text:
# Classical behaviour after a phase transition

## Abstract

We analyze the onset of classical behaviour after a second-order phase transition by considering a scalar field theory in which the system-field interacts with its environment, represented both by further fields and by its own short-wavelength modes. Within our approximations we see that the long-wavelength modes have become classical by the time that the transition has been first implemented (the spinodal time).

Cosmology and particle physics suggest strongly that phase transitions have occurred in the early Universe, in particular at the grand unified and electroweak scales.

An analysis of phase transitions in quantum field theory that takes the non-equilibrium nature of the dynamics into account from first principles is very difficult, and has only begun to be addressed. In particular, the naive picture of a classical order parameter (inflaton or Higgs) field $`\varphi `$ rolling down an adiabatic effective potential, that was once a mainstay of cosmological field theory modelling, has been shown to be suspect . Alternatively, the suggestion by Kibble that, while a non-adiabatic approach is crucial, causality alone can set saturated classical bounds on time and distance scales during a transition, has been shown to be only partly true. The issue of how a quantum system evolves into the classical theory has been addressed in Refs.. For some models, it has been shown that classicality emerges as a consequence of profuse particle creation, whereby a non-perturbatively large occupation number of long-wavelength particles produces, on average, a diagonal density matrix. This dephasing effect occurs at late times. Here we will consider a model of an explicitly open system, in which classicality is an early time event, induced by the environment. The result is completely different from that of Refs..

There are several time scales which are relevant for the description of the onset of a transition. If the quench is fast, the initial stages of a scalar transition can be described by a free field theory with inverted potential, $`(\mathrm{mass})^2<0`$. This description is valid until the field wave functional explores the ground states of the potential at the spinodal time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$. Specifically, the field ordering after the transition is due to the growth in amplitude of its unstable long-wavelength modes. In consequence, the short-wavelength modes of the field, together with all the other fields $`\chi _\mathrm{a}`$ with which the $`\varphi `$ inescapably interacts, form an environment whose coarse-graining makes the system-field classical. As a result, there is an additional time scale associated with the environment, the decoherence time $`t_\mathrm{D}`$ . Once $`t>t_\mathrm{D}`$ the order parameter becomes a classical entity .

In this letter we consider a simple model of a scalar order-parameter field $`\varphi `$, whose $`𝒵_2`$ symmetry is broken by a double-well potential. Specifically, we take the simplest classical action with scalar environmental fields $`\chi _\mathrm{a}`$ ($`\mu ^2,m_\mathrm{a}^2>0`$)

$$S[\varphi ,\chi ]=S_{\mathrm{syst}}[\varphi ]+S_{\mathrm{env}}[\chi ]+S_{\mathrm{int}}[\varphi ,\chi ],$$
(1)
$`S_{\mathrm{syst}}[\varphi ]={\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\varphi ^2\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi ^4\right\}},`$ (2)
$`S_{\mathrm{env}}[\chi _\mathrm{a}]={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{a}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \chi _\mathrm{a}^\mu \chi _\mathrm{a}\frac{1}{2}m_\mathrm{a}^2\chi _\mathrm{a}^2\right\}},`$ (3)
$`S_{\mathrm{int}}[\varphi ,\chi ]={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{a}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_\mathrm{a}}{8}}{\displaystyle d^4x\varphi ^2(x)\chi _\mathrm{a}^2(x)}.`$ (4)
As we have already observed, the separation in (1) is not yet the separation between the ultimately classical ’system’ and its ’environment’ since the short-wavelength modes of the $`\varphi `$-field never become classical, and must be treated as part of the decohering environment. However, to demonstrate how an environment renders the order-parameter field classical we consider the simpler case in which the environment is taken to be composed of the $`N`$ fields $`\chi _\mathrm{a}`$ alone. Since the effect of environmental sources is additive, at our level of approximation, the $`\chi _\mathrm{a}`$ fields alone give us an upper bound on $`t_D`$.

For weak couplings $`\lambda ,g_\mathrm{a}1`$ and comparable masses $`m_\mathrm{a}\mu `$ we shall find that $`t_D`$ is shorter than the spinodal time $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, defined as the time for which $`\varphi ^2_t\eta ^2=6\mu ^2/\lambda `$, the ground states of the system. In consequence, by the time that the field is ordered it can be taken to be classical.

The model has a continuous transition at a temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The environmental fields $`\chi _\mathrm{a}`$ reduce $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and, in order that $`T_\mathrm{c}^2=\mu ^2/12(\lambda +g_\mathrm{a})\mu ^2`$, we must take $`\lambda +g_\mathrm{a}1`$. For order of magnitude estimations it is sufficient to take identical $`g_\mathrm{a}=\overline{g}/\sqrt{N}`$. We will also assume $`\overline{g}\lambda `$. For one-loop consistency in our subsequent calculation we assume that $`N1`$. The effect of many weakly coupled environmental fields is that they act on the system field without it being able to act back on them. For example, the dominant hard loop contribution of the $`\varphi `$-field to the $`\chi _\mathrm{a}`$ thermal masses is $`\delta m_T^2=O(\overline{g}T_\mathrm{c}^2/\sqrt{N})=O(\mu ^2/N)\mu ^2`$. Similarly, the two-loop (setting sun) diagram, which is the first to contribute to the discontinuity of the $`\chi `$-field propagator, is of magnitude $`\overline{g}^2T_\mathrm{c}^2/N=O(\overline{g}\mu ^2/N^{3/2})\delta m_T^2`$, in turn. That is, the effect of the thermal bath on the propagation of the environmental $`\chi `$-fields is ignorable. We stress that this is not a Hartree or large-N approximation of the type that, to date, has been the major way to proceed for a closed system.

We shall assume that the initial states of the system and environment are both thermal, at a temperature $`T_0>T_\mathrm{c}`$. We then imagine a change in the global environment (e.g. expansion in the early universe) that can be characterised by a change in temperature from $`T_0`$ to $`T_\mathrm{f}<T_\mathrm{c}`$. The relevant object is the reduced density matrix $`\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{},t]=\varphi ^+|\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{r}(t)|\varphi ^{}`$. It describes the evolution of the system under the influence of the environment, defined by

$`\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{},t]={\displaystyle 𝒟\chi _\mathrm{a}\rho [\varphi ^+,\chi _\mathrm{a},\varphi ^{},\chi _\mathrm{a},t]},`$

where $`\rho [\varphi ^+,\chi _\mathrm{a}^+,\varphi ^{},\chi _\mathrm{a}^{},t]=\varphi ^+\chi _\mathrm{a}^+|\widehat{\rho }(t)|\varphi ^{}\chi _\mathrm{a}^{}`$ is the full density matrix. The environment will have the effect of making the system effectively classical once $`\rho _\mathrm{r}(t)`$ is, approximately, diagonal in the field configuration basis. Quantum interference can then be ignored and we obtain a classical probability distribution from the diagonal part of $`\rho _\mathrm{r}(t)`$, or equivalently, by means of the reduced Wigner functional, which is positive definite after the decoherence time (see Ref. for an explicit demonstration of this for a toy model). This behaviour is essentially different from the dephasing effects . Our onset of classical behaviour is an early-time event which, beneficially, allows us to use perturbation theory.

Assuming that the initial full density matrix can be factorised, the temporal evolution of the reduced one is given by

$`\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi _\mathrm{f}^+,\varphi _\mathrm{f}^{},t]={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi _\mathrm{i}^+𝑑\varphi _\mathrm{i}^{}J_\mathrm{r}[\varphi _\mathrm{f}^+,\varphi _\mathrm{f}^{},t|\varphi _\mathrm{i}^+,\varphi _\mathrm{i}^{},t_0]\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi _\mathrm{i}^+\varphi _\mathrm{i}^{},t_0]},`$

where $`J_\mathrm{r}`$ is the reduced evolution operator

$$J_\mathrm{r}[\varphi _\mathrm{f}^+,\varphi _\mathrm{f}^{},t|\varphi _\mathrm{i}^+,\varphi _\mathrm{i}^{},t_0]=_{\varphi _\mathrm{i}^+}^{\varphi _\mathrm{f}^+}𝒟\varphi ^+_{\varphi _\mathrm{i}^{}}^{\varphi _\mathrm{f}^{}}𝒟\varphi ^{}e^{i\{S[\varphi ^+]S[\varphi ^{}]\}}F[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}].$$
(5)
The Feynman-Vernon  influence functional $`F[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]`$ is defined as

$`F[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\chi _{\mathrm{ai}}^+𝑑\chi _{\mathrm{ai}}^{}\rho _\chi [\chi _{\mathrm{ai}}^+,\chi _{\mathrm{ai}}^{},t_0]𝑑\chi _{\mathrm{af}}_{\chi _{\mathrm{ai}}^+}^{\chi _{\mathrm{af}}}𝒟\chi _\mathrm{a}^+_{\chi _{\mathrm{ai}}^{}}^{\chi _{\mathrm{af}}}𝒟\chi _\mathrm{a}^{}}`$ (6)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\{S[\chi _\mathrm{a}^+]+S_{\mathrm{int}}[\varphi ^+,\chi _\mathrm{a}^+]i\{S[\chi _\mathrm{a}^{}]+S_{\mathrm{int}}[\varphi ^{},\chi _\mathrm{a}^{}]\}).`$ (7)
Given our thermal initial conditions it is not the case that the full density matrix has $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ fields uncorrelated initially, since it is the interactions between them that leads to the restoration of symmetry at high temperatures. Rather, on incorporating the hard thermal loop ‘tadpole’ diagrams of the $`\chi `$ (and $`\varphi `$) fields in the $`\varphi `$ mass term leads to the effective action for $`\varphi `$ quasiparticles,

$`S_{\mathrm{syst}}^{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ]={\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{2}m_\varphi ^2(T_0)\varphi ^2\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi ^4\right\}}`$

where $`m_\varphi ^2(T_0)=\mu ^2(1T_0^2/T_\mathrm{c}^2)>0`$. As a result, we can take an initial factorised density matrix of the form $`\widehat{\rho }[T_0]=\widehat{\rho }_\varphi [T_0]\widehat{\rho }_\chi [T_0]`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }_\varphi [T_0]`$ is determined by the quadratic part of $`S_{\mathrm{syst}}^{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ]`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_\chi [T_0]`$ by $`S[\chi _\mathrm{a}]`$.

Provided the change in temperature is not too slow the exponential instabilities of the $`\varphi `$-field grow so fast that the field has populated the degenerate vacua well before the temperature has dropped to $`T_\mathrm{f}`$. As $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ has no particular significance for the environment field, for these early times we can keep the temperature of the environment fixed at $`T_\chi =T_0=𝒪(T_\mathrm{c})`$. Since it is the system-field $`\varphi `$ field whose behaviour changes dramatically on taking $`T_\varphi `$ through $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, we adopt an instantaneous quench for $`T_\varphi `$ from $`T_0`$ to $`T_\mathrm{f}=0`$ at time $`t=0`$, in which $`m_\varphi ^2(T)`$ changes sign and magnitude instantly, concluding with the value $`m_\varphi ^2(t)=\mu ^2`$, $`t>0`$.

Beginning from this initial distribution, peaked around $`\varphi =0`$, we follow the evolution of the system, with Hamiltonian determined from (1). From the influence functional we define the influence action $`\delta A[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]`$ by $`F[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]=\mathrm{exp}i\delta A[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]`$. After further defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ^{+2}\varphi ^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ^{+2}+\varphi ^2)`$, the real and imaginary parts of the influence action are, in the one loop (two vertices) and large $`N`$ approximations***The large-N approximation singles out the two-vertex loop in the one-loop perturbative approximation.,

$`\mathrm{Re}\delta A={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}^2}{8}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y\mathrm{\Delta }(x)K_\mathrm{q}(xy)\mathrm{\Sigma }(y)},`$

$`\mathrm{Im}\delta A={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}^2}{16}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y\mathrm{\Delta }(x)N_\mathrm{q}(x,y)\mathrm{\Delta }(y)},`$

where $`K_\mathrm{q}(xy)=\mathrm{Im}G_{++}^2(x,y)\theta (y^0x^0)`$ is the dissipation kernel and $`N_\mathrm{q}(xy)=\mathrm{Re}G_{++}^2(x,y)`$ is the noise (diffusion) kernel. $`G_{++}`$ is the relevant closed-time-path correlator of the $`\chi `$-field at temperature $`T_0`$.

The first step in the evaluation of the master equation is the calculation of the density matrix propagator $`J_\mathrm{r}`$ from Eq.(5). In order to estimate the functional integration which defines the reduced propagator, we perform a saddle point approximation

$`J_\mathrm{r}[\varphi _\mathrm{f}^+,\varphi _\mathrm{f}^{},t|\varphi _\mathrm{i}^+,\varphi _\mathrm{i}^{},t_0]\mathrm{exp}iA[\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}^+,\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}^{}],`$

where $`A[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]=S[\varphi ^+]S[\varphi ^{}]+\delta A[\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{}]`$, and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}^\pm `$ is the solution of the equation of motion $`\frac{\delta ReA}{\delta \varphi ^+}|_{\varphi ^+=\varphi ^{}}=0`$ with boundary conditions $`\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}^\pm (t_0)=\varphi _\mathrm{i}^\pm `$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}^\pm (t)=\varphi _\mathrm{f}^\pm `$. It is very difficult to solve this equation analytically. For simplicity, we assume that the system-field contains only one Fourier mode with $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}_0`$. We are motivated in this by the observation that the exponentially growing long-wavelengths increasingly bunch about a wave-number $`k_0<\mu `$, which diminishes with time initially as $`k_0^2=𝒪(\mu ^2/t)`$.

The classical solution is of the form $`\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}(\stackrel{}{x},s)=f(s,t)\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}_0.\stackrel{}{x})`$ where $`f(0,t)=\varphi _\mathrm{i}`$ and $`f(t,t)=\varphi _\mathrm{f}`$. Qualitatively, $`f(s,t)`$ grows exponentially with $`s`$ for $`tt_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, and oscillates for $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}<s<t`$ when $`t>t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$. We shall therefore approximate it, for $`tt_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ as

$`f(s,t)=\varphi _\mathrm{f}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega _0s)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega _0t)}}+\varphi _\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}[\omega _0(ts)]}{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega _0t)}},`$

where $`\omega _0^2=\mu ^2k_0^2`$. In order to obtain the master equation we must compute the final time derivative of the propagator $`J_\mathrm{r}`$, and after that eliminate the dependence on the initial field configurations $`\varphi _\mathrm{i}^\pm `$ coming from the classical solutions $`\varphi _{\mathrm{cl}}^\pm `$ (see Ref.).

To determine the onset of classical behaviour it is sufficient to calculate just the correction to the normal unitary evolution coming from the noise kernel. For clarity we drop the suffix $`\mathrm{f}`$ on the final state fields. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\varphi ^{+2}\varphi ^2)/2`$ for the final field configurations, then the relevant part of the master equation for $`\rho _\mathrm{r}(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{},t)`$ is

$$i\dot{\rho }_\mathrm{r}=\varphi ^+|[H,\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{r}]|\varphi ^{}i\frac{\overline{g}^2}{16}V\mathrm{\Delta }^2D(k_0,t)\rho _\mathrm{r}+\mathrm{}$$
(8)
The volume factor $`V`$ that appears in the master equation is due to the fact we are considering a density matrix which is a functional of two different field configurations, $`\varphi ^\pm (\stackrel{}{x})=\varphi ^\pm \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{}{k}_0.\stackrel{}{x}`$, which are spread over all space. The time-dependent diffusion coefficient $`D(k_0,t)`$ due to each of the many external environmental fields is then given by

$$D_\chi (k_0,t)=_0^t𝑑su(s)\left[\mathrm{Re}G_{++}^2(2k_0;ts)+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}G_{++}^2(0;ts)\right].$$
(9)
In (9), $`u(s)=\mathrm{cosh}^2\omega _0s`$ when $`tt_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, and is an oscillatory function of time when $`t>t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$.

Although $`G_{++}`$ is oscillatory at all times, for times $`\mu t>1`$ (until the spinodal one) the exponential growth of $`u(t)`$ enforces a similar behaviour on $`D_\chi (k_0,t)`$,

$$D_\chi (k_0,t)\frac{(k_\mathrm{B}T_0)^2}{\mu ^3}\omega _0\mathrm{exp}[2\omega _0t],$$
(10)
associated with the instability of the $`k_0`$ mode. For long-wavelength modes $`D_\chi (t)(k_\mathrm{B}T_0/\mu )^2\mathrm{exp}[2\mu t]`$. For $`t>t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ the diffusion coefficient stops growing, and oscillates around $`D_\chi (k_0,t=t_{\mathrm{sp}})`$.

In our present model the environment fields $`\chi _\mathrm{a}`$ are not the only decohering agents. The environment is also constituted by the short-wavelength modes of the self-interacting field $`\varphi `$. Therefore, we split the field as $`\varphi =\varphi _<+\varphi _>`$, where the system-field $`\varphi _<`$ contains the unstable modes with wavelengths longer than the critical value $`\mu ^1`$, while the bath or environment-field contains the stable modes with wavelengths shorter than $`\mu ^1`$ (in practice, whether the separation is made at $`k=\mu `$ exactly or at $`k\mu `$ is immaterial by time $`t_D`$, when the power of the $`\varphi `$-field fluctuations is peaked at $`k_0\mu `$). This gives an additional contribution to the diffusion coefficient. Without the additional powers of $`N^1`$, a high temperature resummation of loop diagrams  is essential to get a reliable $`G_{++}`$. This is beyond the scope of this letter. It will be enough for our purposes to compute an upper bound on the decoherence time $`t_D`$ only considering the external fields $`\chi _\mathrm{a}`$.

We estimate $`t_\mathrm{D}`$ by considering the approximate solution (8),We are following the decoherence time definition of .

$`\rho _\mathrm{r}[\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{};t]\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}[\varphi _<^+,\varphi _<^{};t]\mathrm{exp}\left[V\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑sD(k_0,s)\right],`$

where $`\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}`$ is the solution of the unitary part of the master equation (i.e. without environment) and $`D(k_0,s)`$ denotes the total diffusion. It is obvious from this (and also from (8)), that the diagonal density matrix just evolves like the unitary matrix (the environment has almost no effect on the diagonal part of $`\rho _\mathrm{r}`$). In terms of the dimensionless fields $`\overline{\varphi }=(\varphi _<^++\varphi _<^{})/2\mu ,`$ and $`\delta =(\varphi _<^+\varphi _<^{})/2\mu `$, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(1/16)\overline{g}^2\mu ^4\overline{\varphi }^2\delta ^2`$.

The system behaves classically when the non-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix are much smaller than the diagonal ones. We therefore look at the ratio

$$\left|\frac{\rho _\mathrm{r}[\overline{\varphi }+\delta ,\overline{\varphi }\delta ;t]}{\rho _\mathrm{r}[\overline{\varphi },\overline{\varphi };t]}\right|\left|\frac{\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}[\overline{\varphi }+\delta ,\overline{\varphi }\delta ;t]}{\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}[\overline{\varphi },\overline{\varphi };t]}\right|\mathrm{exp}\left[V\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^t𝑑sD(k_0,s)\right].$$
(11)
It is not possible to obtain an analytic expression for the ratio of unitary density matrices that appears in Eq.(11). The simplest approximation is to neglect the couplings of the system field . In this case the unitary density matrix remains Gaussian at all times as

$$\left|\frac{\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}[\overline{\varphi }+\delta ,\overline{\varphi }\delta ;t]}{\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}[\overline{\varphi },\overline{\varphi };t]}\right|=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{T_\mathrm{c}}{\mu }\delta ^2p^1(t)],$$
(12)
where $`p^1(t)`$, essentially $`\mu ^2\varphi ^2_t^1`$, decreases exponentially with time to a value $`𝒪(\lambda )`$. A full numerical calculation  shows that $`\rho _\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{u}`$ becomes a non-Gaussian function (the associated Wigner function becomes non-positive). In any case, in the unitary part of the reduced density matrix the non-diagonal terms are not suppressed.This should not be confused with the observation that the unitary Gaussian density matrix does show classical correlation, whereby the Wigner functional becomes localised in phase space about its classical solutions. However, this has nothing to do with eliminating quantum interference between different field histories.

The decoherence time $`t_\mathrm{D}`$ sets the scale after which we have a classical system-field configuration. According to our previous discussion, it can be defined as the solution to

$`1V\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle _0^{t_D}}𝑑sD(k_0,s)V\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle _0^{t_D}}𝑑sD_\chi (k_0,s).`$

It corresponds to the time after which we are able to distinguish between two different field amplitudes (inside a given volume $`V`$).

Suppose we reduce the couplings $`\overline{g}\lambda `$ of the system $`\varphi `$-field to its environment. Since, as a one-loop construct, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{g}^2\lambda ^2`$, we might expect that, as $`\overline{g}`$, $`\lambda `$ decrease, then $`t_\mathrm{D}`$ increases and the system takes longer to become classical. Although this is the usual result for Brownian motion, say, it is not simply the case for quantum field theory phase transitions. The reason is twofold. Firstly, there is the effect that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T_0^2`$, and $`T_0^2\lambda ^1`$ is non-perturbatively large for a phase transition. Secondly, because of the non-linear coupling to the environment, obligatory for quantum field theory, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{\varphi }^2`$. The completion of the transition finds $`\overline{\varphi }^2\eta ^2\lambda ^1`$ also non-perturbatively large. This suggests that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and hence $`t_\mathrm{D}`$, can be approximately independent of $`\lambda `$. In fact, the situation is a little more complicated, but the end result is that $`t_\mathrm{D}`$ does not increase (relative to $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$) as the couplings become uniformly weaker.

In quantifying the decoherence time $`V`$ is understood as the minimal volume inside which there is no possibility for coherent superpositions of macroscopically distinguishable states for the field (i.e. there is no ‘Schrödinger cat’ states inside $`V`$). Thus, our choice is that this volume factor is $`𝒪(\mu ^3)`$ since $`\mu ^1`$ (the Compton wavelength) sets the smallest scale at which we need to look. In particular, $`\mu ^1`$ characterises the thickness of domain boundaries (walls) as the field settles into its ground-state values. Inside this volume, we do not discriminate between field amplitudes which differ by $`𝒪(\mu )`$, and therefore we take $`\delta 𝒪(1)`$. For $`\overline{\varphi }`$ we set $`\overline{\varphi }^2𝒪(\alpha /\lambda )`$, where $`\lambda \alpha 1`$ is to be determined self-consistently from the condition that, at time $`t_\mathrm{D}`$, $`\varphi ^2_t\alpha \eta ^2`$.

Note that the diagonalisation of $`\rho _t`$ occurs quickly, but not so quickly that $`\mu t1`$. Consequently, in order to evaluate the decoherence time in our model, we have to use Eq.(10). We obtain, for the upper bound on $`t_D`$,

$$\mathrm{exp}[2\mu t_\mathrm{D}]\frac{\lambda \sqrt{N}\overline{g}}{\overline{g}^2\alpha }=𝒪(\frac{\sqrt{N}}{\alpha }),$$
(13)
whereby $`\mu t_\mathrm{D}\mathrm{ln}(\eta /T_\mathrm{c}\sqrt{\alpha }))`$. The value of $`\alpha `$ is determined as $`\alpha \sqrt{\mu /T_\mathrm{c}}`$. For comparison, we find $`t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, for which $`\varphi ^2_t\eta ^2`$, given by

$$\mathrm{exp}[2\mu t_{\mathrm{sp}}]𝒪(\frac{\eta ^2}{\mu T_\mathrm{c}}).$$
(14)
The exponential factor, as always, arises from the growth of the unstable long wavelength modes. The factor $`T_\mathrm{c}^1`$ comes from the $`\mathrm{coth}(\beta \omega /2)`$ factor that encodes the initial Boltzmann distribution at temperature $`T_0T_\mathrm{c}`$. As a result,

$$\mu t_{\mathrm{sp}}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{\mu T_\mathrm{c}}}),$$
(15)
whereby $`1<\mu t_D\mu t_{\mathrm{sp}}`$, with

$$\mu t_{sp}\mu t_D\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{T_c}{\mu })>1,$$
(16)
for weak enough coupling, or high enough initial temperatures. Factors of $`𝒪(1)`$ have been omitted in the argument of the logarithm in (16) and previous equations, requiring that $`T_c\mu `$.

This is our main result, that for the physically relevant modes (with small $`k_0`$) classical behaviour has been established before the spinodal time, when the ground states have became populated. We can say more in that, for an instantaneous quench, nonlinear behaviour only becomes important in an interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }t=𝒪(1)`$, before the spinodal time, and therefore $`\rho _\mathrm{r}`$ becomes diagonal before non-linear terms could be relevant. In this sense, classical behaviour has been achieved before quantum effects could destroy the positivity of the Wigner function $`W_\mathrm{r}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

F.C.L. and F.D.M. were supported by Universidad de Buenos Aires, CONICET, Fundación Antorchas and ANPCyT. R.J.R. was supported, in part, by the COSLAB programme of the European Science Foundation. We all thank the organisers of the Erice Cosmology meeting of December, 2000, where some of this work was performed.


format: text

text:
# Deformed QED via Seiberg-Witten Map

## 1 Introduction

The Seiberg-Witten map was originally discussed in the context of string theory, where it emerged from a 2D-$`\sigma `$-model regularized in different ways . It was argued by Seiberg and Witten that the ordinary gauge theory should be gauge-equivalent to a noncommutative counterpart. The Seiberg-Witten map may be also introduced with the help of covariant coordinates. In this way the deformed gauge theory emerges as a gauge theory of a certain noncommutative algebra ,  leading to the same results as in ref..

In this note we apply the idea of the Seiberg-Witten map in order to define a $`\theta `$-deformed QED at the classical level, including the corresponding Seiberg-Witten map for the infinitesimal local gauge transformation of the fermions. Using the definitions of the star-product  and the Seiberg-Witten map for the Abelian gauge field and the fermions we define a $`\theta `$-deformed QED in terms of the deformation parameter $`\theta `$ of a noncommuting flat space-time. This deformation parameter, which is treated as a constant external field with canonical dimension $`2`$, leads to a field theory with infinitely many $`\theta `$-dependent interaction vertices.

In order to prepare the quantization of this deformed QED (and possible non-Abelian extensions) we discuss the gauge-fixing procedure of the photon sector in the Seiberg-Witten framework. It is interesting to note that there are two possibilities of gauge-fixing. The linear one corresponds to the usual gauge-fixing of the undeformed Abelian model, whereas the second possibility is induced by a nonlinear gauge-fixing emerging from the noncommutative structure of the deformed QED. It is important to observe that the $`\theta `$-deformed QED is still characterized by an Abelian gauge symmetry. The symmetry of the model is described by a linear BRST-identity.

The letter is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to a definition of the Seiberg-Witten map for photons and fermions. With these $`\theta `$-expansions for the basic field variables of the model and the usual definition of the star-product  an Abelian gauge invariant deformed QED action is defined. The gauge-fixing procedure à la BRST  will be discussed in section 3. Higher derivative gauge invariant monomials which are allowed due to the presence of $`\theta `$ are analyzed in section 4. In fact such terms are required if one studies radiative corrections  .

In a last step we present also a non-Abelian extension of the photon sector, the pure $`\theta `$-deformed noncommutative Yang-Mills (NCYM) theory, involving the discussion of the invariant action, the gauge-fixing procedure and the higher derivative gauge invariant extensions of the action.

## 2 Deformed QED via Seiberg-Witten Map

The starting point is the undeformed QED with its local gauge invariance

$$S_{\mathrm{inv}}=d^4x\left[\overline{\psi }\left(\mathrm{i}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m\right)\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right],$$
(1)
where

$`D_\mu \psi `$ $`=\left(_\mu \mathrm{i}A_\mu \right)\psi ,`$ (2)
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu .`$ (3)
$`S_{\mathrm{inv}}`$ is invariant with respect to infinitesimal gauge transformations:

$`\delta _\lambda A_\mu `$ $`=_\mu \lambda ,`$
$`\delta _\lambda \psi `$ $`=\mathrm{i}\lambda \psi ,`$
$`\delta _\lambda \overline{\psi }`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\overline{\psi }\lambda .`$ (4)
In order to get a $`\theta `$-deformed QED in the sense of Seiberg and Witten  one defines

$`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=A_\mu +A_\mu ^{}(A_\nu ;\theta ^{\rho \sigma })+O(\theta ^2),`$
$`\widehat{\psi }`$ $`=\psi +\psi ^{}(\psi ,A_\nu ;\theta ^{\rho \sigma })+O(\theta ^2),`$
$`\widehat{\lambda }`$ $`=\lambda +\lambda ^{}(\lambda ,A_\nu ;\theta ^{\rho \sigma })+O(\theta ^2),`$ (5)
with the corresponding Seiberg-Witten maps given by

$`\widehat{A}_\mu \left(A_\nu \right)+\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu (A_\nu )`$ $`=\widehat{A}_\mu \left(A_\nu +\delta _\lambda A_\nu \right),`$ (6)
$`\widehat{\psi }(\psi ,A_\nu )+\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{\psi }(\psi ,A_\nu )`$ $`=\widehat{\psi }(\psi +\delta _\lambda \psi ,A_\nu +\delta _\lambda A_\nu ).`$ (7)
The deformed infinitesimal gauge transformations are defined as usual :

$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=_\mu \widehat{\lambda }+\mathrm{i}[\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{A}_\mu ]_{}=_\mu \widehat{\lambda }+\mathrm{i}\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{A}_\mu \mathrm{i}\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{\lambda },`$
$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{\psi }`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\psi },`$
$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{\overline{\psi }}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\widehat{\overline{\psi }}\widehat{\lambda },`$ (8)
where we have used the star-product . Expanding (8) in powers of $`\theta `$ one gets

$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=_\mu \widehat{\lambda }\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho \lambda _\sigma A_\mu +O(\theta ^2),`$
$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{\psi }`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho \lambda _\sigma \psi +O(\theta ^2).`$ (9)
With (6)–(8) one gets the following solutions of (5):

$`A_\mu ^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }A_\rho \left(_\sigma A_\mu +F_{\sigma \mu }\right),`$
$`\psi ^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }A_\rho _\sigma \psi ,`$
$`\lambda ^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }A_\rho _\sigma \lambda .`$ (10)
In terms of the commutative fields (3) the deformed field strength becomes

$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu +\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho A_\mu _\sigma A_\nu +O(\theta ^2)`$
$`=F_{\mu \nu }+\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }A_\rho _\sigma F_{\mu \nu }\right)+O(\theta ^2).`$ (11)
The infinitesimal gauge transformation of $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ is calculated with $`\delta _\lambda A_\mu =_\mu \lambda `$ (from now on we omit the symbol $`O(\theta ^2)`$)

$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho \widehat{\lambda }_\sigma \widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$
$`=\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho \lambda _\sigma F_{\mu \nu }.`$ (12)
Now we are able to write down the analogue of (1), leading to the following generalization

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{inv}}`$ $`={\displaystyle d^4x\left[\widehat{\overline{\psi }}\left(\mathrm{i}\gamma ^\mu \widehat{D}_\mu m\right)\widehat{\psi }\frac{1}{4}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\right]}`$
$`={\displaystyle d^4x\left[\widehat{\overline{\psi }}\left(\mathrm{i}\gamma ^\mu \widehat{D}_\mu m\right)\widehat{\psi }\frac{1}{4}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\right]},`$ (13)
with

$`\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\psi }=_\mu \widehat{\psi }\mathrm{i}\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{\psi }.`$
Using the above expansions in $`\theta `$ one gets

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{inv}}=d^4x\{\overline{\psi }\mathrm{i}\gamma ^\mu [D_\mu \psi \frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }(_\mu A_\rho _\sigma \psi +A_\rho _\mu _\sigma \psi )\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }(A_\rho (_\sigma A_\mu +F_{\sigma \mu })\psi +A_\mu A_\rho _\sigma \psi \mathrm{i}_\rho A_\mu _\sigma \psi )]\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }A_\rho _\sigma \overline{\psi }\mathrm{i}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi m\overline{\psi }\psi +\frac{1}{2}m\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho A_\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi \\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }(F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}F_{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })\}.\end{array}$$
(14)
Equation (14) contains non-renormalizable vertices of dimension $`6`$. The quantity $`\theta ^{\rho \sigma }`$ will be considered as a classical unquantized external field with dimension $`2`$. The $`\theta `$-deformed action (14) is invariant with respect to (4).

## 3 Gauge-Fixing à la BRST

In order to quantize the system (14) we need a gauge-fixing term which allows of the calculation of the photon propagator. This can be done in a twofold manner: Corresponding to the usual BRST-quantization procedure one replaces the infinitesimal gauge parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ by Faddeev-Popov ghost fields $`c`$ and $`\widehat{c}`$ leading to the following BRST-transformations for the Abelian structure

$$sA_\mu =_\mu c,s\psi =\mathrm{i}c\psi .$$
(15)
Corresponding to the noncommutative structure of (9) one gets

$`\widehat{s}\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=_\mu \widehat{c}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho c_\sigma A_\mu ,`$
$`\widehat{s}\widehat{\psi }`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\widehat{c}\widehat{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho c_\sigma \psi .`$ (16)
Nilpotency of (15) and (16) implies

$`sc`$ $`=0,`$ (17)
$`\widehat{s}\widehat{c}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho c_\sigma c.`$ (18)
Clearly, due to (10) one has also

$`\widehat{c}=c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }A_\rho _\sigma c.`$ (19)
Introducing now two BRST-doublets $`\widehat{\overline{c}}=\overline{c}`$ and $`\widehat{B}=B`$ with

$`\widehat{s}\widehat{\overline{c}}`$ $`=s\overline{c}`$ $`=\widehat{B}=B,`$
$`\widehat{s}\widehat{B}`$ $`=sB`$ $`=0,`$ (20)
one has two possibilities to construct Faddeev-Popov actions:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gf}}^{(i)}=d^4xs\left(\overline{c}^\mu A_\mu +\frac{\alpha }{2}\overline{c}B\right)=d^4x\left(B^\mu A_\mu \overline{c}^2c+\frac{\alpha }{2}B^2\right),$$
(21)
and

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{gf}}^{(ii)}=d^4x\widehat{s}\left(\widehat{\overline{c}}^\mu \widehat{A}_\mu +\frac{\alpha }{2}\widehat{\overline{c}}\widehat{B}\right)=d^4x\left(B^\mu \widehat{A}_\mu \overline{c}^\mu \widehat{s}\widehat{A}_\mu +\frac{\alpha }{2}B^2\right).$$
(22)
An expansion in $`\theta `$ of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{gf}}^{(ii)}`$ leads to

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gf}}^{(ii)}=d^4x\{B^\mu A_\mu \overline{c}^2c+\frac{\alpha }{2}B^2\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }[B^\mu \left(A_\rho (_\sigma A_\mu +F_{\sigma \mu })\right)+\overline{c}^2\left(_\rho cA_\sigma \right)2\overline{c}^\mu \left(_\rho c_\sigma A_\mu \right)]\}.\end{array}$$
(23)
The case described by (21) is the usual linear $`^\mu A_\mu =0`$ gauge, whereas the Faddeev-Popov action of (23) corresponds to a highly nonlinear gauge. However, one has to stress that both cases lead to the same photon propagator

$`A_\mu A_\nu _{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }(1\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}}\right).`$ (24)
In terms of (15), (17) and (20) the symmetry content of (21) and (23) may be expressed by a linearized Slavnov-Taylor identity

$`𝒮\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta ^{(0)}={\displaystyle d^4x\left[_\mu c\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta ^{(0)}}{\delta A_\mu }+B\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta ^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{c}}\right]}=0,`$ (25)
with

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta ^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{inv}}+\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gf}}^{(i)}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gf}}^{(ii)}\end{array}.`$ (28)
Formula (25) implies the following transversality condition for the $`2`$-point $`1`$PI vertex functional

$`_\mu ^x{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta ^{(0)}}{\delta A_\mu (x)\delta A_\nu (y)}}=0,`$ (29)
meaning that the “vacuum polarization” of the photon is transverse in momentum space

$`p^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(p,p)=0.`$ (30)
In a companion paper  we have studied perturbatively this transversality condition.

However, at this stage one has to state that the total action (28) is not the whole story. Because of the deformation parameter $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ (which is treated as a constant external field) one can construct further gauge invariant quantities. Such additional terms in the BRST-invariant total action are in fact needed for the one-loop renormalization  procedure.

## 4 Higher Derivative Gauge Invariant Terms in the Action

The presence of a constant external field $`\theta `$ allows in principle to add “infinitely” many gauge invariant terms to the Lagrangian. Due to this fact one can construct the following bilinear BRST-invariant action in the photon sector111Note that $`d^4x(\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^2\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })`$ and $`d^4x(\frac{1}{2}^\mu F_{\mu \nu }^\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_\rho ^\nu )`$ are of topological nature. Observe also that $`\stackrel{~}{}A`$ is gauge invariant.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{d}.}^{\mathrm{Max}}=d^4x\{\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^2\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}^\mu F_{\mu \nu }^\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_\rho ^\nu \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2\stackrel{~}{}^2F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}\theta ^2F_{\mu \nu }(^2)^2F^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{}^\mu ^\nu F_{\mu \nu }\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }(^2)^2\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }+\text{higher derivative terms}\},\end{array}$$
(31)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{}^\mu `$ $`=\theta _\nu ^\mu ^\nu ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{}}^\mu `$ $`=\theta _\rho ^\mu \theta _\sigma ^\rho ^\sigma ,`$
$`\theta ^2`$ $`=\theta _\mu ^\nu \theta _\nu ^\mu ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=\theta ^{\mu \rho }F_\rho ^\nu ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu ^\mu .`$ (32)
Alternatively, (31) may be rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{d}.}^{\mathrm{Max}}=d^4x\{\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^2\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}^\mu F_{\mu \nu }^\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_\rho ^\nu \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2\stackrel{~}{}^2F^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}A^\mu \left[\stackrel{~}{}^2(^2)^2g_{\mu \nu }+(_\mu \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{}}_\nu +_\nu \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{}}_\mu )(^2)^2+(^2)^3\theta _\mu ^\rho \theta _{\rho \nu }\right]A^\nu \\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}\theta ^2F_{\mu \nu }(^2)^2F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}A(^2)^2\stackrel{~}{}A+\text{higher derivative terms}\}.\end{array}$$
(33)
In a similar way one can construct with $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu =\theta _\mu ^\nu D_\nu (D_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{i}A_\mu )`$ also higher derivative terms for the Dirac theory

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{d}.}^{\mathrm{Dir}}=d^4x\{m\overline{\psi }(D\stackrel{~}{D}+(D\stackrel{~}{D})^2+D^2\stackrel{~}{D}^2+\mathrm{})\psi \hfill \\ \hfill +\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{i}D_\mu \left(D\stackrel{~}{D}+(D\stackrel{~}{D})^2+D^2\stackrel{~}{D}^2+\mathrm{}\right)\psi \\ \hfill +\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu D^2(1+D\stackrel{~}{D}+(D\stackrel{~}{D})^2+D^2\stackrel{~}{D}^2+\mathrm{})\psi +\text{h.d.}\}.\end{array}$$
(34)
It is interesting to notice that one can construct also four-fermion vertices. For example one has

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(4),\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{d}.}^{\mathrm{Dir}}={\displaystyle d^4x\left\{\overline{\psi }\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \psi \overline{\psi }\stackrel{~}{D}^\mu \psi +\overline{\psi }\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \left(D\stackrel{~}{D}+(D\stackrel{~}{D})^2+D^2\stackrel{~}{D}^2+\mathrm{}\right)\psi \overline{\psi }\stackrel{~}{D}^\mu \psi +\text{h.d.}\right\}}.`$ (35)
However, these terms cannot be obtained from a truly noncommutative action by the Seiberg-Witten map because the corresponding expression would be non-local. Therefore, we expect that contributions of this type, which are possible for individual Feynman graphs, cancel on the level of Green’s functions. Equations (31)–(35) imply that even at the classical level one has $`\theta `$-dependent terms. This entails the following form of the “vacuum polarization” of the photon in momentum space representation

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(p,p;\theta )(p^2)^2\theta ^2\left(p_\mu p_\nu g_{\mu \nu }p^2\right)+\stackrel{~}{p}^2p^2\left(p_\mu p_\nu g_{\mu \nu }p^2\right)+(p^2)^2\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu \stackrel{~}{p}_\nu \\ \hfill +(p^2)^2\left(g_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{p}^2+p_\mu \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}_\nu +p_\nu \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}_\mu +p^2\theta _\mu ^\rho \theta _{\rho \nu }\right),\end{array}$$
(36)
in observing that no terms linear in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ occur. Due to

$`p\stackrel{~}{p}=0,p\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}=\stackrel{~}{p}^2,`$ (37)
it is obvious that (36) fulfills the transversality condition (30), where we have used a notation analogous to (32). In order to be complete the total action is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta ^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{inv}}+\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gf}}^{(i)}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gf}}^{(ii)}\end{array}\right\}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{d}.}^{\mathrm{Max}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{d}.}^{\mathrm{Dir}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(4),\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{d}.}^{\mathrm{Dir}}.`$ (40)
In the limit $`\theta 0`$ one recovers the ordinary QED with a free Faddeev-Popov sector. One has to stress also that equation (31) is required for the renormalization procedure at the one-loop level for the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}(p,p;\theta )`$ .

## 5 Non-Abelian Extension: Pure Yang-Mills Case (NCYM)

We start with the non-Abelian extension of (5) in considering only the gluon sector. The corresponding gluon field is now Lie-algebra valued:

$`A_\mu (x)=A_\mu ^a(x)T^a,`$ (41)
where the $`T^a`$ are the generators of a $`U(N)`$ gauge group with

$$[T^a,T^b]=\mathrm{i}f^{abc}T^c,\{T^a,T^b\}=d^{abc}T^c,$$

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(T^aT^b\right)=\delta ^{ab},T^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\mathbb{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(42)
The corresponding non-Abelian field strength is defined as usual

$`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu \mathrm{i}[A_\mu ,A_\nu ].`$ (43)
The infinitesimal gauge transformations are

$`\delta _\lambda A_\mu `$ $`=_\mu \lambda +\mathrm{i}[\lambda ,A_\mu ]D_\mu \lambda ,`$
$`\delta _\lambda F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=\mathrm{i}[\lambda ,F_{\mu \nu }].`$ (44)
As shown in  the Seiberg-Witten map for the non-Abelian extension is

$`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=A_\mu +A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\{A_\rho ,_\sigma A_\mu +F_{\sigma \mu }\}+O(\theta ^2),`$ (45)
$`\widehat{\lambda }`$ $`=\lambda +\lambda ^{}=\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\{_\rho \lambda ,A_\sigma \}+O(\theta ^2).`$ (46)
From

$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu \mathrm{i}[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\widehat{A}_\nu ]_{}`$ (47)
follows with the help of (45)

$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(2\{F_{\mu \rho },F_{\nu \sigma }\}\{A_\rho ,D_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }+_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }\}\right)+O(\theta ^2).`$ (48)
Corresponding to (44) one has

$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=_\mu \widehat{\lambda }+\mathrm{i}[\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{A}_\mu ]_{},`$
$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=\mathrm{i}[\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }]_{}.`$ (49)
In the sense of Seiberg and Witten (49) implies

$$\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu =_\mu \widehat{\lambda }+\mathrm{i}[\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{A}_\mu ]\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(_\rho \lambda _\sigma A_\mu _\rho A_\mu _\sigma \lambda \right)+O(\theta ^2).$$
(50)
Inserting (45) and (46) one arrives finally at

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu =D_\mu \lambda +\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(\{_\mu _\rho \lambda ,A_\sigma \}+\{_\rho \lambda ,_\mu A_\sigma \}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left([\{_\rho \lambda ,A_\sigma \},A_\mu ][\lambda ,\{A_\rho ,_\sigma A_\mu +F_{\sigma \mu }\}]\right)+O(\theta ^2).\end{array}$$
(51)
Now we are ready to construct the gauge invariant non-Abelian action. Following  one has at the classical level

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\mathrm{inv}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }\right)}.`$ (52)
Using (48) one gets for (52)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{inv}}& =\frac{1}{4g^2}d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(2\{F_{\mu \rho },F_{\nu \sigma }\}F^{\mu \nu }\{A_\rho ,D_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }+_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }\}F^{\mu \nu }\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{4g^2}d^4x(F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }\hfill \\ & +\theta ^{\rho \sigma }(F_{\mu \rho }^aF_{\nu \sigma }^bF^{c\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}A_\rho ^a(D_\sigma F_{\mu \nu })^bF^{c\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}A_\rho ^a_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }^bF^{c\mu \nu })d^{abc}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(53)
## 6 Gauge-Fixing for Pure Yang-Mills Theory

Similar to the QED case there are again two possibilities of gauge-fixing for the non-Abelian generalization. One replaces the infinitesimal gauge parameters by the corresponding ghost fields:

$$\lambda c,\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{c}.$$
(54)
The first choice leads to

$`sA_\mu `$ $`=_\mu c+\mathrm{i}[c,A_\mu ]=D_\mu c,`$
$`sc`$ $`=\mathrm{i}c^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}}\{c,c\}.`$ (55)
With the second possibility of (54) one gets from (46)

$`\widehat{c}`$ $`=c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\{_\rho c,A_\sigma \}+O(\theta ^2).`$ (56)
Equations (56) and (45) together with (55) allow now to calculate the BRST-variations for $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ and $`\widehat{c}`$:

$`\widehat{s}\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=sA_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(\{sA_\rho ,_\sigma A_\mu +F_{\sigma \mu }\}+\{A_\rho ,_\sigma sA_\mu +sF_{\sigma \mu }\}\right),`$
$`\widehat{s}\widehat{c}`$ $`=sc+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(\{_\rho sc,A_\sigma \}[_\rho c,sA_\sigma ]\right).`$ (57)
By explicit calculations one verifies that the equations (57) follow by $`\theta `$-expansion from

$`\widehat{s}\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=_\mu \widehat{c}+\mathrm{i}[\widehat{c},\widehat{A}_\mu ]_{},`$
$`\widehat{s}\widehat{c}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\widehat{c}\widehat{c}.`$ (58)
The above results may be summarized by the Seiberg-Witten map for the BRST-transformation

$`\widehat{A}_\mu \left(A_\nu \right)+\widehat{s}\widehat{A}_\mu (A_\nu )`$ $`=\widehat{A}_\mu \left(A_\nu +sA_\nu \right).`$ (59)
For practical reasons we choose now the simpler possibility for the gauge-fixing procedure:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gf}}`$ $`={\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(s(\overline{c}^\mu A_\mu +\frac{\alpha }{2}\overline{c}B)\right)}={\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(B^\mu A_\mu \overline{c}^\mu \left(_\mu c+\mathrm{i}[c,A_\mu ]\right)+\frac{\alpha }{2}B^2\right)},`$ (60)
where $`\overline{c}`$ and $`B`$ are the corresponding non-Abelian antighost and multiplier field. To be complete one also adds further gauge invariant pieces to the total gauge-fixed action. They are obtained from (31) by replacing the derivatives by the covariant derivatives and the Abelian by the non-Abelian field strength. The total BRST-invariant action is thus

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta ^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{inv}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gf}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{d}.}\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{1}{4g^2}d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(2\{F_{\mu \rho },F_{\nu \sigma }\}F^{\mu \nu }\{A_\rho ,D_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }+_\sigma F_{\mu \nu }\}F^{\mu \nu }\right)\right)\\ \hfill +d^4x\mathrm{Tr}(B^\mu A_\mu \overline{c}^\mu (_\mu c+\mathrm{i}[c,A_\mu ])+\frac{\alpha }{2}B^2\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }D^2\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}D^\mu F_{\mu \nu }D^\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_\rho ^\nu \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }D\stackrel{~}{D}F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }D^2\stackrel{~}{D}^2F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}\theta ^2F_{\mu \nu }(D^2)^2F^{\mu \nu }\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{D}^\mu D^\nu F_{\mu \nu }\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }(D^2)^2\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }+\text{higher derivative terms}).\end{array}$$
(61)
In order to characterize the BRST-symmetry of this model one has to introduce BRST-invariant external sources $`\rho ^\mu ,\sigma `$ allowing to describe the non-linear BRST-transformations consistently. This leads to

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}=d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho ^\mu sA_\mu +\sigma sc\right)$$
(62)
and to the action

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\theta ,\mathrm{tot}}^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\theta ^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ext}}.$$
(63)
The BRST-symmetry is therefore encoded at the classical level by the non-linear Slavnov-Taylor identity

$$𝒮\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\theta ,\mathrm{tot}}^{(0)}=d^4x\mathrm{Tr}\left[\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\theta ,\mathrm{tot}}^{(0)}}{\delta \rho ^\mu }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\theta ,\mathrm{tot}}^{(0)}}{\delta A_\mu }+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\theta ,\mathrm{tot}}^{(0)}}{\delta \sigma }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\theta ,\mathrm{tot}}^{(0)}}{\delta c}+B\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\theta ,\mathrm{tot}}^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{c}}\right]=0.$$
(64)
## 7 Conclusion and Outlook

We have defined a $`\theta `$-deformed QED with the help of Seiberg-Witten maps for photon and fermion fields at the classical level. In the same manner we also discussed a $`\theta `$-deformed Yang-Mills model.

In a next step we focus on the quantization procedure. Some preliminary work has been done in , where the quantization of a $`\theta `$-deformed Maxwell theory is presented. There, one-loop corrections to the 1PI two-point function for the photon are investigated in the presence of non-renormalizable interaction vertices.

## 8 Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Harald Grosse, Karl Landsteiner, Stefan Schraml, Raymond Stora, and Julius Wess for enlightening discussions.


text:
# The total space-time of a point-mass when Λ≠0, and its consequences for the Lake-Roeder black hole

## 1. Introduction

Let $`S=(M,g)`$ denote an incomplete, not necessarily inextendible space-time. It is well known  that the singularities of $`S`$ are not completely specified by $`(M,g)`$ alone, and that in order to achieve such a specification a boundary ($`B`$, say) must be attached to it. \[The resulting object, $`T=SB`$, will be termed a “total” space-time (TST).\]

Moreover, thanks to the work of a dozen or so investigators in the sixties and seventies (e.g. Refs. , , ), it is now also well-known that an incomplete space-time is compatible with a variety of boundaries, each of which gives rise to a different singularity structure for the resulting TST.

Taken together, these two facts show that an incomplete space-time by itself does not represent a unique universe - rather, it corresponds to a family of universes, one for each of its possible boundaries. Changing the boundary attached to $`S`$ changes the universe represented by the resulting TST .

Let us now apply the foregoing considerations to a universe $`(U_0)`$ consisting of a single point-mass and a nonzero cosmological constant $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. As is well-known, the space-time $`(S_0)`$ for $`U_0`$ was first obtained by Weyl . Unfortunately, Weyl’s derivation (Section 2) involved a tacit assumption which is shown here (Section 3) to be invalid. When this assumption is eliminated (Section 4), the resulting space-time (termed “Stavroulakis”, since its metric is a special case of one found by him ) is isometric, and hence equivalent , to $`S_0`$. Thus, in this respect the invalidity of Weyl’s assumption is harmless. However, Stavroulakis’ (and Weyl’s) space-time is timelike incomplete, so that it cannot represent any universe, and thus in particular does not represent $`U_0`$. The question therefore arises: What boundary must be attached to $`S_0`$ in order that the resulting TST represent $`U_0`$? Since in Einstein’s relativity point-masses are necessarily singularities of the field, and since $`U_0`$ has no sources other than the single point mass, the answer is immediate: the boundary must be a line through the point-mass. \[Equivalently, in each spatial section the boundary must consist of a point at the location of the point-mass.\] It is here that Weyl’s assumption gave rise to a fatal flaw, since it automatically attached a boundary consisting of a two-sphere at the location of the point-mass. (See Section 7.2.)

It is then shown (Section 5) that with the correct boundary, Stavroulakis’ TST is inextendible and contains no black hole. As a result (Section 6), for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ no black hole can be formed when a spherically symmetric, uncharged, nonrotating star undergoes gravitational collapse. Lacking both a valid derivation for a specific universe and a plausible model for its production, it follows that the black hole found by Lake and Roeder  and by Laue and Weiss  is nothing more than an artifact of a historical error.

It should be emphasized that since a TST is a space-time-with-boundary, the criteria for equivalence and extendibility  are necessarily different from those applicable to space-times. Specifically, it follows from their definition that equivalence of TST requires not only that their interiors be isometric, but also that their boundaries be homeomorphic. Likewise, extendibility of a TST requires not only that its interior be isometric to the proper open subset of another space-time, but also that its boundary be preserved under the mapping, i.e., that the image of $`B`$ be homeomorphic to $`B`$ itself.

## 2. Weyl’s derivation

Weyl’s derivation of the metric of an uncharged point-mass when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ was as follows: Starting from the most general expression  for the static metric which is spherically-symmetric about the location of the point-mass (taken, without loss of generality, to be $`x=y=z=0`$), viz.:

(2.1)
$$g(r)=A(r)dt^2B(r)dr^2C(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,A,B,C>0,$$

where $`r,\theta ,\varphi `$ are quasi-spherical polar coordinates \[i.e., $`r=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}`$, etc.\], he introduced a new radial coordinate via:

(2.2)
$$r^{}=[C(r)]^{1/2},$$

which transforms (2.1) into

(2.3)
$$g^{}(r^{})=A^{}(r^{})dt^2B^{}(r^{})dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$

and, of course, assigns to the location of the point-mass the value

(2.4)
$$r_0^{}=[C(0+)]^{1/2}.$$

He then solved for $`A^{},B^{}`$ using a variational principle equivalent to the vacuum field equations, obtaining

(2.5)
$$A^{}=A_\mathrm{w}^{}1\alpha /r^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2/3,$$

(2.6)
$$B^{}=B_\mathrm{w}^{}1/A_\mathrm{w}^{},$$

where $`\alpha `$ is a constant.

Unfortunately, the introduction of $`r^{}`$ as a coordinate creates something of a problem - since $`C(0+)`$ is unknown, there is no way to determine the value of $`r_0^{}`$, the location of the point-mass (cf. Ref. ). This was overlooked by Weyl, who had tacitly assumed  that the point-mass’ location was given by $`r^{}=0`$. As follows from (2.4), this can only be true if $`b^2C(0+)=0`$.

## 3. The invalidity of Weyl’s assumption

In order to determine whether this assumption is valid, one could substitute (2.1) into the vacuum field equations, solve for $`A,B,C`$, and then see whether $`C(0+)=0`$ ia admissible (cf. ). However, there is a simpler way - all one need do is return to the $`r`$-coordinate system, in which the location of the point-mass is known, by using (2.2). So doing changes (2.3) into (2.1), and (2.5) and (2.6) into:

(3.1)
$$A=1\alpha /\sqrt{C}\mathrm{\Lambda }C/3,$$

(3.2)
$$B=C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(4AC),$$

respectively, where at this stage $`C`$ is any positive analytic function of $`r`$ for $`r>0`$.

It follows by inspection of (3.2) that in order to insure the positivity of $`B`$, it is necessary and sufficient that $`C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ be nonvanishing for $`r>0`$. This in turn requires that either $`C^{}>0`$ for $`r>0`$ or $`C^{}<0`$ for $`r>0`$. Since the metric must tend to that of Schwarzschild as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, the only possible choice is:

(3.3)
$$C^{}>0\mathrm{for}r>0.$$

The constraints on $`C`$ required to assure the positivity of $`A`$ cannot be determined by mere inspection of (3.1), since the behavior of a cubic is involved. The analysis is relegated to Appendix A, and only the results are given here:

(3.4) $`\mathrm{For}\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ $`C(0+)b^2C_0>0,`$
$`\mathrm{For}0<\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ $`C_3b^2C_2>0[\mathrm{\Lambda }_04/(9\alpha ^2)],`$
$`\mathrm{For}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`\mathrm{No}\mathrm{metrics}\mathrm{with}A\mathrm{satisfying}(3.1)\mathrm{exist}.`$
(The values of $`C_0,C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ are given in Appendix A.) In view of the foregoing, it follows that the necessity that $`A`$ be positive for $`r>0`$ requires that $`b^2>0`$, which renders Weyl’s assumption invalid for all admissible values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 4. Additional restrictions on $`C`$

As shown by Doughty , the locally measured acceleration of an uncharged test particle in a gravitational field with metric given by (2.1) is

(4.1)
$$a=|A^{}|/(2A\sqrt{B}).$$

Substituting from (3.1) and (3.2), this becomes

(4.2)
$$a=|\alpha /(2C^{3/2})\mathrm{\Lambda }/3|(C/A)^{1/2},$$

which in turn tends to

(4.3) $`a_0=|\alpha /(2b^3)\mathrm{\Lambda }/3|b/\sqrt{A(0+)}`$ $`\mathrm{as}`$ $`r0.`$
As pointed out in Ref. , the value of $`a_0`$ is a scalar differential invariant of the space-time. Thus, different values of $`a_0`$ give rise to inequivalent space-times. Here, as in Ref. , we shall take $`a_0`$ to have its Newtonian value, infinity. In view of the nonzero values of $`b`$ found to be required in Section 3, it follows from (4.3) that the only way to make $`a_0`$ infinite is to choose $`A(0+)=0`$. As indicated in Appendix A, this in turn requires that:

(4.4) $`b=`$ $`\sqrt{C_0}`$ $`\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Lambda }<0,`$
(4.5) $`=`$ $`\sqrt{C_2}`$ $`\mathrm{for}0<\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0.`$
The final restriction on $`C`$ is obtained by considering the limiting behavior of the point-mass space-time as $`r\mathrm{}`$. In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case, this behavior was determined by requiring that as the proper distance from the point-mass became unboundedly large, the metric must approach that in which no point-mass is present - i.e., Minkowski’s. Here, however, in each spatial section ($`t=`$ constant), the integral

(4.6)
$$R_{\mathrm{max}}_0^\alpha \sqrt{B}𝑑r=1/2_{b^2}^{k^2}(1/\sqrt{AC})𝑑C$$

may be either finite or infinite, depending on whether $`k`$ \[$`\sqrt{C(\mathrm{})}`$\] is finite or infinite. In the former case, which is always true when $`0<\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ (see Appendix A), there are no events which are at infinite proper distances from the point-mass, so that no asymptotic condition corresponding to that for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ exists. However, it is easy to show (Appendix B) that if $`k<k_{\mathrm{max}}\sqrt{C_3}`$, then the associated TST is extendible to one for which $`k=k_{\mathrm{max}}`$, so that for $`0<\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ the only viable choice of $`k`$ is

(4.7)
$$\sqrt{C(\mathrm{})}=k_{\mathrm{max}}.$$

Similarly, if for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ the limiting value of $`C`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ were taken to be finite, then the associated TST would be extendible to one for which $`C(\mathrm{})`$ is infinite (see Appendix B). Thus, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ the only viable choice of $`k`$ is given by

(4.8)
$$\sqrt{C(\mathrm{})}=\mathrm{}.$$

In this case, since $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is infinite, then for large $`r`$ the influence of the point-pass on the space-time geometry must necessarily vanish, just as in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case. Thus, the metric must approach that for which no point-mass is present. Synge has shown  that this limiting metric is one of constant curvature, namely the anti-de Sitter metric

(4.9)
$$g_{\mathrm{ads}}=(1\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2/3)dt^2(1\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2/3)^1dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$

Comparison of this with (3.1) and (3.2) shows that for this case ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$) it is necessary that

(4.10) $`C/r^21`$ $`\mathrm{as}`$ $`r\mathrm{}.`$
A suitable $`C`$ for this case is thus

(4.11)
$$C_{\mathrm{inf}}(r+b)^2,$$

with $`b`$ given by (4.4). However, even knowing that $`gg_{\mathrm{ads}}`$ does not suffice to determine $`\alpha `$, because the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r+b)^2`$ term in (3.1) makes the space-time more-and-more non-Newtonian as $`r\mathrm{}`$, and thus the Kepler-orbit requirement for distant test particles cannot be invoked to identify $`\alpha `$ with $`2m`$.

Incidentally, note that the strict monotonicity required of $`C`$ by virtue of (3.3), together with the limiting values of $`C`$, shows that (2.2) is a diffeomorphism, so that the space-times whose $`A,B`$ are given by (3.1) and (3.2) are isometric to Weyl’s. Thus the only difference between Weyl’s TST and those found here lies in the difference between their boundaries (see Section 7.2, below).

## 5. Singularities of the total space-times

In Ref.  the Kretschmann invariant $`fR_{ijkm}R^{ijkm}`$ is calculated for Weyl’s metric. Transforming this via (2.2) and letting $`r0`$ shows that $`f`$ approaches

(5.1)
$$f_012\alpha ^2/b^2+24\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/9,$$

so that for the values of $`b`$ found to be required in the previous Section, $`f`$ is bounded as $`r0`$. Since all other scalar differential invariants are functions of $`f`$, it follows that there are no curvature singularities at the location of the point-mass.

However, (2.1) shows that the proper circumference of the circle $`r=\epsilon `$ tends to $`2\pi b>0`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$, while the proper radius of that circle is easily seen \[from (2.1) and (3.2)\] to tend to zero in that limit. These results are coordinate-independent: once a metric has been brought into the form of (2.1), the only transformations which preserve the form of (2.1) are $`t=K\overline{t}+q`$ ($`K0`$), $`r=h(\overline{r})`$ ($`h,h^1C^\omega `$), neither of which alters the proper radius or proper circumference of $`r=\epsilon `$.

Since the boundary at $`r=0`$ is necessarily a point in each spatial section (see Section 1), these properties of the radius and circumference of $`r=\epsilon `$ constitute a violation of elementary flatness at $`r=0`$, and a fortiori a quasiregular singularity  which renders these TSTs inextendible.

## 6. Gravitational collapse

As pointed out in Ref. , the metric representing the exterior of a spherically symmetric star undergoing gravitational collapse to a point is subject to the same requirements as that of a point-mass except for those relating to its behavior at $`r=0`$. It thus has the same form as that of a point-mass \[i.e., (2.1) cum (3.1) and (3.2)\], but different parameter values since $`C`$ need only make $`A`$ positive for all $`r>r_b`$, where $`r_b`$ denotes the radial coordinate of the star’s boundary. As $`r_b0`$, this assures the positivity of $`A`$ for all $`r>0`$, so that no horizon, and a fortiori no black hole, can be formed at any stage of the collapse. Thus, just as in the case where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, elimination of the invalid assumption regarding the location of the point-mass also deprives the Lake-Roeder black hole of the only mechanism suggested for its production.

## 7. Summary and discussion

### 7.1.

The only physically sensible metrics for the point-mass when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ are given by

$`g=Adt^2Bdr^2Cd\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$
$`A=1\alpha /\sqrt{C}\mathrm{\Lambda }C/3,`$ $`B=C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(4AC).`$
The form of $`C`$ depends on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

#### 7.1.1. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$

$`C=(r+b)^2`$ with $`b`$ given by (4.4). Any positive, analytic, strictly monotonic increasing function of $`r`$ having the same value of $`b`$ and tending to infinity like $`r^2`$ can be used in place of this $`C`$ and, with the space-time’s boundary taken to be a line through the source, will give rise to an equivalent TST. The value of $`\alpha `$ must be determined from other considerations.

#### 7.1.2. $`0<\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$

$`C`$ is any analytic, strictly monotonic increasing function of $`r`$ satisfying $`C(0+)=b^2`$ and $`C(\mathrm{})=k_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$, where $`b`$ is given by (4.5) and $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=\sqrt{C_3}`$. With the space-time’s boundary taken to be a line through the source, all such $`C`$ give rise to equivalent TSTs. The value of $`\alpha `$ must be determined from other considerations.

### 7.2.

As noted in Section 1, the $`r=0`$ boundary of the point-mass TSTs associated with the above metrics must necessarily be a point in each spatial section. Under the transformation $`r^{}=[C(r)]^{1/2}`$ this boundary becomes $`r^{}=[C(0+)]^{1/2}=b`$. That is to say, the locus $`r^{}=b`$ is a point in each spatial section. But Weyl’s assumption that the origin of the $`x,y,z`$ coordinates is located at $`r^{}=0`$ automatically makes $`r^{}=b`$ a two-sphere in each spatial section of his space-time. Thus, Weyl’s assumption led to the attachment of a two-sphere, rather than a point, as the boundary of each spatial section of his space-time at $`r^{}=b`$ \- i.e., at the actual location of the point-mass. Consequently, his TST has a different singularity structure than that associated with the space-times having the above metrics. Since the metrics’ derivation shows that the TSTs obtained here are the only possible ones for the point-mass when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, it follows that his TST does not represent such an object. A fortiori, the same is true of the black hole-containing analytic extension of Weyl’s TST found in 1977 by Lake and Roeder  and, independently, by Laue and Weiss  (to say nothing of the fact that this extension alters the topology of the boundary of Weyl’s TST, and thus represents a different universe than the latter). This in turn means that this extension cannot serve as the limiting space-time of a spherically symmetric star undergoing collapse to a point. Thus, it is impossible to produce this extension by gravitational collapse. Lacking both a theoretical basis (i.e. a valid derivation from a set of postulates characterizing a specific universe) and a mechanism for its production, it follows that this extension, and with it its black hole, are merely artifacts of Weyl’s error.

### 7.3.

The relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`m`$ is still open.

## 8. Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to acknowledge helpful correspondence with G.F.R. Ellis and R. Geroch, as well as numerous conversations with B. O’Neill and R. Greene. Such errors as remain are mine alone.

## Appendix A Constraints on $`C`$ required to make $`A`$ positive

It is expedient to consider the following three intervals of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$; $`0<\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$; $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=4/9\alpha ^2`$.

### A.1. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$

It is shown in Ref.  (with $`r`$, $`2m`$ there replaced by $`\sqrt{C}`$, $`\alpha `$ respectively) that $`A`$ is positive iff $`C>C_0`$, and vanishes only at $`C=C_0`$, where:

(A.1)
$$C_0(\mu +\sqrt{\mu ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3})^{1/3}+(\mu \sqrt{\mu ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3})^{1/3}>0,$$

in which

(A.2)
$$\mu 3\alpha /(2\mathrm{\Lambda })>0.$$

Together with (3.3), the foregoing shows that in order to make $`A>0`$, it is necessary and sufficient that

(A.3)
$$\sqrt{C(0+)}b\sqrt{C_0}>0.$$

### A.2. $`0<\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$

In this case, it is shown in Ref.  that $`A`$ is positive iff:

(A.4)
$$C_2<C<C_3,$$

and vanishes only when $`C=C_2`$ or when $`C=C_3`$, where:

(A.5)
$$\sqrt{C_2}(2/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\mathrm{cos}(\xi /3)>0,$$

(A.6)
$$\sqrt{C_3}(2/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\mathrm{cos}(\xi /3+4\pi /3),$$

(A.7)
$$\mathrm{cos}(\xi )3\alpha \sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/2,\pi <\xi <3\pi /2,$$

In combination with (3.3), the left-hand-most inequality in (A.4) requires that

(A.8)
$$b\sqrt{C_2}>0.$$

## Appendix B Extendibility of total space-times

Consider first the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ with $`k`$ finite, so that the metric ($`g_{\mathrm{fin}}`$) is given by (2.1), (3.1), (3.2) with $`C(r)C_{\mathrm{fin}}(r)`$, where $`C_{\mathrm{fin}}(\mathrm{})=k^2`$. Consider also the same metric, but with $`C(r)C_{\mathrm{inf}}(r)`$, where $`C_{\mathrm{inf}}(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$, and let this second metric be designated by $`g_{\mathrm{inf}}`$.

Thanks to the strict monotonicity of both $`C^{}`$s, the mapping $`\zeta :M_0\zeta (M_0)`$ by $`C_{\mathrm{fin}}(r)=C_{\mathrm{inf}}(\overline{r})`$ is an analytic diffeomorphism. It is also an isometry to the open proper submanifold $`\overline{r}<C_{\mathrm{fin}}^1(k^2)`$ of ($`M_0,g_{\mathrm{inf}}`$). Finally, the boundary that is attached to ($`M_0,g_{\mathrm{fin}}`$) at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ must be a two-sphere in each spatial section, rather than a point, since the latter would give rise to a second point-like singularity, which is inconsistent with the single point-mass hypothesis. Thus the space-time ($`M_0,g_{\mathrm{fin}}`$) is isometric to a proper open submanifold of ($`M_0,g_{\mathrm{inf}}`$), and its boundary is homeomorphic to its image. This means that the TST of ($`M_0,g_{\mathrm{fin}}`$) is extendible to that of ($`M_0,g_{\mathrm{inf}}`$).

Consider next the case $`0<\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. In this case the metric ($`g_k`$) is given by (2.1), (3.1), (3.2) with $`C(r)C_k(r)`$, where $`C_k(0+)=C_2`$ and $`C_k(\mathrm{})=k^2<k_{\mathrm{max}}^2C_3`$. Consider also the same metric, but with $`CC_{\mathrm{max}}(r)`$, where $`C_{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{})=k_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$, and let this second metric be denoted by $`g_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Replacing fin by $`k`$ and inf by max in the above proof of the extendibility of the TST of ($`M_0,g_{\mathrm{fin}}`$), the same proof is seen to hold for this case as well, so that the TST of ($`M_0,g_k`$) is extendible to that of ($`M_0,g_{\mathrm{max}}`$).