text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The essential divide between classical gravity and the various quantum versions of gravity theory is crossed when the spacetime geometry ceases to be fixed, but rather undergoes fluctuations. In a complete theory of quantum gravity, one expects these fluctuations to arise both from the quantum nature of gravity itself and from the quantum fluctuations of matter fields which act as the source of gravity. The former are “active” (or spontaneous) fluctuations, whereas the latter are “passive” (or induced) fluctuations. A complete description of active spacetime metric fluctuations would require a full quantum theory of gravity. However, it is possible to use linearized quantum gravity to describe a variety of nontrivial phenomena, including quantum fluctuations of the lightcone . In this paper, we will focus upon the passive metric fluctuations. Thus the gravitational field will not be quantized, but nonetheless will undergo quantum fluctuations driven by matter fields. This is what we mean by the phrase “passive quantum gravity”.

The key to understanding passive quantum gravity is an analysis of the fluctuations of the stress tensor of a quantized field, which will be the principle topic of this paper. Most of our discussion will deal with quantum fields on an approximately flat background. Fluctuations of the quantum stress tensor were discussed in Refs. , using an approach based on normal ordering, which will be discussed in more detail below. Other authors  have discussed stress tensor fluctuations in the context of cosmology.

In this paper, we will discuss a useful decomposition of the product of stress tensor operators into three terms, a fully normal ordered term, a cross term, and a vacuum term. The possible physical implications of each of these terms will be considered in succession. In particular, we will discuss how the cross term is responsible for the quantum fluctuations of radiation pressure when a laser beam impinges upon a mirror, a potentially observable effect. We will also present some new results concerning the pure vacuum term. We calculate both the stress tensor correlation function and the resulting metric tensor correlation function in the Minkowski vacuum state, and show that the latter quantity can be expressed as total derivatives of a scalar function. We then discuss the operation meaning of metric fluctuations as the Brownian motion of test particles. We conclude with some remarks on the likely range of validity of semiclassical gravity in which metric fluctuations are ignored.

## 2 The Stress Tensor Correlation Function

The basic object of interest is the quantum stress tensor operator, $`T_{\mu \nu }(x)`$. However, this object is defined only after a renormalization. That is, the formal expectation value of $`T_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ in any quantum state is divergent. Fortunately, the divergence is a c-number, so the renormalization is state-independent. The details of this procedure on a curved background can be rather elaborate, and are discussed in many references . For our purposes, it is sufficient to discuss the quantum stress tensor operator in Minkowski spacetime. In this case, the c-number to be subtracted is simply the expectation value of $`T_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ in the Minkowski vacuum state, and the renormalized operator is the normal ordered operator:

$$:T_{\mu \nu }(x):=T_{\mu \nu }(x)T_{\mu \nu }(x)_0.$$
(1)
Here $`_0`$ denotes the expectation value in the Minkowski vacuum state.

In order to discuss stress tensor fluctuations, we must be able to define the correlation function of a pair of renormalized stress tensor operators. If we restrict ourselves to flat spacetime and normal ordered stress tensor operators, then we can define the correlation function as

$$C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})=:T_{\mu \nu }(x)::T_{\rho \sigma }(x^{}):,$$
(2)
where the expectation value is understood to be taken in an arbitrary quantum state. This correlation function can be decomposed into three parts using Wick’s theorem. The following identity can be established using this theorem:

$`:\varphi _1\varphi _2::\varphi _3\varphi _4:`$ $`=`$ $`:\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4:`$ (3)
$`+:\varphi _1\varphi _3:\varphi _2\varphi _4_0+:\varphi _1\varphi _4:\varphi _2\varphi _3_0`$
$`+:\varphi _2\varphi _3:\varphi _1\varphi _4_0+:\varphi _2\varphi _4:\varphi _1\varphi _3_0`$
$`+\varphi _1\varphi _3_0\varphi _2\varphi _4_0+\varphi _1\varphi _4_0\varphi _2\varphi _3_0,`$
where the $`\varphi _i`$ are free bosonic fields. In the remainder of this paper, we will assume that our stress tensor operators are those of free bosonic fields, and hence can be expressed as quadratic forms in the $`\varphi _i`$.

We can now express the correlation function as

$$C^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})=C_{(N)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})+C_{(cross)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})+C_{(V)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{}).$$
(4)
Here

$$C_{(N)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})=:T_{\mu \nu }(x)T_{\rho \sigma }(x^{}):$$
(5)
is a fully normal ordered operator, and

$$C_{(V)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})=:T_{\mu \nu }(x)::T_{\rho \sigma }(x^{}):_0$$
(6)
is a pure vacuum term. $`C_{(cross)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})`$ is a cross term which is expressible as a sum of products of normal ordered quadratic operators and vacuum expectation values of quadratic operators, that is, products of the form of the middle four terms in Eq. (3). The fully normal ordered term is state-dependent and finite in the coincidence limit, $`x^{}x`$. The pure vacuum term is singular in this limit, but is state-independent. However, the cross term is both state-dependent and singular as $`x^{}x`$. Thus it is not possible to render $`C^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})`$ finite by a state-independent subtraction, as it is $`T_{\mu \nu }(x)`$.

As we vary the quantum state to increase the mean energy density $`:\rho :=:T_{tt}:`$, the fully normal ordered term will scale as $`:\rho :^2`$, the cross term as $`:\rho :`$, and the vacuum term does not change. Thus, in the limit of highly excited quantum states, the normal ordered term will dominate. However, its contribution to the stress tensor fluctuations,

$$C^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})T_{\mu \nu }(x)T_{\rho \sigma }(x^{})$$
(7)
need not grow any faster than that of the cross term. The physical implications of each of the three terms will be discussd in turn in the following sections.

## 3  The Fully Normal Ordered Term

This term, as noted above, has the feature that it is finite in the coincidence limit. If this were the only term present in the correlation function, then one could meaningfully discuss the fluctuations in local stress tensor components, such as the energy density. This approach was used by Kuo and Ford , where only the fully normal ordered term was retained, and a dimensionless measure of the local energy density fluctuations was defined:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{:\rho ^2::\rho :^2}{:\rho ^2:}.$$
(8)
In the case of a coherent state, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, so there are no fluctuations in the local energy density by this measure. However, in non-classical states, such as a squeezed vacuum state or a Casimir vacuum state, one can have $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of order unity. Similar results were found by Phillips and Hu  for the vacuum energy density in symmetric, curved spacetimes.

These results can be summarized by saying that $`C_{(N)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})`$ describes a fluctuating local energy density. In the classical limit, these fluctuations vanish, but for non-classical states, the fluctuations in the local enery density can be at least as large as the mean energy density.

## 4  The Cross Term

The simple picture of stress tensor fluctuations based upon $`C_{(N)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})`$ alone is not complete, in part because of the existence of the cross term, $`C_{(cross)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})`$. This term depends upon the quantum state, but is singular when $`x^{}x`$. Thus it is not possible to define a local quantity analogous to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which describes the effects of this term. However, this does not mean that the cross term is devoid of physical meaning. On the contrary, it is essential for understanding such phenomena as the quantum fluctuations of radiation pressure.

### 4.1  Finiteness of Integrals of the Cross Term

The singularity of the cross term need not be a concern if observable quantities, which are space and time integrals, can be defined. The cross term goes as $`(xx^{})^4`$ as $`x^{}x`$. At first sight, this is not an integrable singularity. However, it is in fact possible to define the relevant integrals by an integration by parts procedure. The basic idea can be illustrated as follows:

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1𝑑t_2f(t_1)f(t_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(t_1t_2)^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1𝑑t_2f(t_1)f(t_2){\displaystyle \frac{^4}{t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{ln}[(t_1t_2)^2\mu ^2]`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1𝑑t_2\ddot{f}(t_1)\ddot{f}(t_2)\mathrm{ln}[(t_1t_2)^2\mu ^2],`$
where $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary constant. We have assumed that the function $`f(t)`$ vanishes as $`|t|\mathrm{}`$, so the surface terms in the integration by parts vanish. The effect of this manipulation is to replace the apparently non-integrable singularity in the first integral by a mild, integrable singularity in the final integral. This trick has been employed by various authors under the labels “generalized principal value integration”  or “differential regularization” . Because the quantum state describes a distribution of energy which is limited in time, the normal ordered factors in $`C_{(cross)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})`$ vanish in both the past and the future, allowing the surface terms in the integrations to be dropped.

### 4.2  Quantum Fluctuations of Radiation Pressure

Classically, a beam of light falling on a mirror exerts a force and the force can be written as the integral of the Maxwell stress tensor. When we treat this problem quantum mechanically, then the force undergoes fluctuations. This is a necessary consequence of the fact that physically realizable quantum states are not eigenstates of the stress tensor operator. These radiation pressure fluctuations play an important role in limiting the sensitivity of laser interferometer detectors of gravitational radiation, as was first analyzed by Caves . His approach was based on the statistical fluctuations of photon numbers in a coherent state. Recently, we  have shown how this phenomenon can be understood in the context of the quantum stress tensor. Here we will give a brief summary of this treatment.

Consider a mirror of mass $`m`$ which is oriented perpendicularly to the $`x`$-direction. If the mirror is at rest at time $`t=0`$, then at time $`t=\tau `$ its velocity in the $`x`$-direction is given classically by

$$v=\frac{1}{m}_0^\tau 𝑑t_A𝑑aT_{xx},$$
(10)
where $`T_{ij}`$ is the Maxwell stress tensor, and $`_A𝑑a`$ denotes an integration over the surface of the mirror. Here we assume that there is radiation present on one side of the mirror only. Otherwise, Eq. (10) would involve a difference in $`T_{xx}`$ across the mirror. When the radiation field is quantized, $`T_{ij}`$ is replaced by the normal ordered operator $`:T_{ij}:`$, and Eq. (10) becomes a Langevin equation. The dispersion in the mirror’s velocity becomes

$$\mathrm{}v^2=\frac{1}{m^2}_0^\tau dt_0^\tau dt^{}_Ada_Ada^{}[:T_{xx}(x)::T_{xx}(x^{})::T_{xx}(x)::T_{xx}(x^{}):].$$
(11)
We now assume that the photons are in a single mode coherent state, so that the fully normal ordered term gives no contribution. We are also only interested in the changes in $`\mathrm{}v^2`$ due to the radiation. Thus we can subtract off the Minkowski vacuum contribution $`\mathrm{}v^2_0`$ and ignore the pure vacuum term. Now the entire contribution to the mirror’s velocity fluctuations comes from the cross term:

$$\mathrm{}v^2=\frac{1}{m^2}_0^\tau 𝑑t_0^\tau 𝑑t^{}_A𝑑a_A𝑑a^{}T_{xx}(x)T_{xx}(x^{})_{cross}.$$
(12)
The relevant component of the stress tensor is (Lorentz-Heaviside units are used here.)

$$T_{xx}=\frac{1}{2}(E_y^2+E_z^2+B_y^2+B_z^2).$$
(13)
We now assume that a linearly polarized plane wave is normally incident and is perfectly reflected by the mirror. Take the polarization vector to be in the $`y`$-direction, so that $`E_z=B_y=0`$. At the location of the mirror, $`E_y=0`$, and only $`B_z`$ contributes to the stress tensor. Thus, when we apply Eq. (3) to find $`T_{xx}(x)T_{xx}(x^{})_{cross}`$, the only nonzero quadratic normal-ordered product will be $`:B_z(x)B_z(x^{}):`$. The result is

$$T_{xx}(x)T_{xx}(x^{})_{cross}=:B_z(x)B_z(x^{}):B_z(x)B_z(x^{})_0.$$
(14)
The vacuum magnetic field two-point function in the presence of a perfectly reflecting plane at $`z=0`$ is given by

$$B_z(t_1,\text{x}_1)B_z(t_2,\text{x}_2)_0=B_z(t_1,\text{x}_1)B_z(t_2,\text{x}_2)_{E0}+B_z(t_1,\text{x}_1)B_z(t_2,\text{x}_2)_{I0}.$$
(15)
The first term is the two-point function for empty space,

$$B_z(t_1,\text{x}_1)B_z(t_2,\text{x}_2)_{E0}=\frac{(t_1t_2)^2+|\text{x}_1\text{x}_2|^22(z_1z_2)^2}{\pi ^2[(t_1t_2)^2|\text{x}_1\text{x}_2|^2]^3}.$$
(16)
The second term is an image term

$$B_z(t_1,\text{x}_1)B_z(t_2,\text{x}_2)_{I0}=B_z(t_1,\text{x}_1)B_z(t_2,\text{x}_2)_{E0}|_{z_2z_2}.$$
(17)
Both terms give equal contributions to the radiation pressure fluctuations on a mirror located at $`z=0`$.

We can see that the integrand in Eq. (12) is singular when the points $`(t_1,\text{x}_1)`$ and $`(t_2,\text{x}_2)`$ are lightlike separated from one another. However, this singularity can be handled either by the integration by parts method of the previous subsection, or equivalently by treating the integrals as containing higher order poles. The result is (see Ref.  for details)

$$\mathrm{}v^2=4\frac{A\omega \rho }{m^2}\tau ,$$
(18)
where $`A`$ is the illuminated area of the mirror, and $`\rho `$ is the mean energy density in the laser beam.

As noted above, this result can be found from considerations of photon number fluctuations. However, in an approach based upon the quantum stress tensor, it arises solely from the cross term. Laser interferometer detectors of gravity waves will eventually have to contend with radiation pressure fluctuations as a noise source. At that point, it is reasonable to expect that these fluctuations will be observed experimentally for the first time. Such an observation would constitute experimental proof of the reality of the cross term.

It is of interest to note that if the quantum state is taken to be a photon number eigenstate, rather than a coherent state, then the fully normal ordered term gives a non-zero contribution. However, this contribution is such as to exactly cancel the contribution coming from the cross term, leaving no radiation pressure fluctuations .

## 5 The Pure Vacuum Term

The piece of the stress tensor correlation function which is the most difficult to interpret is the pure vacuum part, $`C_{(V)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})`$. This term is not only highly divergent in the coincidence limit, but is always present. Any physical effects which it produces would have to be very small so as not to have already been observed. In this section, we will show that it can be written as a total derivative.

### 5.1 Explicit Form for the Electromagnetic Field

The stress tensor of EM field is

$$T_{\mu \nu }=F_\mu ^\rho F_{\nu \rho }\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta },$$
(19)
where $`F_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha A_\beta _\beta A_\alpha `$. Expand the stress tensor in terms of the vector potential $`A_\mu `$ to find

$$T_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A^\rho _\nu A_\rho +^\rho A_\mu _\rho A_\nu ^\rho A_\mu _\nu A_\rho _\mu A^\rho _\rho A_\nu \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }(_\alpha A_\beta ^\alpha A^\beta _\alpha A_\beta ^\beta A^\alpha ).$$
(20)
In the Lorentz gauge,

$$A^\mu (x)A^\nu (x^{})_0=g^{\mu \nu }D(xx^{}),$$
(21)
where

$$D=D(xx^{})=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2(xx^{})^2}$$
(22)
is the Hadamard (symmetric two-point) function for the massless scalar field. We can see from Eq. (3) that

$`:A_\mu (x)A_\nu (x)::A_\rho (x^{})A_\sigma (x^{}):_0`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu (x)A_\rho (x^{})_0A_\nu (x)A_\sigma (x^{})_0`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`A_\mu (x)A_\sigma (x^{})_0A_\nu (x)A_\rho (x^{})_0.`$
We can now combine these various relations to write, after some calculation, an expression for the vacuum stress tensor correlation function

$`C_{(V)}^{\mu \nu \sigma \lambda }(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`4(_\mu _\nu D)(_\sigma _\lambda D)+2g_{\mu \nu }(_\sigma _\alpha D)(_\lambda ^\alpha D)+2g_{\sigma \lambda }(_\mu _\alpha D)(_\nu ^\alpha D)`$ (24)
$``$ $`2g_{\mu \sigma }(_\nu _\alpha D)(_\lambda ^\alpha D)2g_{\nu \sigma }(_\mu _\alpha D)(_\lambda ^\alpha D)`$
$``$ $`2g_{\nu \lambda }(_\mu _\alpha D)(_\sigma ^\alpha D)2g_{\mu \lambda }(_\nu _\alpha D)(_\sigma ^\alpha D)`$
$`+`$ $`(g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \lambda }+g_{\nu \sigma }g_{\mu \lambda }g_{\mu \nu }g_{\sigma \lambda })(_\rho _\alpha D)(^\rho ^\alpha D).`$
A similar result for the case of the scalar field has been given by Martin and Verdaguer (see Eq. 3.42 of Ref. ).

### 5.2 The Metric Fluctuation Correlation Function

We can now use our expression for the stress tensor correlation function to find the correlation function for the passive metric fluctuations induced by vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. Let $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ be a classical metric perturbation due to the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. Define $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }h`$ and impose the harmonic gauge condition, ($`_\nu \overline{h}^{\mu \nu }=0)`$. Then

$$\mathrm{}\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=16\pi T_{\mu \nu }$$
(25)
in units in which $`G=1`$, where $`G`$ is Newton’s constant. Let $`G_r(xx^{})`$ be the retarded Green function which satisfies

$$\mathrm{}G_r(xx^{})=\delta (xx^{}).$$
(26)
If there is no incoming gravitational radiation, $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is given by

$$\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }(x)=16\pi d^4x_1G_r(xx_1)T_{\mu \nu }(x_1).$$
(27)
Now let $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ be the normal-ordered stress operator for the quantized electromagnetic field. Because here $`T_\mu ^\mu =0`$, we have $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }`$. The metric fluctuation correlation function is now

$$h^{\mu \nu }(x)h^{\rho \sigma }(x^{})=(16\pi )^2d^4x_1d^4x_2G_r(xx_1)G_r(x^{}x_2)C_{(V)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x_1,x_2).$$
(28)
We use Eqs. (22) and (24) in the above expression. The result may be written in terms of derivatives of the quantity

$$S=\mathrm{ln}^2[\mu ^2(xx^{})^2],$$
(29)
where $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary constant, using results such as

$$\mathrm{}^2S=\frac{32}{[(xx^{})^2]^2}.$$
(30)
Finally we perform a set of integrations by parts and assume that the surface terms can be ignored. (This assumption needs to be examined more carefully, and is a current topic of investigation.) More details of the calculation will be given in a later paper. The final result for the metric correlation function is

$`h_{\mu \nu }(x)h_{\sigma \lambda }(x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{60\pi ^2}}[4_\mu _\nu _\sigma _\lambda S+2(g_{\mu \nu }_\sigma _\lambda +g_{\sigma \lambda }_\mu _\nu )\mathrm{}S`$ (31)
$``$ $`3(g_{\mu \sigma }_\nu _\lambda +g_{\mu \lambda }_\nu _\sigma +g_{\nu \sigma }_\mu _\lambda +g_{\nu \lambda }_\mu _\sigma )\mathrm{}S`$
$`+`$ $`3(g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \lambda }+g_{\nu \sigma }g_{\mu \lambda })\mathrm{}^2S2g_{\mu \nu }g_{\sigma \lambda }\mathrm{}^2S].`$
This is a remarkably simple result. It is of special interest to note that the metric fluctuation correlation function is expressible as the total derivative of a scalar.

## 6 Operational Meaning of Metric Fluctuations

Fluctuations of the spacetime metric ultimately must be recorded by test particles or waves propagating in the fluctuating geometry. Let us first consider the use of a classical point test particle. In classical relativity, such a test particle moves on a geodesic in a fixed classical metric and can serve as giving operational meaning to the spacetime geometry. If we now allow the metric to fluctuate, the geodesic equation becomes a Langevin equation and the test particles undergo Brownian motion . We can express this Langevin equation as

$$\frac{du^\mu }{d\tau }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu u^\alpha u^\beta \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu u^\alpha u^\beta ,$$
(32)
where $`u^\mu `$ is the particle’s four-velocity, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ is the connection due to the mean metric, and $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ is the linear correction to the connection due to the fluctuations. Thus

$$\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu =0.$$
(33)
We may integrate this equation, and then calculate mean squared variations in the four-velocity in terms of the metric fluctuation correlation function, $`h^{\mu \nu }(x)h^{\rho \sigma }(x^{})`$. Note that this correlation function is given in passive quantum gravity by the generalization of Eq. (28):

$$\overline{h}^{\mu \nu }(x)\overline{h}^{\rho \sigma }(x^{})=(16\pi )^2d^4x_1d^4x_2G_r(xx_1)G_r(xx_2)C^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x_1,x_2),$$
(34)
where now the full stress tensor correlation function $`C^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x_1,x_2)`$ appears. This procedure allows us to calculate such quantities as the mean angular deflection or the mean time delay or advance due the the fluctuating metric.

Instead of a point particle, one might use classical waves as the probes of the fluctuating geometry . In this case, one could write down a correction to a solution of a wave equation due to linearized metric perturbations, which plays a role analogous to the $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ term in Eq. (32). This term will produce fluctuations in the wave intensity at a given observation point. There is a need for more detailed model calculations to better understand both the test particle and the wave approaches to probing a fluctuating geometry.

## 7 Validity of the Semiclassical Theory of Gravity

The semiclassical theory of gravity assumes a fixed spacetime metric satisfying the semiclassical Einstein equation

$$G_{\mu \nu }=8\pi T_{\mu \nu }.$$
(35)
This equation is clearly an approximation which must fail at some point. First, it does not include any effects of the quantization of gravity itself, the active metric fluctuations. However, even if we restrict ourselves to situations where only the quantum effects of matter fields are included, Eq. (35) must fail when the passive metric fluctuations become too large. The question is, how large is too large?

Kuo and Ford  suggested that a possible criterion could be based upon the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defined in Eq. (8). If $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$, then the fractional fluctuations in the local energy density, as measured by $`C_{(N)}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(x,x^{})`$ are small, and one expects the resulting metric fluctuations also to be small. However, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not small, then there are large local energy density fluctuations. Kuo and Ford took

$$\mathrm{\Delta }1$$
(36)
as a necessary condition for the validity of the semiclassical theory. This criterion has been criticized by Phillips and Hu  as being too strong. The latter authors calculate a quantity analogous to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but involving smeared fields in the Minkowski vacuum state. They find that this quantity is of order one. Because one expects the semiclassical theory to be valid in Minkowski spacetime, Phillips and Hu conclude that Eq. (36) is not a reliable criterion.

We wish to give an assessment both of the Kuo-Ford criterion and of Phillips and Hu criticism of it. First, it now seems that the Kuo-Ford criterion is at best incomplete because it does not address the effects of the cross term. The radiation pressure fluctuations studied in Sect. 4.2 show that this term has physical reality and must contribute to quantum metric fluctuations. The extent of its contribution is not yet clear. However, in some model radiation pressure calculations for thermal states  and in the Casimir effect , the cross term gives a larger contribution than does the fully normal ordered term. Furthermore, the real effect of both terms on metric fluctuations is measured by integrals along the worldlines of test particles rather than by local quantities.

However, the analysis of Phillips and Hu is open to the critcism that the quantites which they define are not directly observable. The type of averaging which is involved in a measurement of a fluctuating spacetime by test particles is more of the form of that in Eq. (34) than of smearing field operators themselves. This leads us to the question of whether the pure vacuum term can have observable effects in Minkowski spacetime. The metric fluctuation correlation function given in Eq. (31) is the total derivative of a scalar. This suggest that when one uses it to calculate the Brownian motion of test particles or the fluctuation in amplitude of a wave, the result can be cast into the form of a surface term by an integration by parts. However, surface terms can be made to vanish when quantites such as the wave amplitude are switched on in the past and off in the future. This is by no means a rigorous argument, but rather a heuristic suggestion that the pure vacuum term may not produce observable effects. This suggestion needs to be tested by more detailed analysis. If it is correct, then Phillips and Hu criticism of the Kuo-Ford criterion is muted.

This would still not necessarily mean that the Kuo-Ford criterion is a good measure of the effects of metric fluctuations. As noted above, it ignores the effects of the cross term. More generally, it now seems that any criterion for the validity of the semiclassical theory must be a non-local one. That is, it should involve integrals upon the worldlines of test particles. It is possible that one can have situations where there are large fluctuations on short time or distance scales, but which average out when measurements on longer scales are made.

If the vacuum term is indeed unobservable, then one must study in detail the combined effects of the normal ordered and the cross term on the Brownian motion of test particles. This also remains to be done. In the end, the validity of the semiclassical theory will probably depend on the question which one wishes to answer. If one is interested only in quantites averaged over scales large compared to the intrinsic scales defined by the quantum state, then the semiclassical theory may well give an accurate answer. However, if one poses a question about behavior on shorter scales, the fluctuations are more likely to be important. A useful analogy is the fluctuating mirror discussed in Sect. 4.2. If one is only interested in the average motion of the mirror, then Newton’s second law with the mean force is adequate. However, if one needs to know the position of the mirror to high accuracy, as in a sensitive interferometer, then the force fluctuations cannot be ignored.

In summary, it seems likely that the validity of the semiclassical approximation will depend upon several factors. First, it depends upon what question one is asking. This determines the level at which one decides that the effects of fluctuations around a mean geometry are negligible. Second, it can depend upon the choice of quantum state. We have seen that the fluctuations of the normal ordered term are minimized in a coherent state, but can be large in other states. Similarly, radiation pressure fluctuations are minimized in a photon number eigenstate, but can be significant in other states. Finally, the magnitude of fluctuation effects depends upon time and length scales, which can in turn depend upon the quantum state. Measurements which average over larger scales have a greater tendency to average out the effects of fluctuations than do those made on very short scales.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank B.L. Hu, C.I. Kuo, N.G. Phillips, and E. Verdaguer for stimulating discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-9800965.


format: text

text:
# Exact solutions of charged wormhole

## I Introduction

To make a Lorentzian wormhole traversable, one has usually used an exotic matter which violates the well-known energy conditions according to the need of the geometrical structure. Even though various efforts were tried to avoid from using the exotic matter, all they were in vain. Among the models, a wormhole in the inflating cosmological model still required the exotic matter to be traversable and to maintain its shape. It was known that the vacuum energy of the inflating wormhole does not change the sign of the exoticity function. However, a traversable wormhole in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker(FRW) cosmological model did not necessarily require the exotic matter at the very early times. The result meant that there was an exotic period in the very early universe. As another example, when the wormhole was modified by the generally coupled, massive, classical scalar field without any geometrical modification, the exotic property was compensated with the scalar field. For these or other reasons, the problem about the maintenance of the wormhole by other fields relating with the exotic property has also been interesting to us.

There are two ways to generalize or modify the Lorentzian traversable wormhole spacetime. (From now on ‘wormhole’ will be simply used as the meaning of the ‘Lorentzian traversable wormhole’ unless there is a confusion.) One way is the generalization of the wormhole by alternative theory, for example, Brans-Dicke theory. The other way is the generalization by adding the extra matter.

As the examples of the second generalization, the exact solutions of the wormhole with classical, minimally-coupled, massless scalar field and electric charge are discussed in this paper. The backreactions of the scalar field and the electric charge on wormhole spacetime are also found to see the stabilities of the wormhole. We found the stability conditions for the wormhole with scalar field and electric charge from the positiveness and flareness for the wormhole shape function.

The similar works about the scalar field effect on wormhole have been done by several authors. Taylor and Hiscock examined whether the stress-energy of quantized fields in fact will have the appropriate form to support a wormhole geometry. They do not attempt to solve the semiclassical Einstein equations. They found that the stress-energy tensor of the quantized scalar field is not even qualitatively of the correct form to support the wormhole. To maintain a wormhole classically, Vollick found the effect of the coupling a scalar field to matter which satisfies the weak energy condition. Kim and Kim found the solutions of the wormhole with the various scalar fields which shares the role of the exotic matter with other matters. In this case, the stability of the wormhole by the scalar field was not discussed.

## II Generalization of wormhole by extra matter

Let the Einstein equation for the simplest normal (usual) wormhole spacetime be

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=8\pi T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}.$$
(1)
The left hand side, $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$, is the wormhole geometry and the right hand side, $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$, is the exotic matter violating the known energy conditions. The exotic matter is basically required to construct the wormhole.

If the additional matter $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ is added to the right hand side and the corresponding backreaction $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ is added to the left hand side, the Einstein equation becomes

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+G_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}=8\pi [T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}].$$
(2)
The sum of the matters of the right hand side satisfies the conservation law naturally. However, there is no guarantee on the exoticity of the total matter. When the effect on the geometry of wormhole, $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$, is large enough to dominate any structure, the additional matter might prevent from sustaining the wormhole.

Apparently, the structure of FRW cosmological model with wormhole is similar to Eq. (2), but not exactly same. In this model, $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ is the cosmological term which plays the role of the background spacetime and $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ is the cosmic part of the matter. They are not the additional term like above.

There might be an interaction term $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{int})}`$ between $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ such as Ref.. The model is the maintaining wormhole by the coupling a scalar field to matter that is not exotic, but the coupling is exotic. There also might be the interaction term $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{int})}`$ in geometry. In some case, $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{int})}`$ may be joined in Eq. (2) without $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{int})}`$, so that the equation can have the form as $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+G_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}+G_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{int})}=8\pi (T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)})`$. This example is the electrically charged wormhole as we will see later.

## III Exact solutions of wormhole

### A Static wormhole

The spacetime of the static wormhole without any charge is given by

$$ds^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)}dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{1b(r)/r}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2).$$
(3)
The arbitrary functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ and $`b(r)`$ are defined as the lapse and wormhole shape functions, respectively. The shape of the wormhole is determined by $`b(r)`$. There can be two requirements about the wormhole function $`b(r)`$ for the wormhole in order to be maintained. They are positiveness and flareness conditions. As $`r\mathrm{}`$, $`b(r)`$ approaches $`2M`$ which is defined as the mass of wormhole. Therefore $`b(r)`$ should be defined as the positive function. And the condition $`r>b(r)`$ which means the existence of the minimum radius also support the positiveness of $`b(r)`$. Another condition comes from the flare-out condition of the shape of the wormhole. When the proper distance $`l(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ is defined as $`dl=dr/(1b/r)`$, the condition should be

$$\frac{d^2l}{dr^2}>0\text{or}\frac{bb^{}r}{b^2}>0.$$
(4)
The Einstein equation Eq. (1) for the metric Eq. (3) is given as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{8\pi r^2}}=\rho ^{(0)},`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{8\pi r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{r}}=\tau ^{(0)},`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}rb}{2r(rb)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}rb}{2r^2(rb)}}\right)=P^{(0)},`$ (7)
where and hereafter a prime denotes the differentiation with respect to $`r`$. Assuming a spherically symmetric spacetime, one finds the components of $`T_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}^{(0)}`$ in orthonormal coordinates

$$T_{\widehat{t}\widehat{t}}^{(0)}=\rho ^{(0)}(r),T_{\widehat{r}\widehat{r}}^{(0)}=\tau ^{(0)}(r),T_{\widehat{\theta }\widehat{\theta }}^{(0)}=P^{(0)}(r),$$
(8)
where $`\rho ^{(0)}(r),\tau ^{(0)}(r)`$ and $`P^{(0)}(r)`$ are the mass energy density, radial tension per unit area, and lateral pressure, respectively, as measured by an observer at a fixed $`r,\theta ,\varphi `$.

### B Wormhole with scalar field

Consider the simplest case of a static Lorentzian wormhole with a minimally-coupled massless scalar field. The additional matter Lagrangian due to the scalar field is given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\phi _{;\mu }\phi _{;\nu }$$
(9)
and the equation of motion for $`\phi `$ by

$$\mathrm{}\phi =0.$$
(10)
The stress-energy tensor for $`\phi `$ is obtained from Eq. (9) as

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}=\phi _{;\mu }\phi _{;\nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \sigma }\phi _{;\rho }\phi _{;\sigma }.$$
(11)
Since not only the scalar field $`\phi `$ but also the matter $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ are assumed to depend only on $`r`$ like the static wormhole geometry, the radiation by this scalar field is not introduced here. The components of $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ in the static wormhole metric with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ have the form

$`T_{tt}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right)\phi ^2,`$ (12)
$`T_{rr}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi ^2,`$ (13)
$`T_{\theta \theta }^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right)\phi ^2,`$ (14)
$`T_{\varphi \varphi }^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right)\phi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .`$ (15)
In this spacetime, the field equation Eq. (10) of $`\phi `$ becomes

$$\frac{\phi ^{\prime \prime }}{\phi ^{}}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1b/r)^{}}{(1b/r)}+\frac{2}{r}=0\text{or}r^4\phi ^2\left(1\frac{b}{r}\right)=\text{const}.$$
(16)
The integration constant will be represented as $`\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }`$ for some positive $`\alpha `$.

If we add $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ as an additional geometry to $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$, the effect by scalar field, the Einstein equation Eq. (2) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is changed from Eq. (5)-(7) into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{8\pi r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi ^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right),`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{8\pi r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi ^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right),`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{bb^{}r}{16\pi r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`P^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi ^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right),`$ (19)
when the interaction between the matter and additional scalar fields is neglected. The term $`\alpha /r^4`$ is added to the left hand side, because the field equation Eq. (16) for $`\phi `$ shows that $`\phi ^2\left(1\frac{b}{r}\right)r^4`$.

If we put $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}=b\alpha /r`$ instead of $`b`$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}=T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ instead of $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ into Eq. (5)-(7) with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, then the effective equations will satisfy self-consistently and has the form of Eq. (17)-(19). Thus the effect by the scalar field on the wormhole is simply represented as the change of the wormhole function $`b`$ into $`(b\alpha /r)`$ without any interaction term in the left hand side. Since $`b`$ is proportional to $`r^{1/(1+2\beta )}`$, with the proper parameter $`\beta `$ of equation of state, the shape of the effective wormhole will vary with the value of parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha `$ via the additional factor $`\alpha /r`$. While $`\beta `$ is given as the equation of state by the choice of the appropriate matter, $`\alpha `$ depends on the changing rate of the scalar field $`\phi `$. Since $`\alpha `$ plays the role of the scalar charge, the metric of the wormhole spacetime with the scalar field should be

$$ds^2=dt^2+\left(1\frac{b(r)}{r}+\frac{\alpha }{r^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(20)
in case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. No horizon occurs in this spacetime, since the components are always positive.

For the dimensional reasons, the wormhole function has the form as

$$b=b_0^{\frac{2\beta }{2\beta +1}}r^{\frac{1}{2\beta +1}},$$
(21)
where $`\beta `$ should be less than $`\frac{1}{2}`$ so that the exponent of $`r`$ can be negative to satisfy the flareness condition.

The positiveness and flareness conditions for the effective wormhole can be written as

$`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`>`$ $`0,`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_{\mathrm{eff}}b_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}r}{b_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}`$ $`>`$ $`0.`$ (23)
If we rewrite these in terms of $`b(r)`$,

$`b{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r}}`$ $`>`$ $`0,`$ (24)
$`\gamma b{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r}}`$ $`>`$ $`0,`$ (25)
where $`\gamma =\frac{\beta }{2\beta +1}`$.

When $`1<\beta <\frac{1}{2}`$, the flareness condition is included in the positiveness condition, since $`\gamma >1`$. That is, if only $`b>\frac{\alpha }{r}`$, the flareness condition Eq. (25) is satisfied automatically. In this case, the power of $`b(r)`$ is less than $`1`$ and the function $`b(r)`$ vanishes more quickly than the second term, in the far region. Thus it gives the negative region for $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ at large $`r`$, even though it has the positive regions near throat when $`b_0^2>\alpha `$. At throat, the effective wormhole shape function becomes $`\frac{1}{b_0}(b_0^2\alpha )`$, which shows that the size of neck is reduced by the scalar field. The region of the positive $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is $`b_0<r<r_0`$, where $`r_0=\alpha ^{(2\beta +1)/(2\beta +2)}/b_0^{\beta /(2\beta +1)}`$. If $`b_0^2<\alpha `$, $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is negative at all $`r`$, which is not suitable for wormhole.

If only $`\beta 1`$ and $`b_0^2>\alpha `$, the wormhole is safe, because $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is positive at all $`r`$. When $`b_0^2<\alpha `$, there also be a region ($`r<r_0`$) of negative $`b`$ so that the scalar field effect will change the wormhole structure into others, since the scalar field dominates the exotic matter. Thus the addition of the minimally-coupled, massless scalar field does not guarantee the structure of wormhole.

Now we shall examine the special case of this backreaction problem, for instance, $`\beta =1`$ which is $`b=b_0^2/r`$. In this case, the solution of the scalar field is given as

$$\phi =\phi _0\left[1\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\frac{b_0}{r}\right)\right].$$
(26)
Thus the proportional constant $`\alpha `$ becomes

$$\alpha =4\pi \phi _0^2b_0^2,$$
(27)
where $`b_0`$ is the minimum size of the wormhole and $`\phi _0`$ is the value of $`\phi (r)`$ at $`r=b_0`$. Therefore, $`\phi _0^2<\frac{1}{4\pi }`$ is the condition that is required for maintaining the wormhole under the addition of the scalar field. In this choice of $`\beta =1`$, there is no $`r_0`$ at which the sign of $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ changes.

We can also apply the result to the other form of $`b(r)`$, which means the exotic matter distribution in the restricted region only, “absurdly benign” wormhole,

$$b(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_0[1(rb_0)/a_0]^2,\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=0,& \mathrm{for}b_0rb_0+a_0,\hfill \\ b=\mathrm{\Phi }=0,& \mathrm{for}rb_0+a_0\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
In this case, since the second term $`\alpha /r`$ in the effective shape function extends to over the region $`rb_0+a_0`$, there will be a negative $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ within this range of $`r`$, which is not safe for wormhole formation.

### C Wormhole with electric charge

In the case of electric charge, we can follow the same procedures as the case of scalar field. However, the simplification with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is not adequate here, because the self-consistent solution cannot be found in this case. Thus the work on finding extra terms in geometry will be very complicated one, compared with the scalar field case. We rather start from assuming the probable spacetime metric and check later whether it will be correct or not. We can presumably set the wormhole spacetime with electric charge $`Q`$ as

$$ds^2=\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{b(r)}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2).$$
(29)
This spacetime is the combination of MT type spherically symmetric static wormhole and Reissner-Nordström(RN) spacetime. When $`Q=0`$, the spacetime means the MT wormhole and when $`b=0`$, it becomes the RN black hole with zero mass. The metric Eq. (29) should be checked whether it satisfies the Einstein’s equation self-consistently or not.

The Einstein-Maxwell equation become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^4}}=8\pi (\rho ^{(0)}+\rho ^{(1)}),`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^4}}2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2(r^2+Q^2)}}\right)=8\pi (\tau ^{(0)}+\tau ^{(1)}),`$ (31)
$`(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}})[{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2(3r^2+Q^2)}{r^2(r^2+Q^2)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^{}rb+\frac{2Q^2}{r}}{2(r^2br+Q^2)}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r(r^2+Q^2)^2}})`$ (32)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r(r^2+Q^2)^2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2(r^2+Q^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}rb+\frac{2Q^2}{r}}{2r(r^2br+Q^2)}}]=8\pi (P^{(0)}+P^{(1)}),`$ (33)
The matter terms are

$$\rho ^{(1)}=\tau ^{(1)}=P^{(1)}=\frac{Q^2}{8\pi r^4},$$
(34)
since $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}=\frac{1}{4\pi }(F_{\mu \lambda }F_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\nu }{}^{}\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \sigma }F^{\lambda \sigma })`$ and the electromagnetic strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is given as

$$F_{\mu \nu }=E(r)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(35)
by the spherical symmetry. The electric field is given as

$$E=\frac{Q}{r^2}\sqrt{g_{tt}g_{rr}}$$
(36)
by Maxwell’s equation. There are the interacting coupling terms $`Qb`$ in geometry, even though no interaction terms in matter part at all. The reason is that the zero-tidal force is not assumed in this case unlike the scalar field case.

If

$`bb_{\mathrm{eff}}=b{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r}},`$the effective wormhole shape function $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and the total matter $`T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ self-consistently satisfy the equations like the scalar field case. Therefore, the metric Eq. (29) can be convinced as the spacetime of wormhole with electric charge $`Q`$.

When $`b=b_0^{\frac{2\beta }{2\beta +1}}r^{\frac{1}{2\beta +1}}`$ like the case of the scalar field, there will be the same sign relations of $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as shown in Table 1, except that $`\alpha `$ is replaced by $`Q^2`$. Here, $`r_0`$ which changes the sign of the wormhole becomes

$`r_0=Q^{\frac{2\beta +1}{\beta +1}}b_0^{\frac{\beta }{2\beta +1}}`$

In the special case of $`\beta =1`$, $`b=b_0^2/r`$, $`Q^2<b_0^2`$ is the condition that is required for maintaining the wormhole under the addition of the electric charge. When someone will try to prevent from formation of a wormhole with throat of 1 meter radius, he should prepare the charge over than $`3\times 10^{16}`$coulombs. This amount of charge is too huge to exist as a single kind of charge.

| Table 1. The sign of the effective wormhole function $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)`$. | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Value of $`\beta `$ | $`b_0^2>Q^2`$ or $`\alpha ^{}`$ | $`b_0^2<Q^2`$ or $`\alpha ^{}`$ |
| $`\beta <1`$ | $`+`$ | $`+^{}`$ |
| $`\beta =1`$ | $`+`$ | $``$ |
| $`1<\beta <\frac{1}{2}`$ | $`+^{}`$ | $``$ |

$`Q^2`$ in case of electric charge and $`\alpha `$ in case of scalar field.

The signs change at $`r_0`$.

## IV Discussion

Here we studied the backreactions to the static wormhole by the scalar field and electric charge and found the self-consistent solutions. The charges are considered as the static case only like the wormhole, so there is no radiation by the fields. We found the exact solutions of wormhole with extra fields such as scalar field and electric charge. The conditions of the wormhole shape through the requirement of positiveness and flareness were also found.

As we see in Eq. (20) and Eq. (29), no horizon occurs in these wormhole spacetimes with charges, because of the positiveness for the metric components. It means that the addition of charge might change the wormhole but will not change the spacetime seriously.

In this paper, the interaction between the extra field and the original matter is neglected. If the interaction exists and it is large, it might change the whole geometry drastically. If it is very small, it does not seem to change the main structure of the wormhole. The detailed discussion on these interactions will be in separate paper.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by the Korea Research Foundation(KRF-99-015-DI0021).


text:
# LOW ORDER p-MODES IN A BIPOLYTROPIC MODEL OF THE SUN

## 1 Introduction

Polytropic models have largely been used in the study of non radial adiabatic oscillations of a gaseous sphere \[Cowling,1941; Kopal,1949; Scuflaire,1974; Tassoul,1980\].

We have computed the first modes of a bipolytropic model whose indices $`n_2=3.85`$ and $`n_1=1.5`$ describes both the radiative and convective zones respectively of the solar interior. We used Cowling’s approximation \[Cowling,1941\] which reduces the order of the system of differential equations to 2 (instead of 4). The radial part of the perturbation obeys equations (1) and (2) \[Ledoux-Walraven,1958\]:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{L_l^2}{\sigma ^2}}1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{P^{\frac{2}{_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}}}{\rho }}w`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left[\sigma ^2N^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{P^{\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}}}v`$ (2)
where

$$v=r^2\delta rP^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}$$
(3)
$$w=\frac{P^{}}{P^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}}$$
(4)
are proper functions, $`l`$ is the degree of the spherical harmonic, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is the adiabatic exponentent equal to $`\frac{5}{3}`$, $`\sigma `$ is the angular frequency, $`N`$ is the Brunt-Väisälä frequency and $`L_l`$ is the Lamb frequency.

The equations (1) and (2) and the boundary conditions lead to a eigenvalue problem with eigenvalue $`\sigma ^2`$ and this is the problem to solve.

## 2 Polytropes

By a polytrope we understand a gas of particles with spherical symmetry, selfgravitating, in hydrostatic equilibrium and with the state equation:

$$P=K\rho ^\gamma =K\rho ^{1+\frac{1}{n}}$$
(5)
$`K`$ and $`\gamma `$ are parameters that depend only of $`n`$ the polytropic index and the mass and radius of the configuration. The polytrope theory developed at the beginnings of the XIX century, can be used to know the dynamical structure of a star, that changes its thermodynamic state through a polytropic process in which the specific heat remains constant. This is a true result for several regions of the Sun; In Fig.1 we can see that the pressure and the density are used to plot $`\gamma =\frac{dLnP}{dLn\rho }`$ $`vs`$ $`x=r/R_{}`$ in the sophisticated SSM of Bahcall and Pinsonneault. Three regions clearly emerge. In each region the SSM output is approximated rather well by a straight line, indicating polytropic behavior \[Hendry,1993\]. Of these three regions the outermost one ($`\gamma _1=5/3`$) represents the convective zone where heat transport is achieved by adiabatic convection. The inner regions constitute the radiative zone ($`\gamma _2=1.26`$) where heat transport is achieved by electromagnetic waves. Our model based on this characteristic of the SSM allows to obtain a representation of the SSM in terms of two polytropes.

### 2.1 Two polytropes within the Sun

Following Hendry \[Hendry, 1993\] we use $`\xi `$, $`\theta `$ as the variables in the Lane-Emden equation for the convective zone with index $`n_1`$, and $`\eta `$, $`\varphi `$ as the variables for the radiative zone with index $`n_2`$. The parametric polytropes for the convective and radiative zones are respectively

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`K_1\rho ^{\frac{5}{3}},\text{ with }\rho =\lambda _1\theta (\xi )^{1.5}`$ (6)
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`K_2\rho ^{1.26},\text{ with }\rho =\lambda _2\phi (\eta )^{3.85}`$ (7)
The main challenge is to learn how to fit these two polytropes together. Since the physical quantities $`P`$, $`\rho `$ and $`M`$ are continuous across the interface (not $`\theta `$ or $`\varphi `$), the variables $`U`$ and $`V`$ given by

$$U=\frac{\xi \theta ^n}{\theta }$$
(8)
$$V=\frac{(n+1)\xi (\theta )}{\theta }$$
(9)
are be very useful \[Chandrasekhar,1939\].

Let us start by considering the convective zone. We take $`n_1=1.5`$ thus $`\xi _1=3.6538`$ and $`\theta _0^{}=0.2033`$. Though, this polytrope is not being used in the vecinity of $`\xi =0`$, it is possible to consider all of the solutions of the Lane-Emden equation for $`n_1=1.5`$. These may be generated beginnings at $`\xi _1`$ with an arbitrary starting slope and integrating inwards. Solutions with starting slopes less negative than $`\theta _0^{}`$ are of particular interest (in the literature, they are referred as M-solutions) since these are the ones which intersect the polytrope that represents the radiative zone. Three such solutions, translated into the $`U`$, $`V`$ variables, are shown in Fig.2. Solutions with starting slopes more negative than $`\theta _0^{}`$ (F-solutions) do not intersect the radiative polytrope and so do not need to be considered here.

Knowing $`\theta (\xi )`$ and $`\varphi (\eta )`$ we can deduce the density and pressure curves $`\rho (r)`$ and $`P(r)`$. The above model yields a central density of $`\rho _c=1.299\times 10^5`$ $`Kgm^3`$ and a central pressure of $`P_c=2.237\times 10^{16}`$ $`Nm^2`$.

### 2.2 Characteristic Frequencies

The characteristic Lamb frequencies $`L`$ and Brunt-Väisälä frequency $`N`$ (in notation of Mullan-Ulrich,1981) associated with restoring forces of pressure and gravity in a polytrope of order $`n`$ can be calculated as functions of radius in terms of the Lane-Emden function $`\theta `$. For the definition of $`\theta `$, see, for example, Chandrasekhar (1939): in a perfect gas, $`\theta `$ equals the ratio of local temperature to central temperature. Thus, if we define

$$\omega _g=\frac{GM_{}}{R_{}^3}$$
(10)
where $`R_{}`$ and $`M_{}`$ are the sun mass and the sun radius, and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, we can write a normalized Brunt-Väisälä frequency as:

$$N_n^2\frac{N^2}{\omega _g}=\frac{(nn_0)}{(n_0+1)}\times CC\times \frac{3}{\theta }(\frac{d\theta }{d\xi })^2$$
(11)
where $`CC`$ is the central condensation of the polytrope, definided as the ratio of central density to mean density. The parameter $`n_0`$ is the effective polytropic index associated with the pulsations \[Mullan-Ulrich,1988\], which are associated with the adiabatic exponent $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=1+\frac{1}{n_0}$$
(12)
We supposed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{5}{3}.`$

Similarly, the value of Lamb associated with mode $`l`$ is given by

$$L_{\mathrm{ln}}\frac{L_l^2}{\omega _g}=3\times CC\times l(l+1)\times \frac{\theta }{\xi ^2}\times \frac{n_0+1}{n_0(n+1)}$$
(13)
where $`\xi `$ is the Lane-Emden coordinate.

## 3 NRO in a Bipolytropic Model

Space oscillation properties of the solutions of equations (1) and (2) are related to the signs of the coefficients given in the second members of these equations. Space oscillations are allowed only in the regions where these coefficients have opposite signs. The limits of the oscillations regions are defined by

$$\sigma ^2=\frac{l(l+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1P}{\rho r^2}=L_l^2$$
(14)
$$\sigma ^2=N^2$$
(15)
In the $`(x,\omega ^2)`$ plane, these equations define two curves. In Fig.3 we have plotted them as a solid line for the bipolytropic model. Have been denoted p-modes and g-modes the regions of this plane corresponding to the conditions of position in the star and frequency, allowing spatial oscillations. These regions are characterized by the possibility of existence of progressive acoustic waves and progressive gravity waves respectively \[Scuflaire,1974\]. Thus we shall refer to these regions as the acoustic and the gravity regions. We have also plotted in the same figure the frequencies of the first p-modes for bipolytropic model and $`n=3`$ model.

The equations (1) and (2) are very convenient for the analytical discussion, see for example \[Unno et al.,1989\], but for the numerical computations we use the more appropriate form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dz}}={\displaystyle \frac{l+1}{x}}\left[y+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{\omega ^2}}z\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{GM_{}\rho }{R_{}P}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{x^3}}yz\right)`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{dx}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left[\omega ^2ylz\right]+R_{}A\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{x^3}}yz\right)`$ (17)
where we have put

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{R_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`x`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{M_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`q`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _r}{R_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`x^{l1}y`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{}P}{GM_{}\rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`x^lz`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R_{}^3\sigma ^2}{GM_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^2`$ (22)
The regularity condition at the centre, first requires that

$$\omega ^2ylz=0$$
(23)
and second, at the surface, the cancellation of the lagrangian perturbation of the pressure is written by

$$\frac{q}{x^3}yz=0$$
(24)
In order to determine the solution uniquely, we impose the normalizing condition

$$y=1$$
(25)
at the centre. With a trial value for $`\omega ^2`$ we integrate equations (16) and (17), with initial conditions (23) and (25) using Runge-Kutta method, with a step size taken from paper of Christensen-Dalsgaard \[Christensen-Dalsgaard et al.,1994\]. Usually this solution does not satisfy equation (24) and a new integration is performed with another value of $`\omega ^2`$. This procedure is repeated until equation (24) is satisfied, using a Newton-Raphson method to improve the value of $`\omega ^2`$.

The radial displacement $`\delta (r)`$ and the pressure perturbation $`P^{}`$ are periodic space functions; the variables $`v(r)`$ and $`w(r)`$ vary strongly from the center to the surface, then it is impossible to plot them directly along the axes. However, the most appropiate functions $`\xi =\pm \mathrm{log}_{10}\left(1+\left|\frac{\delta \left(r\right)}{R_{}}\right|\right)`$ and $`\zeta =\pm \mathrm{log}_{10}(1+\left|\frac{R_{}P^{}}{GM_{}\rho }\right|)`$ , have been plotted in Fig.4. Their signs are chosen according to the signs of the variables $`\delta (r)`$ and $`P^{}`$.

## 4 Conclusion

Although we do not use an atmosphere model and the input physics is described by polytrope structure, the modes obtained from the bipolytropic model are close to the observacional data. We show in Fig.5 a comparison with GOLF data.


text:
# Cutoff dependence and Lorentz invariance of the Casimir effect

\[

## Abstract

The Casimir force between two conducting planes is considered in both the electromagnetic and scalar field cases. This is done by the usual summation over energy eigenmodes of the system as well as by a calculation of the stress tensor in the region between the planes. The latter case requires that careful attention be given to singular operator products, an issue which is accommodated here by invoking the point separation method in conjunction with a scalar cutoff. This is shown to yield cutoff dependent and divergent contributions to the Casimir pressure which are dependent on the separation parameters, but entirely consistent with Lorentz covariance. Averaging over the point splitting parameters allows finite results to be obtained, but fails to yield a unique Casimir force.

\]

In 1948 Casimir  first predicted that two infinite parallel plates in vacuum would attract each other. This force has its origin in the vacuum zero point energy and has long been an object of intense scrutiny from both the experimental and theoretical points of view. With regard to the former it is generally well known that the relatively large experimental uncertainties of early experiments  allowed one only to conclude that the reality of the effect could not be excluded. While more recent experimental work  has produced data which is considerably more impressive, it is far from clear that the Casimir effect has been unambiguously confirmed. This has to do with the fact that these recent experiments are based on a different geometry from that of Casimir. Comparison of data with the Casimir prediction has been based upon the invocation of the “proximity force theorem”, an approach which requires the existence of a well defined potential function. Since the calculation of the Casimir effect requires a summation over all the allowed modes of the radiation field, such a function is not available and the relevance of the experiments  to the Casimir effect remains uncertain.

The present work, however, is concerned solely with theoretical issues which relate to the Casimir effect. Because of this it is well to remark at the outset that experimental and theoretical aspects can (and probably should) be considered independent of each other, despite the fact that the ultimate goal must, of course, be to reconcile them. Thus it can be imagined that fresh experiments might well lead to a confirmation of the Casimir prediction even though (as shown in this work) there remain significant unresolved theoretical issues. In that case one might well take the position that some new theoretical insight (which may or may not have to do with zero point energy) would be required.

The most direct calculation of the Casimir force relies on mode summation. Indeed it is precisely this calculational technique which is usually invoked when the goal is to derive the predicted results within a physically plausible framework. In this approach one calculates the summation of $`\frac{1}{2}\omega `$  where the sum is extended over all allowed modes of the system. This is a highly divergent result, going as the fourth power of a cutoff frequency in three dimensions and a regularization method must be prescribed. It is known  in the case of parallel plate geometry that the final result is independent of the details of regularization so long as the relevant cutoff function depends only on the mode frequency. However, this partial result certainly cannot be construed as a general proof of the cutoff independence of the Casimir force. Since efforts to provide such a proof have thus far not been successful, it is natural to attempt to determine whether there exists the possibility of finding alternative regularizations which violate the condition of cutoff independence.

To this end one can consider the case of the electromagnetic field in three dimensions with conducting plates at $`z=0,a`$. The ground state energy is formally given by $`E=\omega `$ where the expected factor of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ has been omitted as a consequence of the fact that the photon field has two independent polarizations. In order to lend meaning to the above expression a regularization is, of course, required. Thus one for $``$ (the energy per unit area of the plates) one can write

$$=\stackrel{}{}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{exp}[\lambda \epsilon \frac{n\pi }{a}]\frac{}{\epsilon }\mathrm{exp}[\epsilon \omega _k]$$
(1)
where $`\omega _k^2=𝐤^2+(\frac{n\pi }{a})^2`$ prescribes the allowed modes of the system and cutoff parameters $`\epsilon `$ and $`\lambda `$ have been introduced. A prime has been placed on the summation to indicate that for $`n=0`$ there is only a single polarization thus requiring that the $`n=0`$ term be reduced by one-half. The Casimir energy is to be evaluated in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. The usual approach in which one takes $`\lambda =0`$ from the outset marginally expedites the calculation, but clearly foregoes any possibility of examining the effects of more general cutoff schemes.

The integral over the transverse coordinates and the sum over $`n`$ are readily carried out to yield

$$(\epsilon ,\lambda )=\frac{^2}{\epsilon ^2}\frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon }\mathrm{coth}[(\epsilon \lambda \epsilon ^{})\frac{\pi }{2a}]|_{\epsilon =\epsilon ^{}}.$$

Upon evaluating the derivatives and expanding around $`\epsilon =0`$ this yields

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{12a\epsilon ^2}}+a{\displaystyle \frac{(2\lambda )(1\lambda )+\frac{2}{3}}{\pi ^2\epsilon ^4(1\lambda )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{720a^3}}\lambda (\lambda ^21)`$
$``$ $`(1\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{720a^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\lambda )^3}}.`$
Since one is ultimately interested into the case in which the conducting plate at $`z=a`$ is an interior wall of the system, one obtains the relevant Casimir energy $``$ by adding the corresponding result for $`aLa`$ with $`La`$. Upon discarding irrelevant $`a`$ independent terms this yields

$$\overline{}=(1\lambda )\frac{\pi ^2}{720a^3}\frac{\lambda }{12a\epsilon ^2}+\frac{\pi ^2}{720a^3}\lambda (\lambda ^21).$$
(2)
One sees immediately from this expression that the Casimir energy reduces to the commonly quoted result $`\overline{}=\frac{\pi ^4}{720a^3}`$ in the limit $`\lambda =0`$. However, in the case of nonzero $`\lambda `$, the result found here is divergent and explicitly cutoff dependent, an observation which applies equally to its gradient (i.e., the negative of the Casimir pressure).

The calculation for the case of a scalar field required to satisfy Dirichlet boundary conditions at $`z=0,a`$ proceeds identically, but with the modification that there is one less mode for each value of $`n`$. Thus the result is simply one-half that given by Eq.(1) provided that the prime on the summation is now taken to require the total deletion of the $`n=0`$ term. Since the latter in any event does not contribute to the Casimir energy, one finds without further calculation that the Casimir enegy in the scalar case is simply one-half that given by Eq.(2). This simple correspondence between the electromagnetic and scalar cases will be found not to persist when one examines the form of the stress tensor in the region between the plates for these two fields.

This result demonstrates that the a simple and straightforward modification of the usual regularization method results in a total and unexpected change in the predicted value for the force on the plates. It is not farfetched in the light of this result to anticipate that this will be generally true of Casimir effect calculations. These have, for very practical reasons of viability, been largely limited to exponential cutoff functions. Yet it has been found that even within this narrow class there exists the possibility of demonstrating cutoff dependence. On the other hand it has been known in more recent years that there exists the possibility of approaching the parallel plate Casimir effect by means of the stress tensor. This raises the additional issue of whether Lorentz invariance in $`2+1`$ dimensions (i.e., $`O(2,1)`$ invariance) could provide additional information which bears upon this issue. Specifically, could it serve to place limits on the class of admissible cutoff functions which need to be considered? The remainder of this work will seek to resolve precisely this issue.

The Casimir effect for parallel plate geometry was formulated in terms of the vacuum expectation of the stress tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ by Brown and Maclay  using an image method. Basically this approach strives to satisfy the appropriate boundary conditions at the plates by showing that the photon propagator between the two plates can be expressed as an infinite sum over the usual (i.e., $`\mathrm{}<z<\mathrm{})`$ propagators in which the successive terms in the series have their $`z`$-coordinates displaced in accord with the standard image method. Using the fact that the stress tensor for the electromagnetic field has the traceless form

$$T^{\mu \nu }(x)=F^{\mu \alpha }F_\alpha ^\nu \frac{1}{4}g^{\mu \nu }F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }$$
(3)
where $`F^{\mu \nu }(x)=^\mu A^\nu (x)^\nu A^\mu (x),`$ it follows that upon taking appropriate derivatives with respect to the propagator arguments $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ and invoking the limit $`xx^{}`$ a formal expression can be obtained for the vacuum expectation value of the stress tensor. Following this procedure it was found  that the vacuum expectation of the stress tensor has the form

$$0|T^{\mu \nu }(x)|0=(\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu \nu }\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu )(\frac{1}{2\pi ^2a^4})\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^4$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{z}^\mu `$ is the unit vector (0,0,1,0) in the $`z`$-direction normal to the conducting planes.

Despite the simplicity and elegance of the approach of , there is some reason to suggest the necessity of a reexamination of this calculation. One notes first of all that the obviously singular $`n=0`$ term in (4) has been deleted. This has been done by invoking the argument that such a term represents the large $`a`$ contribution which should, of course, be subtracted since the physically observable quantity is the difference between the finite and infinite $`a`$ results. This term is biquadratically divergent and nonleading terms in the calculation of such a quantity can be notoriously dependent on the specifics of the regularization procedure. There is the additional concern that the deletion of the $`n=0`$ term has the effect of invalidating the boundary conditions on the conducting plates. This is a simple consequence of the fact that all the terms in the series are required to ensure that the boundary conditions are rigorously satisfied. A final point has to do with the fact that  assumes from the outset the absence of divergences in (4), a result which, if indeed true, should emerge as a consequence of the calculation itself rather than as input.

To avoid such difficulties this work approaches the problem through the technique of mode summation. This has the advantage that each contribution to the stress tensor unambiguously satisfies the boundary conditions on the plates, thereby reducing the problem to one of how the regularization of the infinite sum should be carried out. This approach has previously been used by DeWitt  and the author . The former work uses only the usual $`\omega `$ dependent regularization to derive Eq.(4) thereby leaving open the issue of more general cutoff approaches. In  an $`O(2,1)`$ vector cutoff $`\sigma ^\mu `$ was used which indeed led to a cutoff dependence, but left unresolved the issue of whether the dependence of the results on this external vector could be reconciled with Lorentz invariance. By using here a definition of the stress tensor based on standard point splitting methods of field theory the covariance is issue readily seen to be resolved.

To carry out this program one begins with an expansion of the Green’s function in terms of orthogonal functions . In particular the free field propagator in the radiation gauge can be written as

$`G^{ij}(𝐱𝐱^{},z,z^{},tt^{})={\displaystyle \underset{n\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤d\omega }{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\omega (tt^{})}}`$ (5)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{A_{n\lambda }^i(𝐤,z)A_{n\lambda }^j(𝐤,z^{})}{k^2\omega ^2+(n\pi /a)^2iϵ}}e^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐱^{})}`$ (6)
where $`\lambda =1,2`$ refers to the polarization, and spatial coordinates orthogonal to the $`z`$-direction are denoted by a boldface notation. The eigenfunctions $`A_{n\lambda }^i(𝐤,z)`$ are given explicitly by

$$A_{n1}^i(𝐤,z)=\frac{\overline{k}_i}{|𝐤|}(\frac{2}{a})^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}(n\pi z/a)$$
(7)
and

$$A_{n2}^i(𝐤,z)=\frac{1}{|𝐤|\omega _k}\left(\widehat{𝐳}^i\omega _k^2+\widehat{𝐳}^i\right)(\frac{2}{a})^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(n\pi z/a)$$
(8)
where $`\overline{k}_iϵ^{ij}k_j`$ with $`ϵ^{ij}`$ being the usual alternating symbol. In the $`n=0`$ case normalization requires that the rhs of (7) must be multiplied by a factor of $`2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. It is important to note that each eigenfunction $`A_{n\lambda }^i(𝐤,z)`$ satisfies the boundary conditions $`\widehat{𝐳}\times 𝐄=\widehat{𝐳}𝐁=0`$ at $`z=0,a`$. This means that it is possible to introduce a regularization such that contributions from large values of $`|𝐤|`$ and/or $`n`$ are reduced without destroying the validity of the boundary conditions. This stands in marked contrast with the image method which has no mechanism for the consistent suppression of the contributions of higher order reflections.

A mathematically well defined vacuum stress is defined by the relation

$`0`$ $`|`$ $`T^{\mu \nu }(\epsilon )|0_\lambda =(\delta _\alpha ^\mu \delta _\beta ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta })`$
$`\mathrm{}0|[F^{\alpha \sigma }(x+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}})\mathrm{exp}\{\lambda [P^2\epsilon ^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}\}F_\sigma ^\beta (x{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}})|0`$
where $`P^2𝐏^2E^2`$ with $`E`$ and $`𝐏`$ are respectively the energy and momentum operators associated with the $`2+1`$ dimensional subspace. The form of the $`\lambda `$-dependent term has been chosen to agree with results obtained earlier for $``$. By straightforward calculation this is reduced to

$`0`$ $`|`$ $`T^{\mu \nu }(\epsilon )|0_\lambda =\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{a}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{k^2+(n\pi /a)^2iϵ}}`$ (10)
$`\times e^{ik^\mu \epsilon _\mu }e^{\lambda \epsilon n\pi /a}\left[k^\mu k^\nu +\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu (n\pi /a)^2\right]`$
which is manifestly both symmetric and traceless. It can be more usefully written as

$`0`$ $`|`$ $`T^{\mu \nu }(\epsilon )|0_\lambda =\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{a}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^{}}e^{\lambda \epsilon n\pi /a}`$ (12)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon _\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon _\nu }}+\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\epsilon ^\alpha \epsilon _\alpha }}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^{n\pi /a}(\epsilon )`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{n\pi /a}(x)`$ is the (2+1) dimensional function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{n\pi /a}(x)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ikx}\frac{1}{k^2+(n\pi /a)^2iϵ}$$

for a particle of mass $`n\pi /a`$. Since this is an $`O(2,1)`$ scalar, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{n\pi /a}(\epsilon )`$ is a function of only the invariant $`\epsilon ^2`$ and has the explicit form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{n\pi /a}(\epsilon )=\frac{i}{4\pi \epsilon }e^{\epsilon n\pi /a}.$$

The summation over $`n`$ can now readily be performed to obtain

$$0|T^{\mu \nu }(\epsilon )|0_\lambda =(\frac{}{\epsilon _\mu }\frac{}{\epsilon _\nu }+\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu \frac{^2}{\epsilon ^\alpha \epsilon _\alpha })F(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{},\lambda )|_{\epsilon ^{}=\epsilon }$$

where

$$F(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{},\lambda )=\frac{1}{4\pi a\epsilon }\mathrm{coth}[(\epsilon \lambda \epsilon ^{})\frac{\pi }{2a}].$$

In the limit of small $`\epsilon `$ the latter reduces to

$$F(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{},\lambda )\left[\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\epsilon }\frac{1}{\epsilon \lambda \epsilon ^{}}\frac{\lambda \epsilon ^{}}{24a^2\epsilon }\frac{(\epsilon \lambda \epsilon ^{})^3\pi ^2}{1440\epsilon a^4}\right].$$

Upon performing the derivatives and subtracting the $`a\mathrm{}`$ result one finds

$`0`$ $`|`$ $`\overline{T}^{\mu \nu }(\epsilon )|0_\lambda =\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu \right)(1\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{180a^4}}`$ (14)
$`\left[g^{\mu \nu }3{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^\mu \epsilon ^\nu }{\epsilon ^2}}\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu \right]\lambda \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24a^2\epsilon ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{1440a^4}}(\lambda ^21)\right\}`$
where an overbar notation has been used to denote this subtraction.

Since the vacuum stress obtained here is dependent on the components of the three-vector $`\epsilon ^\mu `$, it is necessary to demonstrate that there is no contradiction of Lorentz covariance implied by this result. To this end one merely needs to note that for a $`2+1`$ dimensional Lorentz transformation $`x^\mu =\mathrm{}_\nu ^\mu x^\nu `$ generated by the unitary operator $`U`$ the electromagnetic field tensor transforms as

$$UF^{\mu \nu }(x)U^{}=\mathrm{}_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{}_\beta ^\nu F^{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{}^1x).$$

This clearly implies that

$$0|UT^{\mu \nu }(\epsilon )U^{}|0_\lambda =\mathrm{}_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{}_\beta ^\nu 0|T^{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{}^1\epsilon )|0_\lambda .$$

Since the result (10) is in accord with this transformation law, it follows that there is no implied conflict with Lorentz invariance. If, however, it is desired that there should be no explicit reference to the components $`\epsilon ^\mu `$ , an averaging over all directions can be carried out to obtain

$$0|\overline{T}^{\mu \nu }(\epsilon )|0_\lambda ^{ave}=(\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu \nu }\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu )(1\lambda )\frac{\pi ^2}{180a^4}.$$
(15)
While this result has the desired feature of being finite and manifestly covariant, it demonstrates the principal claim of this paper concerning the dependence of the Casimir energy upon the particular regularization employed.

The scalar field case shares a number of features with the electromagnetic one, but somewhat unexpectedly displays the fact that at least for certain regularizations the vacuum stress can be $`z`$-dependent. One starts from the traceless form of the stress tensor

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\varphi ^\mu \varphi ^\nu \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\alpha ^2+\frac{1}{6}(g^{\mu \nu }^2^\mu ^\nu )\varphi ^2$$

where $`\varphi ^\mu =^\mu \varphi `$ and imposes Dirichlet boundary conditions at $`z=0,a`$. In this case (7) becomes

$`0`$ $`|`$ $`T^{\mu \nu }(\epsilon )|0_\lambda =\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{a}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{k^2}{k^2+(n\pi /a)^2iϵ}}`$
$`e^{ik^\mu \epsilon _\mu }e^{\lambda \epsilon n\pi /a}[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu )+`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu )\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{n\pi z}{a}}].`$
The once subtracted form of the vacuum stress is then found to be of the form

$`0`$ $`|`$ $`\overline{T}^{\mu \nu }(\epsilon )|0_\lambda =({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{\mu \nu }\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu )(1\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{360a^4}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{48}}(g^{\mu \nu }3{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^\mu \epsilon ^\nu }{\epsilon ^2}}\widehat{z}^\mu \widehat{z}^\nu )\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2\epsilon ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\pi z}{a}}}1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4a^4}}(1\lambda ^2)[{\displaystyle \frac{32\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\pi z}{a}}{\mathrm{sin}^4\frac{\pi z}{a}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}]\},`$
a result which is in itself problematical in that it implies the existence of nonintegrable singularities in the expression for the total Casimir energy. Averaging over directions of $`\epsilon `$ yields a $`\lambda `$ dependent result precisely half that given by (11) for the electromagnetic case.

In sum, it has been shown here that the Casimir effect for plane geometry quite generally leads to a regularization dependence of the Casimir force and that such results follow quite naturally from point splitting techniques commonly used in field theory. Similar conclusions have been obtained  in the case of the sphere. These observations constitute a significant basis on which to question the physical reality of the Casimir effect as an observable consequence of vacuum zero point energy.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Grant No.DE-FG02-91ER40685.