format: text

text:
# Black holes: the legacy of Hilbert’s error

## 1. Introduction

Ever since Schwarzschild’s 1916 derivation , it has been accepted that the historical postulates used by him to characterize the point-mass space-time do, in fact, lead to a unique gravitational field. However, Schwarzschild’s result was obtained years before the concept of a ‘quasiregular’ singularity  had surfaced. As shown here, when the general polar form of a static, spherically symmetric metric

(1)
$$g_U(r)=A(r)dt^2B(r)dr^2C(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

is substituted into Einstein’s vacuum field equations and the remaining historical postulates are imposed on the solution, there results a one-parameter family of inequivalent, maximal space-times, each of which has a quasiregular singularity at the location of the point mass. Since each of these space-times assigns a different number to the limiting value of a radially approaching test particle’s locally measured acceleration, it is necessary to supplement the historical postulates by one that fixes this limit. Taking it to be infinite gives Schwarzschild’s result

$`g_S(r)=(1\alpha /R)dt^2(1\alpha /R)^1dR^2R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$
where $`\alpha =2m`$ and $`R=(r^3+\alpha ^3)^{1/3}`$.

Several months after Schwarzschild’s paper was published, another derivation of the point-mass space-time was given by Hilbert . At the start he introduced the radial coordinate $`r^{}=[C(r)]^{1/2}`$, and then solved the vacuum field equations for the two remaining unknowns, obtaining:

$`g_H(r^{})=(1\alpha /r^{})dt^2(1\alpha /r^{})^1dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$
Of course, the use of $`r^{}=[C(r)]^{1/2}`$ transforms the coordinate location of the point mass from $`r=0`$ to $`r^{}=[C(0+)]^{1/2}`$. As can be seen from Schwarzschild’s result, this is simply $`\alpha `$. Hilbert, however, claimed that $`r^{}=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}`$, so that the point mass represented by $`g_H(r^{})`$ was at $`r^{}=0`$, and this claim went unchallenged by his contemporaries. As a result of this mistake, in each spatial section the locus $`r^{}=\alpha `$ is not a point but a two-sphere, and thus no longer constitutes a quasiregular singularity of Hilbert’s space-time $`S_H`$. As shown by Kruskal  and Fronsdal , with $`r^{}=\alpha `$ having the character of a two-sphere in the $`t=`$ constant hypersurfaces, $`S_H`$ is analytically extendible to $`r^{}>0`$, and the so-extended space-time contains a black hole. It follows that the theoretical foundation of spherical black holes is based on the 1916 error of Hilbert.

It is the principal objective of this paper to show how Hilbert came to make this mistake. It will also be shown that $`S_H`$ cannot be used to represent the ‘exterior’ of a collapsing star, and thus that spherical black holes cannot be produced by gravitational collapse.

## 2. The space-time of a point mass

Consider any static, time-symmetric and spherically symmetric configuration ($`U`$) of matter and (or) energy. In his paper  Schwarzschild regarded it as self evident that the metric of such a configuration, when expressed in terms of quasi-Cartesian coordinates ($`t`$, $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$), was necessarily of the form

$`g_U(x,y,z0,0,0)`$ $`=F(r)dt^2G(r)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)`$
$`H(r)(xdx+ydy+zdz)^2`$
where

(3)
$$r=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}$$

and

(4)
$$F,G,H>0$$

and where, without loss of generality, the center 111Since a point mass is the only configuration under consideration, it will be assumed here that only a single center of symmetry is present. 222The center is that three-dimensional point having the property that rotations about it leave the Newtonian description of $`U`$ unchanged. Note that the very concept of spherical symmetry presupposes that the center of symmetry is a three-dimensional point in each spatial section . of the spherical symmetry has been taken at $`x=y=z=0`$ for all $`t`$; this is signified by the notation ‘$`0,0,0`$’ in the argument of $`g_U`$. (The generality of (2) for such configurations was subsequently established by Eiesland .)

In polar coordinates ($`r`$, $`\theta `$, and $`\varphi `$), where $`x=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, etc., the above expression of $`g_U`$ becomes

(5)
$$g_U(r0)=A(r)dt^2B(r)dr^2C(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

where

(6)
$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+d\varphi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta $$

and from (4) and the tensor transformation law, it follows that

(7)
$$A,B,C>0$$

(Analogously, the ‘$`0`$’ in the argument of $`g_U`$ in (5) signifies that the center of symmetry of (5) is at $`r=0`$ for all $`t`$.)

For later purposes, we note that apart from spatial rotations about the origin, which are of no relevance to what follows, the only transformations $`T`$ that leave the structure of (5) unchanged are of the form

(8) $`t=k\overline{t}+b,`$ $`k0,bconstants`$
(9) $`r=h(\overline{r}),`$ $`hC^1`$
Since $`C(r)`$ in (5) is readily seen to be a scalar under $`T`$, it follows that:

THEOREM:The value of $`C`$ at a specified event $`P`$ (this will be denoted by$`C[P]`$’) is an invariant of the space-time associated with a given $`U`$.

Consequently, two space-times $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ having metrics of the form (5) for which $`C_1[P]C_2[P]`$ are necessarily inequivalent. A fortiori,

COROLLARY:If two space-times $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ have metrics of the form (5), and if $`limC_1[P]limC_2[P]`$ as $`P`$ approaches the center of symmetry, then $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are inequivalent.

Consider now the particular $`U`$ consisting of a single uncharged, nonrotating, nonradiating point mass (whose Newtonian gravitational mass will henceforth be denoted by ‘$`m`$’). Historically, the conditions regarded as distinguishing the space-time ($`M_U`$$`g_U`$) of this $`U`$ from those of all others where originally formulated by Einstein , and together with those implicit in that formulation were enumerated by Finkelstein . The expression on the right-hand side of (5), together with (6) and (7), already satisfies the static- and spherical-symmetry requirements of Finkelstein’s list, as well as those requiring a Lorentz signature and a global-time coordinate. As shown in Appendix A, the further requirements that (5) be analytic, satisfy the vacuum field equations, and be asymptotically flat reduce (5) to

(10)
$$g_{PM}(r0)=(1\alpha /C^{1/2})dt^2\frac{C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4C(1\alpha /C^{1/2})}dr^2Cd\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

where $`C(r)`$ is any analytic function of the $`r`$ in (3) having the following three properties:

(11) $`C(0+)\beta ^2\alpha ^2`$
(12) $`C^{}(r)>0,r>0`$
(13) $`C(r)/r^21asr\mathrm{}`$
(the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`r`$). As shown there, all such metrics comply with the final requirement of being analytically inextendible to $`r=0`$.

Since the center of symmetry of (5) is located at $`r=0`$, the same is true of the center of symmetry of (10), whence it follows from the corollary that two space-times defined on $`M_0:r>0`$ and having $`g_{PM}`$ as their metric are inequivalent if $`C_1(0+)C_2(0+)`$. This, together with (11), shows that there is a one-parameter family of inequivalent space-times (distinguished by their value of $`C(0+)`$), which satisfy all the historical postulates for the point mass. That is:

> The historical postulates for the point mass do not result in a unique space-time. To obtain such a space-time, it is necessary to supplement those postulates by one which fixes the value of $`C(0+)`$.333The fact that a boundary condition for $`r0`$ is just as necessary as the one for $`r\mathrm{}`$ was first realized by Brillouin . Although Abrams’ work (see ref. ) contained a derivation of the general point-mass metric similar to that given here in Appendix A, it made use of an invalid argument (see ref. ) to prove that $`C(0+)=\alpha ^2`$, and thus did not turn up the fact that an additional postulate was required.

To determine this supplementary postulate, it is necessary to relate $`C(0+)`$ to some physical property of the point mass. To this end, consider the motion of an uncharged, nonspinning, nonradiating test particle as it approaches the point mass along a radial geodesic. As shown by Doughty , the particle “locally measured” acceleration (i.e., its acceleration measured by a nearby observer whose position is fixed with respect to the point mass (see Appendix B) is given by:

(14)
$$a=\frac{(g_{rr})^{1/2}(g^{rr})|g_{00,r}|}{2g_{00}}=\frac{\alpha }{2C(1\alpha /C^{1/2})^{1/2}}$$

which approaches

(15)
$$a_0=\frac{\alpha }{2\beta ^{3/2}(\beta \alpha )^{1/2}}$$

as $`r0`$. Consequently, for a given value of $`m`$, the value of $`C(0+)`$ is determined by the limiting value of a test-particle’s locally measured acceleration as it approaches the point mass along a radial path.

Since there are no experimental data concerning $`a_0`$, it is necessary to choose its value on the basis of theoretical arguments. One such argument is that in the corresponding Newtonian situation $`a_0`$ is infinite. Although one would not expect strict quantitative agreement (in the sense of equal values of $`a`$ at equal values of proper distance), the fact that the curvature invariant $`f=R_{ijkm}R^{ijkm}`$ remains finite as $`r0`$ indicates that the relativistic case differs from the Newtonian one only in degree, not in kind. Accordingly, since there are no “degrees” associated with an infinite limit, the supplementary postulate is taken to be:

> (i) the limiting value of a neutral nonspinning nonradiating test particle’s locally measured acceleration as it approaches the point mass along a radial geodesic is infinite.

Examination of (15) shows that the only values of $`\beta `$ that make $`a_0`$ infinite are $`0`$ and $`\alpha `$, and of these only the latter satisfies (11). Hence, the result of postulate (i) is

(16)
$$C(0+)=\alpha ^2$$

The simplest choice of analytic $`C`$ satisfying (12), (13), and (16) is

(17)
$$C_B(r)=(r+\alpha )^2$$

which when substituted into (10) results in the following form, first used by Brillouin , for the metric of a point mass at $`r=0`$:

(18)
$$g_B(r0)=\frac{r}{r+\alpha }dt^2\frac{r+\alpha }{r}dr^2(r+\alpha )^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

The metric obtained by Schwarzschild corresponds to the choice

(19)
$$C_S(r)=(r^3+\alpha ^3)^{2/3}$$

which satisfies (12), (13), and (16) by inspection.

It should be noted that all space-times $`[M_0,g_{PM}(r0)]`$ arising from (10) via an analytic $`C`$ satisfying (12), (13), and (16) are equivalent, being related via $`C^\omega `$ global diffeomorphisms of the form

(20)
$$C_i(r)=C_j(\overline{r})$$

and being globally homeomorphic and maximal, as well as having the same singularity at $`r=\overline{r}=0`$. Consequently, the space-time $`S_S=[M_0,g_B(r0)]`$ will henceforth be termed “Schwarzschild’s”, since it is equivalent to the $`[M_0,g_S(r0)]`$ actually obtained by him, and its use simplifies the subsequent discussion.

## 3. Transformation to Flamm’s form

Let us relabel the events of $`M_0`$ by adding $`\alpha `$ to their $`r`$ values, and denote the new “radial” coordinate by $`\overline{r}`$; then

(21) $`\overline{r}=r+\alpha ,r>0`$
This transforms $`M_0`$ to $`\overline{M}_\alpha `$, where

(22)
$$\overline{M}_\alpha :\overline{r}>\alpha $$

tranforms the location of the point mass at $`r=0`$ to $`\overline{r}=\alpha `$, and transforms $`g_B(r0)`$ to

(23)
$$g_F(\overline{r}\alpha )=\frac{\overline{r}\alpha }{\overline{r}}dt^2\frac{\overline{r}}{\overline{r}\alpha }d\overline{r}^2\overline{r}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

termed the Flamm metric since Flamm  was the first to use this form to represent a point mass at $`r=\alpha `$.

(To avoid misunderstanding, note that the statement: “The point mass is at $`r=0`$,” in connection with (18), and “The point mass is at $`\overline{r}=\alpha `$”, in connection with (23), do not mean that these $`r`$ or $`\overline{r}`$ values are well-defined quantities, let alone that events having such values are part of the associated space-times. What they do mean is that, in the case of (18), the proper distance from the point mass to an event in $`M_0`$ with coordinate $`r`$ tends to $`0`$ as $`r0`$; and in the case of (23), that the proper distance from the point mass to an event in $`\overline{M}_\alpha `$ with coordinate $`\overline{r}`$ tends to $`0`$ as $`\overline{r}\alpha `$.)

Since physics is not changed by such a relabelling, it follows that the Flamm space-time:

(24)
$$S_F=[\overline{M}_\alpha ,g_F(\overline{r}\alpha )]$$

represents the identical physical situation as $`S_S`$, namely, a single uncharged, nonrotating, nonradiating point mass. Thus, both $`S_S`$ and $`S_F`$ have the same singularity structure, i.e., a quasiregular singularity at the location of the point mass, and thus $`S_F`$ is likewise analytically inextendible to that location, now denoted by $`\overline{r}=\alpha `$.

In passing, note that the fact that the coefficient of $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ in (23) tends to $`0`$ as $`\overline{r}0`$ does not contradict (11), since the $`\overline{r}`$ in (23) is not the $`r`$ in (3).

## 4. Hilbert’s derivation of the point-mass metric

About 10 months after the publication of ref. , Hilbert  presented another derivation of the point-mass metric. Although Hilbert’s starting point was the same expression (5) used by Schwarzschild, he immediately reduced the number of unknowns to two by introducing a new “radial” coordinate $`r^{}`$, defined by

(25)
$$r^{}=[C(r)]^{1/2}$$

This transforms (5) to

(26)
$$g_U^{}(r^{}0^{})=A^{}(r^{})dt^2B^{}(r^{})dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

where from (7)

(27)
$$A^{},B^{}>0$$

and $`0^{}`$ denotes the value of $`r^{}`$ at the location of the point mass, which from (25) is given by

(28)
$$0^{}=[C(0+)]^{1/2}$$

Solving the resulting vacuum field equations by means of a variational principle, Hilbert arrived at the following expression for the point-mass metric:

(29)
$$g_F(r^{}0^{})=\frac{r^{}\alpha }{r^{}}dt^2\frac{r^{}}{r^{}\alpha }dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

which by inspection is well defined on $`M_\alpha ^{}:r^{}>\alpha `$.

However, there are two problems connected with the use of (25), which Hilbert evidently overlooked. The first of these is that (25) involves a loss of generality ; for example, if $`U`$ is such that the $`C`$ in (5) is constant , then the use of (25) will make it impossible to determine the metric for $`U`$. Unfortunately (from the stand-point of subsequent developments), this flaw had no impact on Hilbert’s derivation, since as seen in Sect. 2, for the point-mass metric all $`C(r)`$ permissible in (5) are strictly monotonic, so that (25) is in fact a diffeomorphism for such a $`U`$.

The second is that the use of (25) destroys information; once it is applied, it becomes impossible to determine the relationship between $`r^{}`$ and $`r`$ (and thus to find the value of $`0^{}`$), since at this point in the derivation the function $`C(r)`$ in (25) is unknown, and there is no way to determine what it is (or even its value as $`r0`$) from the resulting $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$.

This being the case, how did Hilbert arrive at the value of $`0^{}`$? The answer is as follows: by assuming that for all $`U`$, the triplet ($`r^{}`$, $`\theta `$, and $`\varphi `$) can be regarded as polar coordinates just as validly as ($`r`$, $`\theta `$, and $`\varphi `$), so that $`r^{}=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}`$. From this assumption, together with the fact that the location of the point mass described by (5) is given by $`x=y=z=0`$, it follows at once that even without knowing $`C(r)`$, the $`r^{}`$ position of the point mass described by (26) is given by $`r^{}=0`$, and so Hilbert proclaimed.

While it is true that there are a number of $`U`$ for which Hilbert’s assumption is valid, the point mass is not one of them, as shown in Sect. 2. For such a $`U`$ all $`C`$ in (5), and thus in (25), have the property that $`C(0+)=\alpha ^2`$, whence (28) shows that $`0^{}=\alpha >0`$. Thus, as the notation on the left-hand side of (29) indicates, the right-hand side is simply Flamm’s metric for a point mass at $`r^{}=\alpha `$.

Henceforth, to avoid circumlocution the right-hand side of (29) together with the assumption that the $`r^{}`$ appearing therein is related to the $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$ in (2) via (3), and thus that the point mass described by (29) is at $`r^{}=0`$, will be termed “Hilbert’s” metric 444In ref. , this metric was designated “Droste-Weyl”. The reason was that both Droste  in 1916 and Weyl  in 1917 had derived metrics having the form of $`g_H`$, whereas my copy of Hilbert’s paper was dated 1924, so that it appeared that Droste and Weyl had been the first to obtain $`g_H`$. However, I subsequently discovered that Hilbert’s paper had originally been published in 1916, and that neither Droste nor Weyl had claimed that the $`r`$ coordinate appearing in their metrics was $`(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}`$. Thus, Hilbert alone was responsible for the error., and denoted by $`g_H`$:

(30)
$$g_H(r^{}0)=\frac{r^{}\alpha }{r^{}}dt^2\frac{r^{}}{r^{}\alpha }dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

while Hilbert’s space-time will be denoted by $`S_H`$

(31)
$$S_H=[M_\alpha ^{},g_H(r^{}0)]$$

## 5. Extendibility of Hilbert’s space-time

Consider the circle $`\gamma (ϵ)`$ mentioned at the end of Appendix A. In $`S_S`$, its description is given by $`t=t_0`$, $`\theta =\pi /2`$, and $`r=ϵ`$, where $`t_0`$ is an arbitrary constant, independent of $`ϵ`$. Since $`S_S`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S_H`$ via $`T_\alpha :M_0M_\alpha ^{}`$ by $`r^{}=r+\alpha `$, the description of $`\gamma (ϵ)`$ in $`S_H`$ can be obtained by applying $`T_\alpha `$ to its description in $`S_S`$. This gives $`t=t_0`$, $`\theta =\pi /2`$, and $`r^{}=ϵ+\alpha `$. As seen from (30), its proper circumference is still $`2\pi (ϵ+\alpha )`$, which as in Appendix A tends to $`2\pi \alpha `$ as $`ϵ0`$. Now, however, in contrast to the situation in Appendix A, this no longer gives rise to a violation of elementary flatness at $`T_\alpha (0)=\alpha `$ in $`S_H`$ because, thanks to the assumption that gave birth to (30), $`\gamma (ϵ)`$ no longer shrinks down to a point as $`ϵ0`$, but instead simply approaches the circle $`r^{}=\alpha `$. Thus, Hilbert’s erroneous (for a point mass) assumption results in the disappearance of the quasiregular singularity that is present in Flamm’s space-time at $`\overline{r}=\alpha `$. Since it is well known that there are no curvature-type singularities of $`g_H`$ at $`r^{}=\alpha `$, it follows that there are no singularities of any kind there, so that $`S_H`$ is analytically extendible to $`r^{}=\alpha `$, and as Kruskal and Fronsdal have shown, all the way to $`r^{}>0`$.

## 6. Inequivalence of Schwarzschild and Hilbert space-times

If two space-times are to be equivalent, it is certainly necessary that they be isometric i.e., that there exists a diffeomorphism from one to the other that carries the metric of one into the metric of the other. And since the presence of singularities of the manifold geometry is unaffected by diffeomorphisms, it is also necessary that equivalent space-times have the same “singularity structure”, i.e., the same singularities as one approaches corresponding boundary points. Now, $`S_S`$ and $`S_H`$ are isometric under $`T_\alpha `$, but as shown in the preceding section, $`S_H`$ has no singularity corresponding to the quasiregular singularity at $`r=0`$ in $`S_S`$. Consequently, $`S_S`$ and $`S_H`$ are inequivalent. Since it was shown in Sect. 2 that $`S_S`$ is the space-time of a point mass, it follows that $`S_H`$ and its analytic extension ($`S_{KF}`$) are not.

## 7. The Kruskal-Fronsdal black hole is unnecessary

Consider any phenomenon supposedly involving a single Kruskal-Fronsdal (K-F) black hole (e.g., x-ray spectra from accreting gas). Because of the infinite red shift at the surface ($`r^{}=\alpha `$) of the hole, all that we can ever know of this phenomenon must arise from information originating outside the hole. But the space-time “exterior” to the hole is $`S_H`$, which in turn is diffeomorphic to $`S_S`$. That is to say, everything that takes place outside the hole would occur in the identical fashion if the entire space-time ($`S_{KF}`$) were replaced by $`S_S`$; it is impossible to determine which space-time is “really” present. Thus, any observations that are explicable by postulating the presence of a K-F black hole are equally well explained by postulating the presence of a Schwarzschild point mass at the geometrical center of the black-hole’s surface. Consequently, there is no need to involve a K-F black hole to explain any set of observations, Schwarzschild’s “black point” will do an equally effective job.

Whether this observational equivalence extends to the case of two or more black holes (vis-a-vis two or more point masses) is unclear, but in view of the remarks of the next two sections it does not seem worthwhile to pursue the matter.

## 8. The K-F black hole is unproducible

The valid proofs of Birkhoff’s theorem (e.g. refs.  and ) show only that any spherically symmetric solution of the vacuum-field equations can be given the form of $`g_H`$, but say nothing as to the relationship of the radial coordinate of the transformed metric and the underlying quasi-Cartesian $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$. As emphasized by Brans , until this relationship is known the metric is undefined. Thus, Birkhoff’s theorem cannot be used to justify the claim that the metric exterior to a spherically symmetric star is identical to that of a point mass.

However, the characteristics of the space-time exterior to a spherically symmetric, uncharged, nonrotating, nonradiating star are nearly the same as those of a point mass, the only difference being that for the star the postulates relating to the behavior of the space-time at $`r=0`$ are no longer applicable. Consequently, to determine the exterior metric for such a star all that is necessary is to impose the remaining postulates for the point mass on (5). As can be seen by inspection of Appendix A, doing so changes nothing up through (A.16), while (A.17) must be replaced by

(32)
$$C(r_b)\alpha ^2$$

where $`r_b`$ denotes the $`r`$ coordinate of the star’s boundary. (The precise value of $`C(r_b)`$ consistent with (32) is determined by the junction conditions.) Consequently, the exterior metric of such a star is given by $`g_{PM}(r0)`$ in (10), but with $`C`$ now satisfying (12) for $`r>r_b`$, (13), and (32). That is to say, the exterior metric has the same functional form as the metric of a point mass located at the star’s center, but the values of the parameters appearing therein are different. An example of such a situation can be found in ref. .

In the case of collapse to a point, this distinction ultimately vanishes, so that the appropriate space-time for the exterior of a star undergoing catastrophic collapse tends to the ($`S_S`$) of a point mass. While the precise details of the approach to $`S_S`$ will vary from case to case, it is already clear from the form of $`g_{PM}`$, together with (13) and (32), that $`A(r)>0`$ for all $`r>r_b`$, and thus, that no black hole ever forms in the exterior of the star, no matter how far the collapse proceeds.

Thus, the correction of Hilbert’s error not only eliminates the point mass as a possible source of K-F black holes, but simultaneously deprives them of the only mechanism for their production.

## 9. The K-F black hole is unreal

Although it was shown in Sect. 6 that $`S_{KF}`$ does not represent the space-time of a point mass, it might still be hoped that it represents some other configuration of matter and (or) energy, and is thus of physical significance in its own right.

However, this is not the case. Since the energy-momentum tensor vanishes everywhere in $`S_{KF}`$, the only possible locations of its sources are at its singularities. These are at $`r^{}=0`$, or in terms of Kruskal’s $`u`$ and $`v`$, at $`v^2u^2=1`$. As is easily seen, these loci are spacelike, whereas those of real matter or radiation are timelike or null, respectively. Consequently, it is impossible for $`S_{KF}`$ to represent any real configuration of matter and (or) energy, i.e., $`S_{KF}`$ is physically unreal, and thus so is the K-F black hole.

While this disposes of the reality of $`S_{KF}`$, $`S_{KF}`$ possesses another property worth mentioning in connection with other types of black holes, namely, the presence at $`r^{}=\alpha `$ of an interior “surface of infinite acceleration” (at which the locally measured acceleration of test particles becomes infinite: see ref. ), despite the fact that there are neither matter singularities nor geometrical singularities at that surface. This existence of such a surface interior to the space-time is a direct result of Hilbert’s assumption regarding $`r^{}`$, since it was this that transferred the “Cheshire cat” (the point mass) to a distant point, while leaving the “grin” (the infinite acceleration of test particles) intact at $`r^{}=\alpha `$.

## 10. Conclusions

We summarize the result of the preceding sections as follows. The K-F black hole is the result of a mathematically invalid assumption, explains nothing that is not equally well explained by $`S_S`$, cannot be generated by any known process, and is physically unreal. Clearly, it is time to relegate it to the same museum that holds the phlogiston theory of heat, the flat earth, and other will-o’-the-wisps of physics.

Consider next the family ($`𝒮`$) of black holes obtained by analytic extension of metrics, which, for certain values ($`\beta _0`$), of their parameters ($`\beta `$), reduce to $`g_H`$ (e.g., Reissner-Nordström, Kerr, Kerr-Newman, etc.). Some, like Reissner-Nordström’s solution for the point charge, were likewise derived from a set of postulates characterizing the specified matter and (or) energy configuration, and thus their derivations must be analyzed to determine whether an error such as that made by Hilbert was committed.555A paper proving that this is indeed the case for the point-charge metric is shortly to be submitted by the author. Others were simply “discovered”, and their sources sought afterwards, so it is impossible to determine whether they are based on an invalid assumption. However, the fact that all such metrics are regarded as reducing to $`g_H`$ when $`\beta =\beta _0`$ (see ref. , , and ) shows that it is tacitly assumed that the radial coordinate appearing in these metrics is equal to $`(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}`$, and Sect. 4 shows that this assumption is invalid when $`\beta =\beta _0`$. Moreover, each of the associated black-hole spacetimes bears the telltale stigma (an interior surface of infinite acceleration, see ref. ) associated with the transfer of boundary behavior to interior events that was shown in the previous section to be a consequence of precisely that assumption for the case of K-F black holes. Accordingly, members of $`𝒮`$ are highly suspect.

Finally, there remain those black holes that have likewise simply been discovered, but whose exterior metrics do not reduce to $`g_H`$ for any values of their parameters (e.g., the “toroidal” black holes described in ref ). Their status awaits an investigation of the reasonableness of their sources.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to acknowledge a number of helpful conversations with B. O’Neill and R. Greene, and with M. Morris, as well as the critiques of the author’s earlier paper on this subject by R. Gautreau and C. Will.

## Erratum

Section 6 should be replaced by the following paragraph:

## 6. Inequivalence of Schwarzschild and Hilbert universes

By inspection, $`S_S`$ and $`S_H`$ are isometric via $`T_\alpha `$ and thus equivalent. However, it was shown above that due to the difference in the topology of their boundaries, they are associated with different singularity structures. Thus, the universes ($`U_S`$ and $`U_H`$) corresponding to $`S_S`$ and $`S_H`$ (with their indicated boundaries) are inequivalent (cf. Abrams, L.S., Physica A, 227 (1996) 131). Since it follows from Sect. 2 that $`U_S`$ is the universe of a point-mass, then a fortiori $`U_H`$ is not. For the same reason, this last is also true of $`U_{KF}`$, the universe corresponding to the maximal analytic extension ($`S_{KF}`$) of $`S_H`$ found by Kruskal and Fronsdal.

Section 7, line 12 should read: black hole’s “surface”.

## Appendix A Derivation of point-mass metric

Substituting (5) into Dingle’s expressions (see ref. ) for $`T_j^i`$ gives

(A.1) $`8\pi T_1^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4BC^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{2ABC}}=0`$
$`8\pi T_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{C^{\prime \prime }}{2BC}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{2AB}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4BC^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}C^{}}{4B^2C}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4A^2B}}`$
(A.2) $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}B^{}}{4AB^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}C^{}}{4ABC}}=0`$
(A.3) $`T_3^3=T_2^2=0`$
(A.4) $`8\pi T_4^4{\displaystyle \frac{C^{\prime \prime }}{BC}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}C^{}}{2B^2C}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4BC^2}}=0`$
with all other $`T_j^i`$ identically zero. (Here and afterwards a superscript prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`r`$.)

Subtracting (A.1) from (A.4) and multiplying the result by $`BC`$ (nonzero because of (7)) gives

(A.5)
$$C^{\prime \prime }\frac{C^{}}{2}[\mathrm{ln}(ABC)]^{}=0$$

Since $`C^{}=0`$ would (in view of (7)) reduce (A.1) to $`1=0`$, it follows that $`C^{}0`$, hence dividing (A.5) by $`C^{}`$ gives

(A.6)
$$\frac{2C^{\prime \prime }}{C^{}}[\mathrm{ln}(ABC)]^{}=0$$

which integrates at once to

(A.7)
$$C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=JABC$$

with $`J`$ a constant. Since $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C>0`$ and $`C^{}0`$, it follows that $`J>0`$, and thus $`C^{}`$ never vanishes for $`r>0`$.

Solving (A.7) for $`B`$ and substituting the result into (A.1) gives, after cancelling some nonzero factors,

(A.8)
$$\frac{1}{C}+\frac{JA}{4C}+\frac{JA^{}}{2C^{}}=0$$

whence either

(A.9)
$$\frac{C^{}}{C}=\frac{2JA^{}}{4JA}orA=\frac{4}{J}$$

The second alternative results in no gravitational force whatever on a distant test particle (as seen from ref. , the gravitational acceleration of such a particle in the field of (5) is $`\psi ^{}/2`$, where $`\psi =A1`$; thus, $`A=`$ constant would result in zero acceleration), and is therefore ruled out. The first integrates to

(A.10)
$$C(JA/41)^2=K_0\alpha ^2>0$$

the positivity of the constant $`K_0`$ being a consequence of that of $`C`$ and of the non-negativity of $`(JA/41)^2`$. Solving (A.10) for $`A`$ (and without loss of generality, choosing $`\alpha >0`$) gives

(A.11)
$$A=\frac{4}{J}\left(1\pm \frac{\alpha }{C^{1/2}}\right)$$

which upon substitution into (A.7) yields

(A.12)
$$B=\frac{C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4C(1\pm \alpha /C^{1/2})}$$

Substituting $`A`$ and $`B`$ from (A.11) and (A.12) into (A.2) shows that the latter is satisfied identically for arbitrary $`C`$.

Now, the requirement that (5) be spatially asymptotically flat necessitates that

(A.13)
$$\frac{C}{r^2}1asr\mathrm{}$$

From this and from the fact that $`C^{}`$ cannot be zero it follows that

(A.14)
$$C^{}>0forr>0$$

Moreover, from (A.13) and (A.11) we see that

(A.15)
$$A4/Jasr\mathrm{}$$

whence asymptotic flatness requires that $`J=4`$. This reduces (A.11) to

(A.16)
$$A=1\frac{\alpha }{C^{1/2}}$$

the choice of the minus sign being compelled by the fact that the gravitational force on a distant test particle must be attractive (as noted above, the gravitational acceleration of a distant test particle is $`\psi ^{}/2`$, where $`\psi =A1=\pm \alpha /C^{1/2}`$; this acceleration will only be attractive if the lower sign is chosen, since both $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are positive). From (7), (A.14), and (A.16) it follows at once that

(A.17)
$$C(0+)\alpha ^2>0$$

Hence we conclude that the most general triplet satisfying the historical postulates for the point mass is of the form

(A.18) $`A=1\alpha /C^{1/2},\alpha >0`$
(A.19) $`B={\displaystyle \frac{C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4C(1\alpha /C^{1/2})}}`$
where $`C`$ is an analytic function of $`r=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}`$ having the following properties:

(A.20) $`C(0+)\beta ^2\alpha ^2>0`$
(A.21) $`C^{}(r)>0,forr>0`$
(A.22) $`C(r)/r^21asr\mathrm{}`$
Finally, consider the circle $`\gamma (ϵ):t=t_0`$ (a constant), $`\theta =\pi /2`$, and $`r=ϵ`$. Inspection of (10) shows that the proper circumference of $`\gamma (ϵ)`$ is $`2\pi [C(ϵ)]^{1/2}`$, which by (A.20) tends to $`2\pi \beta 2\pi \alpha >0`$ as $`ϵ0`$. Moreover, inspection of (10) and (A.19) shows that the proper radius 666If the boundary $`r=0`$ in the spatial section is a point, which is the case by virtue of the point mass being located there. of $`\gamma (ϵ)`$ is

(A.23) $`R_P(ϵ)={\displaystyle _0^ϵ}[B(r)]^{1/2}𝑑r`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}dr}{2C^{1/2}(1\alpha /C^{1/2})^{1/2}}}`$
(A.24) $`={\displaystyle _\beta ^{[C(ϵ)]^{1/2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u}{u\alpha }}\right]^{1/2}𝑑u`$
Since $`C(0+)`$ is finite, and $`C(r)`$ monotonic and analytic for $`r>0`$, these last two properties are also true of $`[C(ϵ)]^{1/2}`$, whence

(A.25)
$$[C(ϵ)]^{1/2}=\beta +O(ϵ)$$

and thus

(A.26) $`R_P(ϵ)={\displaystyle _\beta ^{\beta +O(ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{u\alpha }}\right)^{1/2}𝑑u`$
$`{\displaystyle _\beta ^{\beta +O(ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{u\alpha }}\right)^{1/2}𝑑u`$
which for all $`\beta `$ satisfying (A.20) clearly tends to zero as $`ϵ0`$. Consequently, the ratio of the proper circumference to the proper radius of $`\gamma (ϵ)`$ does not tend to $`2\pi `$ as $`ϵ0`$, so that there is a violation of elementary flatness  at $`r=0`$ and $`t=t_0`$, and since $`t_0`$ was arbitrary, at $`r=0`$ for all $`t`$. This violation constitutes a “quasiregular singularity”  of the space-time associated to $`g_{PM}`$, and thus we can say that the space-time ($`M_0,g_{PM}`$) is analitically inextendible777More precisely, there exists no analytic extension in which $`r=0`$ corresponds to an interior point in the larger manifold. Any extension in which $`r=0`$ corresponds to a nonpoint-like locus would alter the character of the point mass and is thus ruled out a priori. to $`r=0`$ for all $`\beta \alpha `$. Moreover, since it is well known  that those geodesics of the Hilbert metric $`g_H`$ that do not run into the boundary at $`r^{}=\alpha `$ are complete, the diffeomorphism between $`g_H`$ and $`g_{PM}`$ for any admissible $`C`$ shows that the same is true of those geodesics of $`g_{PM}`$ that do not run into the boundary at $`r=0`$. It follows that the space-times ($`M_0,g_{PM}`$) are maximal.

## Appendix B Acceleration scalar

As shown by Doughty , the acceleration of a neutral test particle approaching the point mass along a radial path, as measured by an observer at rest with respect to the point mass, is given by

(B.1) $`a={\displaystyle \frac{(g_{rr})^{1/2}(g^{rr})|g_{00,r}|}{2g_{00}}}={\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{2AB^{1/2}}}for(5)`$
(B.2) $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2C(1\alpha /C^{1/2})^{1/2}}}for(10)`$
(B.3) $`=O[1/2(\alpha r)^{1/2}]asr0for(18)`$
However, when $`R_P(ϵ)`$ in (A.23) is evaluated for (18), it is readily found that

(B.4)
$$R_P(r)=O[2(\alpha r)^{1/2}]asr0$$

thus

(B.5)
$$a1/R_P(r)asr0$$

which shows that unlike the Newtonian case, a test particle’s acceleration tends to infinity inversely as the first power of its proper distance to the central mass.


text:
# Collision Dynamics of Two Bose-Einstein Condensates in the Presence of Raman Coupling

## I INTRODUCTION

The realization of high-density Bose-Einstein condensates  invokes the study of nonlinear dynamics of matter waves and inventions of various optical techniques to manipulate Bose-Einstein condensates as well as constructions of various matter-wave interferometers for precision measurements. Usually, people would like to reduce irregular excitations and preserve the coherent property of high-density Bose-Einstein condensates as well as possible in many manipulating processes. However, due to the interactions between atoms, the strong repulsive interactions between Bose-Einstein condensates often lead to irregular excitations, especially in colliding processes. Inventing a convenient optical technique, which can reduce irregular excitations as well as exert effective controlling on the Bose-Einstein condensates, is very important.

Raman coupling is a very successful experimental technique in manipulating ultra-cold atomic gas between different internal and external states because it has the merit of avoiding spontaneous emission loss of atoms in transition processes. For example, recently several experiments have already successfully employed Raman coupling in manipulating Bose-Einstein condensates .

Here by proposing a Raman coupling scheme of atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, we show that Raman coupling can also be used to reduce irregular excitations produced in a colliding process of two Bose-Einstein condensates. Instead of irregular excitations, the Raman coupling produces a new type of coherent textures, namely dark soliton pairs in the colliding process. Additionally, we also find that these dark soliton pairs and their remnant dark solitons are very sensitive to the initial relative phase between Bose-Einstein condensates and the two-photon detuning of Raman transitions.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the proposed colliding process of two Bose-Einstein condensates in the presence of Raman coupling, and the two coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations for the description of this colliding process. In Sec. III, first we do some simplifications, then we show numerical simulations of the colliding process, analyze the function of Raman coupling in the colliding process, and discuss the physical origin and some special properties of dark soliton pairs. In Sec. IV, we draw conclusions as well as point out some potential applications of the proposed colliding process.

## II THEORETICAL MODEL

First, we introduce the proposal in detail by using a schematic diagram in Fig. 1. The black frame, in Fig. 1(a), represents a transverse confining potential $`V_0(x,y)`$ for two atomic Bose-Einstein condensates 1 and 2 in the abstract. This potential can be formed, for example, by a blue-detuned hollow laser beam propagating along z-axis, which has already been demonstrated to be very effective in the recent experiment . Additionally, there are two red-detuned Gaussian laser beams 1 and 2 propagating along x-axis. The intensities of two laser beams are uniform in x and y directions, but in Gaussian shape in z direction, as indicated by the gray levels. Their frequencies are $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ respectively, as shown in Fig. 1(b). As to the condensates, we assume that atoms have three internal states, $`|g_1`$, $`|g_2`$ and $`|e`$. Thus the two laser beams couple them together and form two Rabi transitions respectively, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Because of the negative detuning ($`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$) and nonuniform intensities of the two laser beams, they can form two z-axial confining potentials for condensates 1 and 2 respectively, which are assumed to be initially distributed in states $`|g_1`$ and $`|g_2`$ respectively. Additionally, we assume that the laser beams 1 and 2 are initially separated by a distance and moving at velocities $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ respectively in opposite directions. Thus the two condensates are trapped by the two laser beams and moving at velocities same as those of laser beams in opposite directions. While the two laser beams overlap, the condensates in the overlap region are transferred between states $`|g_1`$ and $`|g_2`$ due to the occurrence of Raman transitions. As the two condensates go very close, they collide and interfere with each other.

Next, we derive the equation for the description of this proposal. As shown in Fig. 1(b), because atoms have three internal states, first we generally consider a condensate consisting of three components. To avoid spontaneous emission in Raman-transition process, we assume that the intermediate detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of laser beams 1 and 2 is much larger than other characteristic frequencies, such as the natural line width of the atomic transitions and the two-photon detuning $`\delta `$. As a result, the evolution of the $`|e`$-state component adiabatically follows the $`|g_1`$ and $`|g_2`$-state components, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e=(\mathrm{\Omega }_1e^{i\omega _1t}\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}+\mathrm{\Omega }_2e^{i\omega _2t}\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2})/(2\mathrm{\Delta })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$,$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}`$ are the macroscopic wave functions of the three-component Bose-Einstein condensate in states $`|e`$, $`|g_1`$ and $`|g_2`$ respectively. Then, at zero temperature and under rotating-wave approximation, the light-coupled $`|g_1`$ and $`|g_2`$-state components can be described by the following coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations:

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}+V_0(x,y)\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}+V_{g1}(z,t)\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}+U_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}+U_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}+\mathrm{}R(z,t)\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}$$
(1)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}+\mathrm{}\omega _g\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}+V_0(x,y)\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}+V_{g2}(z,t)\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}+U_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}`$ (2)
$`+U_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}|^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}+\mathrm{}R^{}(z,t)e^{i(\omega _2\omega _1)t}\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}`$ (3)
where $`m`$ is the atomic mass. $`U_0`$ describes the atomic interaction strength, which is related to the s-wave scattering length $`a_{sc}`$ by $`U_0=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{sc}/m`$. Here we assume that $`a_{sc}>0`$ and it is same for all collisions between atoms in same or different internal states. $`V_0(x,y)`$ denotes the transverse confining potential, which is common for both $`|g_1`$ and $`|g_2`$-state components. $`V_{g1}(z,t)=\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Omega }_1(𝐫,t)|^2/(4\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`V_{g2}(z,t)=\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\Omega }_2(𝐫,t)|^2/(4\mathrm{\Delta })`$ are two localized optical potentials produced by the laser beams 1 and 2 respectively. $`R(z,t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}(𝐫,t)\mathrm{\Omega }_2(𝐫,t)/(4\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the effective Rabi frequency of two-photon transitions. Because the laser beams 1 and 2 are in Gaussian shape and moving along z-axis, their corresponding Rabi frequencies can be written as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(𝐫,t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{10}e^{(zz_{01}v_1t)^2/a_1^2}e^{i𝐤_1𝐫}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(𝐫,t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{20}e^{(zz_{02}v_2t)^2/a_2^2}e^{i𝐤_2𝐫}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{10}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{20}`$ are maximum magnitudes of the two Rabi frequencies, $`z_{01}`$ and $`z_{02}`$ are initial center positions, $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are half widths, and $`𝐤_1`$ and $`𝐤_2`$ are wave vectors of the two laser beams respectively. Additionally, we assume that the wave vectors $`𝐤_1`$ and $`𝐤_2`$ are approximately equal, then the two-photon Rabi frequency can be written as $`R(z,t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_{20}e^{(zz_{01}v_1t)^2/a_1^2(zz_{02}v_2t)^2/a_2^2}/(4\mathrm{\Delta })`$. It is evident that when and only when the two potentials, $`V_{g1}(z,t)`$ and $`V_{g2}(z,t)`$, overlap with each other, the effective two-photon Rabi frequency becomes finite. All together, we reduce the description of the Bose-Einstein condensate from three components to two components now.

## III NUMERICAL SIMULATION

For simplicity and to give more prominence to the analysis of the affection of Raman transitions on the collision, we need to do some simplifications. We assume the transverse confining potential $`V_0(x,y)`$ is so tight and the z-axial confining potentials, $`V_{g1}(z,t)`$ and $`V_{g2}(z,t)`$, are so loose: that in the description of the transverse modes of the Bose-Einstein condensate, we can neglect the affection of $`V_{g1}(z,t)`$ and $`V_{g2}(z,t)`$ as well as interactions between atoms; that in the description of the longitudinal modes, we can find that the longitudinal dimension of the condensate is much larger than the healing length. We can also find that the transverse dimensions of the condensate are very small, and the time scale for adjustment of the transverse profile of the condensate to the equilibrium form appropriate for the instantaneous number of atoms per unit length is small compared with the time for an excited pulse to pass a given point. This is a low-density approximation, in fact, similar to that used in Ref. . Thus by letting $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}(𝐫,t)=f_{g1}(z,t)g_{g1}(x,y)e^{i\mu _1t/\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}(𝐫,t)=f_{g2}(z,t)g_{g2}(x,y)e^{i\mu _2t/\mathrm{}}`$ and through a deduction similar to that in Ref., we can get simplified one-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii equations,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{f_{g1}}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2f_{g1}}{z^2}+V_{g1}(z,t)f_{g1}+U_0^{^{}}|f_{g1}|^2f_{g1}+U_0^{^{\prime \prime }}|f_{g2}|^2f_{g1}+\mathrm{}R(z,t)e^{i(\mu _2\mu _1)t/\mathrm{}}f_{g2}$$
(4)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{g2}}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2f_{g2}}{z^2}}+\mathrm{}\omega _gf_{g2}+V_{g2}(z,t)f_{g2}+U_0^{^{}}|f_{g2}|^2f_{g2}+U_0^{^{\prime \prime }}|f_{g1}|^2f_{g2}`$ (5)
$`+\mathrm{}R^{}(z,t)e^{i(\omega _2\omega _1)t+i(\mu _2\mu _1)t/\mathrm{}}f_{g1}`$ (6)
where $`g_{g1}`$ and $`g_{g2}`$ are the normalized transverse modes of the two components, $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are the chemical potentials of $`g_{g1}`$ and $`g_{g2}`$ respectively, $`f_{g1}`$ and $`f_{g2}`$ are the longitudinal wave functions, $`U_0^{^{}}=U_0|g_{g1}(x,y)|^4𝑑x𝑑y`$ and $`U_0^{^{\prime \prime }}=U_0|g_{g1}(x,y)g_{g2}(x,y)|^2𝑑x𝑑y`$.

As an initial condition for the colliding process, we assume that the two-component Bose-Einstein condensate is initially separated into two condensates, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{g1}(𝐫,t)|_{t=0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{g2}(𝐫,t)|_{t=0}`$, which are trapped in the ground states of the two moving potentials, $`V_{g1}(z,t)`$ and $`V_{g2}(z,t)`$, respectively. For simplicity, we assume that the two potentials have same shapes, depths and speeds (but in opposite directions), thus the transverse and longitudinal modes of the two initial ground-state Bose-Einstein condensates are in same shape and the condensates has same numbers of atoms and same chemical potentials.

Then we use split operator method to solve the above time dependent Gross-Pitaevskii Eqs.4 and LABEL:GP4. First, we show a typical colliding process in the presence of Raman coupling in Figs. 2(a), (b) and Fig. 3. For comparison, in Figs. 2(c) and (d), we also show another different collision in which two condensates same as the above are trapped by two potentials similar to $`V_{g1}(z,t)`$ and $`V_{g2}(z,t)`$, but there are no Raman transitions between them. The elimination of Raman transitions is possible so long as the two laser beams couple the two ground states $`|g_1`$ and $`|g_2`$ with different excited states respectively instead of one common excited state. The parameter values used in the numerical simulation are as following: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{10}^2/(4\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Omega }_{20}^2/(4\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Omega }_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_{20}/(4\mathrm{\Delta })=6000/\tau `$, $`v_1=v_2=9a_1/\tau `$, $`a_2=a_1`$, $`U_0^{^{}}=U_0^{^{\prime \prime }}=2000\mathrm{}/\tau `$, $`z_{01}=z_{02}=a_1`$, and the chemical potentials of initial ground-state Bose-Einstein condensates are both $`\mu _0=3.99\times 10^3\mathrm{}/\tau `$, where $`a_1`$ and $`\tau =2ma_1^2/\mathrm{}`$ are considered as the unit length and the unit time respectively.

In the collision without Raman transitions, the two condensates obstruct their passing through each other because of repulsive interactions between atoms, as shown in Figs. 2(c) and (d). After the collision, we can see that small parts of condensates radiate out of the axial optical potentials, the remnant Bose-Einstein condensates oscillate violently in the potentials. The violent oscillations appear to be very irregular. In contrast, Figs. 2(a), (b) and Fig. 3 show that while Raman transitions exist, the radiations become very weak, the violent oscillations of remnant Bose-Einstein condensates are much reduced. This indicates that the repulsive interaction between two Bose-Einstein condensates is greatly counteracted by an attractive optical potential produced by Raman transitions. We can understand the formation of this potential in this way. Because Raman transitions can transfer each condensate between two components, $`f_{g1}`$ and $`f_{g2}`$ circularly, each condensate interacts with the two axial optical potentials $`V_{g1}`$ and $`V_{g2}`$ alternatively. As a result, the light-shifted energy of each condensate, produced by the two laser beams, becomes a temporal combination of $`V_{g1}`$ and $`V_{g2}`$, and each condensate feels a vibrating optical potential locating at the collision center $`z=0`$. According to the overlap form of $`V_{g1}`$ and $`V_{g2}`$, the vibrating potential, in average, is attractive. Thus this time-averaged attractive potential counteracts the repulsive interaction between two condensates, so it becomes much easier for them to pass through each other. We therefore observe the oscillation amplitudes of condensates, produced by the repulsive interaction, become much small. But between $`t=0.05\tau `$ and $`0.15\tau `$, we can still observe that the volume of each condensate oscillates slightly in the colliding process due to the vibration of the attractive optical potential.

In the colliding process, we also observe that dark solitons are generated, as shown in Fig. 3. Formations of dark solitons are due to the interference of colliding condensates. Although the two condensates are initially distributed in two different internal states respectively, Raman transitions can transfer parts of them from one of the internal states to the other in the colliding process. Consequently, when the transferred part of one condensate overlaps with the part of the other condensate in the same internal state, interference fringes are produced. Due to nonlinear effect of condensates, interference fringes evolve into dark solitons. It is evident that this process is similar to that in Ref. .

However, solitons produced in this colliding process in the presence of Raman coupling are quite different from those single solitons described in Ref. . One of important differences is that these solitons always appear in pairs. As shown in Figs. 3(a)-(d), in the colliding process, every soliton in one component of the condensates always has a corresponding soliton in the other component at the same spatial position. Another important difference is that the density difference between two components does not lead to a speed difference between two solitons in a pair. As shown in Figs.3(a) and (b), sometimes the two components have quite different local densities at the location of a soliton pair, however, solitons in the pair always move synchronously in the condensates. The reason for synchronous motion of two solitons in a pair is that Raman transitions associate the two components tightly and consequently locks their phases together. As we can see in Fig. 4, the phases of two components are almost completely same in the region of strong Raman transitions that are indicated by magnitudes of the normalized two-photon Rabi frequency $`|4R\mathrm{\Delta }/(\mathrm{\Omega }_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_{20})|`$. Dark solitons are phase kinks in essence, so there is no doubt that solitons, with similar spatial phases, in a pair move synchronously. Additionally, the cross phase modulation between dark solitons in a pair also makes a repulsive effect between them, and tends to separate them. It is evident that this repulsive effect is also counteracted by Raman transitions, which produce an equivalently attractive effect between solitons in the pair by locking their phases together. Even after a collision of two soliton pairs A and B, solitons in each pair can still preserve their waveforms and trajectories well, as shown in Figs. 3(b)-(c) and Figs. 2(a)-(b) respectively. This illustrates that collisions between soliton pairs are elastic collisions, which are usually considered as an important common characteristic of all kinds of solitons. The synchronous motion of solitons in the pair also indicates the propagation speed of the soliton pair is determined by the total local density of the two components instead of each one component. We can find this property from Figs. 2(a)-(b). The propagation speed of the soliton pair, in the region $`z<0`$, at time $`t=0.078\tau `$ is larger than that at time $`t=0.047\tau `$, because the total density of the two components is increased in the overlap region,. Some similarities between a soliton pair and a single soliton can also be seen. For example, the propagation speed, the width and the density contrast of a soliton pair also depend on the value of its phase kink that is also varied by the local density gradient. We can find these properties by a careful observation of Figs. 2(a)-(b), Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. Because the density of the condensates varies in parabola-like form in space, we can find its phase kink flips in the boundary region of the condensates, simultaneously its speed flips too, and as a result, the soliton pair oscillates inside the condensates.

The two components of the condensates begin to separate very apparently after $`t=0.15\tau `$, because of the separation of the two axial optical potentials, as shown in Figs. 2(a)-(b). Simultaneously, Raman transitions become weaker and weaker because of the decrement of the overlap of the two laser beams, as shown in Figs. 3(d)-(f). As a result, soliton pairs become unstable and are to be separated in this process. Critically depending on the local evolution of the two components, some solitons disappear and some of them remain and propagate into the separated one-component condensates, as shown in Figs. 2(a)-(b) and Figs. 3(e)-(f). Because of the disappearance of cross phase modulation in each one-component condensate, the oscillation behaviors of remnant single solitons are different from those of soliton pairs. Especially, the oscillation periods of remnant single solitons appear to be quite different from those of previous soliton pairs.

The generation of dark soliton pairs is controllable. Usually, the relative phase between two condensates in different internal states is meaningless because of the orthogonality of the internal states. However, here Raman transitions can form a circulation of atoms between the two internal states, the relative phase between the two condensates are related and therefore becomes very important. Because the formation of dark soliton pairs is due to the interference of colliding condensates, we can also control the generation of soliton pairs as well as remnant single solitons by adjusting the initial relative phase between two colliding condensates or the two-photon detuning of Raman transitions, as shown in Fig. 5.

In the above, we have discussed the collision of two Bose-Einstein condensates under the one-dimensional approximation, then will a three dimensional collision be completely different from the one-dimensional collision? Some difference must exist. For example, in three-dimensional process, dark soliton pairs might be distorted by transverse perturbations and evolve into vortices because similar behaviors of single dark solitons have been found . However, in the above analysis, we have already found that the function of Raman coupling in the colliding process is, in fact, to lock the phases of the two components of the condensates by forming the strong atom circulation between the two internal states, and as a result, solitons appear in pairs. As for vortices, they are phase singular points, so they are quit similar to dark solitons in essence. We think that Raman coupling can also lock the phases of two components of the condensates in a three-dimensional case, and vortex pairs might therefore be formed. Certainly, more affirmative answer should be gotten in a numerical simulation of a three-dimensional collision, which will be done in the future work.

## IV CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we have proposed a new Raman coupling scheme of Bose-Einstein condensates, and analyzed the influence of Raman transitions on the collision and excitation of two-component Bose-Einstein condensates. We have found that Raman transitions can reduce collision-produced irregular excitations by forming a time-averaged attractive potential. Raman transitions also support a new kind of dark solitons, i.e., dark soliton pairs in two-component Bose-Einstein condensates, by locking the phases of the two components. We have also shown the control of soliton pairs and their remnant single solitons by adjusting the initial relative phase between the two colliding condensates and the two-photon detuning of Raman transitions. The dynamical sensitivity of the dark soliton pairs and remnant solitons to these parameters indicates that the proposed collision can be used in the measurement of relative phase between different high-density Bose-Einstein condensates. Currently, people are considering constructions of various interferometers with matter waves for high precision measurements. We think that this proposal might provide a useful method to this area.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T. Hong thanks Japan Science Promotion Society for the partial financial support. This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the recent years there have been a renewal interest in the study of the conexion between strings and gauge theories, mainly since the conjecture relating type IIB string theory on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5, , was stated. This conjecture is related to the dynamics of a system of $`N`$ D3-branes in the decouplig limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ and can be seen as a strong-weak duality, where the strong t’Hooft coupling in the large $`N`$ limit is in correspondence with weakly coupled type IIB string theory.

However, despite its great insight, the Maldacena’s conjecture is related to a non-realistic gauge theory, namely, $`U(N)`$ $`N=4`$ super Yang-Mills, and so a further exploration is needed. The analysis can be extended to obtain a nonsupersymmetric gauge theory by discussing the finite temperature behaviour of the $`N=4`$ gauge theory . In this case the time direction of the AdS background is compactified on a circle of radius $`1/T`$, so that supersymmetry is broken by the boundary conditions on the circle.

Another way to get a non-supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory is through the notion of confining strings . Phenomenologically, this idea relies on the interpretation of the color flux tubes responsible for quark confinement as strings ending on quark-antiquark pairs.

One way to achieve a string representation of this configuration is based on the holographic renormalization group approach . The procedure is to model out the renormalization group equations of the quantum field theory from the data coming from string theory, that is, the equations for the running of the coupling constants of the 4d non-abelian gauge theory are related to the Einstein equations of a 5d system of gravity plus matter. In this way, certain background fields of a closed string theory are associated to the coupling constants of the field theory. Thus geometry dictates the properties of the gauge theory.

This five dimensional theory is IR divergent due to the contributions of the boundary $`\rho =\mathrm{}`$, which corresponds to UV divergences of the four dimensional gauge theory. This is the origin of the IR/UV connection. In order to put these divergences under control we introduce a regulator at a scale $`\rho =\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and demand that the physical observables be independent on the particular choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This implements the Callan-Symanzik equations of the corresponding QFT.

In  was shown that the dynamics underlying the Callan-Symanzik equations is just the conditions for the conformal invariance of the two-dimensional string sigma model and the fact that open string one loop divergences just happen to be represented by insertions of closed string vertex operators.

The conditions for conformal invariance are just given by setting the beta equations of the string to zero. Assuming a vanishing Kalb-Ramond field, the beta equations for a closed bosonic string theory read as

$`R_{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (1)
$`^2\mathrm{\Phi }+(\mathrm{\Phi })^2={\displaystyle \frac{26D}{3\alpha ^{}}},`$ (2)
where $`D`$ is the dimension of the space-time.

In  it has been shown that in the context of non-critical strings there is a solution to these equations, to first order in $`\alpha ^{}`$, for generic values of D compatible with $`ISO(1,D1)`$ Poincaré invariance. That is

$$ds^2=\text{tanh}\left(\sqrt{\frac{21}{6\alpha ^{}}}r\right)^{2/\sqrt{d}}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2,$$
(3)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{log}\left[\text{tanh}\left(\sqrt{\frac{21}{6\alpha ^{}}}r\right)^{(d2)/2}\frac{1}{\text{cosh}^2\left(\sqrt{\frac{21}{6\alpha ^{}}}r\right)}\right],$$
(4)
where $`r`$ is interpreted as the holographic coordinate or the Liouville direction, depending on the context.

One of the main features of this solution is its validity for any number of space-time dimensions, which allows us to work directly with a 5d string background with no need to make further assumptions on the behaviour of the towers of states coming form the excitations of the string on the 21 extra dimensions. In this way, from now on we will work in a $`D=5`$ system.

This solution is also known to interpolate between two well studied confining backgrounds, namely, the Euclidean one, studied by O. Álvarez, , and corresponding to the $`r\mathrm{}`$ limit, and the confining metric, studied by E. Álvarez and C. Gómez, , in the $`r0`$ limit, which has been recently studied in detail in  to show its confining character.

In this letter we will compute the four dimensional potential between two heavy sources $`j\overline{j}`$ when the effects of a dilaton field are taken into account. This will be shown to be associated to the one loop corrections of the potential in the sigma model approach. However, as will be explained later, there are other several possible sources of corrections. With this computation, we get some insight into the meaning of the fluctuations of the world sheet dictated from the beta functions.

The standard lore on the computation of the potential between heavy sources is based on interpreting the expectation value of the Wilson loop as a statistical average over random surfaces spanning the loop .

In the semiclassical limit, this average is represented through the minimal area surface spanned by the world sheet of the confining string .

In the computation, an idealized rectangular static loop is posited in spacetime, by placing heavy sources at $`x^1x=\pm L/2`$, $`x^i=0`$ $`(x^i1)`$. The imbedding of the two-dimensional surface into the external space is defined by a unique function $`r=\overline{r}(\sigma )`$, determined by the Euler-Lagrange’s equations, complemented with Dirichlet boundary conditions at the endpoints of the string, $`\overline{r}(0)=\overline{r}(1)=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The original computation of  in AdS, started with a gauge group $`U(N+1)`$ broken to $`U(N)\times U(1)`$ by giving an expectation value to one of the scalars. This corresponds to having a $`D3`$-brane sitting at some radial position in AdS and at a point on $`S^5`$. The off-diagonal states, transforming in the N of $`U(N)`$, get a mass proportional to the radial position.

In order to get a non-dynamical source, we need to take the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$, which corresponds to work in the boundary of AdS. On the other hand, in this limit, the CFT is defined on an extension of Penrose’s boundary, cf..

In this limit, the infinite mass of the sources causes a divergence in the potential and should be renormalized. This divergence comes form the fact that the string attached on the Higgsed $`D3`$-brane runs from the origin to the boundary at infinity. The configuration after the renormalization of the potential minimizes the action and resembles topologically half a cylinder. This is the configuration to be used in the computation of the Wilson loop.

Another way to deal with the singularity of the potential is by considering the Legendre transform of the area of the worldsheet. This is because these string coordinates obey the Neumann boundary conditions rather than the Dirichlet conditions .

The inclusion of the dilaton field (4) in the action takes into account only one of the possible contributions of $`𝒪(\alpha ^{})`$: there are no corrections to the metric, and in this sense it can be considered as incomplete.

However, the behaviour we find is very similar to the one expected in the Euclidean limit, first discovered in  using a functional-integral approach in a semiclassical quantization of the Eguchi-Schild model, and by an argument based on an effective field theory governing the quantum dynamics at large distance scales of a thin flux tube linking the two sources. In four dimensions this is

$$V(L)=\sigma L+\beta \frac{\pi }{12L},$$
(5)
where $`\sigma `$, the string tension, and $`\beta `$ are model-dependent non-universal coefficients and the $`1/L`$ term is a long-distance effect.

This potential can also be obtained when the effect of quantum fluctuations of a Nambu-Goto like action is computed . On the other hand, it can be shown, , that the expression in (5) is identical to the energy of the tachyonic mode of the bosonic string in flat spacetime with Dirichlet boundary conditions at $`\pm L/2`$.

The existence of these corrections to the linear potential can be checked in lattice simulations. In fact, according to  there is some numerical evidence for a Lüscher term associated with a bosonic string, as well as for glueball masses, however these results are still not definitive.

## 2 “Classical” Wilson Loop

The equivalence between working with the Nambu-Goto action in the static gauge or with the Polyakov action in the conformal gauge, i.e. the isothermal coordinate system, has been recently shown . The only difference between these two approaches is the existence of a second conserved charge when working in the conformal gauge, associated with the ‘00’ component of the energy-momentum of the system, and a different value of the potential at infinity due to the boundary conditions.

We will work in the asymptotic limit $`r0`$ in five dimensions, that is, in the regime of , so the metric and the dilaton are

$$ds^2=rdx^2+dr^2,$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{log}r.$$
(7)
In order to review the basic facts of such calculation, we will present the computation based on the Nambu-Goto action in the static gauge, that now, with the metric (6) reads as

$$S=\frac{T}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_{L/2}^{L/2}\sqrt{r^2+r\left(_xr\right)^2}𝑑x.$$
(8)
This action does not depend explicitely on $`x`$ and so its canonical conjugated momentum is a conserved quantity, namely

$$\frac{r^2}{\sqrt{r^2+r\left(_xr\right)^2}}=\text{constant}.$$
(9)
As we have mentioned in the introduction, the standard configuration in this kind of computations is that of an open string with its ends attached to a four dimensional hyperplane, complemented with Dirichlet boundary conditions at $`r=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so that the embeddind is half a topological cylinder. With this in mind, and denoting by $`r_0`$ the tip of this U-shaped string, we have

$$x=r_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}_1^{r/r_0}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{y\left(y^21\right)}}.$$
(10)
Let us take firstly the limit $`x\stackrel{r\mathrm{}}{}\frac{L}{2}`$. We can find the dependence of this quantity, interpreted as the energy, with the distance between the two sources $`j\overline{j}`$ as

$$\frac{L}{2}=r_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{y\left(y^21\right)}},$$
(11)
or equivalently

$$r_0L^2.$$
(12)
Now we can compute the potential between $`j\overline{j}`$ as

$$E=\frac{S}{T}=_{L/2}^{L/2}𝑑x\frac{r^2}{r_0},$$
(13)
this is

$$E=r_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3/2}_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{y^2dy}{\sqrt{y\left(y^21\right)}}.$$
(14)
In this way we finally obtain the dependence on $`L`$ of the energy between the heavy sources as

$$EL^3.$$
(15)
This computation has been made by imposing boundary conditions on the hyperplane at infinity. However, one can obtain more information by introducing a cutoff at a value $`r=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this case, equation (11) also tells us that for each $`L`$ there are two available configurations, thus dividing the $`r`$ coordinate in two regions, whose asymptotic regimes correspond to the limits $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, region I, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }r_0`$, region II ().

It has also been shown that region II corresponds to a linear confining branch, where the potential behaves approximately as

$$V=\frac{L\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3\pi l_s^2},$$
(16)
and moreover, that this is the energetically favoured branch for all the range of the coordinate $`r`$, but near the naked singularity at the origin, where this configuration dissapears and we are only left with the configuration of region I.

We will explore the role played by the singularity at the end of the next section. Let us only mention that the existence of a maximun in the value of $`L`$, may indicate the existence of an effective horizon covering the singularity , in analogy with the Schwarzchild-anti de Sitter case studied in .

## 3 Quantum fluctuations

In this section we will include the dilaton field to compute the potential between the two heavy sources. As explained in the introduction, this would correspond to a first order perturbation in $`\alpha ^{}`$, and could be considered as the minimal correction to the area law behaviour ansatz, mainly due to the fact that the value of this field is taken from the beta equations at the same order than the solution (6) for the metric studied in the previous section.

In this sense, this approach is different of those considered in the literature. For example, in the AdS case studied in , the minimal surface ansazt was employed and then the saddle point field for large interquarks distances was taken in order to compute the potential. In this case the conclusion was that the effective flatness of AdS space, in the strong-coupling limit, suggested that the fermi and ghost degrees of freedom contributed to the Lüscher term as in flat space. However, despite the right magnitude of the factor, its sign was the opposite.

There are other contributions of the same order in $`\alpha ^{}`$, for example, perturbations of the metric as in  or sigma model solutions to the beta equations to the next to leading order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ as in .

As shown in , there are two equivalent points of view in order to consider the different $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections. Starting from the background given by (6), (7), keeping the dilaton fixed, the perturbed metric will be

$$ds^2=\left(r+\left(\frac{l_s^2}{l_c^2}\right)^2\left(c_1r\frac{1}{32r}\right)\right)\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +l_c^2\left(1+\left(\frac{l_s^2}{l_c^2}\right)^2\left(c_2+\frac{1}{2r^2}\right)\right)dr^2,$$
(17)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are two integration constants and $`l_c`$ is a lenght scale whose role will be explained at the end of this section. This is equivalent, up to a change of coordinates, to modify the term conformal to the Minkowski(Euclidean) metric in the background, keeping the holographic term fixed. In this way, the dilaton gets shifted to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{log}(r)+\frac{l_s^2}{l_c^2}\left(\frac{c_2}{2}+\frac{c_3}{2r}\frac{1}{4r^2}\right),$$
(18)
where $`c_3`$ is an arbitrary constant and $`c_2`$ indicates the freedom to choose a zero point on the original dilaton, due to the fact that it only appears in the beta equations in the form of a derivative.

We may argue that this equivalence is exact to all orders in the sigma model expansion, altough it has only been checked at this order. In this manner, taking the first point of view, the solution (7) for the dilaton may be considered as an exact solution.

Moreover, the corrections to the metric vanish in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, so in the IR, the most important correction comes from the dilaton. In the UV limit this may not be the case. In the UV the curvature grows and the other terms in the sigma model expansion become important. In fact, as we approach the singularity, all the terms in the expansion should be included.

As we will see, in this UV limit appear certain singularities in the potential. These singularities are not too reliable, and its origin would be precisely what we have just commented on the truncation of the $`\alpha ^{}`$ expansion.

We will work with the Polyakov action, that is

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_Md^2\sigma g^{1/2}\left[g^{ab}G_{\mu \nu }(X)_aX^\mu _bX^\nu +\alpha ^{}R^{(2)}\mathrm{\Phi }(X)\right],$$
(19)
where $`R^{(2)}`$ is the world sheet Ricci scalar, which we take as defined by the induced metric over the worldsheet, and the dilaton is taken as in (7)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(X)=\mathrm{log}r,$$
(20)
therefore we can write the action as

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _{L/2}^{L/2}}dx\{2\alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}r{\displaystyle \frac{2r^2_x^2r2r(_xr)^2(_xr)^4}{2r^2\left[r+\left(_xr\right)^2\right]^2}}\}\sqrt{r^2+r\left(_xr\right)^2},`$ (21)
where we have made use of the static gauge, that is, $`\sigma =x`$ and $`\tau =t`$. This can be done because the we are taking the metric as a non-dynamical variable, so we are simply writing the Nambu-Goto action in another way333I thank the referee for pointing this fact.

Now, as in the previous case, the canonical momentum conjugated to $`x`$ is a conserved charge. To determine this constant we proceed as in the previous section, i.e. calling $`r_0`$ as the minimum of $`r`$, we have

$$\frac{2r^3+2r^2(_xr)^2\alpha ^{}(_xr)^2}{r^{1/2}(r+(_xr)^2)^{3/2}}=2r_0.$$
(22)
An interesting feature of this equation is that the presence of the dilaton does not affect the value of $`r_0`$, i.e. it has no corrections of order $`\alpha ^{}`$. This is easily seen in the solution of this equation, that can be written as

$$x=\pm r_0^{1/2}_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }/r_0}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{y(y^21)}}.$$
(23)
When solving to get this equation, we have neglected terms $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$. This integral can be easily computed in terms of elliptic functions as

$$L=\pm 2r_0^{1/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}F(\mathrm{cos}^1\sqrt{\frac{r_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}).$$
(24)
So even if we add this dilaton field, the discussion of the previous section concerning the two different regions determined by the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is still valid. This can be seen in Fig.(1)

Now we go on to compute the potential between the heavy sources placed at $`r=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This will be done following the definition

$$V(L)=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{S}{T},$$
(25)
but now we have to be careful with the interpretation one is to give to this prescription. With the dilaton term, the on-shell solutions of the action (21) cannot probably be interpreted as the minimal area surfaces. The potential takes the form

$$V(L)=\frac{2r_0^{3/2}}{\pi \alpha ^{}}_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{z^4dz}{(z^41)^{1/2}}+\frac{\mathrm{log}(r_0)}{2\pi r_0^{1/2}}_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{z^2(z^43)dz}{(z^41)^2}+\frac{1}{\pi r_0^{1/2}}_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}zz^2(z^43)dz}{(z^41)^2},$$
(26)
where $`\mathrm{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/r_0}`$. When evaluating this integral, one must be careful, because it has an infrared divergence, so we will integrate from $`1+ϵ`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$.

This divergence may be associated with the absence of corrections to the loop in this integration limit as seen in (24), i.e. to the fact that the value of $`r_0`$ remains unchanged in presence of the dilaton field. Later we will focus on the possible cancellation of these divergences.

The first integral in the r.h.s. of (26) is exactly the contribution to the $`j\overline{j}`$ potential studied in the previous section, eq.(14), so let us concentrate on the extra terms due to the dilaton

$$V_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\mathrm{log}(r_0)}{2\pi r_0^{1/2}}_{1+ϵ}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{z^2(z^43)dz}{(z^41)^2}+\frac{1}{\pi r_0^{1/2}}_{1+ϵ}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}zz^2(z^43)dz}{(z^41)^2}.$$
(27)
These integrals can be computed as

$`V_\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}(r_0)}{2\pi r_0^{1/2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{x^3}{2(x^41)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x1}{x+1}}\right)]_{1+ϵ}^{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi r_0^{1/2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{log}\right({\displaystyle \frac{x+1}{x1}})+{\displaystyle \frac{x^3\mathrm{log}x}{2(x^41)}}+`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{16}}\mathrm{log}(1+x^2){\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\mathrm{log}(x)\mathrm{log}(1+x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\text{arctan}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}({\displaystyle _x^{x+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}t}{1t}}dti{\displaystyle _{ix}^{ix}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}t}{1t}}dt)]_{1+ϵ}^{\mathrm{}}.`$
As in the previous section, let us first evaluate this equation in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. In this case we find

$$V_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\mathrm{log}(r_0)}{2\pi r_0^{1/2}}\left[\frac{3\pi 6+6\mathrm{log}(2)}{16}\right]+\frac{1}{\pi r_0^{1/2}}\left[\frac{3\pi ^22\pi 2+24𝒞6\mathrm{log}(2)(\pi ^2+\pi +2)}{32}\right],$$
(29)
where $`𝒞`$ is the Catalan number and we have neglected the terms $`𝒪(\mathrm{log}(ϵ))`$. The dependence of the potential with $`L`$ is included in the value of $`r_0`$, which is read from (24). In this limit this is simply

$$r_0=\frac{L^2}{2K^2(1/\sqrt{2})}.$$
(30)
Inserting this in (29) we have the potential

$$V_\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{2\sqrt{2}(\mathrm{log}(L)1)}{\pi L}\frac{3}{5\pi L}+(𝒪\mathrm{log}(ϵ)).$$
(31)
Let us now go on to examine the region II, i.e. the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }r_0`$. We must perform an integral from $`1+ϵ`$ to $`1+\delta `$, due to the infrared divergence of the potential. Forgetting these effects, we can write down the potential as

$$V_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{16\pi \sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\frac{\delta ^{1/2}}{\pi L}\left[\frac{\sqrt{2}}{16}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{log}(L)+\frac{6}{5}\right].$$
(32)
This branch has been shown to correspond to an energetically favoured linear confining regime (16), so we can write down the potential between the heavy sources with a leading order correction due to fluctuations of the string given by the presence of the dilaton as

$$V\frac{L\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3\pi l_s^2}\frac{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{16\pi \sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\frac{\delta ^{1/2}}{\pi L}\left[\frac{\sqrt{2}}{16}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{log}(L)+\frac{6}{5}\right],$$
(33)
plus corrections $`𝒪(\mathrm{log}(ϵ))`$ and $`𝒪(\mathrm{log}(\delta ))`$.

An interesting feature of this potential is that it shows that the string tension has not been changed by the presence of the dilaton.

On the other hand, there is a dependence in the cutoffs introduced in the computation, that is, in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\delta `$, which may correspond to choosing a particular value of the coupling constant.

In Fig.(2) we have plotted the $`L`$ dependent term of $`V_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where we can see that the dependence with L is of the kind expected.

The corrections $`𝒪(\mathrm{log}(\delta ))`$ in (33) are not important due to the fact that the limit $`\delta =0`$ will only be taken at the origin, $`r=0`$, where the naked singularity lives, so we will never reach it. This is only at the origin we can have $`r_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which corresponds to $`L=0`$, as can be seen in Fig.(1).

This is the reason why Fig.(2) can only be but for values of $`L/l_c`$, where $`l_c`$ is a length scale, not too small. For example, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10`$, $`L`$ cannot be smaller than order 0.2 in $`l_c`$ units. In this ratio between the length of the loop and the length scale $`l_c`$, this last is given by

$$l_c=\frac{1}{r_0}\sqrt{\frac{6\alpha ^{}}{21}},$$
(34)
and has been set to unity in this letter.

This same phenomenon occurs in absence of the dilaton, as stated in , and could be thought of as if in this limit the theory became free.

As we move towards the origin, the length between the heavy sources decreases. As seen on , there is a limit in the holographic coordinate, namely $`r>l_c/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$, and beyond it, this level of approximation in the sigma model is nonsense. This scale would correspond to $`L/l_c0.2`$. Moreover, we can find a minimum of the potential that, in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10`$, is

$$V_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\frac{\sqrt{2}/16\mathrm{log}(10)+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{log}(L)+6/5}{\pi L^2}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi L^2}.$$
(35)
This tells us that there is an equilibrium point for this part of the potential at

$$\frac{L}{l_c}1$$
(36)
and this equilibrium point corresponds to a free theory. The linear dependent part of the potential produces just a shift in this value.

## 4 Concluding remarks

In this letter we have studied the leading corrections to the static gauge potential between heavy sources as dictated by the beta equations. In this sense we have computed a limit which departs somewhat from the decoupling limit defined as the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$.

The case studied is one of the asymptotic limits of the background introduced in , and the main interest of the computation lies on the prediction of a Lüscher like term in the potential.

To compute the potential between heavy sources a spatial Wilson loop has been considered, in such a way that the Wilson loop operator exhibits some kind of area law, i.e.

$$<W(C)>\mathrm{exp}(TV(L))\mathrm{exp}(\sigma A(C)),$$
(37)
where $`A(C)`$ is the area enclosed by the loop.

In this letter the dilaton field has been introduced, so the action in principle cannot be interpreted as the area of the world sheet. However, we can think of this as a small perturbation to the area of the worldsheet and, in this sense, follow the same prescription.

The solution coming from the dilaton can be considered as an exact solution, while the other corrections in $`\alpha ^{}`$ can be absorbed in the form of corrections to the metric. Moreover, it has been shown that this correction is dominant in the IR, while in the UV limit the analysis is not conclusive, due to the presence of the naked singularity, which forces us to include more terms of the sigma model expansion.

This ambiguity translates in the presence of singularities in the potential, that may be cancelled when all the other terms will be included.

The potential obtained resembles the one obtained by Lüscher-Symanzik-Weisz but now the coefficient of the $`1/L`$ term is non-universal, but it has instead a dependence on both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the scale at which we placed the loop, and $`\delta `$, a cutoff introduced in the computation. This is a dependence on the coupling constant and may indicate a screening of the charges in the IR limit.

It has also been found a stable equilibrium point in the potential coming from the dilaton in the vicinity of the origin, that is, near the naked singularity. In this way it is temptative to think about the singularity as a point where the dual gauge theory becomes free.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank E. Álvarez, C. Gómez, L. Hernández, D.G. Cerdeño and N. Alonso for useful discussions and for the critical lecture of the manuscript. I would also like to thank J. Delclaux for colaborating in the first stages of this letter and for very helpful discussions.