^2,`$
was calculated for the three combinations, and the pair with the minimum $`Q^2`$, $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$, was adopted as the $`\pi ^0`$ pair. Here, $`M_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}`$ is the invariant mass of the selected pair and $`E_{\pi ^0}`$ is the $`\pi ^0`$ energy obtained as,

$`E_{\pi ^0}=\sqrt{E_{\gamma _1}^2+2E_{\gamma _1}E_{\gamma _2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\gamma _1\gamma _2}+E_{\gamma _2}^2+m_{\pi ^0}^2},`$ (2)
where $`\theta _{\gamma _1\gamma _2}`$ is the opening angle of the selected pair and $`m_{\pi ^0}`$ is the rest mass of $`\pi ^0`$. The angles $`\theta _{\pi ^+\gamma _3}`$ and $`\theta _{\pi ^+\pi ^0}`$ are that between $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\gamma _3`$ and that between $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^0`$, respectively. The superscripts MEAS and CALC stand for the measured angles and the calculated angles using the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ kinematics as,

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^+\gamma _3}^{\mathrm{CALC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{K^+}^2+m_{\pi ^+}^2m_{\pi ^0}^22m_{K^+}E_{\pi ^+}2m_{K^+}E_{\gamma _3}+2E_{\gamma _3}E_{\pi ^+}}{2|𝒑_{\pi ^+}||𝒑_{\gamma _3}|}},`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^+\pi ^0}^{\mathrm{CALC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{K^+}^2+m_{\pi ^+}^2+m_{\pi ^0}^22m_{K^+}E_{\pi ^+}2m_{K^+}E_{\pi ^0}+2E_{\pi ^0}E_{\pi ^+}}{2|𝒑_{\pi ^+}||𝒑_{\pi ^0}|}},`$ (4)
where $`m`$, $`E`$, and $`𝒑`$ denote the rest mass, energy, and momentum vector, respectively, of the particle shown in the subscript. The $`\sigma `$ and offset values for each term were $`\sigma _{M_{\pi ^0}}`$= 11.4 MeV/$`c^2`$, $`\sigma _{M_{K^+}}`$=10.5 MeV/$`c^2`$, $`\sigma _{\pi ^+\gamma _3}`$=0.48, $`\sigma _{\pi ^+\pi ^0}`$=0.06, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\pi ^0}=116.0`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_K=471.6`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, $`\delta _1`$=0.35, and $`\delta _2`$=0.06. The choice of Eq. (1) and these parameters was determined to get the highest probability for the correct pairing by using a simulation with the IB component. The correct pairing probability was estimated to be 85% for IB, 79% for DE, and 83% for INT. Since $`K_{\pi 3}`$ and $`K_{\pi 2}`$ decays do not satisfy the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ kinematics, the $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ values of the $`K_{\pi 3}`$ and $`K_{\pi 2}`$ events are essentially larger, as shown in Fig. 2(b). Therefore, the cut of $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2<4.3`$ drastically reduced these contaminations.

The number of good $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ events is 4434 after the above standard selection conditions. The background fraction of the $`K_{\pi 3}`$ decay was estimated to be 1.2% from the simulation. The solid lines in Fig. 3 show the experimental $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ spectra after subtracting the backgrounds: (a) $`\pi ^+`$ momentum, (b) opening angle between $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\gamma _3`$, (c) opening angle between $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\gamma _3`$, and (d) $`\gamma _3`$ energy. These are compared with the calculated ones (see below).

## 4 Monte Carlo simulation

In order to obtain the detector response function, a Monte Carlo simulation was carried out for both the $`\pi ^+`$ measurement by the spectrometer and the photon measurement by the CsI(Tl) calorimeter using a GEANT-based Monte Carlo code. In this simulation, $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ events due to the IB, DE, and INT processes were generated with the corresponding matrix elements  and analyzed in the same manner as the experimental data. The accuracy of the simulation was carefully checked by comparing the $`K_{\pi 2}`$ spectrum with the experimental one. The $`K_{\pi 3}`$ decay was also used to check the reproducibility of the experimental conditions in the simulation.

The detector acceptance ratios were obtained to be $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{DE})/\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{IB})=2.63`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{INT})/\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{IB})=2.56`$ which were used to determine relative decay strength of the DE and INT components normalized to the IB component. Here it should be noted that events with incorrect pairing were included in the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ sample, and this effect was also treated in the simulation. The pairing probability could be controlled by requiring extra cuts in addition to the standard cuts at the cost of good $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ events. Two cut conditions, (I) $`Q_{\mathrm{sec}}^2Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2>1`$ and (II) $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\gamma _1\gamma _2}>0`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^0\gamma _3}<0`$, were individually or simultaneously imposed, where $`Q_{\mathrm{sec}}^2`$ is the second smallest $`Q^2`$ value among the three combinations. The pairing probability and good event acceptance under these conditions are summarized in Table 1. It is possible to increase the probability up to 95% (IB) and 85% (DE), although 23% of the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ events are rejected. These cuts were used for the estimation of systematic errors.

The $`K_{\pi 3}`$ background was also estimated by the simulation and subtracted from the experimental data. Since the present spectrometer acceptance overlapped the $`K_{\pi 3}`$ region, the estimation of the $`K_{\pi 3}`$ fraction was important. The obvious $`K_{\pi 3}`$ events were identified as 3 photon clusters with one escaping photon using cuts of $`T_{\pi ^+}<`$ 55 MeV ($`p_{\pi ^+}<135`$ MeV/$`c`$), $`350<M_{K^+}<440`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, $`15000<M_{\mathrm{TOF}}^2<35000`$ MeV$`{}_{}{}^{2}/c^4`$, and $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2>10`$. These events were compared with the simulation to confirm the accuracy of the simulation and to check the correctness of the background estimation. Fig. 4(a),(b) show the $`Q_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ distributions of the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ and $`K_{\pi 3}`$ events, respectively, for the experimental data (solid line) and the simulation (dotted line). They are in excellent agreement, supporting the correct estimation of the $`K_{\pi 3}`$ fraction in the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ sample. The dashed line in Fig. 4(a) shows the simulated $`K_{\pi 3}`$ background which survived after the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ selection.

## 5 Results

The DE branching ratio was determined using the three observables, cos$`\theta _{\pi ^+\gamma _3}`$, cos$`\theta _{\pi ^0\gamma _3}`$, and $`E_{\gamma _3}`$ which have characteristic spectra corresponding to the decay processes. The experimental distribution $`\rho (\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^+\gamma _3},\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\pi ^0\gamma _3},E_{\gamma _3})`$ of $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ data from the standard cut conditions was fitted to a simulation spectrum of IB\[1+$`\alpha `$(DE/IB)+$`\beta `$(INT/IB)\] with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ being free parameters. The DE and INT components were obtained to be $`\alpha `$=(0.92$`{}_{0.38}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.44}`$)% and $`\beta `$=($`0.58_{0.83}^{+0.91}`$)%, respectively. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ is 1.27. Fig. 5 shows the $`\chi ^2`$ contour plot in the ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$) space. $`\beta `$ is consistent with zero and we conclude that there is no significant INT component observed within the experimental accuracy. By assuming $`\beta =0`$ in the fitting, the DE component was determined to be $`\alpha `$=(0.76$`\pm `$0.31)% with a reduced $`\chi ^2`$=1.28. The DE branching ratio was derived to be $`Br(K_{\pi 2\gamma },\mathrm{DE})`$=(6.1$`\pm `$2.5) $`\times 10^6`$ by normalizing it to the theoretical value of the IB branching ratio . The dotted and dashed lines in Fig. 3 show the fitted spectra and the sole DE components, respectively, under the assumption of $`\beta =`$0. It can be seen that 26% of DE comes from the region $`T_{\pi ^+}<55`$ MeV. Fig. 6(a),(b) show the cos$`\theta _{\pi ^+\gamma _3}`$ and cos$`\theta _{\pi ^0\gamma _3}`$ spectra, respectively, of the DE component obtained by subtracting the fitted IB component from the experimental data (dots) and the fitted DE component (histogram).

The major systematic errors in the DE measurement come mainly from imperfect reproducibility of the experimental conditions in the simulation as follows. The $`\gamma `$ mispairing effect was studied by varying the pairing probability. In addition to the standard $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ selection conditions, extra cuts given in Table.1 were imposed. The DE branching ratio was found to be consistent within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha <`$0.17% which was regarded as the upper bound of this systematic error. The uncertainty due to the calibration error of the CsI(Tl) calorimeter was evaluated by introducing the maximum conceivable errors in the simulation, and found to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.13`$%. The $`K_{\pi 3}`$ fraction in the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ data depends slightly on the $`K_{\pi 3}`$ decay form factors, however this effect is negligibly small. The systematic error due to the ambiguity of the $`K_{\pi 3}`$ fraction was obtained as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.03`$% by rejecting events with $`T_\pi <`$55 MeV. The contribution from the accidental background was estimated to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.08`$% by changing its fraction varying the TDC gate widths. The uncertainty due to the spectrometer field ambiguity was obtained to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.02`$%. As shown in Table 2, the total systematic error was estimated to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{\mathrm{total}}<`$0.23% by adding all the item in quadrature. However, this upper bound was regarded here as one standard deviation of the systematic error.

## 6 Conclusion

We have performed a new measurement of the $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay by extending the $`T_{\pi ^+}`$ lower bound down to 35 MeV. The detector response and acceptance functions were evaluated by a Monte Carlo simulation based on GEANT. The reproducibility of the experimental conditions in the simulation was carefully checked using $`K_{\pi 2}`$ and $`K_{\pi 3}`$ decays. The $`K_{\pi 3}`$ background contamination in the $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ data sample was also estimated by the simulation.

Comparing the experimental data with the simulation, the DE component was obtained to be

$`\alpha =[0.76\pm 0.31(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.23(\mathrm{syst})]\%,`$
under the assumption of no INT component. The DE branching ratio was then determined to be

$`Br(\mathrm{DE},\mathrm{total})=[6.1\pm 2.5(\mathrm{stat})\pm 1.9(\mathrm{syst})]\times 10^6,`$
by normalizing it to the theoretical value of the IB branching ratio . In order to compare this result with the previous ones, the partial branching ratio in the region of $`55<T_{\pi ^+}<90`$ MeV was also calculated as

$`Br(\mathrm{DE},\mathrm{partial})=[3.2\pm 1.3(\mathrm{stat})\pm 1.0(\mathrm{syst})]\times 10^6,`$
which is consistent with the previous stopped experiment . We did not observe any significant effect due to the INT component, indicating the pure magnetic nature of the direct photon emission process in $`K_{\pi 2\gamma }`$ decay.

This work has been supported in Japan by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and by JSPS; in Russia by the Ministry of Science and Technology, and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; in Canada by NSERC and IPP, and by the TRIUMF infrastructure support provided under its NRC contribution. The authors gratefully acknowledge the excellent support received from the KEK staff.


format: text

text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Many models in hadron physics originate from integrating out the more fundamental degrees of freedom like, for example, quarks. This change of field variables requires efficient tools to compute functional determinants like

$$\mathrm{Det}(i/+\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_im),$$
(1)
in the Nambu–Jona–Lasinio model  for quark flavor dynamics . Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ denote background fields that couple to the internal symmetries via the generators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. Functional determinants are highly ultraviolet divergent and thus need to be regularized, and eventually renormalized by perturbative counterterms. This is particularly elaborate when the perturbative expansions become invalid, as for example for soliton configurations . These configurations are usually static, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\stackrel{}{x})`$, such that the determinant becomes proportional to the vacuum polarization energy

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}\left(\omega _n\omega _n^{(0)}\right).$$
(2)
Here $`\omega _n`$ are the eigenvalues of the single particle Hamiltonian in the presence of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\stackrel{}{x})`$ while $`\omega _n^{(0)}`$ denote the eigenvalues in the case that the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ assume their vacuum values.

In this talk I will describe tools to unambiguously regularize and renormalize such vacuum polarization energies and energy densities starting from the energy density operator in quantum field theory.

This presentation is based on work with E. Farhi, N. Graham, R. L. Jaffe, V. Khemani, M. Quandt, and M. Scandurra. The publications  of these collaborations should be consulted for further details.

## Method

In quantum field theories energies and energy densities are computed as renormalized matrix elements of the energy density operator $`\widehat{T}_{00}`$. Here I will present the method to unambiguously compute such a matrix element when the fluctuating quantum field is coupled to a classical background. The method is based on expressing this matrix element in terms of a Green’s function with appropriate boundary conditions. Then the energy density is given by a sum over bound states plus an integral over the continuum scattering states. Ample use will be made of analytic properties of scattering data especially to deform momentum integrals along a cut on the positive imaginary axis. To regulate the ultraviolet divergences of the theory, which corresponds to eliminating the contribution associated with the semi–circle at infinite complex momenta, the leading Born approximations to the Green’s function are subtracted and later exactly added back in as Feynman diagrams. These diagrams are then regularized and renormalized in ordinary Feynman perturbation theory.

### Formalism

Consider a static, spherically symmetric background potential $`\sigma =\sigma (r)`$ with $`r=|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ in $`n`$ spatial dimensions. The symmetric energy density operator for a real scalar field coupled to $`\sigma `$ is

$$\widehat{T}_{00}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\dot{\varphi }^2+\varphi \left(\stackrel{}{}^2+m^2+\sigma (r)\right)\varphi \right]+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{}^2\left(\varphi ^2\right)$$
(3)
with the spatial derivative term rearranged for later use of the Schrödinger equation to evaluate the expression in brackets. The “vacuum” is the state $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of lowest energy in the background $`\sigma `$. The “trivial vacuum” is the state $`|0`$ of lowest energy when $`\sigma 0`$. The vacuum energy density is the renormalized expectation value of $`\widehat{T}_{00}`$ with respect to the vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{T}_{00}(x)|\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{ren}}`$, which includes the matrix elements of the counterterms. The energy density only depends on the radial coordinate $`r`$ since $`\sigma `$ spherically symmetric,

$$ϵ(r)=\frac{2\pi ^{n/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{2})}r^{n1}\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{T}_{00}(x)|\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{ren}}.$$
(4)
The wavefunctions factorize in radial functions $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(t,r)`$ and angle dependent spherical harmonics. The Fock decomposition for the radial functions reads

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(t,r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{\frac{n1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{\sqrt{\pi \omega }}}\left[\psi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)e^{i\omega t}a_{\mathrm{}}(k)+\psi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(k,r)e^{i\omega t}a_{\mathrm{}}^{}(k)\right]`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{\frac{n1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _\mathrm{}j}}}\left[\psi _\mathrm{}j(r)e^{i\omega _\mathrm{}jt}a_\mathrm{}j+\psi _\mathrm{}j(r)e^{i\omega _\mathrm{}jt}a_\mathrm{}j^{}\right].`$
This decomposition contains scattering states with $`\omega =\sqrt{k^2+m^2}`$ and bound states with $`\omega _\mathrm{}j=\sqrt{m^2\kappa _\mathrm{}j^2}`$. The total angular momentum assumes integer values $`\mathrm{}=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ in all dimensions except for $`n=1`$, where $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and $`1`$ only, corresponding to the symmetric and antisymmetric channels respectively. The radial wavefunctions $`\psi `$ are solutions to the Schrödinger–like equation

$$\psi ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{r^2}\left(\nu \frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\nu +\frac{1}{2}\right)\psi +\sigma (r)\psi k^2\psi =0$$
(6)
where $`\nu =\mathrm{}1+\frac{n}{2}`$. In each angular momentum channel, the wavefunctions are normalized to satisfy the completeness relation

$$\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\psi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(k,r)\psi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r^{})+\underset{j}{}\psi _\mathrm{}j(r)\psi _\mathrm{}j(r^{})=\delta (rr^{}).$$
(7)
Then the standard equal time commutation relations for the quantum field $`\varphi `$ yield canonical commutation relations for the creation and annihilation operators, $`[a_{\mathrm{}}(k),a_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{}(k^{})]=\delta (kk^{})\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}`$ and $`[a_\mathrm{}j,a_\mathrm{}^{}j^{}^{}]=\delta _{jj^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}`$. All other commutators vanish. The vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is annihilated by all of the $`a_{\mathrm{}}(k)`$ and $`a_\mathrm{}j`$. The matrix element (4) can now be computed by inserting eq. (5) into eq. (3):

$`ϵ(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_{\mathrm{}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{\pi }}\omega \psi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(k,r)\psi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _j}{2}}\psi _\mathrm{}j(r)^2\right]`$
$`+\frac{1}{4}D_r{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_{\mathrm{}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{\pi \omega }}\psi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(k,r)\psi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _\mathrm{}j}}\psi _\mathrm{}j(r)^2\right]ϵ^{(0)}(r)+ϵ_{\mathrm{CT}}(r).`$
Here $`N_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the degeneracy factor, $`D_r=\frac{}{r}\left(\frac{}{r}\frac{n1}{r}\right)`$, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{CT}}(r)`$ is the counterterm contribution, and $`ϵ^{(0)}(r)`$ indicates the subtraction of the energy density in the trivial vacuum.

The scattering state contribution is identified with the Green’s function by defining the local spectral density

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)\frac{k}{i}G_{\mathrm{}}(r,r,k),$$
(9)
where

$$G_{\mathrm{}}(r,r^{},k)=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q\frac{\psi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(q,r)\psi _{\mathrm{}}(q,r^{})}{(k+iϵ)^2q^2}\underset{j}{}\frac{\psi _\mathrm{}j(r)\psi _\mathrm{}j(r^{})}{k^2+\kappa _\mathrm{}j^2},$$
(10)
so that for real $`k`$

$$\psi _{\mathrm{}}^{}(k,r)\psi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)=\mathrm{𝖨𝗆}\left\{kG_{\mathrm{}}(r,r,k)\right\}=\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}\left\{\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)\right\}.$$
(11)
The $`iϵ`$ prescription has been chosen so that this Green’s function is meromorphic in the upper half–plane, with simple poles at the imaginary momenta $`k=i\kappa _\mathrm{}j`$ corresponding to bound states. For real $`k`$, the imaginary part of the Green’s function at $`r=r^{}`$ is an odd function of $`k`$, while the real part is even. Hence eq. (Formalism) can be expressed as a contour integral in the upper half–plane. The contribution from the semi–circular contour at large $`|k|`$ with $`\mathrm{𝖨𝗆}(k)0`$ must be eliminated. Subtracting sufficiently many terms in the Born series from the Green’s function yields a convergent integral. Then I add back exactly what I subtracted in the form of Feynman diagrams. The integrand (Formalism) has a branch cut along the imaginary axis, $`k[im,+i\mathrm{}]`$, and simple poles at the bound state momenta $`k=i\kappa _j`$. The corresponding residues cancel the explicit bound state contributions. The discontinuity along the cut is hence all what is left to be considered

$`ϵ(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _m^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\pi }}\sqrt{t^2m^2}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(t^2m^2)}}D_r\right]\left[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(it,r)\right]_N+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}ϵ_{\mathrm{FD}}^{(i)}(r)+ϵ_{\mathrm{CT}}(r)`$ (12)
$``$ $`\overline{ϵ}(r)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}ϵ_{\mathrm{FD}}^{(i)}(r)+ϵ_{\mathrm{CT}}(r),`$ (13)
where

$`\left[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)\right]_N`$ $``$ $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)\rho _{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}(k,r)\rho _{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(k,r)\mathrm{}\rho _{\mathrm{}}^{(N)}(k,r)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\frac{k}{i}\left[G_{\mathrm{}}(r,r,k)G_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}(r,r,k)G_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(r,r,k)\mathrm{}G_{\mathrm{}}^{(N)}(r,r,k)\right].`$ (15)
The superscript $`(j)`$ indicates the term of order $`j`$ in the Born expansion. Subtraction of the free Green’s function $`G_{\mathrm{}}^{(0)}(r,r,k)`$ corresponds to subtracting $`ϵ^{(0)}(r)`$ above. The potentially divergent pieces are precisely identified  with Feynman diagrams $`ϵ_{\mathrm{FD}}^{(i)}(r)`$, which are regularized and renormalized using standard methods. When combined with the contribution from the counterterms $`ϵ_{\mathrm{CT}}(r)`$ they yield finite contributions to the energy density (for smooth backgrounds).

### The Radial Green’s Function

A variety of solutions to eq. (6) is distinguished by different boundary conditions:

| free Jost solution | $`w_{\mathrm{}}(kr)`$: | $`(1)^\nu \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}kr}\left[J_\nu (kr)+iY_\nu (kr)\right]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Jost solution | $`f_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)`$: | $`lim_r\mathrm{}\frac{f_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)}{w_{\mathrm{}}(kr)}=1`$ |
| regular solution | $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)`$: | $`lim_{r0}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1)}{\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)^{(\nu +\frac{1}{2})}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)=1`$ |
| physical scattering solution | $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)`$: | $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)=\frac{k^{\nu +\frac{1}{2}}}{F_{\mathrm{}}(k)}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)`$ . |

The physical scattering solution is normalized with respect to the Jost function, $`F_{\mathrm{}}(k)`$ that is obtained as the ratio of the interacting and free Jost solutions at $`r=0`$,

$$F_{\mathrm{}}(k)=\underset{r0}{lim}\frac{f_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)}{w_{\mathrm{}}(kr)}.$$
(16)
In particular, two regular solutions emerge: $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ has a simple boundary condition at $`r=0`$, so that it is analytic in the upper half $`k`$–plane; $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}`$ has a physical boundary condition at $`r\mathrm{}`$, corresponding to incoming and outgoing spherical waves.

The Green’s function has the simple representation

$$G_{\mathrm{}}(r,r^{},k)=\frac{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r_<)f_{\mathrm{}}(k,r_>)}{F_{\mathrm{}}(k)}(k)^{\nu \frac{1}{2}},$$
(17)
where $`r_>`$ ($`r_<`$) denotes the larger (smaller) of the two arguments $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$. The poles of $`G_{\mathrm{}}(r,r^{},k)`$ occur at the zeros of the Jost function, which are the imaginary bound state momenta. These are the only poles of eq. (10) in the upper half–plane and, since the two functions in eq. (10) and eq. (17) obey the same inhomogeneous differential equation, they are indeed identical.

Although $`G_{\mathrm{}}`$ is analytic in the upper half–plane, $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ contain pieces that oscillate for real $`k`$ and exponentially increase or decrease when $`k`$ has an imaginary part. Actually, only the case $`r=r^{}`$ is interesting, cf. eq. (15). Then the product $`f_{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is well–behaved. This motivates to factorize the dangerous exponential components333For $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$, the case of $`\mathrm{}=0`$ is somewhat different .,

$$f_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)w_{\mathrm{}}(kr)g_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)\mathrm{and}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(k,r)\frac{(k)^{\nu +\frac{1}{2}}}{2\nu }\frac{h_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)}{w_{\mathrm{}}(kr)},$$
(18)
where $`w_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the free Jost solution introduced above. With these definitions,

$$G_{\mathrm{}}(r,r,k)=\frac{h_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)g_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)}{2\nu g_{\mathrm{}}(k,0)}.$$
(19)
The definition of $`h_{\mathrm{}}`$ does *not* just remove the free part. Instead, it enforces the cancellation of $`w_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the Green’s function. After analytically continuing to $`k=it`$, $`g_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$ obeys

$$g_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }(it,r)=2t\xi _{\mathrm{}}(tr)g_{\mathrm{}}^{}(it,r)+\sigma (r)g_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)$$
(20)
with the boundary conditions $`lim_r\mathrm{}g_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)=1`$ and $`lim_r\mathrm{}g_{\mathrm{}}^{}(it,r)=0.`$ A prime indicates a derivative with respect to the radial coordinate $`r`$. Using these boundary conditions, one integrates the differential equation numerically for $`g_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$, starting at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ and proceeding to $`r=0`$. Similarly, $`h_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$ obeys

$$h_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }(it,r)=2t\xi _{\mathrm{}}(tr)h_{\mathrm{}}^{}(it,r)+\left[\sigma (r)2t^2\frac{d\xi _{\mathrm{}}(\tau )}{d\tau }|_{\tau =tr}\right]h_{\mathrm{}}(it,r).$$
(21)
The factors in eq. (18) were chosen to yield simple boundary conditions: $`h_{\mathrm{}}(it,0)=0`$ and $`h_{\mathrm{}}^{}(it,0)=1`$. The numerical integration for $`h`$ starts at $`r=0`$ and runs to $`r=\mathrm{}`$. For real $`\tau `$,

$$\xi _{\mathrm{}}(\tau )\frac{d}{d\tau }\mathrm{ln}\left[w_{\mathrm{}}(i\tau )\right]$$
(22)
is real with $`lim_\tau \mathrm{}\xi _{\mathrm{}}(\tau )=1`$, so the two functions $`h_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$ are manifestly real. They are also holomorphic in the upper half $`k`$–plane and, most importantly, they are bounded according to $`|g_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)|\text{const.}`$ and $`|h_{\mathrm{}}(k,r)|\text{const.}\left[\nu r/\left(1+\left|k\right|r\right)\right]`$. Thus the representation of the partial wave Green’s function in terms of $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`h_{\mathrm{}}`$ is smooth and numerically tractable on the positive imaginary axis.

The computation of the Born series, eq. (15), is also straightforward in this formalism. The solutions to the differential equations eq. (20) and eq. (21) are expanded about the free solutions,

$`g_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$ $`=`$ $`1+g_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(it,r)+g_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(it,r)+\mathrm{}`$ (23)
$`h_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$ $`=`$ $`2\nu rI_\nu (tr)K_\nu (tr)+h_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(it,r)+h_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(it,r)+\mathrm{},`$ (24)
where the superscript labels the order of the background potential $`\sigma `$. The higher order components obey inhomogeneous linear differential equations such that $`\sigma `$ is the source term for $`g^{(1)}`$, $`\sigma g^{(1)}`$ is the source term for $`g^{(2)}`$, and so on. Substituting these solutions in the expansion of eq. (19) with respect to the order of the background potential finally yields the Born series for the local spectral density

$$\left[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(it,r)\right]_N=\left[t\frac{h_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)g_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)}{2\nu g_{\mathrm{}}(it,0)}\right]_N.$$
(25)
Thus I have available a computationally robust representation for the Born subtracted energy density $`\overline{ϵ}(r)`$, cf. eq. (13).

### Feynman Diagram Contribution

To one–loop order, the Feynman diagrams of interest are generated by expanding

$$0|\widehat{T}_{00}(x)|0\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\widehat{T}_x\left(^2m^2\sigma \right)^1\right]$$
(26)
to order $`N`$ in the background $`\sigma `$. Here $`\widehat{T}_x`$ is the coordinate space operator corresponding to the insertion of the energy density defined by eq. (3) at the spacetime point $`x`$, and the trace includes space–time integration. The Feynman diagrams are obtained in ordinary perturbation theory, thus the matrix element in eq. (26) is evaluated between the trivial vacuum state, which is annihilated by the plane wave annihilation operators. The energy density operator has pieces of order $`\sigma ^0`$ and $`\sigma ^1`$: $`\widehat{T}_x=\widehat{T}_x^{(0)}+\widehat{T}_x^{(1)}`$. The computation of its vacuum matrix element is most conveniently performed in momentum space. The relevant matrix elements are

$$k^{}|\widehat{T}_x^{(0)}|k=e^{i(k^{}k)x}\left[k^0k^0+\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k}+m^2\right]\mathrm{and}k^{}|\widehat{T}_x^{(1)}|k=\sigma (x)e^{i(k^{}k)x}.$$
(27)
Here I will explicitly consider the contributions to $`0|\widehat{T}_{00}(x)|0`$ that are linear in $`\sigma `$. The first contribution of this order comes directly from $`\widehat{T}_x^{(1)}`$

$$\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{^2m^2}\widehat{T}_x^{(1)}\right)=\frac{i}{2}\sigma (x)\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{k^2m^2}.$$
(28)
This local contribution is ultraviolet divergent for $`d=n+12`$. It is canceled identically by the counterterm in the no–tadpole renormalization scheme. An additional contribution at order $`\sigma `$ originates from $`\widehat{T}_x^{(0)}`$ and the first–order expansion of the propagator,

$$\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{^2m^2}\widehat{T}_x^{(0)}\frac{1}{^2m^2}\sigma \right).$$
(29)
At $`𝒪(\sigma )`$ the renormalized Feynman diagram contribution to the energy density becomes

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{FD}}^{(1)}(r)+ϵ_{\mathrm{CT}}(r)=C_dr^{n1}\frac{d^{d1}q}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{q})e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}_0^1𝑑\zeta \frac{\zeta (1\zeta )\stackrel{}{q}^2}{\left[m^2+\zeta (1\zeta )\stackrel{}{q}^2\right]^{2d/2}},$$
(30)
with $`C_d=2\pi ^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d1}{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d}{2}}\right)/\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d1}{2}}\right)\left(4\pi \right)^{d/2}\right]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(q)=2\pi \delta (q^0)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is the Fourier transform of the (time independent) background field. This piece is finite for $`d=n<4`$ and does not contribute to the total energy because it vanishes when integrated over space. The extension to higher order Feynman diagrams is straightforward.

### Total Energy

The total energy is simply the integrated energy density of eq. (13),

$$E[\sigma ]=_0^{\mathrm{}}ϵ(r)𝑑r.$$
(31)
Both, the $`t`$ integral and the sum over channels in eq. (13), are absolutely convergent. This is a consequence of deforming the momentum integral in the upper–half plane444For real momenta, $`k=it`$, this amounts to performing the momentum integral before the radial integral.. Thus the order of integration can be interchanged

$$E[\sigma ]=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}N_{\mathrm{}}_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{\pi }\sqrt{t^2m^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(it,r)\right]_N+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}E_{\mathrm{FD}}^{(i)}+E_{\mathrm{CT}},$$
(32)
where the total derivative term has integrated to zero. As already explained, a sufficient number, $`N`$, of Born approximations to the local spectral density $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$ must be subtracted to render the $`t`$ integral convergent. These subtractions are then added back in as the contribution to the total energy from the Feynman diagrams. Combined with the contribution from the counterterms this gives a finite result,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}E_{\mathrm{FD}}^{(i)}+E_{\mathrm{CT}}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ_{\mathrm{FD}}^{(i)}(r)+ϵ_{\mathrm{CT}}(r)\right].$$
(33)
In practice, $`E[\sigma ]`$ is more efficiently computed directly from the perturbation series of the total energy. First, I’d like to recall that

$$2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left[\rho (it,r)\right]_N=\frac{d}{dt}\left[\mathrm{ln}F_{\mathrm{}}(it)\right]_N=\frac{d}{dt}\left[\mathrm{ln}g_{\mathrm{}}(it,0)\right]_N$$
(34)
is valid555In general, the case $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}(t)=\mathrm{𝖨𝗆}(k)=0`$ causes uncontrollable oscillations at large $`r`$: for real $`k`$ the integral $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left[\rho (k,r)\right]_N`$ does not exist and the integrated local spectral density cannot be related to the phase shift. for $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾}(t)>0`$, cf. Appendix A of Ref. . This allows me to write

$$E[\sigma ]=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}N_{\mathrm{}}_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{2\pi }\frac{t}{\sqrt{t^2m^2}}\left[\beta _{\mathrm{}}(t,0)\right]_N+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}E_{\mathrm{FD}}^{(i)}+E_{\mathrm{CT}}.$$
(35)
The real function $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}(t,r)=\mathrm{ln}g_{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$ is determined by the differential equation

$$\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }(t,r)\left[\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{}(t,r)\right]^2+2t\xi _{\mathrm{}}(tr)\beta _{\mathrm{}}^{}(k,r)+\sigma (r)=0$$
(36)
with the boundary conditions $`lim_r\mathrm{}\beta (t,r)=lim_r\mathrm{}\beta ^{}(t,r)=0`$. In $`\left[\beta _{\mathrm{}}(t,0)\right]_N`$, the first $`N`$ Born terms must again be subtracted. They are obtained by iterating the differential equation (36) according to the expansion of $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}(t,r)`$ in powers of $`\sigma `$.

To make contact with previous work ,

$$E[\sigma ]=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}N_{\mathrm{}}\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }\sqrt{k^2+m^2}\frac{d}{dk}[\delta _{\mathrm{}}(k)]_N+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}\omega _\mathrm{}j\right]+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}E_{\mathrm{FD}}^{(i)}+E_{\mathrm{CT}}$$
(37)
observe that along the real axis the phase of the Jost function is the scattering phase shift,

$$i\mathrm{ln}F_{\mathrm{}}(k)=i\mathrm{ln}|F_{\mathrm{}}(k)|+\delta _{\mathrm{}}(k).$$
(38)
Equations (35) and (37) are proven identical by first noticing that for real $`k`$ $`|F_{\mathrm{}}(k)|`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{}}(k)`$ are respectively even and odd functions and then computing the momentum integrals along the branch cut $`k[im,+i\mathrm{}]`$.

## Soliton Formation in a D=1+1 Chiral Model

The described method is well suited to efficiently and unambiguously compute vacuum polarization energies in renormalizable quantum field theories. Then the total energy, i.e. the sum of the classical and vacuum polarization energies, is a functional of the background field. Varying this background field maps an energy surface. The existence of a local minimum on that surface indicates the existence of an energetically stable solution to the equation of motion, a soliton666The minimum itself is not necessarily a soliton because the space of variational parameters is limited and the exact soliton might have even lower energy.. Of particular interest are models that do not contain soliton solutions at the classical level such that solitons get stabilized by quantum corrections.

Now I would like to consider this idea in the framework of a simple chiral model in $`D=1+1`$ . The realistic $`D=3+1`$ case is more difficult and a discussion is presented in Ref. . In this two–dimensional model a two–component boson field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ couples chirally to a fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that come in $`N_f`$ (equivalent) modes:

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }^\mu \stackrel{}{\varphi }+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\{i/G(\varphi _1+i\gamma _5\varphi _2)\}\mathrm{\Psi }_i.`$ (39)
where the potential for the boson field

$`V(\stackrel{}{\varphi })={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}\left[\stackrel{}{\varphi }\stackrel{}{\varphi }v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha v^2}{\lambda }}\right]^2\alpha v^3\left(\varphi _1v\right)+\mathrm{const}.`$ (40)
contains a term (proportional to $`\alpha `$) that breaks the chiral symmetry explicitly in order to avoid problems stemming from (unphysical) infra–red singularities that occur when the vacuum configuration would be determined via the naïve treatment of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In this manner it is guaranteed that the VEV is given by $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(v,0)`$. Here the counterterm Lagrangian is not presented explicitly. It is determined such that the quantum corrections lead to a vanishing tadpole diagram for the boson field. Considering only the classical contribution does not support a stable soliton soliton.

In the limit that the number of fermion modes becomes large with $`v^2/N_f𝒪(1)`$ only the classical and one fermion loop pieces contribute. In the following I will only consider that limit, i.e. $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}=E_{\mathrm{cl}}+E_\mathrm{F}`$. The fermion contribution can be split into two pieces $`E_\mathrm{F}=E_{\mathrm{vac}}+E_{\mathrm{val}}`$. The valence part $`E_{\mathrm{val}}`$ is given in terms of the bound state energies such as to saturate the total fermion number that is fixed to be $`N_F`$. The vacuum piece is computed according to the formalism described in the preceding section:

$`E_{\mathrm{vac}}[\stackrel{}{\varphi }]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{\mathrm{b}.\mathrm{s}.}{}}}\left(\left|\omega _i\right|Gv\right){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}\left(\omega _kGv\right){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dk}}\left(\delta _\mathrm{F}(k)\delta ^{(1)}(k)\right),`$ (41)
which is obtained from Eq (37) by employing Levinson’s theorem. Note the overall “-” sign for fermions and recall that the single particle spectrum is not charge conjugation invariant. Furthermore, $`\delta _\mathrm{F}`$ denotes the sum of the eigenphase shifts777The eigenchannels are labeled by parity and the sign of the single particle eigenenergies.. The subtraction

$$\delta ^{(1)}(k)=\frac{2G^2}{k}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\left(v^2\stackrel{}{\varphi }^2(x)\right)$$
(42)
that renders $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}`$ finite contains both first and second order Born approximants in the fluctuations of $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ about $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$. The first order is unambiguously fixed by the no–tadpole renormalization condition and the second order by the chiral symmetry.

Having established the energy functional I now consider variational Ansätze for the background field that turn this functional in a function of the variational parameters. As an example I assume

$$\varphi _1+i\varphi _2=v\left\{1R+R\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(1+\mathrm{tanh}(Gvx/w)\right)\right]\right\}$$
(43)
that introduces width ($`w`$) and amplitude ($`R`$) parameters. For prescribed model parameters ($`G`$,$`v`$,etc.) the energy must be minimized with respect to $`w`$ and $`R`$. The resulting binding energy $`=E_{\mathrm{tot}}Gv`$ is shown in Fig. 1.

Even though the Ansatz (43) may not be the final answer to the minimalization problem, $``$ is definitely negative. Thus a solitonic configuration is energetically favored showing that indeed quantum fluctuations can create a soliton that is not stable at the classical level.

## Casimir energies

As noted earlier, the presented method to compute vacuum polarization energies is not limited to the case of smooth background fields. It is particularly interesting to employ singular background fields to imitate boundary conditions of the fluctuating quantum field. It is known for some time  that the vacuum polarization energy diverges when the fluctuating field is constrained by boundary conditions. Ad hoc schemes for their removal have been proposed . However, the method of renormalization in continuum quantum field theory represents the *only* physical way to treat these divergences.

### Dirichlet Points in One Space Dimension

The simplest example to be considered is that of a massive scalar field $`\varphi (t,x)`$ in one dimension, constrained to vanish at $`x=a`$ and $`a`$. The standard approach, in which the boundary conditions are imposed a priori, gives an energy

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_2(a)=\frac{m}{2}\frac{2a}{\pi }_m^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\frac{\sqrt{t^2m^2}}{e^{4at}1}.$$
(44)
The tilde denotes the imposition of the Dirichlet boundary condition at the outset. This expression yields an attractive force between the two Dirichlet points,

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(a)=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{E}_2}{d(2a)}=_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{\pi }\frac{t^2}{\sqrt{t^2m^2}(e^{4at}1)}.$$
(45)
In the massless limit it simplifies considerably: $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2(a)=\pi /48a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}(a)=\pi /96a^2`$. But this result is not internally consistent: as $`a\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2(a)0`$, indicating that the energy of an isolated “Dirichlet point” is zero. The limit $`a0`$ also describes a single Dirichlet point, but $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2(a)\mathrm{}`$ as $`a0`$. Also note that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2(a)`$ is well defined as $`m0`$, even though scalar field theories in one space dimension become infrared divergent when $`m0`$.

The Dirichlet point problem can nicely be studied with the presented method. A single delta–function background

$$\sigma _1=\lambda \delta (xa)$$
(46)
has the Green’s function

$$G_\lambda (x,y)=G_0(x,y)\frac{\lambda G_0(x,a)G_0(a,y)}{1+\lambda G_0(a,a)}$$
(47)
where $`G_0(x,y)`$ is the Green’s function in the non–interacting case. The momentum argument has been omitted. Obviously the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ gives Dirichlet boundary conditions, $`G_{\mathrm{}}(x,a)=G_{\mathrm{}}(a,y)=0`$. The vacuum polarization energy associated with eq. (46) is

$$E_1(\lambda )=_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{2\pi }\frac{t\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\lambda }{2t}\right]\frac{\lambda }{2}}{\sqrt{t^2m^2}}$$
(48)
To study the problem of two Dirichlet points it is obvious to consider

$$\sigma _2(x)=\lambda \left[\delta (x+a)+\delta (xa)\right].$$
(49)
The renormalized Casimir energy for this potential has also been computed in Ref. ,

$$E_2(a,\lambda )=_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\sqrt{t^2m^2}}\left\{t\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\lambda }{t}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{4t^2}(1e^{4at})\right]\lambda \right\}$$
(50)
For any finite coupling $`\lambda `$, the inconsistencies noted in $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2(a)`$ do not afflict $`E_2(a,\lambda )`$: as $`a\mathrm{}`$, $`E_2(\lambda )2E_1(\lambda )`$, and as $`a0`$, $`E_2(a,\lambda )E_1(2\lambda )`$. Also $`E_2(a,\lambda )`$ diverges logarithmically in the limit $`m0`$ as it should. The *force*, obtained by differentiating eq. (50) with respect to $`2a`$, agrees with eq. (45) in the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. However $`E_2(a,\lambda )`$ *diverges* like $`\lambda \mathrm{log}\lambda `$ as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. Thus the renormalized Casimir *energy* diverges as the Dirichlet boundary condition is imposed, a physical effect which is missed in the pure boundary condition calculation.

The counterterms to the energy density vanish away from $`x=\pm a`$ because they are local functions of $`\sigma (x)`$. Therefore the Casimir *energy density* for $`x\pm a`$ can be calculated assuming Dirichlet boundary conditions from the start simply by subtracting the density in the absence of boundaries without encountering any further divergences ,

$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2(x,a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{8a}}{\displaystyle _m^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t^2m^2}}{e^{4at}1}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4a}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{n\pi }{a}(xa)\right]}{\sqrt{(\frac{n\pi }{2a})^2+m^2}}}\text{for }|x|<a`$
$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_2(x,a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2\pi }}K_0(2m|xa|)\text{for }|x|>a.`$ (51)
This result excludes the points $`x=\pm a`$. For finite $`\lambda `$ the Casimir energy density, $`ϵ_2(x,a,\lambda )`$, was also computed in Ref.  and is displayed in Fig. 2. The energy density between the isolated points is negative and approaches the boundary condition limit (51) in a non–uniform manner. In the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ it agrees with eq. (51) except at $`x=\pm a`$ where it contains extra, singular contributions. If one integrates eq. (51) over all $`x`$, ignoring the singularities at $`x=\pm a`$, one obtains eq. (44). Including the singular contributions at $`\pm a`$ by integrating $`ϵ_2(x,a,\lambda )`$ gives eq. (50).

This simple example illustrates the principal situation: In the Dirichlet limit the renormalized Casimir energy diverges because the energy density on the “surface”, $`x=\pm a`$ diverges. However the Casimir force and the Casimir energy density for all $`x\pm a`$ remain finite and equal to the results obtained by imposing the boundary conditions a priori, eqs. (45) and (51).

### Two Space Dimensions

A scalar field in two space dimensions constrained to vanish on a circle of radius $`a`$ presents a more complex problem. For smooth backgrounds only the local tadpole diagram diverges and thus the no–tadpole renormalization condition is still sufficient to render the theory finite. For $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{x})=\lambda \delta (ra)`$ and $`ra`$ the subtracted local spectral density $`[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(it,r)]_0`$ vanishes *exponentially* as the momentum along the cut in eq. (13) increases. For finite $`\lambda `$, both the $`t`$-integral and the $`\mathrm{}`$-sum are uniformly convergent so $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ can be taken under the sum and integral. The resulting energy density, $`ϵ(r,\lambda )`$, agrees with $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)`$, obtained when the Dirichlet boundary condition, $`\varphi (a)=0`$, is assumed from the start. As in one dimension, nothing can be said about the total energy because $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(r)`$ is not defined at $`r=a`$, but unlike the one dimensional case, the integral $`𝑑rϵ(r,\lambda )`$ now diverges even in the sharp limit for finite $`\lambda `$.

To understand the situation better, let’s consider $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{x})`$ to be a narrow Gaußian of width $`w`$ centered at $`r=a`$ and explore the sharp limit where $`w0`$ and $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{x})\lambda \delta (ra)`$. For $`w0`$, $`\sigma `$ does not vanish at any value of $`r`$, so $`[\rho _{\mathrm{}}(it,r)]_0`$ no longer falls exponentially at large $`t`$ (and $`ra`$), and subtraction of the first Born approximation to $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$ is necessary, i.e. $`N=1`$ in eq. (13). As noted above, the compensating tadpole graph can be canceled against the counterterm, $`c_1\lambda \sigma (\stackrel{}{x})`$. The result is a renormalized Casimir energy density, $`ϵ(r,w,\lambda )`$, and Casimir energy, $`E(w,\lambda )=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rϵ(r,w,\lambda )`$, both of which are finite. However as $`w0`$ both $`ϵ(a,w,\lambda )`$ and $`E(w,\lambda )`$ diverge.

The divergence can be traced to the $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ Feynman diagram. This diagram is separated by subtracting the *second* Born approximation to $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}(it,r)`$, i.e. $`N=2`$ in eq. (13). Then the $`\mathrm{}`$-sum and $`t`$-integral no longer diverge in the sharp limit, $`w0`$ but the equivalent diagram must be added back explicitly. In the limit $`w0`$ it contributes

$$\frac{\lambda ^2a^2}{8}_0^M𝑑pJ_0^2(ap)\mathrm{arctan}\frac{p}{2m}$$
(52)
to the total energy. This diverges logarithmically as $`M\mathrm{}`$. The divergence originates from the high momentum components in the Fourier transform of $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{x})=\lambda \delta (ra)`$ rather than the high energy behavior of the loop integral. This divergence gives an infinite contribution to the stress because it varies with the radius of the circle. This divergence only gets worse in higher dimensions (in contrast to the claim of Ref. ). For example, for $`\sigma (r)=\lambda \delta (ra)`$ in three space dimensions the *renormalized* two point function is proportional to $`\lambda ^2a^4_0^M𝑑pf(p)`$ with $`f(p)=p^2j_0^2(pa)\mathrm{ln}p`$ for large $`p`$. This integral diverges like $`M\mathrm{ln}(M)`$.

The imposed upper limit, $`M`$, in eq. (52) plays the role of a *physical* cutoff that regulates divergences localized on the surface. It is not related to the regulator of the ultraviolet divergences in loop integrals. Hence divergences like in eq. (52) are not renormalized by standard counterterms whose (divergent) coefficients are independent of the considered background because they are fixed by renormalization conditions on Green’s functions at some prescribed finite external momenta. Divergences that emerge as $`M\mathrm{}`$ indicate that even the sharp limit $`w0`$ does not exist. The strong coupling limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ makes the divergence even worse. If the divergent terms depend on the quantity conjugate to the force (tension) under consideration888For example, the distance between plates or the radius of the shell. the force (tension) cannot be defined independently of the structure of the material. This is the case for the shell or the sphere, but not for rigid bodies.

## Conclusion

In this talk I have presented an efficient method to compute vacuum polarization energies in renormalizable quantum field theories for static background fields. Starting point for this method is the energy density operator. Its matrix element in the ground state is expressed in terms of the Green’s function which subsequently is parameterized by data from scattering off the background field. To compute the momentum integrals as contour integrals in the upper–half plane, this approach makes ample use of the identity of Feynman diagrams and Born approximants to Casimir energies. More importantly, this identity allows one to implement standard (perturbative) renormalization conditions on the divergent, low order Green’s functions. In this way the removal of the ultraviolet loop divergences is independent of the considered background.

Utilizing a variational approach to the so–obtained total energy, solitons can be constructed. As an application I have shown that in a $`1+1`$ dimensional chiral model quantum corrections create a soliton that is classically unstable. In similar $`3+1`$ dimensional models the situation is more complex , as issues like Landau poles  and sphaleron barriers  complicate matters.

The divergences that arise when a quantum field is forced to vanish on a surface can be nicely studied in this approach by implementing a boundary condition as the limit of a less singular background. Energy densities away from the surfaces or quantities like the force between rigid bodies, for which the surfaces can be held fixed, are finite and independent of the material cutoffs. Observables that require deformation or change in area of the surface cannot be defined independently of the other material properties.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organizers for this interesting and worthwhile workshop. Furthermore I appreciate helpful remarks on the manuscript by M. Quandt and acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under contract We 1254/3-2.


text:
# Decidability of chaos for some families of dynamical systems

## 1 Introduction

The notion of decidability goes as far back as to the third decade of the previous century. At the time even before computers were actually built, an important issue was which functions can be computed by an automatic machine. Notions such as that of recursive functions and Turing machines were proposed to answer such a question. It turned out that all purposed definition of computable functions were equivalent (Church‘s thesis). Then a set is called decidable if its characteristic function is computable. Problems of decidability have played an important role in several branches of Mathematics since then (e.g. the word problem, solved by Novikov  or the classification problem for 4-manifolds ).

Recently, it has been asked by Carleson in his talk on the ICM-1990 (see p. 1246 of ) and by Smale  (included in the fourteen problem on Smale’s paper) whether the set of chaotic systems is decidable, either in a general context or within special relevant families of systems. Our main result, Theorem A, is an answer to this question in the setting of certain families of low dimensional maps: the quadratic family and the Hénon family, where “chaos” in this setting will be positive Lyapounov exponents, SRB measures or positive entropy.

###### Definition 1.1.

We denote by $`Q_a(x)=1ax^2,a,x`$ the quadratic family and $`H_{a,b}(x,y)=(1ax^2+y,bx),(x,y)^2,a,b`$ the Hénon maps.

We deal with some sets associated to the maps defined above (for the precise definitions see section 2):

* $`exp^+(Q):=\{a(0,2]:Q_a\text{ has positive Lyapounov exponent}\}`$ and
$`exp^+(H):=\{(a,b)(0,2]\times (b_0,b_0):H_{a,b}\text{ has positive Lyapounov}`$ $`\text{exponents}\}`$ (with $`b_0>0`$ is small).
* $`srb(Q):=\{a(0,2]:Q_a\text{ has a SRB measure}\}`$ and $`srb(H):=\{(a,b)(0,2]\times (b_0,b_0):H_{a,b}\text{ has a SRB measure}\}`$ (with $`b_0>0`$ is small).
* $`ent^+(Q):=\{a(0,2]:Q_a\text{ has positive topological entropy}\}`$

Then our main result is:

###### Theorem A.

The sets $`exp^+(Q)`$, $`exp^+(H)`$, $`srb(Q)`$ and $`srb(H)`$ are undecidable. The set $`ent^+(Q)`$ is decidable.

We define the technical notions of positive Lyapounov exponents, SRB measures, topological entropy and decidable sets in section 2. For instance, we make some comments on the problem of decidability of sets associated to dynamical systems. In , Blum, Shub and Smale present a model for computation over arbitrary ordered rings $`R`$ (for example, $`R=`$). For this general setting, they obtain a theory which reflects the classical theory over $``$. However, one virtue of this theory is it forces the use of more algebraic methods, i.e., classical mathematics, than the approach from logic. In particular,  shows that most Julia sets (a set associated to the rational maps $`g:\overline{}\overline{}`$ of the Riemann sphere $`\overline{}`$, just like the Mandelbrot set) are undecidable. Next, there is an important problem of decidability of sets associated to dynamical systems, namely : “Is the Mandelbrot set decidable ?”. This problem was first proposed by Penrose , but since the classical computational theory deals with Turing machines (integers inputs), the question makes no sense. Now, with the modern theory cited above, Blum and Smale formalized and solved the question. For references and comments on this problem see . We observe that a result by Shishikura  says that the boundary of the Mandelbrot set has Hausdorff dimension equal to $`2`$. In particular, the argument given in  implies that the Mandelbrot is not decidable. For sake of completeness, we briefly recall some steps of Blum-Smale’s argument. If the Mandelbrot set $`M`$ is the halting set of some machine, the boundary of $`M`$ is the union of sets with Hausdorff dimension at most $`1`$. In particular, $`M`$ has Hausdorff dimension at most $`1`$, a contradiction with Shishikura’s theorem. These comments shows that the problem of decidability of sets associated to dynamical systems is relevant.

The paper is organized as follows. In next section we define the fundamental concepts and state the results used in section 3. After that, we give the proof of the theorem A. Finally, in the last section, we finish this paper with some final remarks on some open question related with the subject treated here.

## 2 Basic Results

This section is devoted to introduce some basic concepts used in the proof of our theorem.

Dynamical Results:

All of the concepts present here has general statements which holds for any dynamical system. Here we will give adapted definitions for the systems considered in this paper, which are more simple.

a) Lyapounov Exponents:

The Lyapounov exponent for $`Q_a(x)`$ and $`H_{a,b}(x)`$ are defined by:

$$\lambda (Q_a)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|DQ_a^n(1)|$$

$$\lambda (H_{a,b})=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}DH_{a,b}^n(z_0)(0,1)$$

Here $`z_0`$ is a critical point in the sense of .

We also remark that if we take $`b=0`$ in the Hénon map then the positivity of the Lyapounov exponents of $`H_{a,0}`$ implies the positivity of the Lyapounov exponent of $`Q_a`$.

In general we define the Lyapounov exponents for an invariant measure $`\mu `$ of a differentiable transformation $`T:MM`$ like the possible values ($`x\mu `$-a.e.) of:

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}DT^n(x)v\text{ , }vT_xM\{0\}.$$

Here we have the remarkable result form Benedicks and Carleson  (see also  for other proof and some other references):

###### Theorem 2.1 (Benedicks and Carleson).

For a subset of positive measure $`E(0,2]`$, if $`aE`$, then $`Q_a`$ has positive Lyapounov exponent.

b) Sinai-Ruelle-Bowen Measures:

A SRB measure for $`Q_a(x)`$ is an absolutely continuous (with respect to Lebesgue measure) invariant measure for $`Q_a(x)`$. A measure $`\mu `$ is a SRB measure for $`H_{a,b}(x)`$ if there is a positive Lyapounov exponent $`\mu `$-a.e and the conditional measures of $`\mu `$ on unstable manifolds are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure induced on these manifolds (for details see  or ).

Now we have the following result by Jakobson  (see  for an alternative proof):

###### Theorem 2.2 (Jakobson).

For a subset of positive Lebesgue measure $`𝒞(0,2]`$, if $`a𝒞`$ then $`Q_a`$ has a SRB measure with positive entropy.

c) Topological Entropy:

Let $`X`$ a compact metric space, $`f:XX`$ a continuous, $`n`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$, a subset $`EX`$ is $`(n,\epsilon )`$-separated if for any $`xy`$ inside of $`E`$, there is $`0jn`$ such that $`d(f^j(x),f^j(y))>\epsilon `$. We denote $`s_n(\epsilon )`$ the largest cardinality of any set $`EX`$ which is $`(n,\epsilon )`$-separated. Then we define:

$$h_{top}(f)=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}s_n(\epsilon )$$

We refer the reader to  for the proof and references of the next result.

###### Theorem 2.3.

For the quadratic family $`Q_a`$, the map $`ah_{top}(Q_a)`$ is monotone.

d) Attracting cycles:

An attracting cycle is a periodic point $`p`$ for $`f`$ (of period $`n`$) such that $`|(f^n)^{}(p)|<1`$. Related to this notion we have the following theorem due to Graczyk and Światek  and Lyubich .

###### Theorem 2.4 (Graczyk, Światek and Lyubich).

For an open and dense set of parameters $`a(0,4]`$ the mapping $`Q_a`$ has an attracting cycle.

Computational Results:

Here we give some notions from computation and complexity theory. We invite the reader to see the work of Blum, Shub and Smale  for detailed definitions.

We deal with machines over an ordered ring $`R`$ (e.g. $`R=`$) introduced by . Following their terminology we will call $`SR^n`$ a *halting set* if there exist a machine $`M`$ such that for any input $`aS`$ the machine halts in finite time. We also remark that the halting sets are the R.E. sets of their recursive function theory.

We say that $`\mathrm{\Omega }R^n`$ is a *decidable set* if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and its complement are halting sets. In this case there is a machine which decides for each $`zR^n`$ “Is $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$?”.

A *basic semi-algebraic* set is a subset of $`R^n`$ defined by a set of polynomial inequalities of the form $`h_i(x)<0,i=1,\mathrm{},l`$, $`h_j(x)0,j=l+1,\mathrm{},m`$.

The following key proposition relates halting sets and basic semi-algebraic sets:

###### Proposition 2.5.

Any R.E. set over $``$ is the countable union of basic semi-algebraic sets. In particular, any R.E. set over $``$ has a countable number of connected components.

The proof of this proposition is contained in . In fact, they show that any R.E. set is the countable union of basic semi-algebraic sets. Since a basic semi-algebraic set has a finite number of connected components, any R.E. set has a countable number of connected components. In the same paper, they use this proposition to prove that most Julia sets are undecidable. Here we have used similar arguments, in particular this proposition.

## 3 Proof of the theorem

###### Proof of theorem A.

First, we consider the set $`exp^+(Q)`$ of parameters of the quadratic family with positive Lyapounov exponents. By a remarkable result of Benedicks and Carleson (see theorem 2.1 below), $`exp^+(Q)`$ has positive Lebesgue measure. However, if $`aexp^+(Q)`$, then $`Q_a`$ does not have attracting periodic orbits (see ) and, by theorem 2.4 below, the set of the parameters $`a`$ such that $`Q_a`$ admits an attracting periodic orbit (i.e., $`Q_a`$ is hyperbolic) is an open dense set. In particular, $`int(exp^+(Q))=\mathrm{}`$. Thus, $`exp^+(Q)`$ has an uncountable number of connected components. But, proposition 2.5 below says that any decidable set has a countable number of connected components. So, $`exp^+(Q)`$ is not a decidable set.

Second, we consider the set $`exp^+(H)`$. Suppose that $`exp^+(H)`$ is decidable and denote by $`M^{}`$ the machine whose “halting” set (see section 2) is $`exp^+(H)`$. We can define a new machine $`M`$ as follows. The inputs are parameters $`a(0,2]`$. Given a such $`a`$, we define the input $`(a,0)`$ for the machine $`M^{}`$ and, by hypothesis, $`M^{}`$ outputs either $`1`$ (*yes*) if $`(a,0)exp^+(H)`$ or $`0`$ (*no*) if $`(a,0)exp^+(H)`$. Since, for $`b=0`$, $`H_{a,b}(x,0)=H_{a,0}(x,0)=(1ax^2,0)`$, the machine $`M`$, in fact, “decides” $`exp^+(Q)`$, a contradiction with the previous paragraph. This concludes the proof for these sets.

By a Jakobson‘s theorem (see theorem 2.2 below), $`srb(Q)`$ has positive Lebesgue measure. Since the existence of absolutely continuous invariant measures is an obstruction to the hyperbolicity (i.e., attracting periodic orbits), $`srb(Q)`$ has empty interior. In particular, it is sufficient to make a *mutatis mutandis* argument to conclude the proof for the sets $`srb(Q)`$ and $`srb(H)`$.

From the definition of decidable sets, it is easy that intervals are decidable. Now, theorem 2.3 says that the topological entropy of the quadratic family is monotone. In particular, $`ent^+(Q)`$ is an interval. This concludes the proof of the theorem. ∎

###### Remark 3.1.

In fact, if there exists a periodic orbit for $`Q_a(x)`$ with period $`s`$ and $`s`$ is not of the form $`s=2^n`$, then the topological entropy is positive. Therefore, following the period doubling cascade we can find the number $`c=sup\{a:Q_a\text{ has zero topological entropy}\}.`$

## 4 Some Questions

The fact that positive topological entropy is a decidable property in one dimension, does not permit us to directly reduce the two-dimensional case for the previous case. So, the following very interesting question remains open.

Question 1: Is the set $`\{h_{top}(H_{a,b})>0\}`$ undecidable?

In the same line we have the following question due to Milnor :

Question 2: Given an explicit dynamical system (e.g. quadratic family or Hénon map) and $`\epsilon >0`$ is it possible to compute the topological entropy with a maximum error of $`\epsilon `$?

An instructive model to explore the complexity of the Hénon map can be a piecewise linear (possible discontinuous) map on the interval with two parameters. In this case the topological entropy may be calculated using the approach by Widodo .

###### Acknowledgement.

We are indebted to Marcelo Viana for proposing the problem to us. Also, we are thankful for his encouragement, advices and suggestions. Finally, the authors are grateful to IMPA and his staff.

Alexander Arbieto ( alexande@impa.br )
Carlos Matheus ( matheus@impa.br )
IMPA, Est. D. Castorina 110, Jardim Botânico, 22460-320
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil


text:
# Functional Calculus for Semi-Bounded Operators

## Introduction

Helffer and Sjöstrand  introduced a new formula into the field of spectral theory

$$f\left(H\right):=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{𝐂}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{\overline{z}}\left(zH\right)^1𝑑x𝑑y$$
(0.1)
for self-adjoint operators. It was later shown by Davies  that the Helffer-Sjöstrand formula had greater implications in spectral theory than it was originally intended for. He constructed a functional calculus for a much wider class of operators on spaces other than Hilbert under certain assumptions on the norms of the resolvents. He in addition showed that in the special case of self-adjoint operators this coincided with the classical functional calculus.
We show that we can widen the class of functions when we consider operators with spectrums which are bounded below, since positive operators take special treatment in the analysis of partial differential equations. The results enable explicit tractable definitions of certain functions of partial differential operators in particular the Heat Semigroup.
Our hypothesis in the pending analysis is

$`H`$ is a closed densely defined operator on a Banach space $``$, with spectrum $`\sigma \left(H\right)𝐑`$. It has resolvent operators $`\left(zH\right)^1`$ defined and bounded for all $`z𝐂`$ satisfying:

$$\left(zH\right)^1c|Imz|^1\left(\frac{z}{|Imz|}\right)^\alpha $$
(0.2)
for some $`\alpha 0`$ and all $`z𝐑`$, where $`z:=\left(1+|z|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$

## 1 Preliminaries

We introduce our main concepts.

### 1.1 Algebra of Slow Decreasing functions

###### Definition 1.1

$`z:=\left(1+|z|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ for all complex $`z`$

###### Definition 1.2

For $`\beta 𝐑`$ let $`S^\beta `$ to be the set of all complex-valued smooth functions defined on $`𝐑`$ such that for every $`n`$ there is a positive constant $`c_n`$ where

$$|\frac{d^nf}{dx^n}|c_nx^{\beta n}$$

###### Definition 1.3

We define the Algebra $`𝒜`$ as,

$$𝒜:=\underset{\beta <0}{}S^\beta $$
(1.3)
###### Remark 1.4

The strict inequality $`\beta <0`$ is of importance and we conjecture that it cannot be extended to $`\beta 0`$.

###### Lemma 1.5 (Davies )

$`𝒜`$ is an algebra under pointwise multiplication. If $`f𝒜`$ then the expression

$$f_{𝒜_n}:=\underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\frac{d^rf}{dx^r}|x^{r1}𝑑x$$
(1.4)
defines a norm on $`𝒜`$ for each $`n`$ moreover $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}\left(𝐑\right)`$ is dense in $`𝒜`$ with this norm. The completion $`𝒜_n`$ is a Banach space.

###### Lemma 1.6

The function $`x^\beta `$ is in $`𝒜`$ for each $`\beta <0`$

Proof

The statement follows from the observation that if $`\beta <0`$ and $`mn`$ then

$$x^nx^{\beta m}x^\beta $$

and

$$\frac{d\left(x^nx^{\beta m}\right)}{dx}=nx^{n1}x^{\beta m}+2\left(\beta m\right)x^{n+1}x^{\beta m1}$$

###### Lemma 1.7

If $`f𝒜`$ and $`\varphi S^0`$ then $`\varphi f𝒜`$

Proof

The statement follows from the inequality

$`|{\displaystyle \frac{d^r\left(\varphi \left(x\right)f\left(x\right)\right)}{dx^r}}|`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{r}{}}}c_m{\displaystyle \frac{d^{rm}\left(\varphi \left(x\right)\right)}{dx^{rm}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^m\left(f\left(x\right)\right)}{dx^m}}|`$
$``$ $`c_r{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{r}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^{rm}\left(\varphi \right)}{dx^{rm}}}||{\displaystyle \frac{d\left(f\left(x\right)\right)^m}{d^mx}}|`$
$``$ $`c_{r,\varphi }{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{r}{}}}x^{\beta r}`$
$``$ $`c_{r,\varphi }x^{\beta r}`$
### 1.2 The Helffer Sjöstrand formula

We introduce the concept of almost analytic extensions due to Hörmander .

###### Definition 1.8

Let $`\psi \left(s\right)`$ be a smooth function of compact support on $`𝐑`$ such that

$$\psi \left(s\right):=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & if|s|1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & if|s|2\hfill \end{array}$$

then we define

$$\sigma (x,y):=\psi \left(\frac{y}{x}\right)$$
(1.5)
###### Definition 1.9

Given $`f𝒜`$ we define an almost analytic extension $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ to the complex plane

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(x,y):=\left(\underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d^rf\left(x\right)}{dx^r}\frac{\left(iy\right)^r}{r!}\right)\sigma (x,y)$$
(1.6)
and define

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{\overline{z}}:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{x}+i\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{y}\right)$$
(1.7)
###### Definition 1.10

Given $`f𝒜`$ and $`H`$ satisfying our initial hypothesis we define

$$f\left(H\right):=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{𝐂}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{\overline{z}}\left(zH\right)^1𝑑x𝑑y$$
(1.8)
We recall some important results from  showing that we do indeed have a functional calculus

###### Lemma 1.11 (Davies \[)

1. If $`n>\alpha `$ then subject to (0.2) the integral (1.8) is norm convergent for all $`f`$ in $`𝒜`$ and

$$f\left(H\right)cf_{n+1}$$
2. The operator $`f\left(H\right)`$ is independent of $`n`$ and the cut-off function $`\sigma `$, subject to $`n>\alpha `$
3. If $`f`$ is a smooth function of compact support disjoint from the spectrum of $`H`$ then $`f\left(H\right)=0`$
4. If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are in $`𝒜`$ then

$$\left(fg\right)\left(H\right)=f\left(H\right)g\left(H\right)$$
5. If $`z𝐑`$ and $`g_z\left(x\right):=\left(zx\right)^1`$ for real $`x`$ then $`g_z𝒜`$ and

$$g_z\left(H\right)=\left(zH\right)^1$$

## 2 Semi-bounded Operators

We modify our main hypothesis by assuming the spectrum of $`H`$ is bounded below and without loss of generality $`\sigma \left(H\right)[0,\mathrm{})`$.
We introduce a new ring of functions $`𝒜^+`$

###### Definition 2.1

$`S_+^\beta `$ is the set of smooth functions on $`𝐑^+\{0\}`$ with the same decaying property as $`S^\beta `$ that is for every $`n`$ there is positive constant $`c_n`$ such that

$$|\frac{d^nf}{dx^n}|c_nx^{\beta n}$$

Then $`𝒜^+`$ is defined appropriately and similarly we define the Banach space $`𝒜_n^+`$ with norm

$$f_{𝒜_n^+}:=\underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\frac{d^rf}{dx^r}|x^{r1}𝑑x$$
(2.9)
### 2.1 Seeley’s Extension Theorem

We present a theorem due to Seeley  which gives a linear extension operator for smooth functions from the half space to the whole space. This extension operator is continuous for many topologies including uniform convergence of each derivative. We demonstrate a brief proof as it contributes to the proof of continuity for our topology $`_{𝒜_n^+}`$ for each n.

###### Definition 2.2

Given $`f𝒜^+`$, $`\varphi 𝒜`$ and real $`a`$ we define two operators on $`𝒜^+`$,

$$\left(T_af\right)\left(x\right)=f\left(ax\right)$$

$$\left(S_\varphi f\right)\left(x\right)=\varphi \left(x\right)f\left(x\right)$$

###### Theorem 2.3

Seeley’s Extension Theorem.
There is a linear extension operator

$$:C^{\mathrm{}}[0,\mathrm{})C^{\mathrm{}}\left(𝐑\right)$$

such that for all $`x>0`$

$$\left(f\right)\left(x\right)=f\left(x\right)$$

The proof of the theorem centres on the following lemma

###### Lemma 2.4

There are sequences $`\{a_k\},\{b_k\}`$ such that

1. $`b_k<0`$
2. $`\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|a_k||b_k|^n<\mathrm{}`$ for all non-negative integers $`n`$
3. $`\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_k\left(b_k\right)^n=1`$ for all non-negative integers $`n`$
4. $`b_k\mathrm{}`$

Proof

See . We recall from the proof $`b_k=\left(2^k\right)`$ and $`|a_k|<e^42^{\frac{k^23k}{2}}`$

Proof of theorem
Let $`\varphi C_c^{\mathrm{}}\left(𝐑\right)`$ such that

$$\varphi \left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & x[0,1]\hfill \\ 0\hfill & x2\hfill \\ 0\hfill & x1\hfill \end{array}$$

we construct $``$

$$\left(f\right)\left(x\right):=\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_k\left(T_{b_k}S_\varphi f\right)\left(x\right)\hfill & x<0\hfill \\ f\left(x\right)\hfill & x0\hfill \end{array}$$

The series is convergent since for all negative $`x`$ the sum has only finite non-zero terms. It is evident that $`\left(f\right)\left(0\right)=f\left(0\right)`$ and when $`N𝐍`$ then for all $`x>\frac{1}{2^N}`$

$$\varphi ^{\left(n\right)}\left(x\right)=0$$

for all positive $`n`$ hence

$$\left(f\right)^{\left(n\right)}\left(x\right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kb_k^n\varphi \left(b_kx\right)f^{\left(n\right)}\left(b_kx\right)$$

and we deduce that for all n $`\underset{x0}{lim}\frac{d^n\left(f\right)}{dx^n}\left(x\right)=\underset{x0+}{lim}\frac{d^n\left(f\right)}{dx^n}\left(x\right)`$ to complete the proof.

###### Lemma 2.5

If $`a>1`$ then $`T_a_{𝒜_n^+𝒜_n^+}a^n`$

Proof

$`T_af_{𝒜_n^+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^rf\left(ax\right)}{dx^r}}|x^{r1}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}}a^r{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^rf\left(ax\right)}{d\left(ax\right)^r}}|ax^{r1}d\left(ax\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}}a^r{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^rf\left(x\right)}{dx^r}}|x^{r1}𝑑x`$
and the inequality follows.

###### Lemma 2.6

If $`\varphi 𝒜`$ then $`S_\varphi `$ is a bounded operator with respect to each norm $`_{𝒜_n^+}`$

Proof

A simple application of Leibnitz gives

$$\frac{d^r\left(\varphi \left(x\right)f\left(x\right)\right)}{dx^r}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{r}{}}c_r\frac{d^{rm}\left(\varphi \left(x\right)\right)}{dx^{rm}}\frac{d^m\left(f\left(x\right)\right)}{dx^m}$$

then

$`|{\displaystyle \frac{d^r\left(\varphi \left(x\right)f\left(x\right)\right)}{dx^r}}|`$ $``$ $`c_r{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{r}{}}}d_{rm,\varphi }x^{\beta \left(rm\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{d^m\left(f\left(x\right)\right)}{dx^m}}`$
$``$ $`c_{r,\varphi }{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{r}{}}}x^{mr}{\displaystyle \frac{d^m\left(f\left(x\right)\right)}{dx^m}}`$
and so we integrate to give

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^r\left(\varphi \left(x\right)f\left(x\right)\right)}{dx^r}}|x^{r1}𝑑x`$ $``$ $`c_{r,\varphi }{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^m\left(f\left(x\right)\right)}{dx^m}}|x^{m1}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`c_{r,\varphi }f_{𝒜_r^+}`$
and hence we have our estimate

$`S_\varphi f_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d\left(\varphi \left(x\right)f\left(x\right)\right)^r}{d^rx}}|x^{r1}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`c_{n,\varphi }{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}f_{𝒜_r^+}`$
$``$ $`c_{n,\varphi }f_{𝒜_n^+}`$
###### Theorem 2.7

Seeley’s Extension Operator is a bounded operator on each of the normed vector spaces $`𝒜_n^+`$

Proof

$`f_{𝒜_n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^r\left(f\right)}{dx^r}}|x^{r1}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^rf\left(x\right)}{dx^r}}|x^{r1}𝑑x+{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{0}{}}}|{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_k{\displaystyle \frac{d^r\left(\varphi \left(b_kx\right)f\left(b_kx\right)\right)}{dx^r}}|x^{r1}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`f_{𝒜_n^+}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_kT_{b_k}S_\varphi f_{𝒜_n^+}`$
$``$ $`f_{𝒜_n^+}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|a_k|S_\varphi |T_{b_k}f_{𝒜_n^+}`$
$``$ $`f_{𝒜_n^+}+\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|a_k||b_k|^n\right)c_{n,\varphi }f_{𝒜_n^+}`$
and hence the extension operator is continuous.

### 2.2 The Functional Calculus

###### Remark 2.8

If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are elements of $`𝒜`$ such that $`f|_{[0,\mathrm{}]}=g|_{[0,\mathrm{}]}`$ and the spectrum of $`H`$ is $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ then it is not necessary that $`supp\left(fg\right)\sigma \left(H\right)`$ is empty
since $`supp\left(fg\right)\sigma \left(H\right)=\{0\}`$ is possible and lemma 1.11 cannot be applied. This renders our problem non-trivial and justifies the technical detour.

###### Theorem 2.9

If $`f`$ is a smooth function on $`𝐑`$ of compact support such that

$$supp\left(f\right)=[a,0]$$

and $`H`$ is an operator satisfying our modified hypothesis with $`\sigma \left(H\right)[0,\mathrm{}]`$ then

$$f\left(H\right)=0$$

Proof

Let $`ϵ(0,1)`$ and define

$$f_ϵ\left(x\right):=f\left(x+ϵ\right)$$

so that $`supp\left(f_ϵ\right)=[\left(a+ϵ\right),ϵ]`$.
By Lemma 1.11 $`\left(f_ϵ\left(H\right)\right)=0`$. For all $`n`$ there are constants $`c_n0`$ such that

$$\frac{d^nf}{dx^n}\frac{d^nf_ϵ}{dx^n}_{\mathrm{}}c_nϵ$$

then

$`f\left(H\right)`$ $`=`$ $`f\left(H\right)f_ϵ\left(H\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\left(a+1\right)}{\overset{0}{}}}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^rf\left(x\right)}{dx^r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^rf_ϵ\left(x\right)}{dx^r}}|x^{r1}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}ϵc_r{\displaystyle \underset{\left(a+1\right)}{\overset{0}{}}}x^{r1}𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`ϵk_{n,f}`$
hence our result.

###### Corollary 2.10

If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are in $`𝒜`$ such that $`f|_{[0,\mathrm{}]}=g|_{[0,\mathrm{}]}`$ and $`\sigma \left(H\right)[0,\mathrm{}]`$ then $`f\left(H\right)g\left(H\right)=0`$

###### Theorem 2.11

If $`H`$ is a closed densely defined operator on a Banach space $``$, with spectrum $`\sigma \left(H\right)[0,\mathrm{})`$. with resolvent operators $`\left(zH\right)^1`$ defined and bounded for all $`z𝐂`$ satisfying:

$$\left(zH\right)^1c|Imz|^1\left(\frac{z}{|Imz|}\right)^\alpha $$
(2.10)
for some $`\alpha 0`$ and all $`z𝐑`$
then there is a functional calculus $`\gamma _H:𝒜^+𝐁\left(\right)`$ such that for all $`f𝒜^+𝒜`$

$$\gamma _H\left(f\right)=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{𝐂}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{\overline{z}}\left(zH\right)^1𝑑x𝑑y$$

Proof

Let $`f^+𝒜^+`$, then by Seeley’s Extension Theorem there exists an extension $`f𝒜`$. We define $`\gamma _H\left(f^+\right):=f\left(H\right)`$. This definition is independent of the particular extension by corollary 2.10.The functional analytic properties are inherited from the extension.

## Acknowledgements

This research was funded by an EPSRC Ph.D grant 95-98 and my mother. I would like to thank Brian Davies for giving me this problem and his encouragement since. I am grateful to all the research students in the Mathematics Dept. Kings College, London 1995-2000 for all their help and support. I thank Mark Owen and Colin Mason for some helpful discussions I am indebted to Anita for all her support.

Department of Mathematics
Strand
London WC2R 2LS
King’s College
England
e-mail: nclaire@mth.kcl.ac.uk