format: text

text:
# Regularization-independent study of renormalized non-perturbative quenched QED

## I INTRODUCTION

The divergences inherent in quantum field theories have plagued physicists for years. The infinities are removed in a two-step process; first the divergences are controlled by a regulator, then the regulator is removed using the renormalization procedure to obtain finite, renormalization-independent physical quantities. Depending on the type of regulator introduced, different problems can occur. It is useful to discuss the difficulties that arise in the Schwinger-Dyson equations (SDE’s) , since these are identical to the difficulties encountered in perturbation theory and because we will be using them as a tool to study non-perturbative QED. In the literature SDE’s in quenched QED4 are commonly studied by using the ultraviolet cut-off regularization scheme . One difficulty faced is that the use of an ultra-violet (UV) cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to regulate the integration will in general lead to an explicit violation of gauge covariance . Because this regularization scheme does not respect translation invariance in the loop-momentum integration, it will lead to an explicit gauge-covariant violating contribution in the result, even after $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is taken to infinity. More precisely, this violation of gauge invariance has been observed in quenched QED calculations employing the Curtis-Pennington (CP)  electron-photon vertex and may be traced back to a certain, logarithmically divergent, 4-dimensional momentum integral which vanishes because of rotational symmetry at all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{}`$, but leads to a finite contribution for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. It is this discontinuous behaviour as a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which complicates correct numerical renormalization with this regulator. Incorrect results will be obtained unless care is taken to identify and remove ‘gauge-covariance violating terms’ . In its favour, cut-off regularization is computationally economical compared to dimensional regularization, and gives accurate answers after gauge-covariant violating terms are removed.

On the other hand, SDE studies implemented using a gauge-invariant regularization scheme, such as dimensional regularization , will not have such a problem. However it will cause the generation of dynamical mass for all coupling constants in $`D4`$, instead of only above critical coupling in $`D=4`$. In non-perturbative studies this scheme is computationally more demanding since a careful and time-consuming removal of the regulator must be performed involving an extrapolation of many high-precision solutions for different $`ϵ`$ to $`ϵ=0`$. Additionally the accuracy of the results is, in practice, more limited because the integration range neccessarily extends to infinity.

In this paper we will be employing for the first time the regulator-independent method recently proposed by Kızılersü et.al. . This method deals with the renormalized quantities only, as the regulator is removed analytically. The dependence on the mass scale introduced by the regulator is traded for the momentum scale $`\mu `$ at which the theory is renormalized before performing any numerical calculations. In this way dimensional regularization (or any other regulator which doesn’t violate gauge covariance) can be used and the regulator removed analytically before any numerical calculations are begun. More importantly from a numerical pointof view, removal of the regulator means that no longer does one have to solve integral equations involving mass scales of vastly different orders of magnitude (and then, in addition, take a limit in which one of the scales goes to infinity). Rather, the important scales in the problem become scales of physical importance, such as the renormalized mass $`m_\mu `$ and the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ at which this mass is defined. It is therefore to be expected that the dominant contributions to any integrands will be from a finite region of momenta. This feature is generic; i.e., it is independent of the particular vertex ansatz that one makes use of, and it remains a valid consideration for an arbitrary renormalizable field theory.

The regularization-independent approach is computationally very economical and very accurate; however the price paid is that one loses all contact with the bare theory. In particular, because of this, one cannot study dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in this approach by simply setting the bare mass $`m_0=0`$ and investigating at what value of coupling the dynamical fermion mass is generated. It is in this crucial point we differ from the analysis in Ref.  where, within quenched QED, a removal of the regulator was attempted in a manner which has some similarity to what we do here. Indeed, as emphasized by Miransky (Refs. ,  as well as chapter 10.7 of Ref. ), some care needs to be taken with the treatment of the bare mass while removing the regulator in order to avoid drawing incorrect conclusions about the presence or absence of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in gauge theories. In the present approach this problem is avoided. Dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, both explicit as well as dynamical, is characterized by a non-zero renormalized mass $`m_\mu `$, and hence this quantity in itself cannot distinguish between these two possibilities. In section III A, we use (within quenched QED4) the appearance of oscillations in the renormalized fermion mass function  as the indicator of the onset of dynamical symmetry breaking. All previous studies have confirmed that the occurrence of dynamical mass generation and UV oscillations coincide in quenched QED4.

In this paper we demonstrate this approach numerically for the specific case of quenched QED4 using the CP vertex to test its validity against previous works. Our goal is to ultimately implement this technique in studies of unquenched QED4, which have now become numerically tractable because of this approach.

In section II we formulate the regularization-independent method for renormalized SDE for quenched QED in 4-dimensions with an arbitrary covariant gauge. Section III discusses the large momentum behaviour of the fermion propagator and gives its analytical form. We go on to solve SDE’s numerically in Euclidean space for the fermion wave-function renormalization function and the mass function employing the CP vertex. The integration range in these equations is taken to infinity analytically and subsequently evaluated using a combination of numerical and analytic results. We do this extrapolation to infinity to facilitate comparison with previous results at very high momentum scales and to compare these results with their asymptotic forms. We demonstrate numerically to high precision the agreement between the regularization independent approach and the modified cut-off and dimensional regularization schemes. Finally, in section IV we summarize our results and conclude.

## II REGULARIZATION-FREE FORMALISM IN QUENCHED QED4

The renormalized Schwinger-Dyson equation for the electron propagator (Fig. 1) can be formulated as

$`S^1(\mu ;p)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_2(\mu )S_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{1}(p)iZ_1(\mu )e_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha (\mu ;p,k)S(\mu ;k)\gamma ^\beta D_{\alpha \beta }^0(\mu ;q)},`$ (1)
$``$ $`Z_2(\mu )S_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{1}(p)iZ_1(\mu )\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p).`$ (2)
Here $`Z_1(\mu )`$ and $`Z_2(\mu )`$ are the vertex and fermion wave-function renormalization constants respectively. These renormalization constants relate the regularized but unrenormalized (i.e. bare) and renormalized propagator and vertex by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (k,p;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`Z_1(\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\mathrm{bare}}(k,p;\mathrm{\Lambda }),`$ (3)
$`S(p;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`Z_2^1(\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda })S^{\mathrm{bare}}(p;\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$ (4)
In quenched QED, there is no renormalization of the electron charge $`(e_0^2=e_\mu ^2=4\pi \alpha )`$ and the appropriate photon propagator is simply the tree-level form

$`D_{\alpha \beta }^0(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\left[\left(g_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{q_\alpha q_\beta }{q^2}}\right)+\xi {\displaystyle \frac{q_\alpha q_\beta }{q^2}}\right],`$ (5)
where $`\xi `$ is the covariant gauge parameter. We use $`S(\mu ;p)`$ to denote the full fermion propagator renormalized at the momentum scale $`\mu `$. It can be expressed in terms of two scalar functions, $`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$, the fermion wave-function renormalization function, and $`M(p^2)`$, the mass function, by

$`S(\mu ;p)={\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}{\overline{)}pM(p^2)}}.`$ (6)
Note that $`S^0(p)1/(\overline{)}pm_0)`$ is the tree-level fermion propagator (i.e., the bare fermion propagator in the absence of interactions). The full (proper) renormalized fermion-photon vertex is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\mu ;k,p)`$. Multiplying the fermion SDE Eq. (2) by $`\overline{)}p`$ and $`I`$ and taking their respective spinor traces, we can separate the fermion self-energy $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p^2)`$ into Dirac odd, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(p^2)`$, and Dirac even, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(p^2)`$, parts; i.e. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p)=\overline{)}p\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(p^2)+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(p^2)`$. This gives

$`Z^1(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_2(\mu )Z_1(\mu )\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(p^2),`$ (7)
$`M(p^2)Z^1(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_2(\mu )m_0+Z_1(\mu )\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(p^2),`$ (8)
and these self energies make use of any regularization scheme which does not violate gauge covariance. Here, the bar over these quantities indicates that we have explicitly separated out the renormalization constants $`Z_i(\mu )`$; note that for notational brevity we do not indicate the implicit dependence on $`\mu ^2`$ of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{d,s}(p^2)`$ through the function $`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$.

Because of the Ward-Takahashi identity, which must be satisfied by any acceptable vertex Ansatz for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\mu ;k,p)`$ and any acceptable renormalization scheme, one has $`Z_1(\mu )=Z_2(\mu )`$. Making use of this fact, Eqs. (7) and (8) can be rearranged as

$`Z_2^1(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)Z(\mu ^2;p^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(p^2),`$ (9)
$`M(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`m_0+\left[M(p^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(p^2)+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(p^2)\right].`$ (10)
In order to avoid cumbersome notation, we have not explicitly indicated functional dependence on the regulator in Eqs. (2)–(10) but it should be understood. The renormalization constants $`Z_{1,2}(\mu )`$ and the bare fermion mass $`m_0`$ are regulator dependent in the above equations. As one removes the regulator, the integrals on the right hand side of Eq. (2), and hence $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(p^2)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(p^2)`$, diverge logarithmically. It is the defining feature of a renormalizable field theory that these divergences may be absorbed into the constants $`Z_{1,2}(\mu )`$ and into the bare mass $`m_0`$, rendering finite, regularization-independent limits for $`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ and $`M(p^2)`$. However, we can make use of the $`p^2`$ independence of $`Z_{1,2}(\mu )`$ and $`m_0`$ in order to eliminate these constants from the above equations. The renormalization conditions for the fermion wave-function renormalization function and the mass function are

$`Z(\mu ^2;\mu ^2)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}\text{and}M(\mu ^2)m_\mu .`$ (11)
Evaluating Eqs. (9) and (10) at a second momentum which, we take to be $`p^2=\mu ^2`$, and taking the difference one obtains the central equations that we solve here

$`\overline{)\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \hfill Z(\mu ^2;p^2)& =& 1+Z(\mu ^2;p^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(p^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(\mu ^2),\hfill \\ \hfill M(p^2)& =& m_\mu +\left[M(p^2)\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(p^2)+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(p^2)\right]\left[m_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_d(\mu ^2)+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(\mu ^2)\right].\hfill \end{array}}`$ (15)
As the left hand sides of these equations must be finite as the regulator is removed, then the right hand side must be also, even though the individual terms on the RHS may separately diverge.

These renormalized equations Eq. (LABEL:eq:submass) with the regulator removed provide a starting point for non-perturbative investigations which have significant advantages over the usual treatment found in the literature . In the following section we shall illustrate this approach by turning to the example of quenched QED with the Curtis-Pennington vertex.

## III QUENCHED QED WITH THE CURTIS-PENNINGTON VERTEX

In this section we use the regulator-independent method for solving the renormalized SDE in Eq. (LABEL:eq:submass) in an arbitrary covariant gauge. As usual we write the full vertex as a sum of the Ball-Chiu vertex  (longitudinal part satisfying the Ward-Takahashi identity) and the Curtis-Pennington term  (the transverse part satisfying multiplicative renormalizability of the fermion propagator),

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (\mu ;k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^\mu (\mu ;k,p)+\tau _6(\mu ;k,p)\left[\gamma ^\mu (p^2k^2)+(p+k)^\mu (\overline{)}k\overline{)}p)\right],`$ (16)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^\mu (\mu ;k,p)`$ and $`\tau _6(\mu ;k,p)`$ are given in appendix A. After Wick rotating into Euclidean space and performing the angular integration, Eq. (LABEL:eq:submass) can be written as

$`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \xi }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{p^2}^{\mu ^2}}𝑑k^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[k^2+M^2(k^2)\right]}}Z(\mu ^2;k^2)`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{\left[k^2+M^2(k^2)\right]}}\left[Z(\mu ^2;p^2)I(k^2,p^2)I(k^2,\mu ^2)\right],`$
$`M(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{\left[k^2+M^2(k^2)\right]}}[J(k^2,p^2)J(k^2,\mu ^2)`$ (20)
$`+M(p^2)I(k^2,p^2)m_\mu I(k^2,\mu ^2)],`$
where the kernel functions $`I(p^2,k^2)`$ and $`J(p^2,k^2)`$ are also given in appendix A. The kernels have the same form as Ref.  except that the gauge-covariance violating term has been removed, since it does not survive the four-dimensional momentum integration in the absence of a cut-off. This term does not vanish if the angular integral is done first with the radial integral taken to infinity afterwards, which is why it must be removed by hand in the cut-off approach.

The above equations are finite which can be seen by analysis of the large momentum limits of the integrands for $`Z`$ and $`M`$, which behave asymptotically as $`(k^2)^n`$ and $`(k^2)^r`$ respectively, where $`n,r>1`$. The equation for the wave-function renormalization function Eq. (18) is the same as Eq. (10) in Ref. , however our treatment of the mass function differs from theirs.

### A Asymptotic limits of the solutions

In this subsection we solve Eqs. (18) and (20) analytically for momenta $`p^2`$ much larger than $`M^2(p^2)`$ (the asymptotic region) by linearizing them for finite mass, in a manner similar to that used by Atkinson et al.  for the chirally symmetric theory (i.e. $`m_0=0`$). It is convenient to temporarily take the renormalization point $`\mu `$ to also be very large, removing this constraint once our derivation is complete. The integrals in Eqs. (18) and (20) are dominated by contributions around $`k^2=p^2`$ and $`k^2=\mu ^2`$, so when $`p^2`$ and $`\mu ^2`$ are in the asymptotic region $`k^2`$ is neccessarily also much greater than $`M^2(k^2)`$. Expanding in powers of $`M^2(k^2)/k^2`$ and keeping at most linear terms in $`M(k^2)`$, the kernel functions take their asymptotic forms $`I(p^2,k^2)0`$ and $`J(p^2,k^2)J^{}(p^2,k^2)`$, where $`J^{}(k^2;p^2)`$ is defined in appendix A. Hence when $`p^2`$ and $`\mu ^2`$ are both in the asymptotic region, we obtain

$`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \xi }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{p^2}^{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2}}Z(\mu ^2;k^2),`$ (21)
$`M(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k^2\left[J^{}(k^2,p^2)J^{}(k^2,\mu ^2)\right].`$ (22)
These linearized equations are scale invariant and admit power law solutions.

The solution of this asymptotic form of the $`Z`$ equation is easily seen to be

$`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^\nu \text{with}\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \xi }{4\pi }},`$ (23)
which differs from Ref.  due to the absence of the gauge covariance violating term. We thus obtain for $`p^2`$ and $`p^2`$ both large that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p^2}}\right)^\nu \text{with}\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \xi }{4\pi }},`$ (24)
which is valid for an arbitrary renormalization point $`\mu `$ since the ratio is by definition renormalization-point independent. It then follows that for large $`p^2`$ and any arbitrary $`\mu ^2`$ that

$`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)=C_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^\nu \text{with}\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \xi }{4\pi }},`$ (25)
for some appropriate $`C_\mu `$ such that $`C_\mu 1`$ as $`\mu ^2`$ enters the asymptotic region.

We shall see that power law solutions of the $`M`$ equation occur in two regimes, depending on the value of $`\alpha `$. Those with a real exponent can be identified with the subcritical regime, where $`\alpha `$ is less than its critical value $`\alpha _c`$ which marks the onset of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. Those with complex exponent correspond to oscillating solutions which correspond to the supercritical regime where $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$. We examine these two cases separately in what follows.

#### 1 Subcritical asymptotic solution

Where, as before, $`\mu ^2`$ and $`p^2`$ are understood to be chosen much greater than all other mass scales, we try a solution of Eq. (22) of the form

$`M(p^2)=m_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^s,sR.`$ (26)
Solving for $`s`$, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3\nu }{2\xi }}[2\pi \mathrm{cot}s\pi \pi \mathrm{cot}\nu \pi +3\pi \mathrm{cot}(\nu s)\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1s)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\nu +1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(\nu s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\nu s+1)}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{s1}{\nu s+1}}=0.`$ (28)
This equation is the same as in Ref. , but in contrast to the unrenormalized equation examined in that paper, this power Ansatz is valid for the renormalized equation that we have here whether or not the bare mass $`m_0`$ is zero. We can again form a ratio, i.e., provided $`p^2`$ and $`p^2`$ are much larger than all other mass scales then we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M(p^2)}{M(p^2)}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{p^2}}\right)^s,sR.`$ (29)
Both Eqs. (28) and (29) are manifestly renormalization-point independent and so are valid for an arbitrary choice of renormalization point $`\mu `$. It then follows that for large $`p^2`$ and any arbitrary $`\mu ^2`$ that

$`M(p^2)=D_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^s,s,D_\mu R`$ (30)
for some appropriate $`D_\mu `$. We see that $`D_\mu /(\mu ^2)^s`$ is a renormalization-point independent constant and that we must have $`D_\mu m_\mu `$ as $`\mu ^2`$ moves into the asymptotic region.

There is in fact more than one real solution to $`s`$ in Eq. (28) (see also Ref. ), e.g., in Landau gauge there are two. However, only one of these matches smoothly onto the perturbative solution, and hence is the relevant solution. The other solutions appear as a spurious byproduct of the linearized approximation in Eq. (22) (Solutions which do not match smoothly onto perturbation theory can arise in Eq. (22) if the integrals diverge like $`1/\alpha `$, due to infrared divergences; this cannot occur in Eq. (20) because of the regulating mass in the denominator). Since $`s`$ is real there are no oscillations in the mass function and hence there is no chiral symmetry breaking for these couplings. While Atkinson et. al. are unable to generate a mass in this region, due to their initial condition being $`m_0=0`$, we are able to do so since we are not confined by this constraint.

#### 2 Supercritical asymptotic solution

In the case where $`s`$ is complex, the (real) mass function is a superposition of powers of $`s`$ and its complex conjugate. For large $`p^2`$ and arbitrary $`\mu ^2`$ we have as the counterpart to Eq. (30)

$`M(p^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_\mu ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^s^{},s,D_\mu C`$ (31)
where $`D_\mu `$ is some appropriate complex constant, and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D_\mu +D_\mu ^{})=\mathrm{Re}(D_\mu )m_\mu `$ (32)
as $`\mu ^2`$ enters the asymptotic region. Here $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ are complex conjugate solutions to Eq. (28) and the combination results in a mass function that oscillates. This oscillatory behaviour is more transparent if we write Eq. (31) as

$$M(p^2)=\left(\frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}\right)^{\mathrm{Re}(s)}\left\{\mathrm{Re}(D_\mu )\mathrm{cos}\left[\mathrm{Im}(s)\mathrm{log}\left(p^2/\mu ^2\right)\right]+\mathrm{Im}(D_\mu )\mathrm{sin}\left[\mathrm{Im}(s)\mathrm{log}\left(p^2/\mu ^2\right)\right]\right\}$$
(33)
which has the form of a phase-shifted cosine function periodic in $`\mathrm{log}(p^2/\mu ^2)`$, with a period of $`2\pi /\mathrm{Im}(s)`$, modulated by an exponentially decaying envelope of $`(p^2/\mu ^2)^{\mathrm{Re}(s)}`$. The oscillations are an indication that chiral symmetry is broken in quenched QED employing the CP vertex at sufficiently strong coupling $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$.

### B Numerical solutions

In the regularization-independent approach, the equations are constructed so as to remove all infinities from the outset and so the UV region of the integral is not a crucial limiting factor. Moreover, establishing exact asymptotic forms of the wave-function renormalization and mass functions in the previous subsection make it possible to analytically integrate Eqs. (18) and (20) from the highest grid point to infinity. We denote this highest grid point, where the asymptotic analytic forms are matched onto the numerical results, as the “matching point” $`k_m^2`$. Hence we can rewrite Eqs. (18) and (20) as

$`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \xi }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{p^2}^{\mu ^2}}𝑑k^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[k^2+M^2(k^2)\right]}}Z(\mu ^2;k^2)`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{k_m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{\left[k^2+M^2(k^2)\right]}}\left[Z(\mu ^2;p^2)I(k^2,p^2)I(k^2,\mu ^2)\right]`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`Z_{\mathrm{high}}(\mu ^2;k_m^2,p^2),`$ (36)
$`M(p^2)`$ $``$ $`m_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{k_m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{\left[k^2+M^2(k^2)\right]}}[J(k^2,p^2)J(k^2,\mu ^2)`$ (38)
$`+M(p^2)I(k^2,p^2)m_\mu I(k^2,\mu ^2)]+M_{\mathrm{high}}(\mu ^2;k_m^2,p^2),`$
where the matching point, $`k_m^2`$, is chosen sufficiently large that the asymptotic formulas are valid ($`k_m^2M^2(k_m^2)`$). These equations serve as definitions of the analytic forms that we need to evaluate, i.e., $`Z_{\mathrm{high}}(\mu ^2;k_m^2,p^2)`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{high}}(\mu ^2;k_m^2,p^2)`$ are defined as the contributions arising from integrating from $`k_m^2`$ to infinity for Eqs. (36) and (38) respectively. The analytic forms for $`Z_{\mathrm{high}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{high}}`$ and their derivations are given in appendix B. By calculating $`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ and $`M(p^2)`$ in this way we can achieve very high accuracy in the UV region.

Eqs. (36) and (38) have been solved numerically in Euclidean space for $`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ and $`M(p^2)`$ with a variety of gauges $`\xi `$, renormalization points $`\mu ^2`$ and renormalized masses $`m_\mu `$ for the couplings $`\alpha =0.6`$ (subcritical) and $`\alpha =1.5`$ (supercritical). Each solution was iterated from an initial guess until $`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ and $`M(p^2)`$ converge; our convergence criteria is that the change in successive solutions is less than one part in $`10^8`$ at each momentum point. Every iteration the data is refitted to the asymptotic analytic forms of $`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ and $`M(p^2)`$.

We have found, in line with the above discussion, that the regularization-independent method allows us to extend solutions for momenta up to $`10^{65}`$ as opposed to solutions obtained from cut-off regularization where numerical round-off error meant that the momenta in our solutions could typically not exceed $`𝒪(10^{18})`$ . We also verified that our solutions do not change when we vary the location of the point $`k_m`$ where the matching of our numerical and analytical solutions is carried out.

In Figs. 2 and 3, we show typical solutions, using regularization independent regularization, of the fermion wave-function renormalization and mass functions for subcritical ($`\alpha =0.6`$) and supercritical ($`\alpha =1.5`$) cases respectively. Also shown are corresponding solutions based on the theoretical asymptotic powers with fitted scales. The log-log nature of the figures emphasizes the UV behaviour of the propagator. One can see there is excellent agreement in the region $`p^2M^2(p^2)`$. To emphasize this point we present the theoretical and numerically calculated powers for these two solutions in Table I.

In summary : our knowledge of the exact forms of $`Z(\mu ^2;p^2)`$ and $`M(p^2)`$ in the asymptotic region saves us from the need to extend our numerical solutions far into the ultra-violet. Therefore Eqs. (36) and (38) are solved numerically up to the matching point $`(k_m^2)`$ in the UV, whereafter the analytical solution joins smoothly to the numerical one. The fitting parameters \[$`C_\mu ,\mathrm{Re}(D_\mu ),\mathrm{Im}(D_\mu ),\mathrm{Re}(s),\mathrm{Im}(s),\nu `$\] for the analytic continuation are re-calculated after each iteration.

### C Comparison of regularization schemes

We can now compare numerical solutions from the regularization-independent approach to those from cut-off regularization with the gauge-covariance modification  and those from dimensional regularization . In cut-off regularization the fermion self-energies are integrated on a logarithmically spaced grid in $`k^2`$ momentum up to the highest (cut-off) momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. Additionally in dimensional regularization, an estimate is made of the contribution to the integral from the highest grid point to infinity. In both the modified cut-off and the dimensional regularization studies subtractive renormalization is performed numerically for the regularized (but otherwise divergent) fermion self-energies. For the modified UV cut-off regularization approach it was necessary to perform the calculation at several values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and in principle perform a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ extrapolation. In practice it was found that it was sufficient simply to ensure that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was chosen large enough. For the dimensional regularization approach it was necessary to calculate solutions at high accuracy for very many values of $`ϵ`$ and then carefully extrapolate $`ϵ`$ to 0. Numerical limitations made it difficult to obtain solutions at very small $`ϵ`$, which in turn limit the achievable accuracy of the $`ϵ0`$ extrapolation.

In Figs. 4 and 5, we compare these three regularization methods for subcritical ($`\alpha =0.6`$) and supercritical ($`\alpha =1.5`$) cases respectively, with the standard parameter choice of $`\xi =0.25,\mu ^2=10^8,m_\mu =400`$. One can see the agreement between the regulator-independent (NR) and the modified cut-off and dimensionally regularized solutions is excellent. They are indistinguishable on the main figures: the inserts in Figs. 4 and 5 have the same $`p^2`$ scale and reveal the remarkable agreement between them in the infrared region. In Tables II and III we quantify the relative differences achieved between the three regularization schemes at a variety of momentum values. The difference between the results is entirely attributable to the limitations achievable in numerical precision. We can now conclude with some confidence that the three regularization schemes give identical results for the renormalized solutions.

## IV CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

In this paper we have for the first time solved the Schwinger-Dyson equations for the fermion propagator in quenched QED4 using the regularization-independent approach recently proposed in Ref. . This has been done for the particular choice of the Curtis-Pennington transverse photon-fermion vertex, since this facilitates comparison with previous results which used the (gauge-covariance) modified UV cut-off and the dimensional regularization schemes. We have carried out precise calculations in these three approaches and have achieved excellent numerical agreement between them. This clearly demonstrates that we are able to achieve high-precision non-perturbative calculations of the renormalized fermion propagator that are free from any spurious errors which might arise from the regularization procedure itself.

We have derived and used the asymptotic analytic form of the solutions to obtain high accuracy even at extremely large momentum scales $`(𝒪(10^{65}))`$. The reason that this is possible now is because in the regularization-independent approach all momentum integrations are finite by construction, \[see Eq. (LABEL:eq:submass)\]. No bare mass or renormalization constants appear in this formulation, since they have been eliminated by combining and subracting renormalized quantities. Since contact with the bare theory is lost, the onset of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking is signalled by the onset of oscillations in the UV mass function. This is a well-studied phenomena in quenched QED4. We have derived the explicit analytical forms for the oscillations in the asymptotic region above critical coupling, including the period and decay envelope of these.

The importance of this regularization-independent approach lies in the fact that since all unregularized momentum integrations are finite from the outset, we do not have the mixing of small and arbitrarily large momentum scales in the intermadiate stages of our numerical calculations. This means that we can achieve high accuracy for solutions in the low and medium momentum regime with great numerical economy. This new approach will now permit numerically tractable studies of unquenched QED4. These studies are now underway.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council. We thank Andreas Schreiber for numerous helpful discussions.

## A

The expressions mentioned in section III are given below.
The Ball-Chiu vertex  is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^\mu (\mu ;k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}\right)\gamma ^\mu `$ (A2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(k+p)^\mu }{k^2p^2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p)}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M(k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M(p^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}\right)\right].`$
The coefficient function of the transverse vertex (Curtis-Pennington)  is

$`\tau _6(\mu ;k,p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}\right),`$ (A3)
where

$`d={\displaystyle \frac{\left\{(k^2p^2)^2+\left(M^2(k^2)+M^2(p^2)\right)^2\right\}}{(k^2+p^2)}}.`$ (A4)
The constituents of the integrand in Eqs. (18) and (20) are the renormalization-point independent kernel functions

$`I(k^2,p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2(k^2p^2)}}\{M(k^2)[M(k^2)M(p^2){\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}]`$ (A7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k^2+p^2)(M^2(k^2)+M^2(p^2))^2}{\left\{(k^2p^2)^2+(M^2(k^2)+M^2(p^2))^2\right\}}}[1{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}]\left\}\right({\displaystyle \frac{k^4}{p^4}}\theta (p^2k^2)+\theta (k^2p^2))`$
$`+\xi {\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M(k^2)M(p^2)}{k^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^4}{p^4}}\theta (p^2k^2)\right),`$
$`J(k^2,p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}M(k^2)\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(k^4p^4)}{\left\{(k^2p^2)^2+(M^2(k^2)+M^2(p^2))^2\right\}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}\right)\right\}`$ (A9)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{p^2}}\theta (p^2k^2)+\theta (k^2p^2)\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}p^2{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M(k^2)M(p^2))}{k^2p^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^4}{p^4}}\theta (p^2k^2)+\theta (k^2p^2)\right)`$ (A10)
$`+`$ $`\xi {\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}M(k^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{p^2}}\theta (p^2k^2)\right).`$ (A11)
Linearizing Eqs. (A7) and (A11) in terms of the mass function yields

$`I(k^2,p^2)`$ $`{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{k^2,p^2M^2}}`$ $`I^{}(k^2,p^2)0,`$ (A12)
$`J(k^2,p^2)`$ $`{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{k^2,p^2M^2}}`$ $`J^{}(k^2,p^2),`$ (A13)
where (A14)
$`J^{}(k^2,p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}M(k^2)\theta (p^2k^2)`$ (A15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2M(k^2)}{(p^2k^2)}}[p^2{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}k^2][{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (p^2k^2)}{p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (k^2p^2)}{k^2}}]`$ (A16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M(p^2)M(k^2)}{(p^2k^2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{p^2}}\theta (p^2k^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{k^2}}\theta (k^2p^2)]\}.`$ (A17)
## B

This appendix is devoted to the analytic calculation of the wave-function renormalization and mass functions in the asymptotic limit. The quantities that we need to evaluate are

$`Z_{\mathrm{high}}(\mu ^2;k_m^2,p^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z(\mu ^2,k_m^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{k_m^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2+M^2(k^2)}}\left[Z(\mu ^2;p^2)I(k^2,p^2)I(k^2,\mu ^2)\right]`$ (B1)
$`M_{\mathrm{high}}(\mu ^2;k_m^2,p^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M(k_m^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{k_m^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2+M^2(k^2)}}`$ (B3)
$`\times \left[J(k^2,p^2)J(k^2,\mu ^2)+M(p^2)I(k^2,p^2)m_\mu I(k^2,\mu ^2)\right]`$
where $`I(k^2,p^2)`$ and $`J(k^2,p^2)`$ are given in appendix A. Provided $`k_m^2`$ is sufficiently large that $`k_m^2M^2(k_m^2)`$ then these quantities become

$`{\displaystyle _{k_m^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2+M^2(k^2)}}I(k^2,p^2)`$ $`{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{=}{k_m^2M^2(k_m^2)}}`$ $`{\displaystyle _{k_m^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M(p^2)M(k^2)}{(k^2p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}`$ (B5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}M^4(p^2){\displaystyle \frac{(p^2+k^2)}{(k^2p^2)^3}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}})\}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{k_m^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2+M^2(k^2)}}J(k^2,p^2)`$ $`{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{=}{k_m^2M^2(k_m^2)}}`$ $`{\displaystyle _{k_m^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2}}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}3}M(k^2)+3M(k^2){\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{(k^2p^2)}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}})`$ (B7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}p^2{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\mu ^2;k^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M(k^2)M(p^2)}{(k^2p^2)}}\}`$
We have already shown for $`k^2M^2`$ that the wave-function renormalization and the mass function have a power law behaviour

$`Z(\mu ^2;k^2)=C_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^\nu M(k^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_\mu ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^s^{}.`$ (B8)
The results for $`Z_{\mathrm{high}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{high}}`$ for large $`k_m^2`$ and arbitrary $`p^2`$ and $`\mu ^2`$ can then be given in terms of hypergeometric functions

$`Z_{\mathrm{high}}(\mu ^2;k_m^2,p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{16\pi }}\left[Z(\mu ^2;p^2)\stackrel{~}{I}(p^2)\stackrel{~}{I}(\mu ^2)\right]`$ (B9)
$`M_{\mathrm{high}}(\mu ^2;k_m^2,p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{8\pi }}\left[\stackrel{~}{J}(p^2)\stackrel{~}{J}(\mu ^2)+M(p^2)\stackrel{~}{I}(p^2)m_\mu \stackrel{~}{I}(\mu ^2)\right]`$ (B10)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{I}(p^2)=\{`$ $`M^4(p^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{3(k_m^2)^3}}F(3,3,4,p^2/k_m^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(k_m^2)^2}}F(3,2,3,p^2/k_m^2)\right]`$ (B11)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^4(p^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mu }{(\mu ^2)^\nu }}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(3\nu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{(k_m^2)^{3\nu }}}F(3,3\nu ,4\nu ,p^2/k_m^2)`$ (B13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\nu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_m^2)^{2\nu }}}F(3,2\nu ,3\nu ,p^2/k_m^2)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M(p^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mu D_\mu }{(\mu ^2)^{\nu s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k_m^2)^{\nu s1}}{(\nu s1)}}F(1,1\nu +s,2\nu +s,p^2/k_m^2)`$ (B14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M(p^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mu D_\mu ^{}}{(\mu ^2)^{\nu s^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k_m^2)^{\nu s^{}1}}{(\nu s^{}1)}}F(1,1\nu +s^{},2\nu +s^{},p^2/k_m^2)\},`$ (B15)
and

$`\stackrel{~}{J}(p^2)=\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_\mu }{(\mu ^2)^s}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{(1+s)(k_m^2)^{s+1}}}F(1,1+s,2+s,p^2/k_m^2)`$ (B16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_\mu ^{}}{(\mu ^2)^s^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{(1+s^{})(k_m^2)^{s^{}+1}}}F(1,1+s^{},2+s^{},p^2/k_m^2)`$ (B17)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mu D_\mu }{(\mu ^2)^{\nu s}Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{(1+s\nu )(k_m^2)^{s\nu +1}}}F(1,1+s\nu ,2+s\nu ,p^2/k_m^2)`$ (B18)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mu D_\mu ^{}}{(\mu ^2)^{\nu s^{}}Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{(1+s^{}\nu )(k_m^2)^{s^{}\nu +1}}}F(1,1+s^{}\nu ,2+s^{}\nu ,p^2/k_m^2)`$ (B19)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mu }{(\mu ^2)^\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{M(p^2)}{Z(\mu ^2;p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{(\nu 1)(k_m^2)^{\nu 1}}}F(1,1\nu ,2\nu ,p^2/k_m^2)\}.`$ (B21)


text:
# Casimir force between partially transmitting mirrors

## Introduction

As a consequence of Heisenberg inequalities, the electromagnetic field exhibits quantum fluctuations even in the vacuum state. These “vacuum fluctuations” have been extensively studied in the domain of quantum optics these last years . Casimir  observed that the resulting vacuum energy ($`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega `$ per field mode) depends upon the boundary conditions and particularly upon the positions of reflecting bodies. As a consequence, the vacuum fluctuations manifest themselves through macroscopic forces.

These Casimir forces are usually computed by comparing the mode density in the absence and in the presence of perfectly reflecting boundaries . In a local formulation, they can also be understood as resulting from the radiation pressure exerted by the vacuum fluctuations reflected by the boundaries . In the simplest case of a scalar field in a two-dimensional (2D) spacetime, one gets the following force between two pointlike mirrors at a distance $`q`$

$$F=\frac{\mathrm{}c\pi }{24q^2}$$
(1)
For the electromagnetic field in a four-dimensional (4D) spacetime, one gets the Casimir pressure (force measured per unit area) between two parallel plane and infinite mirrors

$$F=\frac{\mathrm{}c\pi ^2}{240q^4}$$
(2)
From now on, we use natural units where $`c=\epsilon _0=k_\mathrm{B}=1`$; however, we keep $`\mathrm{}`$ as a scale for vacuum fluctuations.

A problem in any calculation of vacuum induced effects is to dispose of the divergences associated with the infiniteness of the total vacuum energy. Usually, this is done by arbitrarily cutting off the mode density. The divergences of the energy in the absence and in the presence of the boundaries cancel each other, which leads to a finite net result at the limit of infinite cutoff frequency. In the local formulation, the field correlation function diverges when the fields are evaluated at the same point. A regularized stress tensor is obtained by splitting the two points and ignoring the divergent part .

Clearly, a more natural regularization should be provided by studying partially transmitting mirrors. Any real mirrors are certainly transparent at high frequencies so that the expression of the force should be regular. Using the physical properties of a dielectric constant, Lifshitz  has obtained regular expressions for the Casimir-Polder forces between macroscopic dielectric bodies . This approach is not free from problems, such as the effect of dissipation and the expression of energy density in a dispersive dielectric medium, which have been discussed in detail .

In this paper, we use a scattering approach to avoid these problems. We use the local formulation and introduce frequency dependent reflectivity and transmittivity coefficients for the two mirrors, which are assumed to obey conditions of reality, unitarity, causality and high frequency transparency. The scattering coefficients determine the vacuum stress tensor and therefore the Casimir force on the mirrors. Explicit expressions, which come out as finite integrals, are obtained for any frequency dependent scattering. Eventually, the reflectivity function appears as a physical regulator and the known results (1) and (2) are recovered when the mirrors are totally reflecting over a large enough frequency interval.

These results do not rely upon a detailed microscopic analysis of the scattering process and are not limited to dielectric mirrors. Dissipative processes are disregarded (unitary scattering) and all field fluctuations originate from the input vacuum. We also give the results for a non zero temperature input state. The Casimir energy can be deduced by integrating the force and is different from the integrated field energy when the reflectivities are frequency dependent. This expression, interpreted in terms of phase shifts, makes the connection with the mode density approach.

A first part details the simple case where two pointlike mirrors are placed in the vacuum state, or in a thermal state, of a scalar field in a 2D spacetime. We come then to the problem of parallel plane and infinite mirrors which scatter the electromagnetic field in a 4D spacetime. Following Lifshitz , the effect of evanescent waves is accounted for. Expressions of the forces as integrals over imaginary frequencies  are given in an appendix.

The following convention is used throughout the paper: any function $`f(t)`$ defined in the time domain and its Fourier transform $`f[\omega ]`$ are related through ***The notation used in the original paper for Fourier transforms has been changed to a more convenient one.

$`f(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }f[\omega ]e^{i\omega t}}`$

## One mirror in 2D vacuum

In a 2D spacetime (one time coordinate $`t`$, one space coordinate $`x`$), a free field is the sum of two counterpropagating fields

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\phi \left(tx\right)+\psi \left(t+x\right)`$

It can also be described by a twofold column matrix in the frequency domain

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[\omega ]=\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi [\omega ]\\ \psi [\omega ]\end{array}\right)`$

We consider now that the field is scattered by a mirror located at point $`q`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\theta (qx)\left(\phi _{\mathrm{in}}(tx)+\psi _{\mathrm{out}}(t+x)\right)+\theta (xq)\left(\psi _{\mathrm{in}}(t+x)+\phi _{\mathrm{out}}(tx)\right)`$

where $`\phi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`\psi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ are the input fields, $`\phi _{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`\psi _{\mathrm{out}}`$ the output fields (see Figure 1).

With the hypothesis of a perfect reflection, the field vanishes on the mirror

$`\phi _{\mathrm{out}}(t)=\psi _{\mathrm{in}}(t+2q)\psi _{\mathrm{out}}(t)=\phi _{\mathrm{in}}(t2q)`$

Equivalently

$`\phi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]=\psi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}\psi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]=\phi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}`$

In the general case of a partially transmitting mirror, the scattering of the field is described by a frequency dependent $`S`$ matrix

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]=S[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]S[\omega ]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}s[\omega ]& r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}\\ r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}& s[\omega ]\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
We assume that the $`S`$ matrix obeys the following conditions. The values of $`S`$ are real in the temporal domain

$$s[\omega ]=s[\omega ]^{}r[\omega ]=r[\omega ]^{}$$
(4)
The scattering is causal

$`s(t)=r(t)=0\mathrm{for}t<0`$ (5)
$`s[\omega ]\mathrm{and}r[\omega ]\mathrm{are}\mathrm{analytic}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{regular}\mathrm{for}Im\omega >0`$ (6)
The scattering matrix is unitary (dissipation inside the mirror is neglected)

$`S[\omega ]S[\omega ]^{}=1`$ (7)
$`\left|s[\omega ]\right|^2+\left|r[\omega ]\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`1s[\omega ]r[\omega ]^{}+r[\omega ]s[\omega ]^{}=0`$ (8)
The mirror is transparent at high frequencies and the reflectivity decreases sufficiently rapidly

$$s[\omega ]1\omega \left|r[\omega ]\right|0\mathrm{for}\omega \mathrm{}$$
(9)
Because of the transparency condition (9), the reflectivity will provide a natural regulator to the ultraviolet divergence of the vacuum energy. The perfectly reflecting mirror corresponds to $`r=1`$ and $`s=0`$ at all frequencies and does not obey this condition. So, it will be preferable to consider the perfect mirror as the limit of a model obeying the conditions (4-9). This amounts to consider the effect of non zero reflection delays and to let them go to zero at the end of the calculations.

Quantum field theory provides the field correlation functions corresponding to the vacuum state. We will use the symmetric correlation functions which are the mean values of the anticommutators

$`\{\phi ^{}(t+\tau ),\phi ^{}(t)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\psi ^{}(t+\tau ),\psi ^{}(t)\}={\displaystyle \frac{c(t)}{2}}`$ (10)
$`\{\phi ^{}(t+\tau ),\psi ^{}(t)\}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (11)
$`\phi ^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`_t\phi (t)`$ (12)
$`i\omega i\omega ^{}\{\phi [\omega ],\phi (\omega ^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega i\omega ^{}\{\psi [\omega ],\psi (\omega ^{})\}=2\pi \delta (\omega +\omega ^{}){\displaystyle \frac{c[\omega ]}{2}}`$ (13)
$`i\omega i\omega ^{}\{\phi [\omega ],\psi (\omega ^{})\}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (14)
with

$`c(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0^+}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(ϵ+i\tau \right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(ϵi\tau \right)^2}}\right]`$ (15)
$`c[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\left|\omega \right|`$ (16)
As usual in the local formulation, one evaluates the force as the difference between the radiation pressures exerted upon the left and right sides of the mirror. In a 2D spacetime, the component $`T_{xx}`$ of the stress tensor is equal to the energy density and one gets

$`F=e_\mathrm{L}e_\mathrm{R}`$ (17)
$`e_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{\mathrm{in}}^{2}(tq)+\psi _{\mathrm{out}}^{2}(t+q)e_\mathrm{R}=\psi _{\mathrm{in}}^{2}(t+q)+\phi _{\mathrm{out}}^{2}(tq)`$ (18)
Substituting the output fields in terms of the input fields and using the unitarity condition, one obtains

$`\phi _{\mathrm{out}}^{2}(tq)=\psi _{\mathrm{out}}^{2}(t+q)=\phi _{\mathrm{in}}^{2}(tq)=\psi _{\mathrm{in}}^{2}(t+q)={\displaystyle \frac{c(0)}{4}}`$

Hence

$$e_\mathrm{L}=e_\mathrm{R}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }c[\omega ]$$
(19)
The radiation pressures exerted upon the two sides of the mirror are infinite. However, they cancel each other exactly and the net force is zero. This is connected to the property that the impulsion density is zero in the vacuum state of a free field while the energy density is infinite. Note that the cancellation between infinite quantities is obtained inside a single physical situation and not by comparing two different situations.

## Two mirrors in 2D vacuum

We study now the situation where two pointlike mirrors are placed in the 2D vacuum at positions $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ (see Fig.2).

As is usual in the theory of a Fabry Perot cavity, the global scattering may be deduced from the elementary scattering matrices given by (3) and associated with the two mirrors

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\\ \psi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}s_1[\omega ]& r_1[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q_1}\\ r_1[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q_1}& s_1[\omega ]\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]\\ \psi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\end{array}\right)`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]\\ \psi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}s_2[\omega ]& r_2[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q_2}\\ r_2[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q_2}& s_2[\omega ]\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]\\ \psi _{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]\end{array}\right)`$
One can solve these equations to express the outcoming and the intracavity fields in terms of the input ones

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{out}}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`S[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cav}}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`R[\omega ]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{in}}[\omega ]`$
The global scattering matrix $`S[\omega ]`$ and the resonance matrix $`R[\omega ]`$ are given by

$`S_{11}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`S_{22}[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{s_1[\omega ]s_2[\omega ]}{d[\omega ]}}`$ (22)
$`S_{12}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`r_2[\omega ]e^{i\omega q}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_2[\omega ]^2r_1[\omega ]e^{i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]}}`$ (23)
$`S_{21}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`r_1[\omega ]e^{i\omega q}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_1[\omega ]^2r_2[\omega ]e^{i\omega q}}{d[\omega ]}}`$ (24)
$`R_{11}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_1[\omega ]}{d[\omega ]}}R_{12}[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{s_2[\omega ]r_1[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q_1}}{d[\omega ]}}`$ (25)
$`R_{21}[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_1[\omega ]r_2[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q_2}}{d[\omega ]}}R_{22}[\omega ]={\displaystyle \frac{s_2[\omega ]}{d[\omega ]}}`$ (26)
where

$`d[\omega ]=1r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}r[\omega ]=r_1[\omega ]r_2[\omega ]q=q_2q_1`$

The matrices $`S`$ and $`R`$ are real in the time domain, they are causal functions and the matrix $`S`$ is unitary.

Substituting the output fields in terms of the input fields and using the unitarity of the matrix $`S[\omega ]`$, one deduces that the energy densities $`e_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`e_\mathrm{R}`$, again defined by (18), are still given by (19). But the intracavity energy density $`e_{\mathrm{cav}}`$ is different

$`e_{\mathrm{cav}}`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{\mathrm{cav}}^{2}+\psi _{\mathrm{cav}}^{2}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}c[\omega ]g[\omega ]`$
$`g[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|R_{11}\right|^2+\left|R_{12}\right|^2+\left|R_{21}\right|^2+\left|R_{22}\right|^2}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1\left|r[\omega ]\right|^2}{\left|1r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}\right|^2}}`$
The function $`g[\omega ]`$ (calculated from equation (26)) describes an enhancement (resp. suppression) of vacuum fluctuations seen inside the cavity at frequencies inside (resp. outside) the Airy peaks . One deduces the Casimir force as the difference between the outer and inner radiation pressures

$$F_1=e_\mathrm{L}e_{\mathrm{cav}}=FF_2=e_{\mathrm{cav}}e_\mathrm{R}=F$$
(27)
$$F=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }c[\omega ]\left(1g[\omega ]\right)$$
(28)
In the standard derivation of the Casimir force, one considers mirrors which are perfectly reflecting at all frequencies. In this case, the Airy peaks reduce to Dirac distributions

$`1g[\omega ]=1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{q}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\delta (\omega n{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{q}})`$

The integral (28) is then regularized by introducing a cutoff in the mode density and computed by applying the Euler-Mac Laurin summation rule

$`F=\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_2}{2!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{q^2}}_\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{B_4}{4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{q^4}}_\omega ^3+\mathrm{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2\pi }}\right\}_{\omega =0}`$

where the $`B_{2k}`$ are the Bernouilli numbers $`B_2=\frac{1}{6};`$ $`B_4=\frac{1}{30};`$ $`\mathrm{}`$. This leads to the expression (1) of the Casimir force.

However, the introduction of a cutoff in the mode density is not necessary since the integral (28) is finite as soon as the reflectivity functions obey the conditions (4-9). One can write

$$F=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }c[\omega ]\frac{r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}}{1r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}}+c.c.$$
(29)
As $`c[\omega ]`$ is an even function of $`\omega `$, one deduces from the reality condition (4)

$$F=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }c[\omega ]\frac{r[\omega ]}{e^{2i\omega q}r[\omega ]}$$
(30)
One obtains the force as a sum

$$F=\underset{\mathrm{}>0}{}F^{(\mathrm{})}F^{(\mathrm{})}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }e^{2\mathrm{}i\omega q}r^{\mathrm{}}[\omega ]c[\omega ]$$
(31)
where each term $`F^{(\mathrm{})}`$ corresponds to a number $`\mathrm{}`$ of roundtrips inside the cavity. This term can be transformed into a convolution product in the time domain, more precisely into an integral over $`\mathrm{}`$ reflection delays $`t_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ $`t_{\mathrm{}}`$

$$F^{(\mathrm{})}=_0^{\mathrm{}}dt_1r(t_1)\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}}dt_{\mathrm{}}r(t_{\mathrm{}})c\left(2\mathrm{}q+t_1+\mathrm{}+t_{\mathrm{}}\right)$$
(32)
The reflection delays are positive and the two point correlation function $`c`$ is evaluated at distances between the points greater than $`2q`$. The expression of the force comes out free from the divergences usually associated with the infiniteness of the vacuum energy and the regulator $`ϵ`$ may be omitted in the expression (16) of $`c`$.

In the limiting case where the reflection delays ($`t_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ $`t_{\mathrm{}}`$) are much shorter than the distance $`q`$ between the two mirrors (large distance approximation), one can neglect them in the function $`c(2\mathrm{}q+t_1+\mathrm{}+t_{\mathrm{}})`$. It follows that the force depends only upon the reflectivities evaluated at zero frequency

$`F={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}>0}{}}r_0^{\mathrm{}}c(2\mathrm{}q)r_0=r[0]=r_1[0]r_2[0]`$

that is

$$F=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi q^2}\zeta _{r_0}(2)$$
(33)
$$\zeta _x(p)=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{}^p}$$
(34)
If the two mirrors are perfectly reflecting at zero frequency, one finds the expression (1) for the Casimir force $`\left(\zeta _1(2)=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\right)`$.

The equation (31) allows one to evaluate the correction to the limit of ideal mirrors. It can be written as a formal series

$`F^{(\mathrm{})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}\left\{i\left(2\mathrm{}qi_\omega \right)^1\left(\omega r[\omega ]^{\mathrm{}}\right)\right\}_{\omega =0}+c.c.`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}\left\{\left(2\mathrm{}qi_\omega \right)^2r[\omega ]^{\mathrm{}}\right\}_{\omega =0}+c.c.`$ (36)
When $`r[\omega ]`$ is a very flat function, one recovers the large distance approximation where the force depends upon the value $`r_0`$ evaluated at zero frequency. The terms of the formal series which depend upon the derivatives of $`r[\omega ]`$ may be considered as corrections to this approximation.

These discussions show that the reflectivity function $`r[\omega ]`$ plays the same role as a regulator for the mode density. However, it is a regulator obeying the conditions (4-9) which cannot be real for real frequencies. We show in the appendix that it is possible to write the force as an integral over imaginary frequencies and that $`r[i\omega ]`$ appears as a real regulator .

## Casimir energy

The local formulation led us to the expression of the force. One can deduce a Casimir energy $`𝒰`$ by integrating this force (see equation (27))

$$\mathrm{d}𝒰=F_1\mathrm{d}q_1F_2\mathrm{d}q_2=F\mathrm{d}q$$
(37)
We want now to compute this Casimir energy and to compare it with the integrated field energy .

One deduces from equation (29)

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`_q𝒰𝒰={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]}{2}}`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]=i\mathrm{Log}{\displaystyle \frac{1r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}}{1r[\omega ]^{}e^{2i\omega q}}}`$
One deduces respectively from the reality condition (4) and from the transparency condition (9)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }[0]=0\omega \mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]0\mathrm{for}\omega \mathrm{}`$

so that the energy can be written

$$𝒰=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}_\omega \mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]$$
(40)
This is the standard form for the phase shift representation of the Casimir energy . Actually, one checks from the expression (24) of the $`S`$ matrix that

$`detS[\omega ]=detS_1[\omega ]detS_2[\omega ]e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]}`$

where $`S_1[\omega ]`$ and $`S_2[\omega ]`$ are the elementary $`S`$ matrices associated with the two mirrors; $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]`$ is the $`q`$dependent part of the sum of the two phase shifts at frequency $`\omega `$.

Now, one gets from equation (39)

$`_\omega \mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2qr[\omega ]i_\omega r[\omega ]\right)e^{2i\omega q}}{1r[\omega ]e^{2i\omega q}}}+c.c.`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`\left(1g[\omega ]\right)\left(2q+_\omega \delta \right)g[\omega ]\mathrm{sin}\left(2\omega q+\delta \right)_\omega \mathrm{Log}\left(1\rho ^2\right)`$ (42)
where $`\delta `$ and $`\rho `$ are the frequency dependent phase and modulus of the reflectivity function $`r`$. Usually, the Casimir effect is computed for frequency independent reflectivities. In this case, one deduces that the Casimir energy $`𝒰`$ is identical to the integrated field energy

$`𝒰=q\left(e_{\mathrm{cav}}e_\mathrm{L}\right)=qF`$

This result is compatible with the definition (37) of $`𝒰`$ since the force scales as $`q^2`$ in this case . But the reflectivities have to be frequency dependent in order to fulfill the transparency condition (9). The resulting terms in the Casimir energy can be considered as corrections associated with the reflection delays upon the mirrors.

## Casimir force for non zero temperatures

Now, we derive the expression of the Casimir force for non zero temperatures . We suppose that the reflectivities are independent of the temperature. Therefore, we have only to change the correlation function of the input fields.

The Casimir force is given by the integrals (28) or (30) with a modified function $`c`$

$$c_T[\omega ]=c_0[\omega ]n_T[\omega ]n_T[\omega ]=\frac{1}{\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\left|\omega \right|}{2T}\right)}$$
(43)
where $`c_0[\omega ]`$ corresponds to the zero temperature and $`n_T[\omega ]`$ is the mean number of thermal photons per mode. The equations (32) are still valid with a function $`c_T[\omega ]`$ which is the Fourier transform of

$`c_T(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\alpha \tau \right)}}\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\pi T}{\mathrm{}}}`$

It is known that the correlation function $`c_T`$ is the same as for an accelerated vacuum , which also suggests that there are relations between the Casimir effect for non zero temperatures and the physics of black holes .

At the large distance approximation, one gets

$`F={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}>0}{}}r_0^{\mathrm{}}c_T(2\mathrm{}q)`$

At the low temperature limit, one has the same results as previously. At the high temperature limit, one obtains an exponentially small force since

$`c_T(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{}}}T^2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi T\tau }{\mathrm{}}}\right)\mathrm{for}T\tau \mathrm{}`$

The thermal contribution exactly cancels the vacuum contribution for temperatures $`T`$ higher than $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{q}`$.

In the general case (no approximation on the distance), we obtain the Casimir free energy $``$ by integrating the force

$$F=_q(q,T)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]}{2}n_T[\omega ]$$
(44)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]`$ is still given by (39). Noting that ($`𝒮`$ is the entropy)

$`𝒰=+T𝒮=T_T`$
$`\omega _\omega n_T[\omega ]=T_Tn_T[\omega ]`$
one also obtains

$`𝒰={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]}{2}}_\omega \left(\omega n_T[\omega ]\right)`$

An integration by parts then leads to the modified phase shift representation

$$𝒰=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2}n_T[\omega ]_\omega \mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ]$$
(45)
Using equation (42), one reaches the same conclusions as previously about the comparison between the Casimir energy and the integrated field energy.

## Two mirrors in the electromagnetic vacuum

We consider now that two parallel, plane and infinite mirrors are placed in the vacuum state of the electromagnetic field (plate separation $`q`$ along the $`x`$ direction). The scattering on each mirror is still described by a $`S`$ matrix which obeys conditions of reality, unitarity, causality and high frequency transparency. Now, the reflection coefficients associated with the two mirrors depend not only upon the frequency, but also upon the propagation direction and the polarization. We will denote

$`\gamma =\mathrm{cos}\phi \kappa =\omega \mathrm{cos}\phi =\omega \gamma \kappa ^{}=\omega \mathrm{sin}\phi `$

where $`\phi `$ is the incidence angle, $`\kappa `$ the wavevector along the $`x`$ direction and $`\kappa ^{}`$ the length of the transverse wavevector.

The calculations of the Casimir force (measured per unit area) are mostly the same as in the 2D case, but one obtains it as a sum over the two polarizations $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$

$`F=F_{p_1}+F_{p_2}`$

Each contribution $`F_p`$ can be written as an integral over the modes

$$F_p=\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\omega ^2\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{2\pi }\theta (\omega )c[\omega ]\left(1g_p[\omega ,\kappa ]\right)\gamma ^2$$
(46)
The function $`c`$ is the same as in the 2D case. The function $`g_p`$ is computed as previously, but its resonances are now determined by the wavevector measured along $`x`$

$`g_p[\omega ,\kappa ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\left|r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]\right|^2}{\left|1r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]e^{2i\kappa q}\right|^2}}`$
$`r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]`$ $`=`$ $`r_{1p}[\omega ,\kappa ]r_{2p}[\omega ,\kappa ]`$
where $`r_{1p}`$ and $`r_{2p}`$ are the reflectivities associated with the two mirrors. In comparison with the 2D computation, there is in equation (46) an extra geometrical factor $`\gamma ^2`$ which is the ratio between the component $`T_{xx}`$ of the stress tensor (which gives the radiation pressure upon the mirror) and the energy density .

If the mirrors are supposed perfectly reflecting at all frequencies, Dirac distributions appear in the formula (46) which can be computed by a regularization and the application of the Euler-Mac Laurin summation rule

$$F_p=\left\{\left(\frac{B_2}{2!}\frac{\pi ^2}{q^2}_\kappa +\frac{B_4}{4!}\frac{\pi ^4}{q^4}_\kappa ^3+\mathrm{}\right)\frac{\mathrm{}\kappa ^2\left(K\kappa \right)}{4\pi ^2}\right\}_{\kappa =0}$$
(47)
The constant $`K`$ goes to infinity with the cutoff frequency. But the even derivatives do not appear in the Euler-Mac Laurin sum and this constant is eliminated, which leads to expression (2) of the force.

In the general case of a frequency dependent reflectivity, one writes

$$F_p=\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{2\pi }\theta \left(\omega \right)c[\omega ]\omega ^2\gamma ^2\frac{r_p[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]}{e^{2i\omega \gamma q}r_p[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]}+c.c.$$
(48)
Now, one must specify more precisely the integration path for $`\gamma `$. Without further investigation, it could be admitted that it coincides with the segment $`[0,1[`$. Using the same methods as for the 2D computation, one shows however that this integration path leads to a Casimir force which diverges at the limit of a perfectly reflecting mirror: there remains a contribution to the force analogous to the constant $`K`$ appearing in (47).

Actually, the integration path for $`\gamma `$ must also include the upper part of the imaginary axis $`]+i\mathrm{},0]`$. Imaginary values of $`\gamma `$ not too far from $`0`$ correspond to values of $`\kappa ^{}`$ greater than, but not too much greater than $`\omega `$. They are associated with vacuum fluctuations which enter the system through the side boundaries of the mirror and which contribute to the field outside the mirrors as evanescent waves. We will suppose that $`r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]`$ may be analytically continued  for values of $`\kappa `$ in the quadrant $`\left[Re\kappa >0,Im\kappa >0\right]`$ and also that the contribution of the evanescent waves to the force is given by the analytical continuation of the ordinary expression . Imaginary values of $`\gamma `$ farther from $`0`$ correspond to larger values of $`\kappa ^{}`$. They are associated to “closed” input ports and have actually a zero contribution to the force. Assuming that $`\left|r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]\right|`$ decreases sufficiently fast for large values of $`\kappa `$ and that

$`\left|r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]\right|<1\mathrm{for}\omega \mathrm{real}\mathrm{and}\left[Re\kappa >0,Im\kappa >0\right]`$

one moves the integration path for $`\gamma `$ to $`]1,\mathrm{}[`$ so that

$$F_p=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{2\pi }c[\omega ]\omega ^2\gamma ^2\frac{r_p[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]}{e^{2i\omega \gamma q}r_p[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]}+c.c.$$
(49)
This result is regular at the limit of perfect reflection. As for the 2D computation, one writes the force (49) as a sum over a number $`\mathrm{}`$ of roundtrips

$`F_p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}>0}{}}F_p^{(\mathrm{})}F_p^{(\mathrm{})}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\kappa }{2\pi }}e^{2\mathrm{}i\kappa q}\mathrm{}\kappa ^2R_p^{(\mathrm{})}[\kappa ]`$ (51)
$`R_p^{(\mathrm{})}[\kappa ]={\displaystyle _0^\kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]^{\mathrm{}}`$
(we have used a reality condition $`r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]^{}=r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]`$). This expression can be written as a formal series

$`F_p^{(\mathrm{})}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}\left\{i\left(2\mathrm{}qi_\kappa \right)^1\left(\kappa ^2R_p^{(\mathrm{})}[\kappa ]\right)\right\}_{\kappa =0}+c.c.`$

At the limit of a large separation, we retain the terms which depend upon the reflectivities evaluated around zero frequency but not those which depend upon the derivatives of the reflectivities. As

$`R_p^{(\mathrm{})}[\kappa ]={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2\pi }}r_p[\kappa ,\kappa ]^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^\kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}\omega _\omega r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]^{\mathrm{}}`$

we write

$`R_p^{(\mathrm{})}[\kappa ]{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2\pi }}r_0^{\mathrm{}}r_0=\left\{r_p[\kappa ,\kappa ]\right\}_{\kappa 0}`$

The value $`r_0`$ is evaluated at zero frequency and at normal incidence. This value is the same for the two polarizations and one obtains finally the total Casimir force as

$$F=\underset{\mathrm{}>0}{}r_0^{\mathrm{}}C(2\mathrm{}q)C(\tau )=\frac{6\mathrm{}}{\pi ^2\tau ^4}$$
(52)
that is

$$F=\frac{3\mathrm{}}{8\pi ^2q^4}\zeta _{r_0}(4)$$
(53)
where $`\zeta _x(p)`$ is defined by (34). At the limit of perfectly reflecting mirrors, one recovers the expression (2) for the Casimir force $`\left(\zeta _1(4)=\frac{\pi ^4}{90}\right)`$.

As in the 2D case, the expressions of the force can be written in terms of the reflectivities evaluated for imaginary frequencies (see the appendix).

A phase shift representation can be obtained for any distance by integrating the force. One writes the energy $`𝒰`$ as a sum over the ordinary and evanescent waves

$`𝒰={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma \omega ^2}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]\right)`$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\kappa ]`$ is obtained by summing all the phase shifts at frequency $`\omega `$ and wavevector $`\kappa `$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\kappa ]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_1}[\omega ,\kappa ]+\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_2}[\omega ,\kappa ]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_p[\omega ,\kappa ]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{Log}{\displaystyle \frac{1r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]e^{2i\kappa q}}{1r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]^{}e^{2i\kappa q}}}`$
Moving the integration path leads to expressions in terms of the unphysical waves

$`𝒰={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma \omega ^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]`$

These expressions can be written in terms of $`_\omega \mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]`$ by an integration by parts

$`𝒰`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma \omega ^3}{6}}_\omega \mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma \omega ^3}{6}}\left(_\omega \mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]\right)`$
Writing $`_\omega \mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]`$ as in equation (42), one obtains the Casimir energy as the sum of the integrated field energy and of corrections associated with the reflection delays upon the mirrors. The integrated field energy is here

$`𝒰={\displaystyle \frac{qF}{3}}`$

In the limit of a perfect reflection, this relation is compatible with the definition (37) of $`𝒰`$  since the force scales as $`q^4`$.

The force for non zero temperatures is given by equations (48-49) with the function $`c`$ modified according to equation (43). It is also given by equation (51) with

$`R_p^{(\mathrm{})}[\kappa ]={\displaystyle _0^\kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]^{\mathrm{}}n_T[\omega ]`$

At the large distance approximation, one obtains

$`F={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}>0}{}}r_0^{\mathrm{}}C(2\mathrm{}q)C(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi ^2}}_\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha \tau )}}\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\pi T}{\mathrm{}}}`$

The low temperature limit gives the known result. For high temperatures, one obtains by omitting exponentially small terms

$`C(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{2T}{\pi \tau ^3}}\mathrm{for}T\tau \mathrm{}`$ (54)
$`F={\displaystyle \frac{T}{4\pi q^3}}\zeta _{r_0}(3)`$ (55)
where $`\zeta _x(p)`$ is defined by (34). High temperatures correspond to a classical limit so that the expression does not contain $`\mathrm{}`$. For a perfect mirror, one recovers the known result .

In the general case, one also obtains a phase shift representation of the free energy

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma \omega ^2}{2}}n_T[\omega ]\left(\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\gamma \omega ^2}{2}}n_T[\omega ]\mathrm{\Delta }[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]`$
Acknowlegdements

We thank C. Cohen-Tannoudji, C. Fabre, E. Giacobino, S. Haroche, A. Heidmann and H.M. Nussenzveig for stimulating comments.

## A Expressions of the forces as integrals over imaginary frequencies

Following the computation by Lifshitz of the Casimir-Polder forces , one can write the forces as integrals over imaginary frequencies.

In the 2D case, one first shows that $`\left|r[\omega ]\right|`$ remains smaller than $`1`$ for any $`\omega `$ in the upper half plane $`Im\omega >0`$. The modulus$`\left|r[\omega ]\right|`$ is less than $`1`$ on the real axis (from the unitarity and reality conditions); it goes to $`0`$ for large values of $`\omega `$ (from the transparency condition); as $`r[\omega ]`$ is analytic for $`Im\omega >0`$, the conclusion is a consequence of the Phragmén-Lindelöf theorem .

Therefore, the integrand appearing in (30) has no poles in the upper half plane. Using the transparency condition, one can then move the integration path $`[0,\mathrm{}[`$ to the upper part of the imaginary axis $`[0,i\mathrm{}[`$

$`F={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{r[i\omega ]}{e^{2\omega q}r[i\omega ]}}+c.c.`$

Furthermore, $`r[i\omega ]`$ is real since it is the Laplace transform of the causal and real function $`r`$

$`r[i\omega ]={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dtr(t)e^{\omega t}`$

It follows that the Casimir force is

$`F={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{r[i\omega ]}{e^{2\omega q}r[i\omega ]}}`$

This equation can conveniently be used for evaluating the Casimir force for any reflectivity functions

$$F=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi q^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}du\frac{ur\left[\frac{iu}{2q}\right]}{e^ur\left[\frac{iu}{2q}\right]}$$
(A1)
At the large separation limit, $`r\left[\frac{iu}{2q}\right]`$ may be replaced by $`r_0`$ and one obtains an integral expression equal to the series of equation (33)

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi q^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}du{\displaystyle \frac{ur_0}{e^ur_0}}`$

The integral (A1) can be written as a formal series

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}>0}{}}F^{(\mathrm{})}`$
$`F^{(\mathrm{})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }}\left\{\left(2\mathrm{}q_\omega \right)^1\omega r[i\omega ]^{\mathrm{}}\right\}_{\omega =0}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }}\left\{\left(2\mathrm{}q_\omega \right)^2r[i\omega ]^{\mathrm{}}\right\}_{\omega =0}`$
This equation and the expression (36) are formally equivalent; however, they have a different status: $`r[i\omega ]`$ is real and plays the role of a regulator for the mode density while $`r[\omega ]`$, which appears in (36), cannot be real because of causality and high frequency transparency.

One can also write the 4D Casimir force as an integral over imaginary frequencies. We start from the integral (48) where the integration path for $`\gamma `$ includes the ordinary contributions $`\left(0<\gamma <1\right)`$ as well as the evanescent waves ($`\gamma `$ imaginary) and we treat separately these two contributions. For the ordinary contributions, it follows from causality that: $`r_p[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]`$ is analytic in $`\omega `$ for $`[Re\omega >0,Im\omega >0]`$ and $`\gamma `$ a fixed real number; $`\left|r_p[\omega ,\omega \gamma ]\right|1`$ for $`[Re\omega >0,Im\omega >0]`$ and $`\gamma `$ real. Using the high frequency transparency, we move the integration path for $`\omega `$ to the upper imaginary axis (with $`\gamma `$ kept constant). For the evanescent waves, we use the analogous properties : $`r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]`$ is analytic in $`\omega `$ for $`[Re\omega >0,Im\omega >0]`$ and $`\kappa `$ a fixed imaginary number; $`\left|r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]\right|1`$ for $`[Re\omega >0,Im\omega >0]`$ and $`\kappa `$ imaginary. Using the high frequency transparency, we move the integration path for $`\omega `$ to the upper imaginary axis (with $`\kappa `$ kept constant). Finally, we use the property: $`r_p[\omega ,\kappa ]`$ real for $`\omega `$ and $`\kappa `$ imaginary.

At the end of the process, one obtains

$`F_p={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\kappa \kappa ^2{\displaystyle _0^\kappa }d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{r_p[i\omega ,i\kappa ]}{e^{2\kappa q}r_p[i\omega ,i\kappa ]}}`$

At the large separation limit, $`r_p[i\omega ,i\kappa ]`$ is replaced by a constant $`r_0`$ and one obtains the Lifshitz’ integral expression  equal to the series of equation (53)

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{32\pi ^2q^4}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}du{\displaystyle \frac{u^3r_0}{e^ur_0}}`$


text:
# 1.

## 1.

A large CP-violating asymmetry in the decay $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$ was originally predicted by Sehgal and Wanninger . The effect is almost entirely due to indirect CP violation in $`K^0\overline{K^0}`$ mixing. The predicted asymmetry in the angle between the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and the $`e^+e^{}`$ planes has been confirmed experimentally . The purpose of this note is to update the theoretical analysis of the asymmetry  using the most recent phenomenological input available and employing the methods of chiral perturbation theory. The latter will mainly be invoked to estimate higher-order corrections but also to interpret the observed sign of the asymmetry.

## 2.

The amplitude for the decay $`K_L(p)\pi ^+(p_1)\pi ^{}(p_2)e^+(k_+)e^{}(k_{})`$ is expressed in terms of three invariant form factors $`E_1,E_2`$ (electric) and $`M`$ (magnetic):

$`A(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{q^2}}\overline{u}(k_{})\gamma ^\mu v(k_+)V_\mu `$
$`V_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`iE_1p_{1\mu }+iE_2p_{2\mu }+M\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }p_1^\nu p_2^\rho q^\sigma `$ (1)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`k_++k_{}.`$
We use the set of variables originally introduced by Cabibbo and Maksymovicz  for $`K_{e4}`$ decays. With this choice, the form factors $`E_1,E_2,M`$ depend on $`s_\pi `$ (invariant mass squared of the two pions), $`q^2`$ (invariant mass squared of the leptons) and $`\theta _\pi `$ (angle of the $`\pi ^+`$ in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ center-of-mass system with respect to the dipion line of flight in the kaon rest frame). The two remaining Dalitz variables are $`\theta _l`$, the corresponding angle for the positron, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the angle between the dipion and dilepton planes in the kaon rest frame.

After integration over four of these variables, the differential decay rate with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ assumes the general form111We use the conventions of Ref. , in particular $`\epsilon _{0123}=1`$ and the metric $`(+)`$.

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{\Phi }}=I_1+I_2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }+I_3\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }+I_4\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Phi }+I_5\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(2)
Under a CP transformation

$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (3)
so that non-zero $`I_3`$, $`I_5`$ signify CP violation. It turns out that $`I_3`$ is very small in the standard model, being sensitive to direct CP violation only . The quantity of interest here is $`I_5`$ that is almost exclusively due to indirect CP violation . A convenient measure of this term is the asymmetry

$$𝒜_{CP}=\mathrm{sgn}(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{4I_5}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})}.$$
(4)
In terms of the invariant form factors defined in (1), the asymmetry is given by

$`𝒜_{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{128\pi ^8M_{K^0}\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})}}`$
$`{\displaystyle d_{LIPS}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }p_1^\mu p_2^\nu k_+^\rho k_{}^\sigma \frac{(p_1p_2)(k_+k_{})}{q^4}\mathrm{sgn}(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi })\text{Im}[(E_1E_2)M^{}]}`$
where $`d_{LIPS}`$ is the invariant phase space integration measure. We will also consider the asymmetry for certain cuts (in $`q^2`$). In this case, both the phase space integration in the numerator of (2.) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})`$ in the denominator must be modified accordingly.

When CP is conserved we have $`E_2(p_1,p_2,q)=E_1(p_2,p_1,q)`$. Therefore, only CP-violating contributions to $`E_1,E_2`$ matter for the numerator in (2.).

The most recent published result for the asymmetry comes from the KTeV-Collaboration :

$$𝒜_{CP}=13.6\pm 2.5(\mathrm{stat})\pm 1.2(\mathrm{syst})\%.$$
(6)
The preliminary result from NA48  is fully compatible with this value.

Before delving into the theoretical analysis, we comment on the observed sign of the asymmetry (6). With our conventions  and with the assumption that $`\text{Im}[(E_1E_2)M^{}]`$ has a unique sign all over phase space, the theoretical expression (2.) implies

$$\mathrm{sgn}𝒜_{CP}=\mathrm{sgn}\text{Im}[(E_1E_2)M^{}].$$
(7)
As we shall show in the sequel, $`\text{Im}[(E_1E_2)M^{}]`$ does in fact have a unique sign and must therefore be positive according to Eqs. (6) and (7).

## 3.

At lowest order in the low-energy expansion, the electric amplitudes correspond to pure Bremsstrahlung:

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ieA^{\mathrm{tree}}(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{q^2+2p_1q}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}e\eta _+A_0^{\mathrm{tree}}}{q^2+2p_1q}}`$
$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`E_1(p_1p_2).`$ (8)
From the dominant $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ weak Hamiltonian, the $`I=0`$ amplitude $`A_0^{\mathrm{tree}}`$ for $`K_S\pi \pi `$ decays is given by

$$A_0^{\mathrm{tree}}=\sqrt{2}G_8F(M_K^2M_\pi ^2),$$
(9)
with $`G_8=9.110^6`$ GeV-2 and $`F=F_\pi =92.4`$ MeV at tree level. The current values for the CP-violating quantity $`\eta _+`$ are

$`|\eta _+|`$ $`=`$ $`(2.276\pm 0.017)10^3`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\eta _+=(43.3\pm 0.5)^{}.`$ (10)
The magnetic tree-level amplitude starts at $`O(p^4)`$ where it is completely given in terms of low-energy constants of the nonleptonic weak Lagrangian of $`O(p^4)`$ . In the notation of Ref. , the leading-order magnetic amplitude is written as

$$M=\frac{eG_8}{2\pi ^2F}(a_2+2a_4)$$
(11)
with dimensionless coefficients $`a_2,a_4`$ of order one. As shown in Ref. , the chiral anomaly induces positive contributions to these coefficients. If the anomaly-induced contributions were the dominant ones, we would expect $`a_2+2a_4`$ to be positive.

It is easy to check for the tree-level amplitude that the CP-violating quantity $`\text{Im}[(E_1E_2)M^{}]`$ has a definite sign that equals the sign of $`a_2+2a_4`$. From (6) and (7) we would therefore conclude that $`a_2+2a_4`$ is positive supporting the hypothesis that the contributions from the chiral anomaly dominate the magnetic amplitude (11).

However, this cannot be the whole story. Assuming a constant magnetic amplitude, one can extract this amplitude from the branching ratio for $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$. Following Sehgal and Wanninger  (the same procedure is used in Refs. ), one obtains in their notation

$$M=\frac{0.76e|f_s|}{M_K^4},$$
(12)
with $`|f_s|=3.910^7`$ GeV denoting the absolute value of the $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ amplitude. The resulting asymmetry at tree level is

$$𝒜_{CP}^{\mathrm{tree}}=7.7\%,$$
(13)
much smaller than the experimental result (6). Clearly, higher-order corrections are necessary to understand the asymmetry.

## 4.

Chiral corrections to the tree-level amplitudes were already considered in Ref. . Those authors included one-loop corrections to the absorptive parts of both electric and magnetic form factors. Whereas the corrections are small for the magnetic amplitude they are sizable for the electric form factors, mainly due to the large final state interactions of two pions with $`I=0`$ in an $`S`$-wave, as first pointed out by Sehgal and Wanninger . To some extent, Elwood et al.  compensated the neglect of dispersive contributions by using the tree-level value of the weak coupling constant $`G_8`$ also in the loop amplitude. On the other hand, this is partly double counting because $`G_8`$ should be reduced by about 30 $`\%`$  when effects of $`O(p^4)`$ are included in the amplitude for $`K_1^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

We propose here a different procedure for the CP-violating electric amplitude. We first decompose the electric form factors into a Bremsstrahlung part and a direct-emission piece:

$$E_i=E_i^\mathrm{B}+E_i^{\mathrm{DE}}(i=1,2).$$
(14)
In the first part, we use the phenomenological $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ amplitude,

$`E_1^\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}e\eta _+}{q^2+2p_1q}}\left[A_0e^{i\delta _0^0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}A_2e^{i\delta _0^2}\right]`$
$`E_2^\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^\mathrm{B}(p_1p_2),`$ (15)
with isospin amplitudes $`A_0=2.7110^7`$ GeV, $`A_2=0.1210^7`$ GeV taken from experiment. The pion-pion phase shifts $`\delta _0^0,\delta _0^2`$ at $`s=M_K^2`$ are taken from a new analysis of pion-pion scattering combining dispersion theory (Roy equations) with chiral perturbation theory :

$$\delta _0^0=39.1^{},\delta _0^2=8.5^{}.$$
(16)
For the CP-violating direct-emission part, we have calculated the amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$ for $`K_1^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma ^{}`$, including both a local amplitude derived from the nonleptonic weak Lagrangian of $`O(p^4)`$  and a loop amplitude restricted to the dominant pion loops. Of course, one has to project out the Bremsstrahlung part of $`O(p^4)`$ that is already included in $`E_i^\mathrm{B}`$ in (15). Altogether, we have

$`E_1^{\mathrm{DE}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^{\pi \mathrm{loops}}(\mu =M_\rho )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2e\eta _+G_8}{3F}}q^2\left[N_{14}^r(M_\rho )N_{15}^r(M_\rho )3(N_{16}^r(M_\rho )+N_{17})\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4e\eta _+G_8}{F}}p_2q\left[N_{14}^r(M_\rho )N_{15}^r(M_\rho )N_{16}^r(M_\rho )N_{17}\right]`$
$`E_2^{\mathrm{DE}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^{\mathrm{DE}}(p_1p_2).`$ (17)
The explicit form of the direct-emission pion-loop amplitude $`E_1^{\pi \mathrm{loops}}(\mu =M_\rho )`$ can be found in Ref. . Because we have only included the dominant pion loops there is a residual, but numerically unimportant scale dependence in (17). We have chosen the usual renormalization scale $`\mu =M_\rho `$. The numerical values for the low-energy constants $`N_i^r(M_\rho )`$ ($`N_{17}`$ is scale independent) are taken from a recent analysis  of the branching ratio $`B(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})`$. Anticipating the numerical discussion, the direct-emission form factors $`E_i^{\mathrm{DE}}`$ are negligible for $`𝒜_{CP}`$, especially when integrated over the whole phase space.

For the magnetic amplitude, we must be less ambitious for the time being. Already at $`O(p^4)`$, we cannot claim to be able to calculate the coefficients in Eq. (11). Moreover, $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing is known to produce a big contribution of $`O(p^6)`$  that interferes destructively with the amplitude induced by the chiral anomaly. In addition, there are two apparently non-equivalent versions of implementing vector and axial-vector exchange in nonleptonic weak transitions .

On the other hand, there exists strong experimental evidence for higher-order effects parametrized in terms of a $`\rho `$-dominated form factor . Including final state interactions appropriate for $`P`$-wave $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, we therefore adopt the magnetic amplitude measured by KTeV,

$$M=\frac{e|f_S|}{M_K^4}\stackrel{~}{g}_{M1}e^{i\delta _1^1(s_\pi )}\left[1+\frac{a_1/a_2}{M_\rho ^2M_K^2+2M_KE_\gamma ^{}}\right],$$
(18)
with $`E_\gamma ^{}`$ the total lepton energy in the kaon rest frame and with222The quantity $`a_2`$ in (18) must not be confused with the same expression in (11).

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{M1}=1.35\begin{array}{c}+0.20\hfill \\ 0.17\hfill \end{array},a_1/a_2=(0.720\pm 0.028)\mathrm{GeV}^2.$$
(19)
The $`I=J=1`$ phase shift is parametrized as

$$\delta _1^1(s_\pi )=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arcsin}\left[\frac{4q_\pi ^3}{\sqrt{s_\pi }}(a_1^1+b_1^1q_\pi ^2+c_1^1q_\pi ^4)\right]$$
(20)
with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a_1^1=0.038/M_{\pi ^+}^2,\hfill & b_1^1=0.0057/M_{\pi ^+}^4,\hfill & c_1^1=0.001/M_{\pi ^+}^6,\hfill \\ & q_\pi =(s_\pi /4M_{\pi ^+}^2)^{1/2}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(21)
The slope parameters $`a_1^1,b_1^1`$ are taken from Refs.  and the coefficient $`c_1^1`$ is introduced to reproduce the correct phase shift at $`s=M_K^2`$.

With the sign convention of (15), the magnetic coupling $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{M1}`$ must be positive in order to reproduce the measured sign of the asymmetry. Unfortunately, there is at present no unique way to infer from (18) and the experimental values (19) the sign of the lowest-order combination $`a_2+2a_4`$ in (11). A recent analysis of $`K\pi \pi \gamma `$ transitions by D’Ambrosio and Gao  in the framework of the vector-field representation for (axial-)vector resonances finds that both signs are possible depending on the coupling strength of spin-1 exchange. A deeper understanding of higher-order effects in nonleptonic weak interactions will be necessary before one could claim that the chiral anomaly is largely responsible for the measured sign of the asymmetry.

## 5.

With electric form factors given in Eqs. (15) and (17) and with the magnetic amplitude (18) we obtain for the total integrated asymmetry

$$𝒜_{CP}=13.7\%$$
(22)
if all input quantities are taken at their respective mean values.

This value agrees with previous theoretical estimates and with the experimental results from KTeV and NA48. The main issue we want to address here is the theoretical uncertainty of this prediction. Electric and magnetic amplitudes are on quite a different footing in this respect. Except for the $`P`$-wave phase shift $`\delta _1^1(s_\pi )`$ that we will lump together with the phases occurring in $`E_i^B`$, we cannot ascribe a meaningful theoretical error to the magnetic amplitude. We will therefore scale the prediction (22) to the measured magnetic coupling $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{M1}`$ and include the experimental error of the ratio $`a_1/a_2`$ explicitly. Accounting for the measured branching ratio in the same way, we arrive at

$$𝒜_{CP}=\frac{3.6310^7}{B(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})}\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_{M1}}{1.35}\left(13.7\pm 1.3\right)\%$$
(23)
where the given error is due to the error of $`a_1/a_2`$ in (19) only. Future experimental improvements and correlations between the measured values for $`B(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{M1}`$ and $`a_1/a_2`$ can easily be incorporated in this formula.

In contrast, the uncertainty of $`𝒜_{CP}`$ related to the electric form factors is fully under control theoretically. For the total asymmetry under consideration here, the CP-violating direct-emission amplitude (17) is completely negligible and does not affect $`𝒜_{CP}`$ to the accuracy given. Of course, this is a consequence of the dominance of the Bremsstrahlung form factors (15) at small $`q^2`$.

Inclusion of the $`I=2`$ amplitude $`A_2`$ is itself a small effect contributing 0.25 $`\%`$ to $`𝒜_{CP}`$. The relatively big errors of $`A_2`$ and $`\delta _0^2`$ due to isospin violation  and electromagnetic corrections  have therefore no impact on $`𝒜_{CP}`$. On the other hand, those corrections are small for $`A_0`$ and $`\delta _0^0`$ that do matter for the asymmetry. Assigning an uncertainty $`\pm 0.0510^7`$ GeV to $`A_0`$ induces $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜_{CP}=0.25\%`$. Likewise, the error for $`|\eta _+|`$ given in (10) propagates into $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜_{CP}=0.10\%`$.

Because of the dominance of Bremsstrahlung, the phases relevant for $`𝒜_{CP}`$ enter effectively in the combination $`\delta _0^0\delta _1^1(s_\pi )+\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$. From the recent analysis of pion-pion phase shifts  we extract an uncertainty of $`0.6^{}`$ for $`\delta _0^0\delta _1^1(s_\pi )`$. Together with the error of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$ displayed in (10), the conservative uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\delta _0^0\delta _1^1(s_\pi )+\mathrm{\Phi }_+\right)=1^{}`$ gives rise to $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜_{CP}=0.05\%`$.

Combining the uncertainties from $`A_0`$, $`|\eta _+|`$ and from the phases in quadrature, we add the resulting theoretical error of $`0.3\%`$ to the previous one due to $`a_1/a_2`$ to obtain our final result for the total asymmetry:

$$𝒜_{CP}=\frac{3.6310^7}{B(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})}\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_{M1}}{1.35}\left(13.7\pm 1.3\pm 0.3\right)\%.$$
(24)
Given the magnetic amplitude and the branching ratio $`B(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})`$, the CP-violating asymmetry can be calculated to a relative accuracy of about $`2\%`$.

## 6.

Following the authors of Refs. , we consider the asymmetry also for different cuts in $`q^2`$, the invariant mass squared of the leptons. For this purpose, the chiral amplitude to $`O(p^4)`$  is used to calculate the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})`$ in the denominator of the asymmetry for the cuts in question. As already mentioned, the low-energy constants $`N_i^r`$ are taken from a recent analysis  of the total branching ratio $`B(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{})`$.

Suppressing errors, the results are collected in Table 1. One immediate conclusion is that the asymmetry is maximal for $`q^2\stackrel{>}{_{}}(10\mathrm{MeV})^2`$.

Compared to the previous situation for the total asymmetry with $`q^24m_e^2`$, there are now additional uncertainties that increase with the lower limit on $`q^2`$. In the numerator of the asymmetry, the direct-emission form factors $`E_i^{\mathrm{DE}}`$ in (17) become more important in comparison with the Bremsstrahlung amplitude. Likewise, the rate in the denominator becomes more sensitive to the inaccurately known weak low-energy constants $`N_i^r`$ as one moves to larger $`q^2`$.

For large $`q^2`$, both the asymmetry and the rate decrease rapidly. For illustration, we therefore choose a realistic cut of $`q^2>(40\mathrm{MeV})^2`$. The CP-conserving amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$ depends on the combination $`Z(\mu )=N_{14}^r(\mu )N_{15}^r(\mu )3(N_{16}^r(\mu )N_{17})`$ of weak low-energy constants. With the mean value $`Z(M_\rho )=0.023`$ extracted from the total branching ratio , about 13 $`\%`$ of all events (almost 16 $`\%`$ of those with $`q^2>(2\mathrm{MeV})^2`$ as in the KTeV experiment ) satisfy $`q^2>(40\mathrm{MeV})^2`$.

However, these numbers are rather sensitive to the precise value of $`Z(M_\rho )`$. In Table 2, the dependence of the rate on the electric amplitude is exhibited for $`q^2>(40\mathrm{MeV})^2`$. About $`25\%`$ of the rate is due to $`Z(M_\rho )`$ being different from zero. This also documents that $`Z(M_\rho )`$ can in principle be extracted with much higher precision from the partial rate than from the total branching ratio. In the sample accumulated by KTeV , several hundred events are expected to satisfy $`q^2>(40\mathrm{MeV})^2`$.

As already mentioned, the direct-emission amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$ also enters the numerator of the asymmetry. In contrast to the rate where the CP-conserving electric amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$ overtakes the CP-violating Bremsstrahlung amplitude (8) of $`O(p^2)`$ already at fairly small $`q^2`$ , only the CP-violating part of direct emission matters in the numerator. For the considered cut $`q^2>(40\mathrm{MeV})^2`$ this is still only a small correction to the leading-order Bremsstrahlung. Numerically, the correction is smaller than the uncertainty due to $`A_0`$ and it will be included in the theoretical error.

Consequently, for reasonable cuts in $`q^2`$ the asymmetry can still be predicted rather precisely in terms of the magnetic amplitude and the branching ratio. For $`q^2>(40\mathrm{MeV})^2`$, we obtain

$$𝒜_{CP}=\frac{4.7510^8}{B(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{};q^2>(40\mathrm{MeV})^2)}\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_{M1}}{1.35}\left(10.2\pm 1.1\pm 0.3\right)\%$$
(25)
where the first error is again due to the error of $`a_1/a_2`$ in (19), the second one being the genuine theoretical error.

## 7.

The electric direct-emission amplitude for the decay $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+e^{}`$ has been calculated in chiral perturbation theory. The CP-conserving part is important for the rate because it dominates the CP-violating Bremsstrahlung amplitude already for rather low invariant masses of the lepton pair. With appropriate cuts in $`q^2`$, it will be possible to extract the relevant combination of low-energy constants in the CP-conserving amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$ with good precision.

In contrast, the CP-violating asymmetry is quite insensitive to electric direct emission. This allows for an accurate calculation of the asymmetry once the magnetic amplitude and branching ratio have been determined experimentally. For realistic cuts in $`q^2`$, the asymmetry can be predicted with a relative accuracy of $`2÷3\%`$.

The contribution of the chiral anomaly to the magnetic amplitude of $`O(p^4)`$ leads to the observed sign of the asymmetry. However, higher-order terms in the magnetic amplitude, clearly required by experiment but not reliably calculable in chiral perturbation theory, make this connection less conclusive.

We thank T. Barker, B. Cox, G. D’Ambrosio, M. Jeitler, S. Ledovskoy and L.M. Sehgal for helpful correspondence.