text:
# Dynamics of relativistic reconnection

## 1 Introduction

Magnetic reconnection is widely recognized as a very important phenomenon in many laboratory and astrophysical plasmas (Biskamp 2000, Priest & Forbes 2000). It has been studied very extensively over the last 40 years, and a very significant progress has been made in understanding this process. However, historically, reconnection was of interest mostly to space physicists studying the Solar corona and the Earth’s magnetosphere and to researchers in magnetic confinement fusion. In all these environments, plasma flows are non-relativistic and the Alfvén velocity is usually much less than the speed of light (equivalently, magnetic energy density is much smaller than the particle rest mass energy density). Therefore it is not surprising that most of the progress on the subject has been made in non-relativistic regime.

Over the last decade however, it has been recognized that magnetic reconnection processes are also of great importance in high energy astrophysics, where dynamic behavior is often dominated by super-strong magnetic fields, with energy density $`B^2/(8\pi )`$ larger than the rest energy of the matter $`\rho c^2+ϵ`$. The best studied (but yet not completely understood) case is magnetized winds from pulsars. Models of pulsar magnetosphere (Goldreich & Julian 1969, Arons & Scharlemann 1979, Ruderman & Satherland 1975) predict that near the light cylinder most of the spin-down luminosity of a pulsar should be in a form of Poynting flux. Other possible examples of relativistic strongly magnetized media include jets emanating from magnetized accretion disks around Galactic black holes and neutron stars as well as Active Galactic Nuclei (e.g., Beskin 1997, Lovelace et al. 2002), magnetosphere of magnetars (Thompson & Duncan 1996, Thompson et al. 2002) and Gamma Ray Bursters (Lyutikov & Blandford 2002).

Dissipation of such super-strong magnetic fields may play an important role both for the global dynamics of the system and as a way to produce high energy emission. Magnetic reconnection has been proposed as the mechanism for acceleration of pulsar winds (Coroniti 1994, Kirk & Lyubarsky 2001) and GRB outflows (Spruit et al. 2001), and as a dissipation mechanism in AGN jets (Romanova & Lovelace 1992), Soft Gamma Ray Repeaters (Thompson & Duncan 1996), GRBs (Lyutikov & Blandford 2002, Spruit et al. 2001). In case of pulsar winds there are strong arguments that effective dissipation of magnetic field is, in fact, needed to account for the global dynamics of the Crab nebula (Kennel & Coroniti 1984; see also Michel 1994, Coroniti 1990, Melatos & Melrose 1996, Lyubarsky & Kirk 2001).

This provides the motivation for studying magnetic reconnection in strongly relativistic plasmas (to be defined below). Despite of the growing interest in relativistic magnetic reconnection, very little theoretical (let alone experimental!) work has been done on the subject so far. We are aware of only one analytical discussion of relativistic reconnection (Blackman & Field 1994) and two recent numerical works on particle dynamics in relativistic reconnection layers (Zenitani & Hoshino 2001, Larrabee et al. 2002).

In any theoretical analysis of magnetic reconnection, one first makes a number of approximations, e.g. incompressibility, two-dimensionality, the absence (or presence) of the axial magnetic field, etc. Then one formulates the set of MHD equations in a dimensionless form where the relative importance of various physical processes is represented by certain dimensionless parameters. After that one then tries to build a qualitative description of the reconnecting system by a small number of (also dimensionless) characteristic ratios. For example, in the simplest Sweet-Parker model of reconnection (e.g., Priest & Forbes 2000) one assumes incompressibility, uniform and constant resistivity $`\eta `$, and so on, and one finds that the principal dimensionless parameter governing the system’s behavior is the Lundquist number $`SV_AL/\eta 1`$, where $`V_A`$ is the upstream Alfvén velocity and $`L`$ is the size of the system. The other dimensionless plasma parameter, $`\beta `$ \- the ratio of thermal pressure to magnetic field energy density, turns out not to be as important, at least in the first approximation. Correspondingly $`S^1`$ plays a role of the small parameter on which all further asymptotic expansions and boundary layer analysis are based. One then seeks to find out how the dimensionless characteristics of the system, such as the reconnection layer’s aspect ratio $`\delta /L`$ and the ratio of the incoming velocity to the Alfvén velocity scale with $`S`$ as $`S\mathrm{}`$.

The generalization of reconnection to the relativistic case requires an introduction of one more (in addition to $`S`$) principal dimensionless parameter that should describe how far in relativistic regime we are. This parameter is $`\sigma `$, the ratio of the magnetic field energy density to the plasma’s rest mass energy density in the inflow region. We are now in position to define what we mean by relativistic reconnection: we consider a case when magnetic energy density in the flowing plasma dominates over particle energy density, $`\sigma 1`$. During reconnection magnetic energy is dissipated and transformed into plasma thermal energy and later into bulk motion. Since $`\sigma 1`$, energy per baryon becomes much larger than $`m_pc^2`$ and so we get relativisticly hot plasma in the reconnection layer. Expansion of plasma along the reconnection layer will produce relativistic bulk motions downstream. In relativistic regime, $`\sigma 1`$, the Alfvén velocity becomes relativistic, $`V_A=\sqrt{\sigma /(1+\sigma )}cc`$, so that under certain conditions (to be determined later) the upstream flow is expected to be relativistic as well.

Thus, in case of relativistic reconnection there are two very large dimensionless parameters, $`S`$ and $`\sigma `$. As we shall see below, one gets two different regimes depending on the ratio of these parameters: in one regime the incoming (the upstream) flow is ultra-relativistic, while in the other it is non-relativistic.

In this paper we present a relativistic generalization of the simplest model of magnetic reconnection — the Sweet–Parker model — to strongly relativistic plasmas. This is a simple two-dimensional resistive MHD model, presented in Figure 1. We assume that the reconnection layer has a rectangular shape with a width $`L`$ and thickness $`\delta L`$. The width $`L`$ of the reconnection layer is determined by the global system size and thus, for the purposes of studying magnetic reconnection, is a fixed prescribed quantity. Also prescribed are the magnetic field strength and the baryon density and pressure in the ideal-MHD inflow region above and below the reconnection layer. In contrast, the thickness $`\delta `$ of the reconnection region, as well as some other parameters such as the plasma inflow and outflow velocity, are not prescribed and need to be calculated as a part of the analysis.

We basically follow the steps of the Sweet–Parker analysis while taking into account relativistic effects, such as relativistic contraction and inertia of magnetic field. As the plasma enters the reconnection layer it slows down coming to a halt at stagnation point. At the same time the magnetic energy is dissipated and converted into internal energy of pair-rich plasma. In the out-flowing region the plasma is accelerated by the pressure gradient in $`x`$ direction reaching some terminal relativistic velocity $`\gamma _{\mathrm{out}}`$. We assume that energy losses are not important and the total energy of a fluid element (or at least a large fraction) stays within this fluid element, providing the corresponding amount of pressure support. Though generally radiative losses may be important, we expect that the reconnecting plasma will be optically thick to Thomson scattering after it’s temperature becomes weakly relativistic, $`T20`$ keV. Above this temperature an efficient pair production process will start (e.g., Goodman 1986) inside the reconnection current layer trapping the radiation. The role of pair production in increasing the optical depth is an interesting question in itself and deserves further study (Thompson 1994). It lies, however, outside the scope of our paper; here we simply assume that the plasma is optically thick inside the reconnection layer and so the released magnetic field energy cannot leave the system and is therefore available for accelerating plasma downstream.

## 2 Relativistic reconnection formulation

The basic equations include the relativistic Ohm’s law and the relativistic dynamics, Maxwell’s and mass conservation equations (Lichnerowicz 1967):

$`T_{,i}^{ij}=0,`$ (1)
$`F_{,i}^{ij}=0,`$ (2)
$`(\rho u^i)_{,i}=0`$ (3)
where

$$T^{ij}=(w+b^2+ϵ^2)u^iu^j+(p+\frac{b^2+ϵ^2}{2})g^{ij}b^ib^jϵ^iϵ^j$$
(4)
is the stress-energy tensor, $`w`$ is the plasma proper enthalpy, $`\rho `$ is proper plasma density and $`p`$ is pressure, $`b^2=b_ib^i`$ and $`ϵ^2=ϵ^iϵ_i`$ are the plasma proper magnetic and electric energy density times $`4\pi `$, $`p`$ is pressure, $`u^i=(\gamma ,\gamma \beta )`$ are the plasma four-velocity, Lorentz-factor and three-velocity, $`g^{ij}`$ is the metric tensor, $`b_i=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{ijkl}u^jF^{kl}`$ are the four-vector of magnetic field, Levy-Chevita tensor and electro-magnetic field tensor and $`ϵ_i=u^jF_{ji}`$ is the four-vector of the electric field.

The choice of the stress-energy tensor deserves some discussion. The stress-energy tensor (4) is a full electro-magnetic field plus matter tensor; this is not the relativistic magneto-hydrodynamic (RMHD) stress-energy tensor. The reason is that in the frame work of RMHD it is assumed that one of the electro-magnetic invariants is not equal to 0 and electro-magnetic stress energy tensor can be diagonalized. Equivalently, this implies that there is a reference frame where electric field is equal to 0. In case of resistive RMHD such frame may not exist, since, generally, there are resistive electric fields in the plasma rest-frame either along the null magnetic line (this violates then the $`B^2E^2>0`$ condition of the ideal MHD), or field aligned electric fields (this violates $`𝐄𝐁=0`$ condition). In the full relativistic approach the resistive electric field contributes to plasma energy density, energy fluxes and stresses. Nevertheless, we can still define the plasma rest frame by requiring that in that frame the electric fields $`ϵ`$ are only of resistive nature. We then obtain the stress-energy tensor (4).

In what follows we will be using both the rest frame quantities ($`𝐛,ϵ,p,w,\rho _e^{},\rho ^{}`$ for renormalized magnetic and electric fields, pressure enthalpy and charge and mass densities as well as laboratory quantities $`𝐁,𝐄,\rho _e,\rho `$ (pressure and enthalpy are defined only in the rest frame).

### 2.1 Relativistic Ohm’s law

Relativistic Ohm’s law is

$$j^j=(ju)u^j+\frac{1}{\eta }F^{ik}u_k$$
(5)
where $`\eta `$ is the plasma resistivity (e.g. Lichnerowicz 1967). In 3-D notations (Greek indexes =1,2,3) this gives

$`j^0\rho _e={\displaystyle \frac{(𝐣\beta )}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta \gamma }}(𝐄\beta )`$
$`𝐣=\left(j^0(𝐣\beta )\right)\gamma ^2\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\eta }}\left(𝐄+(\beta \times 𝐁)\right)`$ (6)
which can be written

$$(\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\frac{\beta ^\alpha \beta ^\beta }{\beta ^2})(j_\beta \frac{\gamma }{\eta }E_\beta )=\frac{\gamma }{\eta }(\beta \times 𝐁)|^\alpha $$
(7)
The form (7) of the relativistic Ohm’s law shows that for $`(𝐣\beta )=0`$ and $`(𝐄\beta )=0`$ the relativistic effects change the conductivity

$$\eta \frac{\eta }{\gamma }$$
(8)
This can be understood if one notices that in the plasma rest frame the electric field $`ϵ=E/\gamma `$, and, since for $`(𝐣\beta )=0`$ the current in the rest frame is $`𝐣`$

$$𝐣=\frac{ϵ}{\eta }$$
(9)
### 2.2  Main equations

For stationary flow the energy and momentum flux conservation can be rewritten

$`_\alpha \left(\gamma ^2(w+b^2)\beta \right)=0`$
$`_\beta (\gamma ^2w\beta ^\alpha \beta ^\beta p\delta ^{\alpha \beta })=F^{\alpha \beta }j_\beta =\rho _eE^\alpha +(𝐣\times 𝐁)|^\alpha `$ (10)
The Maxwell’s equations then become

$`𝐣={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\times 𝐁`$
$`(\times 𝐄)=0`$
$`\mathrm{div}𝐄=4\pi \rho _e`$ (11)
The equation of continuity is

$$\mathrm{div}\gamma \beta \rho ^{}=0$$
(12)
The above equations plus the equation of state form a system of 15 equations for 15 variables $`\beta ,𝐄,𝐁,𝐣,\rho _e,\rho ,p`$.

Following the Sweet–Parker model we neglect possible field-aligned electric fields and currents. Then the only non-vanishing components of electric field and current are $`E_z`$ and $`j_z`$. Since the velocity lies in the $`xy`$ plane from eq. (6) it follows that the charge density $`\rho _ej^0=0`$. This is an important simplification since generally for relativistic plasma the charge density can not be neglected.

### 2.3  Magnetization parameter

We assume that far in the incoming region plasma is cold and strongly magnetically dominated. In the incoming region, well outside the reconnection layer, the restive electric field is vanishing and can be neglected. We introduce a frame-invariant ratio of the rest energy density of magnetic field and particles

$$\sigma =\frac{b_{\mathrm{in}}^2}{\rho ^{}}1$$
(13)
This definition of $`\sigma `$ is equivalent to the ratio of Poynting to particle fluxes in the incoming region (c.f., Kennel & Coroniti 1984). For example, for pulsar winds initially (near the light cylinder) $`\sigma 10^310^6`$ (e.g., Arons & Scharlemann 1979).

We have defined the $`\sigma `$-parameter in a frame-invariant way in terms of the rest-frame quantities. Alternative definition involves the laboratory frame fields and densities

$$\sigma _l=\frac{B_{\mathrm{in}}^2}{\rho }=\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\sigma $$
(14)
It is straightforward to express the results in terms of $`\sigma _l`$ instead of $`\sigma `$.

## 3 Flow along the velocity separatrix

In non-relativistic reconnection an important model problem is the flow of plasma along the velocity separatrix $`x=0`$ (e.g., Priest & Forbes 2000). In this case a simple equation relating magnetic field strength and inflow velocity can be obtained using only Ohm’s law (7). Solving this equation for a given velocity (or vise versa for a given magnetic field) profile would allow us to find an example of velocity and magnetic distributions.

The relativistic Ohm’s law (7) along the velocity separatrix can be written as

$$j(y)j_z(x=0,y)=\frac{\gamma (y)}{\eta }(E_z\beta _yB_x).$$
(15)
For a more compact notation we introduce $`B(y)B_x(x=0,y)>0`$ and also $`\beta (y)\beta _y(x=0,y)>0`$ (here we changed the sign so that $`\beta `$ is positive for convenience). Then, the above equation for Ohm’s law can be rewritten as

$$j(y)j_z(x=0,y)=\frac{\gamma (y)}{\eta }[E_z+\beta (y)B(y)].$$
(16)
In a steady case Maxwell’s equation gives $`\times E=0`$, and hence, using $`/z=0`$,

$$E_z(x,y)=\mathrm{const}E.$$
(17)
In the ideal region above the layer, Ohm’s law gives

$$E=\beta _{\mathrm{in}}B_{\mathrm{in}},$$
(18)
where $`B_{\mathrm{in}}B(y\delta )`$, and $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\beta (y\delta )`$.

Using the first of the Maxwell equations (11) in laboratory frame, we find

$$\eta \frac{B}{y}=\gamma (E+\beta B),$$
(19)
or, using our expression for $`E`$,

$$\frac{\eta }{\gamma }_y\widehat{B}=\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\beta \widehat{B},$$
(20)
where $`\widehat{B}B/B_{\mathrm{in}}`$. This equation should be supplemented by the boundary conditions $`\widehat{B}(y=0)=0`$, $`\beta (y=0)=0`$ and $`\widehat{B}(y\pm \mathrm{})=\pm 1`$, $`\beta (y\pm \mathrm{})=\pm \beta _{\mathrm{in}}`$. Equation (20) relates the two functions — inflow velocity and magnetic field along the separatrix. For example, for a given $`\beta (y)`$ the two boundary conditions for the first-order ODE (20) determine the solution $`\widehat{B}(y)`$ and put a constraint on the parameters $`\eta `$, $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}`$, and $`\delta `$.

For example, eq. (20) can be resolved for $`\widehat{B}(y)`$ for a given $`\beta (y)`$:

$$\widehat{B}(y)\frac{B(y)}{B_{\mathrm{in}}}=\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{in}}}{\eta }e^{\frac{^y\beta (y^{})\gamma (y^{})𝑑y^{}}{\eta }}^ye^{\frac{^y^{}\beta (y^{\prime \prime })\gamma (y^{\prime \prime })𝑑y^{\prime \prime }}{\eta }}\gamma (y^{})𝑑y^{}.$$
(21)
The boundary condition $`\widehat{B}(y=0)=0`$ is automatically satisfied, while the condition $`\widehat{B}(y=\delta )=1`$ serves as an eigenvalue problem for $`\delta (\eta ,\beta _{\mathrm{in}})`$.

As an example, consider a case where the inflow four-velocity, $`u\gamma \beta `$, is a linear function of distance along the $`y`$ axis:

$$u=\{\begin{array}{cc}u_{\mathrm{in}}\frac{y}{\delta }\hfill & \text{ if }|y|<\delta \hfill \\ u_{\mathrm{in}}\hfill & \text{ if }|y|>\delta \hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
By definition, $`\delta `$ is the scale on which the inflow velocity changes from initial $`u=u_{\mathrm{in}}`$ to zero.

Introducing dimensionless parameter $`Y\delta /\eta `$ ($`Y=c\delta /\eta `$ in dimensional units) and rescaling coordinate $`y`$ by $`\delta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{y}=y/\delta `$, the magnetic field is then determined by

$$\frac{B\left(\stackrel{~}{y}1\right)}{B_{\mathrm{in}}}=\frac{u_{\mathrm{in}}Y}{\sqrt{1+u_{\mathrm{in}}^2}}e^{u_{\mathrm{in}}\stackrel{~}{y}^2Y/2}_0^{\stackrel{~}{y}}e^{u_{\mathrm{in}}\stackrel{~}{y}^2Y/2}\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{y}^2u_{\mathrm{in}}^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}$$
(23)
Parameter $`Y`$ here is an implicit function of $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$ given by the condition $`B(1)=B_{\mathrm{in}}`$. Numerical solution $`Y(u_{\mathrm{in}})`$ is plotted in Figure 2. The corresponding magnetic field profiles for different values of $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$ are plotted in Figure 3.

Several important conclusions can be drawn from this exercise: (i) both the four velocity and magnetic field have the same typical scale $`\delta `$; (ii) both in the non-relativistic ($`u_{\mathrm{in}}1`$) and strongly relativistic ($`u_{\mathrm{in}}1`$) regimes the ratio $`Y=c\delta /\eta `$ asymptotically becomes inversely proportional to the four-velocity of the incoming flow, $`Y1/u_{\mathrm{in}}`$, in agreement with the Sweet–Parker theory (in the non-relativistic case). Asymptotic scalings of $`Y(u_{\mathrm{in}})`$ for $`u_{\mathrm{in}}1`$ and $`u_{\mathrm{in}}1`$ are analyzed in Appendix A. (iii) in the case of strongly relativistic inflow, there is a thin sub-layer near the neutral point, $`y=0`$, with the thickness $`\delta _{\mathrm{nr}}\delta /u_{\mathrm{in}}`$, where the flow becomes non-relativistic.111Because of the very large proportionality coefficient between $`Y`$ and $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$ in the strongly-relativistic case, this sub-layer develops only for very large (of order $`10^2`$ and greater) values of $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$, as can be seen from Figure 3. Outside of this sub-layer, the function $`\widehat{B}(\stackrel{~}{y})`$ approaches a universal shape in the limit $`u_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{}`$. Inside the sub-layer the magnetic field becomes linear,

$$B\frac{y}{\eta }B_{\mathrm{in}},\text{ for }y\delta /u_{\mathrm{in}}$$
(24)
Typical magnetic field in the non-relativistic sub-layer is

$$B_{nr}\frac{\delta }{\eta u_{\mathrm{in}}}B_{\mathrm{in}}\frac{B_{\mathrm{in}}}{u_{\mathrm{in}}^2}B_{\mathrm{in}}$$
(25)
while the typical current density is

$$j_{nr}\frac{B_{\mathrm{in}}}{\eta }\frac{B_{\mathrm{in}}}{\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\delta }$$
(26)
Here lies a qualitative difference between the non-relativistic and relativistic reconnection layer. In the non-relativistic Sweet–Parker theory the thickness of the layer is defined by the magnitude of current density at the center $`y=0`$. In the case of relativistic inflow ($`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}1`$), the current flowing in the bulk of the flow $`jB_{\mathrm{in}}/\delta `$ is much stronger than typical current on the midplane.

The example in this section is an illustration only, invoked in order to demonstrate a possible relation between $`\delta `$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}`$. We use here only Ohm’s law to establish such a connection; in reality, the velocity profile needs to be determined self-consistently by solving the entire 2D problem, including the equation of motion.

## 4  Relativistic Sweet-Parker model

In this section we use Ohm’s law and the conservation laws for energy and particle flux and do not solve the momentum equation. All the estimates below are made up to the order of magnitude, or, more precisely, how they scale with two parameters, $`S`$ and $`\sigma `$.

Estimating the current in the reconnection layer

$$j_z\frac{B}{\delta }\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\beta _{\mathrm{in}}B_{\mathrm{in}}}{\eta }$$
(27)
we find

$$\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\frac{\eta }{\delta c}$$
(28)
(we have restored the velocity of light here to make the right-hand side explicitly dimensionless). Introducing relativistic Lundquist number

$$S=\frac{Lc}{\eta }1$$
(29)
eq. (28) can be rewritten

$$\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\frac{L}{\delta }\frac{1}{S}$$
(30)
This is the first basic equation of the model.

The energy flux and the particle conservation give

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}^2\beta _{\mathrm{in}}(1+\sigma )\rho _{\mathrm{in}}^{}L=\gamma _{\mathrm{out}}^2\beta _{\mathrm{out}}\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^{}\delta `$
$`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\rho _{\mathrm{in}}^{}\beta _{\mathrm{in}}L=\gamma _{\mathrm{out}}\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^{}\beta _{\mathrm{out}}\delta `$ (31)
In writing down these equations we have assumed that magnetic energy is fully spent on acceleration of baryons in the downstream flow. This assumes that all the electron-positron pairs created in the reconnection layer have annihilated.

Then it follows that

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}(1+\sigma )=\gamma _{\mathrm{out}}$$
(32)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\mathrm{in}}^{}\beta _{\mathrm{in}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^{}\beta _{\mathrm{out}}}}=(1+\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{L}}`$ (33)
Equation (32) relates the velocity in the outflowing region to the inflow velocity and magnetization parameter. For small $`\sigma 1`$ eq. (32) reproduces the familiar non-relativistic result that the outflowing velocity is of the order of the inflowing Alfvén speed: $`\beta _{\mathrm{out}}\sqrt{2\sigma }=B/c\sqrt{4\pi \rho }=V_A/c`$. In the relativistic regime, $`\sigma 1`$, the outflowing velocity is always relativistic so that $`\beta _{\mathrm{out}}1`$. It is remarkable, that in relativistic reconnection the Lorentz factor of the outflowing plasma is much larger than the Lorentz factor of Alfvén waves in the inflowing region $`\gamma _A`$: $`\gamma _{\mathrm{out}}\sigma \gamma _{\mathrm{in}}=\gamma _A^2\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}`$, where $`\gamma _A\sqrt{\sigma }`$.

Eqns. (32) and (33) are general relations for four unknown quantities: $`\delta ,\gamma _{\mathrm{in}},\gamma _{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{in}}^{}/\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^{}`$. In order to resolve this system we need to use the momentum equations and find the structure of the flow inside the reconnection region, but this is a difficult task. An alternative way to proceed is to assume incompressibility of the plasma in its rest-frame $`\rho _{\mathrm{in}}^{}=\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^{}`$ (c.f., Blackman & Field 1994). Incompressibility may be due to, for example, a significant longitudinal field component $`B_z`$. It is expected that the assumption of incompressibility will be justified as long as the inflowing plasma velocity is smaller that the fast magneto-sonic velocity, which in our case is similar to the Alfvén velocity.

Below we show that for a given value of $`S`$ the inflowing velocity increases with the magnetization parameter $`\sigma `$ reaching at $`\sigma S^2`$ the Alfvén velocity. For such strong magnetization the compressibility of plasma will become important. For any $`\sigma S^2`$ the incompressibility is expected to be a good approximation.

The assumption of incompressibility gives in relativistic limit $`\sigma 1`$

$$\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}L=\gamma _{\mathrm{out}}\delta $$
(34)
and

$$\beta _{\mathrm{in}}=\sigma \frac{\delta }{L}$$
(35)
(here we dropped $`\beta _{\mathrm{out}}`$ because we expect an ultra-relativistic outflow with $`\beta _{\mathrm{out}}1`$.)

Eq. (35) and the approximate Ohm’s law (30) form a system of two equations for the thickness of the reconnection layer $`\delta `$ and the inflow velocity $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}`$. There are two generic regimes (limiting cases) of relativistic reconnection: (i) relativistic inflow $`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}1`$ and (ii) non-relativistic inflow $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}1`$.

### 4.1  Non-relativistic inflow $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}1`$

Using eqns. (35) and (30) we find

$$\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\frac{L}{\delta }\frac{1}{S}\frac{\sigma \delta }{L}$$
(36)
Thus,

$$\frac{\delta }{L}\frac{1}{\sqrt{S\sigma }}\frac{\beta _{\mathrm{in}}}{\sigma }\frac{1}{S\beta _{\mathrm{in}}}$$
(37)
and finally

$$\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\sqrt{\frac{\sigma }{S}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{S}}\gamma _A$$
(38)
where $`\gamma _A=\sqrt{2\sigma }`$ is the Lorentz factor of the Alfvén wave velocity in the incoming region. Since by assumption $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}1`$ the non-relativistic inflow velocity is realized for $`\sigma S`$.

Thus, for a given $`\sigma `$ the inflow velocity is inversely proportional to the square root of the Lundquist number, similar to the classical non-relativistic Sweet-Parker model.

### 4.2 Relativistic sub-alfvenic inflow $`1\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\sqrt{2\sigma }`$

When $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}1`$ from eq. (35) it follows

$$\frac{\delta }{L}\frac{1}{\sigma }$$
(39)
and

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{out}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{S}}`$
$`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{S}}`$ (40)
For consistency we need $`\sigma S`$ (since we have always assumed relativistic motion $`\gamma 1`$).

The ratio of the inflowing plasma Lorentz factor to the Alfvén wave Lorentz factor is

$$\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}}{\gamma _A}\frac{\sqrt{\sigma /2}}{S}$$
(41)
Since the inflowing plasma should be sub-alfvenic for the incompressibility assumption to hold, it is required that

$$\sigma 2S^2$$
(42)
Thus the incompressible relativistic inflow case is applicable for

$$S\sigma 2S^2$$
(43)
### 4.3  Relativistic alfvenic inflow $`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\sqrt{2\sigma }`$

If $`\sigma 2S^2`$ the required inflow velocity becomes of the order of the Alfvén velocity and the assumption of incompressibility should break down. Since the inflow velocity cannot exceed the Alfvén velocity for causal reasons, we assume that $`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\gamma _A=\sqrt{2\sigma }`$. The parameters of the reconnection layer then become

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{out}}\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{3/2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\sigma }S}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\mathrm{in}}^{}}{\rho _{\mathrm{out}}^{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S}}1`$ (44)
## 5 Bohm diffusion

In the preceding section we have derived how the flow variables (first of all the inflow velocity) scale with two parameters of the model, $`S`$ and $`\sigma `$. For astrophysical applications it is often useful to have a qualitative estimate of the maximum possible reconnection rate in a given system. The maximum reconnection rate corresponds to the maximum value for resistivity and thus the minimal Lundquist number. This resistivity may be estimated using Bohm’s arguments that the maximum diffusion coefficient in magnetized plasmas cannot be much larger than $`r_Lv`$, where $`r_L`$ is the Larmor radius and $`v`$ is the typical velocity of electrons (of the order of the speed of light in our case). Thus,

$$\eta \frac{c^2}{\omega _B}$$
(45)
and we find

$`S{\displaystyle \frac{L}{r_L}}`$ (46)
$`\delta {\displaystyle \frac{r_L}{\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}}}`$ (47)
$`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}^2\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{r_L}{L}}`$ (48)
Note, that in this case, as $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ approaches the velocity of light the reconnection layer becomes microscopically thin. One may expect that the fluid picture will become inapplicable at this point.

For non-relativistic inflow velocity the assumption of Bohm diffusion gives

$`\delta \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{r_LL}{\sigma }}}`$
$`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma r_L}{L}}}`$ (49)
while for relativistic inflow velocity

$`\delta {\displaystyle \frac{r_L}{\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}}}`$
$`\gamma _{\mathrm{in}}\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{r_L}{L}}`$ (50)
which requires $`\sigma r_L/L>1`$. In the case of relativistic inflow velocity and under the assumption of Bohm diffusion the thickness of the reconnection layer becomes smaller than the external gyro-radius.

Equations (48) and the two limiting cases (49) and (50) give a useful ”order-of-magnitude” estimates of the potential efficiency of reconnection in relativistic plasma.

## 6 Discussion

We have considered the dynamics of the relativistic Sweet-Parker reconnection under the assumption that the inflow region’s energy density is dominated by magnetic field. We have found three generic regimes depending on the ratio of the magnetization parameter $`\sigma `$ to the Lundquist number $`S`$: (i) non-relativistic inflow velocity, $`\sigma S`$; (ii) relativistic sub-alfvenic inflow velocity, $`S\sigma 2S^2`$; (iii) relativistic alfvenic inflow velocity, $`\sigma 2S^2`$. For the first two regimes plasma flow may be assumed incompressible, while for the alfvenic inflow velocity compressibility is important.

An apparent drawback of our approach is that we did not solve in a self-consistent way both the momentum and energy equations. This is a common flaw of many models of reconnection based on the Sweet-Parker approach. One can say that the role of the energy equation is to determine how compressible the plasma is. Conventionally, the simplest Sweet–Parker model does not include the energy balance equation with all its subtleties arising from possible radiation and conducting cooling effects; instead, it just replaces the energy balance equation with the incompressibility condition. In the absence of strong cooling or when a strong axial magnetic field component is present, the compressibility effects are indeed not important, at least in a rough, order-of-magnitude analysis. One then combines the incompressibility condition with the momentum equation and Ohm’s law to arrive at the Sweet–Parker reconnection scaling. In our analysis we also assume incompressibity but then we use the energy conservation instead of the momentum equation; in the absence of energy losses these two approaches are, of course, equivalent and lead to the same results.

In spite of the incompressibility assumption our approach represents a step forward in understanding relativistic reconnection as compared to the view of Blackman & Field (1994). Using the same incompressibility assumption they were able to determine only the ratio of inflow and outflow velocities, while we find both these quantities separately, expressed in terms of external magnetization and the Lundquist number. We have also found a possible structure of the relativistic reconnection layer.

For astrophysical applications, we were able to provide order-of-magnitude estimates of reconnection rates in relativistic plasma (eq. 48), which should be used instead of the often ad hoc assumptions of reconnection rates in strongly magnetized plasmas of pulsar winds and AGN jets. An important result is that under certain conditions the inflow velocity may become relativistic insuring very efficient dissipation of magnetic energy.

We would like to thank Eric Priest, Vladimir Pariev, Eric Blackman, Chris Thompson and Alissa Nedossekina for comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by the NSF grant NSF-PHY99-07949. DU would like to thank CITA for hospitality during his visit.

## Appendix A Asymptotic scaling of $`Y(u_{\mathrm{in}})`$

In this appendix we investigate the asymptotic behavior of the function $`Y(u_{\mathrm{in}})`$ in the case of the 4-velocity field $`u(y)`$ described by equation (22), for two limiting regimes, $`u_{\mathrm{in}}0`$ and $`u_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{}`$.

We start by rewriting equation (22) in terms of rescaled coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{y}=y/\delta `$:

$$\frac{\widehat{B}(\stackrel{~}{y})}{\stackrel{~}{y}}=Y\gamma (\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\beta B).$$
(A1)
Now let us integrate this equation from 0 to 1 and use the boundary conditions $`\widehat{B}(0)=0`$ and $`\widehat{B}(1)=1`$. We get

$$B(1)B(0)=1=Y\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\gamma (\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}Y\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}u(\stackrel{~}{y})B(\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}.$$
(A2)
For the velocity field given by equation (22), i.e. $`u(\stackrel{~}{y})=u_{\mathrm{in}}\stackrel{~}{y}`$, we then have

$$Y^1=\beta _{\mathrm{in}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\gamma (\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}u_{\mathrm{in}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{y}B(\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}.$$
(A3)
Using the relationship $`\gamma =\sqrt{1+u^2}`$, the integral in the first term on the right-hand side can be computed exactly, with the result

$$\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\gamma (\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}=\frac{1}{u_{\mathrm{in}}}\underset{0}{\overset{u_{\mathrm{in}}}{}}\sqrt{1+u^2}𝑑u=\frac{\sqrt{1+u_{\mathrm{in}}^2}}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(u_{\mathrm{in}}+\sqrt{1+u_{\mathrm{in}}^2}).$$
(A4)
In the strongly relativistic limit $`u_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{}`$ this expression can be expanded as

$$\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\gamma (\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}=\frac{u_{\mathrm{in}}}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}u_{\mathrm{in}}+O(1).$$
(A5)
As for the second term, we note that in the strongly relativistic limit there is a thin non-relativistic boundary sub-layer of thickness $`\delta _{nr}\delta /u_{\mathrm{in}}`$; inside this sub-layer $`\widehat{B}(y)`$ behaves linearly, with the slope that, as we shall see later, is inversely proportional to $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$. However, what is important for us here, outside of this infinitesimally thin sub-layer the function $`\widehat{B}(\stackrel{~}{y})`$ approaches a certain universal shape, $`\widehat{B}_{\mathrm{rel}}(\stackrel{~}{y})`$ in the limit $`u_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{}`$. This conclusion follows from our numerical solutions presented in Figure 3. Ignoring the non-relativistic sublayer’s contribution to the integral in the second term on the right-hand side of equation (A3), we can then estimate this integral as

$$\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{y}\widehat{B}(\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{y}\widehat{B}_{\mathrm{rel}}(\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y},\mathrm{as}u_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{},$$
(A6)
Combining this result with the result (A5) derived for the first term on the right-hand side of equation (A3), we finally can write the following expression:

$$Y=\frac{1}{A_{\mathrm{rel}}u_{\mathrm{in}}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}u_{\mathrm{in}}+C},$$
(A7)
where we used the identity $`_0^1\stackrel{~}{y}𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}=1/2`$ and defined

$$A_{\mathrm{rel}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{y}[1B_{\mathrm{rel}}(\stackrel{~}{y})]𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}=\mathrm{const}.$$
(A8)
From our numerical solutions with very high (of order $`10^3`$) values of $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$, we find $`A_{\mathrm{rel}}0.027`$ and $`C=1`$. Thus, we get

$$Y(u_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{})\frac{37}{u_{\mathrm{in}}}\left(1\frac{18.5\mathrm{ln}u_{\mathrm{in}}}{u_{\mathrm{in}}}+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(A9)
Notice that, because of the rather large (18.5) numerical coefficient multiplying the logarithmic factor, this logarithmic correction does not become negligible until one considers really very large values of $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$, of order $`10^3`$ or more. This is the reason why the plot on Figure 2 (with $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$ up to 200) does not show a very good agreement with the simple power law $`Y1/u_{\mathrm{in}}`$. Notice however, that the numerical results for values of $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$ in the range between 200 and 2000 are in excellent agreement with the predicted asymptotic behavior (A7), as demonstrated separately in Figure 4.

Now let us consider the non-relativistic regime, $`u_{\mathrm{in}}1`$. In this limit, the expression (A4) for the integral entering the first term on the rhs of equation (A3) tends to 1 (this is of course a trivial result since in this limit $`\gamma (\stackrel{~}{y})1`$). Then, since $`\beta _{\mathrm{in}}u_{\mathrm{in}}`$ in this regime, this first term can be evaluated simply as $`u_{\mathrm{in}}`$.

At the same time, just as in the strongly relativistic case, the function $`\widehat{B}(\stackrel{~}{y})`$ also approaches a certain universal profile, as can be seen in Figure 3 (we shall call this profile $`\widehat{B}_{\mathrm{nr}}(\stackrel{~}{y})`$). Then, the integral entering the second term on the rhs of equation (A3) asymptotically approaches a constant value

$$\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{y}B(\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}\frac{1}{2}A_{\mathrm{nr}}=\mathrm{const},$$
(A10)
where we defined $`A_{\mathrm{nr}}`$ in a manner similar to $`A_{\mathrm{rel}}`$:

$$A_{\mathrm{nr}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{y}[1B_{\mathrm{nr}}(\stackrel{~}{y})]𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}.$$
(A11)
Thus, we see that in the non-relativistic limit the function $`Y(u_{\mathrm{in}})`$ asymptotically approaches an inverse power law:

$$Y(u_{\mathrm{in}})\frac{1}{u_{\mathrm{in}}}\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}+A_{\mathrm{nr}}}\frac{1.71}{u_{\mathrm{in}}},$$
(A12)
where we used the value of $`A_{\mathrm{nr}}=0.0855`$ computed using our numerical solution for the case $`u_{\mathrm{in}}=0.01`$. The resulting asymptotic behavior in the non-relativistic regime agrees very well with the numerical results, as can be seen in Figure 2.


format: text

text:
# Distributional Borel Summability for Vacuum Polarization by an External Electric Field11footnote 1Partially supported by Università di Bologna. Funds for selected research topics.

## 1 Introduction and statement of the results

Since 1970 the standard method to deal with divergent perturbation theory in quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum field theory (QFT) has been Borel summability . For convenience of exposition, let us first recall its definition ( ; a classical reference is ; general references especially dealing with QM and QFT are e.g., , ):

###### Definition 1.1

Consider the formal power series $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nz^n`$. The series

$$B(t):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{a_n}{n!}t^n$$
(1.1)
is called Borel transform of $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_nz^n`$. Assume:

1. $`B(t)`$ has a positive radius of convergence $`C>0`$;
2. $`B(t)`$, a priori holomorphic for $`|t|<C`$, admits analytic continuation at least to a neighbourhood of the positive real axis;
3. There is $`R>0`$ such that the Laplace-Borel integral

$$f(z):=_0^{\mathrm{}}B(zu)e^u𝑑t$$
(1.2)
converges for $`zC_R`$ and defines an analytic function therein. Here $`C_R`$ is the disk of radius $`R`$ tangent to the imaginary axis at the origin, defined by $`C_R:=\{z𝐂:\mathrm{Re}z^1>R^1\}`$.

Then we say that $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nz^n`$ is Borel summable to $`f(z)`$ for $`zC_R`$.

Remarks.

1. If (1.1) is inserted into (1.2), and summation is formally interchanged with integration, we see that $`f(z)`$ admits the given formal power series as an asymptotic expansion as $`z0_+`$. An expression equivalent to (1.2) is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}B(t)e^{t/z}𝑑t`$ (1.3)
2. When the series $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nz^n`$ has a positive radius of convergence the Laplace-Borel integral converges in the Borel polygon and yields therefore the analytic continuation of the sum $`f(z)`$ outside the circle of convergence if this is strictly contained in the Borel polygon;
3. In most applications, given a formal power series (example: a perturbation expansion) there is a natural candidate to the sum (example, the physical solution). A criterion is thus needed to check whether a formal power series representing the asymptotic expansion of a function is actually Borel summable to that function. The standard one is the Watson-Nevanlinna theorem (see , and also  for a new presentation in full generality of the original paper by Nevanlinna).

The vacuum polarization by a constant, external (i.e., non quantized) electromagnetic field admits a well known exact solution (; see also ) which generates a divergent power series if expanded in powers of the fine structure constant. Historically, the pure magnetic case has been the first example where the Borel summability (of order $`2`$) has been proved  (see also ) through a direct verification of Properties 1-3 above. (Here also the Stieltjes summability holds; it entails the convergence of the Padé approximants). It is interesting to remark that the pure electric case, which has been recently reconsidered also to discuss this point, represents instead a typical example where Borel summability cannot hold, because the Borel transform has singularities along the positive real axis.

To better clarify this point, consider the formal expansion $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n!z^n`$. Its Borel transform is

$$B(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^n=\frac{1}{1t}.$$

$`B(t)`$ is analytic on the whole of $`𝐂`$ except for the simple pole at $`t=1`$. Consider now the function

$$F(z):=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^t}{1zt}dtz𝐂,z]0,+\mathrm{}[$$
(1.4)
$`F(z)`$ is clearly holomorphic in $`\{z𝐂:0<|z|;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<\mathrm{arg}z<2\pi \}`$ and its formal expansion at $`z=0`$ is $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n!z^n`$. The non-existence of the integral (1.4) for $`z]0,+\mathrm{}[`$ is due to the pole of the Borel transform $`B(t)`$ at $`t=1`$. Indeed this phenomenon occurs whenever the coefficients $`a_n`$ have a constant sign, because in that case $`B(t)`$ has a singularity at $`t=C`$, where $`C`$ is the radius of convergence of $`B(t)`$ (see e.g.).

If we could perform the change of variable (1.3) for $`F(z)`$, as we can when the conditions of Definition 1.1 are satisfied, we could write

$$F(z)=\frac{1}{z}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1t}e^{(t/z)}𝑑t$$
(1.5)
However (1.5) is only a formal writing because the integral in the r.h.s. diverges for all $`z𝐂`$. Nevertheless (1.5) could make sense if the Borel transform $`B(t)=(1t)^1`$ is regarded as an object more general than a function, for example a distribution. More precisely, in this case we can look at the boundary values $`B(t\pm i0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1t\pm i0}}:t0`$ of the holomorphic function $`B(t)`$, as tempered distributions:

$$B(t\pm i0)=\frac{1}{1t\pm i0}:=\underset{ϵ0_+}{lim}\frac{1}{1t\pm iϵ}=PP\left(\frac{1}{1t}\right)\pm i\delta (t1)$$
(1.6)
Here $`PP\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1t}}\right)`$ is the Cauchy principal-value distribution supported at $`1`$. Note that $`B(ti0)=\overline{B(t+i0)}`$. Next remark that the function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z):=\frac{1}{z}_0^{\mathrm{}}B(t+i0)e^{t/z}𝑑t$$
(1.7)
exists, is analytic for $`zC_R`$ $`R>0`$, i.e. in the half-plane $`\mathrm{Re}z>0`$, concides with $`F(z)`$ for $`z\{z𝐂:\mathrm{Im}z>0;\mathrm{Re}z>0\}`$ and admits $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n!z^n`$ as formal expansion at $`z=0`$. It is called the upper sum of the series (see also the Remarks after Definition 1.2 below). Since the divergent series is real for $`z[0,+\mathrm{}[`$, so must be its sum provided it exists in any sense. Therefore the natural candidate for the Borel sum is

$$f(z):=\frac{1}{z}_0^{\mathrm{}}PP\left(\frac{1}{1t}\right)e^{t/z}𝑑t=\frac{1}{z}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{2}\{B(t+i0)+\overline{B(t+i0)}\}e^{t/z}𝑑t$$
(1.8)
In other words $`f(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Phi }(z)+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{z})}\}z:\mathrm{Re}z>0`$. In particular $`f(z)=\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ for $`z[0,+\mathrm{}[`$.

This example shows that an extension of the Borel method to the case where the Borel transform admits singularities along the positive real axis has to allow for Borel transforms in the sense of distributions. In turn, distributions are particular cases of the hyperfunctions, defined as boundary values of holomorphic functions. The extension, called distributional Borel summability, has been developed in . Let us recall here the definition and some of the main results.

###### Definition 1.2

Consider again the formal power series $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nz^n`$ and its Borel transform $`B(t)`$ as in Definition 1.1, with radius of convergence $`C>0`$. Assume:

1. $`B(t)`$ admits analytic continuation to the intersection of some neighbourhood of $`𝐑_+`$ with $`𝐂_+:=\{t𝐂:\mathrm{Im}t>0\}`$;
2. The boundary value distribution $`B(t+i0)`$ exists $`t0`$;
3. Let $`PP(B(t)):={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{B(t+i0)+\overline{B(t+i0)}\}`$, $`t0`$. Then there exists $`R>0`$ such that the Laplace-Borel integral

$$f(z):=\frac{1}{z}_0^{\mathrm{}}PP(B(t))e^{t/z}𝑑t$$
(1.9)
converges for $`zC_R`$, $`C_R`$ as in Definition 1.1.

Then we say that the formal power series $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nz^n`$ is Borel summable in the distributional sense to $`f(z)`$ for $`zC_R`$. The distribution $`PP(B(t)):t𝐑_+`$ is called distributional Borel transform of $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nt^n`$.

Remarks.

1. The distribution $`PP(B(t))`$ coincides with the holomorphic function $`B(t)`$, the Borel transform, for $`0t<C`$;
2. The Laplace Borel integrals

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z):={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}B(t+i0)e^{t/z}𝑑t`$ (1.10)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{z}):={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\overline{B(t+i0)}e^{t/z}𝑑t`$ (1.11)
exist separately in $`C_R`$ as analytic functions and uniquely define the ”upper” and ”lower” sum, respectively. Then $`f(z)=\{\mathrm{\Phi }(z)+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{z})\}/2`$ for all $`zC_R`$.In particular, $`f(z)=\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$, $`zC_R𝐑_+`$.
3. As the ordinary Borel sum, the distributional Borel one is unique. We note for further reference that this method singles out also a unique function with zero asymptotic power series expansion, the so-called ”discontinuity”, uniquely defined by

$$d(z):=\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{z})=\frac{1}{z}_0^{\mathrm{}}\{B(t+i0)\overline{B(t+i0)}\}e^{t/z}𝑑t,zC_R$$

In particular $`d(z)=2i\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$, $`zC_R𝐑_+`$.

In the above example we have:

$$d(z)=\frac{1}{z}_0^{\mathrm{}}2i\delta (t1)e^{t/z}dt,=\frac{2i}{z}e^{1/z}$$
4. The analogue of the Watson-Nevanlinna criterion has also been established . Its conditions have been verified to prove the distributional Borel summability in a number of physically interesting cases which generate constant sign divergent perturbation expansions. Examples include the Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory for Stark effect and the odd anharmonic oscillators, which are summable to the resonances, and a variant of the bound state perturbation theory for the double well quartic oscillator.

Let us now proceed to state the result of this paper. Its proof is to be described in the next section.

The effective action for the vacuum polarization by a uniform electric field can be obtained as a particular case from the Schwinger solution valid for a general external constant electromagnetic field, and reads:

$$S(\alpha )=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{is}}{s^3}\left\{(2\sqrt{\pi \alpha }s)\mathrm{coth}(2\sqrt{\pi \alpha }s)1\frac{4\pi \alpha s^2}{3}\right\}𝑑s$$
(1.12)
Here $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, and without loss the electron mass $`m`$ and the strenght $`E`$ of the field are set equal to $`1`$. Notice that (1.12) defines an analytic function of $`\alpha `$ for $`\pi <\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi `$. It can be easily checked (see also Lemma 2.2 below) that $`S(\alpha )`$ admits the following formal expansion in power series of $`\alpha `$

$`S(\alpha )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(16\pi )^nB_{2n}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n3)!}{(2n)!}}(\alpha )^n={\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\alpha ^n,`$ (1.13)
$`a_n:`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{8\pi ^2}}(16\pi )^nB_{2n}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n3)!}{(2n)!}}`$ (1.14)
where $`\{B_{2n}\}:n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ is the sequence of the Bernoulli numbers. Now (see e.g.)

$$B_0=1,B_{2n}=2(1)^{n+1}\frac{(2n)!}{(2\pi )^{2n}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m^{2n},n=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(1.15)
Hence $`a_n>0`$ for all $`n𝐍`$ and $`a_n(2n)!`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Then we can state the main result of this paper:

###### Theorem 1.3

The perturbation expansion (1.13) is Borel summable in the distributional sense to $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{S(\alpha )+\overline{S}(\alpha )\}=\mathrm{Re}S(\alpha )`$ for any $`0\alpha <+\mathrm{}`$. More precisely $`S(\alpha )`$ and $`\overline{S}(\overline{\alpha })`$ are the upper and lower sum of $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\alpha ^n`$ for $`\mathrm{Re}\alpha >0`$, respectively.

Remark

The effective action $`S(\alpha )`$ is complex-valued, while the perturbation expansion is real. As already remarked (and will become evident in the course of the proof) the distributional Borel sum uniquely determines also the imaginary part $`\mathrm{Im}S(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}d(\alpha )`$ , which has zero power series expansion in $`\alpha `$. This is a point of some importance because the imaginary part is proportional to the pair creation rate.

## 2 Proof of the distributional summability

Consider the effective action (1.12). First of all notice that for $`0<\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi `$ we can rotate the integration path in (1.12) and choose the half-line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\{s𝐂:s=it,0t<+\mathrm{}\}`$, i.e. the negative imaginary axis. Now $`\mathrm{coth}(ix)=i\mathrm{cot}(x),xA:=\{x𝐂:xk\pi ;k𝐙\}`$. Hence:

$`S(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^t}{t^3}}\left\{2\sqrt{\pi \alpha }t\mathrm{cot}(2\sqrt{\pi \alpha }t)1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha t^2}{3}}\right\}𝑑t`$ (2.1)
The proof of Theorem 1.3 is based on the fundamental criterion for distributional Borel summability (see , Theorem 1). Let us report here the part relevant to our purpose.

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nz^n`$ be a formal power series and $`B(t)={\displaystyle \underset{n0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_n}{n!}}t^n`$ its Borel transform. Assume:

1. $`B(t)`$ is convergent for $`|t|<\rho `$ for some $`\rho >0`$;
2. $`B(t)`$ admits an analytic continuation to the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho :=\{t𝐂:\mathrm{Im}t>0;\mathrm{Re}t>\rho \}`$;
3. There are $`A>0`$, $`R>0`$ such that

$$|B(t+i\eta _0)|A\eta _0^1\mathrm{exp}[t/R],t>0,\eta _0]0,\rho [.$$
(2.2)

Then the boundary value distributions $`B(t+i0)`$ and $`PP(B(t))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{B(t+i0)+\overline{B(t+i0)}\}`$ exist for all $`t0`$ and the integral

$$\frac{1}{z}_0^{\mathrm{}}PP(B(t))e^{t/z}𝑑t$$
(2.3)
defines a real-analytic function $`f(z)`$ in $`C_R`$; moreover

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z):=\frac{1}{z}_0^{\mathrm{}}B(t+i0)e^{t/z}𝑑t$$
(2.4)
is analytic in $`C_R`$ and fulfills the estimates

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}a_nz^n|C_0c(ϵ)^NN!|z|^N,N=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(2.5)
uniformly in $`C_{R,ϵ}:=\{zC_R:\mathrm{arg}z\pi /2+ϵ\}`$.

Remarks

1. $`f(z)`$ is the distributional Borel sum, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ the upper sum of $`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nz^n`$. They are both uniquely determined by conditions 1 and 2, together with the imaginary part $`[\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{z})]/2i`$.
2. The estimate (2.2) makes the distribution $`B(t)`$ locally of order $`1`$. However it is not a priori tempered because it might grow faster than any polynomial at infinity.

Let us now proceed to apply this theorem to our case.

###### Lemma 2.2

For any $`\alpha `$ such that $`0<\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi `$ set $`\beta =\sqrt{\alpha }`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ):=S(\beta ^2)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^t}{t^3}\left[2\sqrt{\pi }\beta t\mathrm{cot}(2\sqrt{\pi }\beta t)1+\frac{4\pi \beta ^2t^2}{3}\right]𝑑t$$
(2.6)
Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )`$ is analytic for $`0<\mathrm{arg}\beta <\pi /2`$ and admits the following formal expansion in powers of $`\beta `$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(16\pi )^nB_{2n}\frac{(2n3)!}{(2n)!}\beta ^{2n}=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\beta ^{2n}$$
(2.7)
where $`\{B_{2n}\}`$ is the sequence of the Bernoulli numbers defined by (1.15).

Proof

(2.7) corresponds to (1.13) with $`\alpha =\beta ^2`$. Let us work it out for the sake of completeness. First recall that

$$x\mathrm{cot}x=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\frac{2^{2n}}{(2n)!}B_{2n}x^{2n},|x|<\pi $$
(2.8)
where $`B_0=1`$ and $`B_{2n}`$ is given by the expression (1.15) (see e.g.). Then

$`2\sqrt{\pi }\beta t\mathrm{cot}(2\sqrt{\pi }\beta t)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2n}}{(2n)!}}B_{2n}2^{2n}\pi ^n\beta ^{2n}t^{2n}`$ (2.9)
Since $`B_0=1`$ and $`B_2=1/6`$ we have

$`2\sqrt{\pi }\beta t\mathrm{cot}(2\sqrt{\pi }\beta t)1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi \beta ^2t^2={\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{(16\pi )^n}{(2n!)}}B_{2n}\beta ^{2n}t^{2n}`$ (2.10)
Hence

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^t{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{(16\pi )^n}{(2n!)}}B_{2n}\beta ^{2n}t^{2n3}dt=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{(16\pi )^n}{(2n!)}}B_{2n}\beta ^{2n}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^tt^{2n3}𝑑t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{(16\pi )^n(2n3)!}{(2n!)}}B_{2n}\beta ^{2n}`$
and this concludes the proof of the Lemma.

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`D:=\{t𝐂:tk\sqrt{\pi }/2,k𝐙\}`$, and set

$$B(t):=\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }t\mathrm{cot}(2\sqrt{\pi }t)1+4\pi t^2/3}{8\pi ^2t^3},tD$$
(2.11)
Then $`B(t)`$ is clearly analytic in $`D`$ with simple poles at $`t=k\sqrt{\pi }/2`$, $`k𝐙`$. Moreover:

$$B(t)=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{a_n}{(2n3)!}t^{2n3},t:|t|<\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}$$
(2.12)
i.e. $`B(t)`$ is the Borel transform of $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\beta ^{2n3}`$.

Proof. To obtain (2.12) we proceed as in the previous Lemma using (2.8). More precisely:

$`B(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2n}}{(2n!)}}B_{2n}2^{2n}\pi ^nt^{2n3}={\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_n}{(2n3)!}}t^{2n3},|t|<\sqrt{\pi }/2.`$
###### Proposition 2.4

Let $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\beta ^{2n3}`$ be the formal power series whose coefficients $`a_n`$ are defined by (1.13, 1.14) (see also (2.7)), and let $`B(t)`$ be its Borel transform (2.11) with the expansion (2.12). Then $`B(t)`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1.

Proof By Lemma 2.3 Conditions 1 and 2 of Theorem 2.1 are satisfied with $`\rho =\sqrt{\pi }/2`$. As far as Condition 3 is concerned, we will prove it in the following stronger version: for any $`R>0`$ there is $`A>0`$ such that

$$|B(t+i\eta _0)|A\eta _0^1\mathrm{exp}(t/R),t>0,\eta _0]0,\sqrt{\pi }/2[.$$
(2.13)
To this end first let $`0<\delta <\sqrt{\pi }/2`$ be fixed. Then the function $`B(t+i\eta _0)`$ is continuous on the compact set $`K:=\{z=t+i\eta _0𝐂:|t|\delta ;0\eta _0\sqrt{\pi }/2\}`$. Hence $`B(t+i\eta _0)`$ is bounded in $`K`$ by some constant $`c>0`$ and we can write

$$|B(t+i\eta _0)|cc\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\eta _0^1\mathrm{exp}(t/R)$$

where the second inequality holds because $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}}\eta _0^11`$ and obviously we can choose $`R`$ as large as we like . Hence it suffices to prove (2.13) for $`t>\delta `$ and $`\eta _0]0,\sqrt{\pi }/2[`$. Now for $`t>\delta `$ the term $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi |t+i\eta _0|}}`$, which comes from the third summand in (2.11) where we have replace $`t`$ by $`t+i\eta _0`$, can be estimated as follows:

$$\frac{1}{6\pi |t+i\eta _0|}=\frac{1}{6\pi \sqrt{t^2+\eta _0^2}}\frac{1}{6\pi \delta }$$

for $`t>\delta `$. Thus, this term trivially fulfills (2.13) with $`R`$ as large as we like. Therefore we can restrict our attention to the term

$$B_1(t+i\eta _0):=2\sqrt{\pi }(t+i\eta _0)\mathrm{cot}\{2\sqrt{\pi }(t+i\eta _0)\}1$$
(2.14)
because the denominator $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2|t+i\eta _0|^3}}`$ is bounded by $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\delta ^3`$ for $`t>\delta `$. Consider now the well known expansion (see e.g.)

$$x\mathrm{cot}x=1+2x^2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{x^2n^2\pi ^2}$$
(2.15)
Then, for any $`R>0`$, we have to find $`A>0`$ such that

$$|B_1(t+i\eta _0)|=4\pi |t+i\eta _0|^2\left|\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{4\pi (t+i\eta _0)^2n^2\pi ^2}\right|A\eta _0^1\mathrm{exp}(t/R)$$
(2.16)
$`t>\delta `$, $`\eta _0]0,\sqrt{\pi }/2[`$. First remark that

$$4\pi |t+i\eta _0|^2=4\pi (t^2+\eta _0^2)4\pi (t^2+1)C_1\mathrm{exp}(t/R)$$

for a suitable constant $`C_1>`$ and $`R>0`$ arbitrarily large. Moreover one has

$$\left|\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{4(t+i\eta _0)^2/\pi n^2}\right|\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\{n^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi \}^2+64\eta _0^2t^2/\pi ^2}}$$
(2.17)
If $`t\eta _0`$ the right hand side of eq.(2.17) can be bounded by $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}=\pi ^2/6`$. Thus (2.16) holds for $`R>0`$ arbitrarily large by suitably choosing $`A>0`$. We are thus left with the case $`t>\eta _0`$, $`t>\delta `$, $`\eta _0]0,\sqrt{\pi }/2[`$. In this case, setting $`Q(t,\eta _0):=[2\sqrt{t^2\eta _0^2}]/\sqrt{\pi }]+1`$ ($`[x]`$=greatest integer $`x`$, $`x𝐑`$) we can estimate the r.h.s. of (2.17) as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\{n^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi \}^2+64\eta _0^2t^2/\pi ^2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{Q(t,\eta _0)}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\{n^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi \}^2+64\eta _0^2t^2/\pi ^2}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=Q(t,\eta _0)+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\{n^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi \}^2+64\eta _0^2t^2/\pi ^2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{Q(t,\eta _0)}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8t\eta _0}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=Q(t,\eta _0)+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi }}`$ (2.18)
The last inequality is a consequence of the positivity of $`n^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi `$ for $`nQ(t,\eta _0)+1`$. Now the first summand in (2.18) can be bounded by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8t\eta _0}}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\sqrt{t^2\eta _0^2}+1){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4}}\eta _0^1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8t\eta _0}}`$ (2.19)
and clearly satisfies (2.13) recalling that $`t>\delta `$. Concering the second term in (2.18) we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{Q(t,\eta _0)+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi }}{\displaystyle _{Q(t,\eta _0)+1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(Q(t,\eta _0)+1)^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi }}`$ (2.20)
where the inequality follows by the well known comparison theorem between series with positive terms and generalized integrals. Since $`[x]xx0`$, recalling the definition of $`Q(t,\eta _0)`$, we can write

$$\underset{Q(t,\eta _0)+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi }_{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{t^2\eta _0^2}+2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi }+\frac{1}{3}$$
(2.21)
because $`[x]^2=[x^2]`$ and $`[x]+1x>0`$, $`x>0`$. Since the additive factor $`1/3`$ can be trivially absorbed in the constants, it is enough to estimate the integral in (2.21). One has:

$`{\displaystyle _{\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{t^2\eta _0^2}+2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x^24(t^2\eta _0^2)/\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{t^2\eta _0^2}}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\sqrt{t^2\eta _0^2}\right).`$
Given $`R>0`$ arbitrarily large the existence of a constant $`A>0`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{t^2\eta _0^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\sqrt{t^2\eta _0^2}\right)A\eta _0^1e^{t/R}$$

$`t>\delta `$, $`t>\eta _0`$, $`\eta _0]0,\sqrt{\pi }/2[`$ is now obvious. This concludes the proof of the Proposition.

###### Corollary 2.5

In the notations of Lemmas 2.2,2.3 and Proposition 2.4 the boundary value distributions $`B(t+i0)`$ and $`PP(B(t))`$ exist for all $`t0`$. Moreover the integral

$$\frac{1}{\beta }_0^{\mathrm{}}B(t+i0)e^{t/\beta }𝑑t$$
(2.22)
defines an analytic function on $`D_1:=\{\beta 𝐂:\mathrm{Re}\beta >0\}`$, coinciding with $`F(\beta ):=\beta ^3\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )`$ $`\beta :0<\mathrm{arg}\beta <\pi /2`$. Equivalently: $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\beta ^{2n3}`$ is Borel summable in the distributional sense; its upper sum is $`\beta ^3\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )`$ while the distributional sum is

$$f(\beta ):=\frac{1}{\beta }_0^{\mathrm{}}PP(B(t))e^{t/\beta }𝑑t$$
(2.23)
$`\beta D_1`$; moreover

$$f(\beta )=\frac{1}{2}\{\beta ^3\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )+(\overline{\beta })^3\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{\beta })\},\beta 𝐑_+.$$
(2.24)
Proof. The first assertion follows from Theorem 2.1 in view of Proposition 2.4, which also guarantee the existence of (2.22) in $`C_R=\{\beta 𝐂:\mathrm{Re}\beta ^1>R^1\}`$ $`R>0`$. By the same results it suffices now to show that (2.22) coincides with $`\beta ^3\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )`$ for $`0<\mathrm{arg}\beta <\pi /2`$. Indeed we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}B(t+i0)e^{t/\beta }𝑑t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\underset{ϵ0_+}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}B(t+iϵ)e^{t/\beta }𝑑t=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2\beta }}\underset{ϵ0_+}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{t/\beta }(t+iϵ)^3\{2\sqrt{\pi }(t+iϵ)\mathrm{cot}(2\sqrt{\pi }(t+iϵ))1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi (t+iϵ)^2\}𝑑t`$
Now, performing the change of variables $`t=s\beta `$, $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_1:=\{s:s=\frac{t}{\beta },0t<\mathrm{}\}`$ we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}B(t+i0)e^{t/\beta }𝑑t=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2\beta ^3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}s^3e^s\{(2\sqrt{\pi }\beta s)\mathrm{cot}(2\sqrt{\pi }\beta s)1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi \beta ^2s^2\}𝑑s=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2\beta ^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}t^3e^t\{(2\sqrt{\pi }\beta t)\mathrm{cot}(2\sqrt{\pi }\beta t)1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi \beta ^2t^2\}𝑑t`$ (2.25)
where the last equality follows from the analyticity of the integrand (in the variable $`s`$) in a sector containing $`𝐑_+`$, if $`\beta 𝐑_+`$. Now by (2.6) the integral (2.25) is precisely $`\beta ^3\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )`$, and this concludes the proof of the Corollary.

Remark. Notice that in the representations (2.23,2.24) we had to exclude $`\beta 𝐑`$ because by (2.6) $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )`$ is not defined for $`\beta 𝐑`$. Now, multiplying by $`\beta ^3`$ the functions $`F(\beta )=\beta ^3\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )`$ and $`f(\beta )`$ as well as the formal series $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\beta ^{2n3}`$ we immediately conclude

###### Corollary 2.6

The formal power series $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\beta ^{2n}`$ is Borel summable in the distributional sense $`\beta :\mathrm{Re}\beta >0`$. Its upper sum is $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )`$, $`\beta 𝐑_+`$, and its distributional sum is $`\beta ^3f(\beta )`$. For $`\beta 𝐑_+`$ one has $`\beta ^3f(\beta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{\beta })\}`$.

Proof of Theorem 1.3 ¿From Corollary (2.6) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )=\beta ^2_0^{\mathrm{}}B(t+i0)e^{t/\beta }𝑑t,\beta :0<\mathrm{arg}\beta <\frac{\pi }{2}$$
(2.26)
where the r.h.s. is the upper sum of $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\beta ^{2n}`$, $`\beta :{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}<\mathrm{arg}\beta <{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}`$. Now, setting $`\beta =\sqrt{\alpha }`$ and using (2.1) to represent $`S(\alpha )`$ we have

$`S(\alpha )=\sqrt{\alpha }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}B(t+i0)e^{t/\sqrt{\alpha }}𝑑t`$ (2.27)
and

$$\overline{S}(\overline{\alpha })=\sqrt{\alpha }_0^{\mathrm{}}\overline{B(t+i0)}e^{t/\sqrt{\alpha }}𝑑t$$

$`\alpha :0<\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi `$ (notice that (2.1) actually defines $`S`$ as a holomorphic function of $`\alpha `$ for $`0<\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi `$). On the other hand the original representation (1.12) for $`S(\alpha )`$, namely

$$S(\alpha )=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{is}}{s^3}\left\{(2\sqrt{\pi \alpha }s)\mathrm{coth}(2\sqrt{\pi \alpha }s)1\frac{4\pi \alpha s^2}{3}\right\}𝑑s$$

defines $`S`$ as a holomorphic function of $`\alpha `$ for $`\pi <\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi `$. Thus, it represents an analytic continuation of the l.h.s. of (2.27) across the positive real axis because $`S(\alpha )`$ as represented by (2.27) and (2.1) coincide for $`0<\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi `$. Since the r.h.s. of (2.27) is also an analytic function of $`\alpha `$ for $`\pi <\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi `$ we can write

$`S(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{is}}{s^3}}\left\{(2\sqrt{\pi \alpha }s)\mathrm{coth}(2\sqrt{\pi \alpha }s)1{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha s^2}{3}}\right\}𝑑s`$
$`=\sqrt{\alpha }{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}B(t+i0)e^{t/\sqrt{\alpha }}𝑑t,\alpha :\pi <\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi `$ (2.28)
Thus $`S(\alpha )`$ is the upper sum of $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_n\alpha ^n`$ and the distributional Borel sum is given by

$$\frac{1}{2}\{S(\alpha )+\overline{S}(\overline{\alpha })\}=\sqrt{\alpha }_0^{\mathrm{}}PP(B(t))e^{t/\sqrt{\alpha }}𝑑t,\alpha :\pi <\mathrm{arg}\alpha <\pi $$
(2.29)
In particular, the distributional Borel sum is $`\mathrm{Re}S(\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha >0`$. This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.3.

Remarks.

1. It follows by the above theorem that the distributional Borel summability uniquely determines also

$$\mathrm{Im}S(\alpha )=\frac{1}{2i}[S(\alpha )\overline{S}(\alpha )],\alpha 𝐑_+.$$

Moreover $`\mathrm{Im}S(\alpha )`$ is proportional to the pair-production rate. Its explicite expression is :

$$\mathrm{Im}S(\alpha )=\frac{1}{8\pi ^3}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n\pi }{\alpha }\right)$$

and has zero asymptotic expansion in $`\alpha `$.
2. Strictly speaking, the representations (2.28,2.29) yield the distributional Borel-Leroy sum of order $`2`$ (see , Theorem 3) of the divergent perturbation expansion (1.13). That definition is completely equivalent () to ordinary summability in the variable $`\beta =\sqrt{\alpha }`$. We have preferred to proceed in this last way for convenience of exposition.