text:
# Massive charged scalar field in a Reissner-Nordstrom black hole background: quasinormal ringing

## Abstract

We compute characteristic (quasinormal) frequencies corresponding to decay of a massive charged scalar field in a Reissner-Nordstrom black hole background.

It proves that, contrary to the behavior at very late times, at the stage of quasinormal ringing the neutral perturbations will damp slower than the charged ones. In the limit of the extremal black hole the damping rate of charged and neutral perturbations coincides. Possible connection of this with the critical collapse in a massive scalar electrodynamics is discussed.

Black hole (BH) quasinormal modes (QNM’s) govern the decay of perturbations at intermediate times and are important when studying dynamics of black holes and external fields around them. Now, the interest in quasinormal modes is stipulated by three their features. The first is connected with possibility of observing of QNM’s, and of obtaining the ”footprint” of a black hole, with the help of a new generation of gravitational antennae which are under construction (see  for a review). The second concerns the Anti-de-Sitter/Conformal Field Theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence , from which it follows that a large black hole in AdS space corresponds to an approximately thermal states in the CFT. Thus the decay of the BH perturbations can be associated with the return to thermal equilibrium of the perturbed state in CFT . Note that in AdS space, quasinormal modes of black holes govern the decay of a field at late times as well, since there is no power-low tails and the decay is always exponential (see  and references therein). The third feature is related to possible connection of BH QNM’s in some space-time geometries with the Choptuik scaling , , , .

When Horowitz and Hubeny calculated massless scalar quasinormal modes for a four-dimensional SAdS black hole they found that for intermediate black holes, i.e. when the horizon radius is of order the Anti-de Sitter radius (see also ), the striking approximate relation takes place

$$\omega _{Im}\frac{1}{\gamma }r_+,$$
(1)
where $`r_+`$ is the horizon radius, $`\gamma `$ is the Choptuik scaling parameter for a black hole being formed from a collapse of a scalar field in free space. Then, exact connection between the Choptuik scaling parameter and the imaginary part of the QNF’s was obtained for the massive scalar field in the background of the three-dimensional BTZ BH . It gives us a hope that such a connection between characteristic frequencies of black holes, at least in special space-time geometries, and parameters describing situation near the threshold formation of a black hole exists for all black holes. Thus knowledge of such relations would be a most useful, since calculation of quasinormal modes is much simpler work then numerical simulation of gravitational collapse.

Then it was observed in  that since the nearly extremal RN BH background is effectively described by $`AdS_2`$ black holes under a spherically symmetrical dimensional reduction , the relation between the scalar QN modes of the nearly extremal RN BH and the Choptuik scaling may be obtained.

Recently it has been found that at the stage of quasinormal ringing the neutral perturbations, corresponding to a massless scalar field, will damp slower than the charged ones for RN, RNAdS, and dialton black holes . At very late times, on contrary, the charged perturbations will damp slower, thereby dominating in a signal as was shown in . In addition the damping rates (imaginary part of $`\omega `$) of charged and neutral quasinormal modes for massless scalar field coincide for the nearly extreme RN black hole . This fact, although not understood, may be connected with the Choptuik scaling if remembering that the Choptuik scaling parameter $`\gamma `$ is the same ($`0.37`$) both for charged  and neutral  massless scalar field collapse. The case of a massive scalar field is more complicated from a critical collapse view. There both types of behavior appear (see  and references therein), I (with a mass gap) and II (when the black hole being formed may be of infinitesimal mass) depending on ratio of the length scale of the initial data to the inverse Compton wavelength characteristic of the field. Yet the critical collapse was studied only for massless electrodynamics and for a massive scalar field. The complete picture of critical collapse for massive scalar electrodynamics is lacking as far as we are aware. This gives us one of the reasons for studying the quasinormal spectrum associated with decay of a charged massive scalar field.

The other reason is to find out how a massive scalar field, interacting also electromagnetically with a charged black hole, decay between an initial burst of radiation and the late time tails. In this direction the evolution of a neutral massive scalar field at late times was studied in  for a Schwarzshild background, in , ,  for a RN background, and in  for the dilaton black hole. At the stage of quasinormal ringing, decay of neutral massive scalar field was studied in  for Schwarzshild and Kerr black holes. The quasinormal modes of dilaton black holes were studied in , , .

The complete picture of a charged massive scalar field evolution in a charged black hole background is lacking at either stages.

We shall consider the evolution of the massive charged scalar field in the background of the Reissner-Nordstrom metric:

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+f^1(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(2)
where $`f(r)=1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}`$. The wave equation of the complex scalar field has the form:

$$\varphi _{;ab}g^{ab}ieA_ag^{ab}(2\varphi _{;b}ieA_b\varphi )ieA_{a;b}g^{ab}\varphi +\mu ^2\varphi =0,$$
(3)
here the electromagnetic potential $`A_t=C\frac{Q}{r}`$, $`C`$ is a constant. After representation of the charged scalar field into spherical harmonics the equation of motion takes the form:

$$\psi _{,tt}+2ıe\frac{Q}{r}\psi _{,t}\psi _{,r^{}r^{}}+V\psi =0,$$
(4)
where

$$V=f(r)\left(\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}+\frac{2M}{r^3}\frac{2Q^2}{r^4}+\mu ^2\right)e^2\frac{Q^2}{r^2},$$
(5)
the tortoise coordinate is defined by the relation $`dr^{}=\frac{dr}{f(r)}`$, and $`\psi =\psi (r)e^{ı\omega t}`$, $`\omega =\omega _{Re}i\omega _{Im}`$. The effective potential goes to a constant at the horizon and at infinity. We compute the quasinormal frequencies stipulated by the above potential using the third order WKB formula of S.Iyer and C.Will :

$$\frac{ıQ_0}{\sqrt{2Q_0^{\prime \prime }}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)\mathrm{\Omega }(n)=n+\frac{1}{2},$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(n)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ are second and third order WKB correction terms depending on the potential $`Q`$ and its derivatives in the maximum. Here $`Q=V+\omega ^22\frac{eQ}{r}\omega `$. Since $`Q`$ generally depends on $`\omega `$, the procedure of finding of the QN frequencies is the following: one fixes all the parameters of the QN frequency, namely, the multipole index $`l`$, the overtone number $`n`$, of the black hole $`Q`$ and $`M`$, and of the field $`m`$ and $`e`$; then one finds the value of $`r=r_0`$ at which $`Q`$ attains a maximum as a numerical function of $`\omega `$ and substituting it into the formula (6) one finds $`\omega `$ which satisfies the equation (6). Note that the effective potential, being frequency dependent, is, generally, complex. Nevertheless, following , we treat $`\omega `$ as if it were real when finding $`r_0`$ and only continue Eq.(6) into the complex frequency plane. We deal here with $`n=0`$ modes as those dominating in a signal.

First we examine the behaviour of the neutral massive scalar field in a RN background. Recently in  through numerical simulation of the wave equation solution it has been obtained that the relaxation process depends on the value $`M\mu `$: when $`M\mu 1`$ the relaxation depends on the field parameters and does not depend on the spacetime parameters, while at $`M\mu 1`$ the dependence on the black hole parameters appears. At the stage of quasinormal oscillations the evolution of the massive scalar field governed by QNF’s depends both on black hole and field parameters.

QNF’s for different values of $`\mu `$ are presented on Fig.1\- 3 for $`l=1,2,3`$. The $`l=0`$ modes are not given here, since the WKB accuracy is not sufficient in this case (nevertheless the main conclusions as to the quasinormal behaviour conserve in this case as well). The real part of the quasinormal frequency, i.e. the oscillation frequency, grows with increasing of the mass field $`\mu `$, while the imaginary part of $`\omega `$, representing the damping rate, falls down. Note that we are limited to the low-lying quasinormal frequencies whose real parts correspond to tunneling near the potential barrier ($`\omega ^2V_{max}`$). In general, the maximum value of $`\mu `$ (and of $`e`$ for charged scalar field) depends upon the mode under consideration .

Next, we investigate the massive charged scalar field case. The real part of $`\omega `$ as a function of imaginary part of $`\omega `$ is plotted for different $`l`$ and $`Q`$ for $`\mu =0.1`$ on Fig.4-6. We see that the neutral perturbations ($`e=0`$) have less imaginary part than that of the charged perturbations. Thus the charged perturbations decay faster. This repeats the behaviour of the massless case . When increasing charge $`Q`$, $`\omega _{Im}`$ grows up to some maximum near $`Q=0.8M`$ and then falls down, while $`\omega _{Re}`$ increases monotonically. The more $`e`$ the less explicit this maximum.

In addition for the near extremal black hole the imaginary parts of charged and neutral perturbations tend to coincide as in a massless case. In other words for the near extremal black hole $`\omega _{Im}`$ does not depend on $`e`$ for a charged massive scalar field. In this connection if one supposes some kind of relation between $`\omega _{Im}`$ of the nearly extremal RN BH and the parameter of the critical collapse in a massive scalar electrodynamics, then he could expect that $`\gamma _{massive}`$ being dependent on mass field $`\mu `$ does not depend on $`e`$ in the region where type II  critical behaviour occurs. Yet, at present we have much more questions then answers here.


format: text

text:
# Geometric factors in the Bohr–Rosenfeld analysis of the measurability of the electromagnetic field

## Abstract

The geometric factors in the field commutators and spring constants of the measurement devices in the famous analysis of the measurability of the electromagnetic field by Bohr and Rosenfeld are calculated using a Fourier–Bessel method for the evaluation of folding integrals, which enables one to obtain the general geometric factors as a Fourier–Bessel series. When the space regions over which the factors are defined are spherical, the Fourier–Bessel series terms are given by elementary functions, and using the standard Fourier-integral method of calculating folding integrals, the geometric factors can be evaluated in terms of manageable closed-form expressions.

J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32 (1999) 2427–2445

1. Introduction

The fundamental importance of the famous paper of Bohr and Rosenfeld  on the measurability of the electromagnetic field is acknowledged by most physicists but, curiously, the paper seems to have been read by only a few at the time of its appearance in the early 1930’s, A. Pais says in his book on N. Bohr : “From decades of involvement with quantum field theory I can testify that nevertheless it has been read by very very few of the aficionados. The main reason is, I think, that even by Bohr’s standards this paper is very difficult to penetrate. It takes inordinate care and patience to follow Bohr’s often quite complex gyrations with test bodies… As a friend of Bohr and mine once said to me: ‘It is a very good paper that one does not have to read. You just have to know it exists.’ Nevertheless men like Pauli and Heitler did read it with great care.” and undoubtedly by still less in the more recent times. A contributing factor to that must have been that the paper had not been available in an English translation for a long time. The Bohr–Rosenfeld (BR) paper arose in a response to Landau and Peierls , who argued that, in principle, the electromagnetic field is not measurable in a domain where quantum and relativistic effects are important. In their paper, BR have refuted this claim by showing that in quantum electrodynamics, just as in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, there is a complete harmony between the theoretical formalism and the physical possibilities of measurement. The essential aspects of the BR analysis that enabled them to reach this conclusion are the realization that only field quantities averaged over finite space-time regions are physically meaningful, and the employment of essentially classical test bodies of finite size that can have arbitrarily large charge and mass, which removed immediately the limit on the field measurability due to the radiation-reaction force on the point test charges employed by Landau and Peierls. BR have shown that the electromagnetic-field effects of such finite-size test bodies can be minimized to exactly the extent demanded by the formalism’s commutation relations by using classical spring and lever mechanisms connecting the test bodies to the frame of reference and to each other, together with the deployment of neutralizing bodies that occupy the same space regions as the test bodies but which are charged oppositely and remain attached rigidly to the reference frame during the duration of a measurement. The harmony between the possibilities of definition afforded by the quantum-electrodynamic formalism and the possibilities of measurement could be attained only by the masterful exploitation by BR of all the opportunities offered to measurement by classical physics while at the same time paying due regard to the limitations imposed on the latter by quantum mechanics.§§§In the course of their analysis, BR had to examine the problem of measurement of the basic mechanical quantities of position, momentum and energy in more detail than it had been done in the previous writings of Bohr and Heisenberg, and established the possibility of repeatable momentum and energy measurements that may be of arbitrarily short duration, which were rediscovered some 30 years later by Aharonov and Bohm .

Several illuminating commentaries on the BR analysis have been written , some of them by authors who were close to the original controversy. While the BR field measurement philosophy has not been accepted unreservedly by all the writers , the technical correctness of the BR analysis has not been disputed. Very recently, however, an analysis  of the BR procedure for the measurement of a single space-time-averaged component of the electromagnetic field has drawn a conclusion that no compensating spring mechanism is needed in order to measure the averaged field component to arbitrary accuracy when no neutralizing body is employed. This work is commented on critically elsewhere , using the calculational methods developed in the present paper.

The field commutation relations that BR use as the starting point of their analysis, and the spring constants of the mechanisms employed in their measurement procedures, are defined in terms of geometric factors that are double averages over two finite four-dimensional space-time regions. As this amounts formally to an eight-dimensional integration, the calculation of the value of a field commutator for a finite space-time region, or of a BR spring constant, is not simple, even though the dimensionality of the integration is reduced, albeit not in a straightforward manner, by the presence of a delta function in the integrand. To the present author’s knowledge, no calculations of these quantities have been reported in the literature yet, apart from those for coinciding spherical space-time regions in the comment  on reference . Clearly, a well-controlled algorithm for the evaluation of the field commutators for finite space-time regions and the BR spring constants is desirable—not least because, as we shall see, these quantities amount essentially to the field effects of extended charged bodies, a quantitative assessment of which may be needed in special experimental situations. For example, direct detection of gravitational waves would require repeated measurements of very high accuracy on a single object in a regime where quantum effects are important. In these so-called “quantum nondemolition” measurements, experimental precision is pushed to the limits set by the principles of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics; under such or similar circumstances, the measurement procedures and results of the BR analysis may well be of practical relevance .

In the present paper, the Fourier–Bessel method developed for an efficient and accurate evaluation of multiple folding integrals  is adapted for the calculation of general BR geometric factors. However, the standard Fourier-integral method for calculating folding integrals will turn out to be more advantageous in the special case of spherical space regions, as it will enable us to evaluate the BR geometric factors with spherical space regions in closed form.

In section 2 of this paper, the BR field commutators are introduced, and the Fourier–Bessel method for calculating the general geometric factors in terms of which the field commutators and the BR spring constants are defined is developed. In section 3, geometric factors with spherical space regions are considered; these are first calculated using Fourier–Bessel expansions, and then evaluated in closed form. In the last section, some calculational results are presented and discussed, and concluding remarks are made.

2. Fourier–Bessel expansions of the BR geometric factors

The starting point in the BR analysis is the set of electromagnetic-field commutation relations for the operators of field averages over finite space-time regions instead of for those of the field values at space-time points:

$`[\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})},\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{II})}]=[\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})},\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{II})}]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}(\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{II},\mathrm{I})}),`$ (1)
$`[\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})},\overline{}_y^{(\mathrm{II})}]=[\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})},\overline{}_y^{(\mathrm{II})}]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}(\overline{A}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}\overline{A}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{II},\mathrm{I})}),`$ (2)
$`[\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})},\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{II})}]=0,`$ (3)
$`[\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})},\overline{}_y^{(\mathrm{II})}]=[\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})},\overline{}_y^{(\mathrm{II})}]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}(\overline{B}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}\overline{B}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{II},\mathrm{I})}).`$ (4)
Here, $`\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})},\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})}`$, etc. are the electric and magnetic field components averaged over a space-time region I of volume $`V_\mathrm{I}`$ and duration $`T_\mathrm{I}`$, as, for example,

$$\overline{}_x^{(\mathrm{I})}=\frac{1}{V_\mathrm{I}T_\mathrm{I}}_{T_\mathrm{I}}dt_1_{V_\mathrm{I}}dv_1_x(x_1,y_1,z_1,t_1),$$
(5)
and the right-hand-side quantities are purely geometric factors defined in terms of double averages over space-time regions I and II:

$`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒱_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II}}}}{\displaystyle _{T_\mathrm{I}}}dt_1{\displaystyle _{T_{\mathrm{II}}}}dt_2{\displaystyle _{V_\mathrm{I}}}dv_1{\displaystyle _{V_{\mathrm{II}}}}dv_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_1x_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t_1t_2}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\delta \left(t_2t_1{\displaystyle \frac{r}{c}}\right)\right],`$ (6)
$`\overline{A}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒱_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II}}}}{\displaystyle _{T_\mathrm{I}}}dt_1{\displaystyle _{T_{\mathrm{II}}}}dt_2{\displaystyle _{V_\mathrm{I}}}dv_1{\displaystyle _{V_{\mathrm{II}}}}dv_2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_1y_2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\delta \left(t_2t_1{\displaystyle \frac{r}{c}}\right)\right],`$ (7)
$`\overline{B}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒱_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II}}}}{\displaystyle _{T_\mathrm{I}}}dt_1{\displaystyle _{T_{\mathrm{II}}}}dt_2{\displaystyle _{V_\mathrm{I}}}dv_1{\displaystyle _{V_{\mathrm{II}}}}dv_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t_1z_2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\delta \left(t_2t_1{\displaystyle \frac{r}{c}}\right)\right],`$ (8)
where $`𝒱_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II}}=V_\mathrm{I}V_{\mathrm{II}}T_\mathrm{I}T_{\mathrm{II}}`$ and $`r`$ is the distance between a space point in the region I and a space point in the region II. The remaining commutation relations are obtained from (1)–(4) and (6)–(8) by cyclic permutations.

A BR geometric factor, say $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$, can be written as

$$\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}dt_1_T^{T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}dt_2\rho _1(𝒓_1)d𝒓_1\rho _2(𝒓_2)d𝒓_2U(t,𝒓).$$
(9)
Here, the time intervals associated with the space-time regions I and II are specified, without loss of generality, as $`(0,\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)`$ and $`(T,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)`$, BR use the symbols $`T_\mathrm{I}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{II}}`$ for these time intervals, and the symbol $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ for the durations of the momentum measurements at the beginning and end of a field-measurement time interval. respectively, while the space regions are given by the means of uniform density distributions $`\rho _1(𝒓_1)`$ and $`\rho _2(𝒓_2)`$ that vanish outside the space regions I and II, respectively, and are each normalized to unit volume; the coordinates $`𝒓_1`$ and $`𝒓_2`$ now refer to origins located conveniently inside the regions I and II so that the displacement $`𝒓`$ of a space point of region II from a space point of region I is given as $`𝒓=𝑹+𝒓_2𝒓_1`$, with $`𝑹`$ the displacement of the origin of region II from that of region I. The function $`U(t,𝒓)`$ in equation (9) is the integrand of the multiple integral defining the geometric factor; for the geometric factors (6)–(8), it takes the following forms, respectively:

$`U_{A_{xx}}(t,𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_1x_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t_1t_2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r}},`$ (10)
$`U_{A_{xy}}(t,𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_1y_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r}},`$ (11)
$`U_{B_{xy}}(t,𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t_1z_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r}},`$ (12)
where units such that the speed of light $`c=1`$ are now used, and $`t=t_2t_1`$. The BR geometric factor (9) is cast in the form of a time average of a double-folding integral whose integrand involves functions that all have finite space extension, as the densities $`\rho _k(𝒓_k)`$ represent finite regions of space, and the radial range of the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$ is given by $`r=|𝒓|=t`$ as it contains the delta function $`\delta (tr)`$ and its derivatives. As such, the BR geometric factors are particularly well suited to evaluation by the means of Fourier–Bessel expansions .

To this end, the multipoles $`U_{lm}(t,r)`$ of the nonspherical function $`U(t,𝒓)`$, defined by a multipole expansion

$$U(t,𝒓)=\underset{lm}{}U_{lm}(t,r)\mathrm{i}^lY_{lm}(\widehat{𝒓}),$$
(13)
are expanded as Fourier–Bessel series in spherical Bessel functions $`j_l(q_n^{(l)}r)`$ in a range $`0r<r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$:

$$U_{lm}(t,r)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{Un}^{(lm)}(t)j_l(q_n^{(l)}r),$$
(14)
where $`q_n^{(l)}r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ are the positive roots of $`j_l(x)`$. The coefficients $`c_{Un}^{(lm)}(t)`$ in (14) are given in terms of the multipoles $`U_{lm}(t,r)`$ as

$$c_{Un}^{(lm)}(t)=\frac{1}{w_n^{(l)}}_0^{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}U_{lm}(t,r)j_l(q_n^{(l)}r)r^2dr,$$
(15)
where

$$w_n^{(l)}=\frac{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}{2}[r_{\mathrm{ex}}j_l^{}(q_n^{(l)}r_{\mathrm{ex}})]^2.$$
(16)
The multipole expansion (13) can thus be written for $`|𝒓|<r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ as

$$U(t,𝒓)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{lm}{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{Un}^{(lm)}(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒒_n^{(l)}𝒓)Y_{lm}(\widehat{𝒒}_n^{(l)})d\widehat{𝒒}_n^{(l)},$$
(17)
where $`𝒒_n^{(l)}`$ are vectors with polar angles $`\widehat{𝒒}_n^{(l)}`$ and discrete moduli $`|𝒒_n^{(l)}|=q_n^{(l)}`$, and where the identity

$$j_l(qr)\mathrm{i}^lY_{lm}(\widehat{𝒓})=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒒𝒓)Y_{lm}(\widehat{𝒒})d\widehat{𝒒}$$
(18)
is employed.

In the double-folding integral of equation (9), the value of the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$ is required only when

$$|𝒓|=|𝑹+𝒓_2𝒓_1|r_{\mathrm{max}}=R+R_1+R_2,$$
(19)
where $`R`$ is the separation of the centres of the two densities, and $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ are the radii beyond which the uniform densities $`\rho _1(𝒓_1)`$ and $`\rho _2(𝒓_2)`$, respectively, vanish—this is simply because the product $`\rho _1(𝒓_1)\rho _2(𝒓_2)`$ in the integrand of (9) is bound to be zero when $`|𝒓|>r_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Thus, the validity of the Fourier–Bessel expansion (17) in the double-folding integral of equation (9) will be guaranteed when the expansion radius $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}r_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Substituting then the expansion (17) with $`𝒓=𝑹+𝒓_2𝒓_1`$ and an expansion radius $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ in equation (9), one obtains a Fourier–Bessel expansion for the BR geometric factor $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$:

$$\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{lm}{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{c}_{Un}^{(lm)}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1(𝒒_n^{(l)})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(𝒒_n^{(l)})\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒒_n^{(l)}𝑹)Y_{lm}(\widehat{𝒒}_n^{(l)})d\widehat{𝒒}_n^{(l)}.$$
(20)
Here,

$$\overline{c}_{Un}^{(lm)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}dt_1_T^{T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}dt_2c_{Un}^{(lm)}(t),$$
(21)
are the time averages of the coefficients (15), and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1(𝒒_n^{(l)})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(𝒒_n^{(l)})`$ are the Fourier transforms of the densities $`\rho _k(𝒓_k)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_k(𝒒)=\rho _k(𝒓_k)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒒𝒓_k)d𝒓_k,$$
(22)
evaluated at the points $`𝒒=𝒒_n^{(l)}`$ and $`𝒒_n^{(l)}`$, respectively.

The Fourier transforms $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_k(𝒒)`$ can be expanded in multipoles also,

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_k(𝒒)=\underset{l_km_k}{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{l_km_k}^{(k)}(q)\mathrm{i}^{l_k}Y_{l_km_k}(\widehat{𝒒}),$$
(23)
which are given in terms of the similarly defined multipoles $`\rho _{l_km_k}^{(k)}(r_k)`$ of the densities $`\rho _k(𝒓_k)`$ themselves by

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{l_km_k}^{(k)}(q)=4\pi \mathrm{i}^{l_k}_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho _{l_km_k}^{(k)}(r_k)j_{l_k}(qr_k)r_k^2dr_k.$$
(24)
When the multipole expansions (23) are substituted in (20), the products of spherical harmonics are expanded in terms of single spherical harmonics, and the identity (18) is used again, the Fourier–Bessel expansion of the BR geometric factor $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ can be written finally as\**\**\** Cf. equation (21) of reference , which is reconciled with our equation (25) on noting that our displacement $`𝒓=𝑹+𝒓_2𝒓_1`$ is defined there as $`𝒓=𝑹+𝒓_1𝒓_2`$, and that $`[\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{lm}(q)]^{}=(1)^m\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{lm}(q)`$ for a real density $`\rho (𝒓)`$.

$`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l_1m_1}{l_2m_2}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\overline{c}_{Un}^{(lm)}(1)^m\widehat{l}\widehat{l}_1\widehat{l}_2\mathrm{i}^{l_1}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{l_1m_1}^{(1)}\left(q_n^{(l)}\right)\mathrm{i}^{l_2}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{l_2m_2}^{(2)}\left(q_n^{(l)}\right)`$ (25)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{}\lambda }{}}\widehat{\lambda }^2\widehat{\lambda }(\begin{array}{ccc}l_1& l_2& \lambda ^{}\\ m_1& m_2& \mu ^{}\end{array})(\begin{array}{ccc}l_1& l_2& \lambda ^{}\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array})(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{}& l& \lambda \\ \mu ^{}& m& \mu \end{array})(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{}& l& \lambda \\ 0& 0& 0\end{array})j_\lambda \left(q_n^{(l)}R\right)\mathrm{i}^\lambda Y_{\lambda \mu }\left(\widehat{𝑹}\right),`$ (34)
where $`\widehat{l}=(2l+1)^{1/2}`$ etc., and the large parenthesis denote 3-$`j`$ coefficients; $`\mu ^{}=m_1+m_2`$ and $`\mu =m+m_1+m_2`$. In this way, when the multipole expansions of the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$ and the densities $`\rho _k(𝒓_k)`$ are given, the evaluation of the eight-dimensional integral (9) is reduced to the evaluation of the one-dimensional integrals (15) for $`c_{Un}^{(lm)}(t)`$ and (24) for $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{l_km_k}^{(k)}(q_n^{(l)})`$, of the two-dimensional integrals (21) for the time averages $`\overline{c}_{Un}^{(lm)}`$, and of the Fourier–Bessel expansion (25), where, in principle, only the number of terms in the expansion controls the degree of approximation to the exact value of the BR geometric factor $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$.

We now turn to the calculation of the Fourier–Bessel coefficients (15) and their time averages (21). It turns out that with the functional forms (10)–(12) taken by $`U(t,𝒓)`$, these quantities can be evaluated in terms of elementary functions. Let us first determine the multipole expansion of the function $`U_{A_{xx}}(t,𝒓)`$, given by equation (10). First, we regularize the space derivative part of $`U_{A_{xx}}(t,𝒓)`$ by

$$\frac{^2}{x_1x_2}\frac{\delta (tr)}{r}=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{^2}{x_1x_2}\frac{\delta (tr)}{r+ϵ},$$
(35)
where the limit $`ϵ0`$ is understood to be taken only after a double integration. This yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_1x_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r}}=`$ $``$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\prime \prime }(tr)}{r+ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3r+ϵ}{r(r+ϵ)^2}}\delta ^{}(tr)+{\displaystyle \frac{3r+ϵ}{r(r+ϵ)^3}}\delta (tr)]{\displaystyle \frac{(x_2x_1)^2}{r^2}}`$ (36)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{}(tr)}{r(r+ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r(r+ϵ)^2}}\},`$ (37)
while the time derivatives give

$$\frac{^2}{t_1t_2}\frac{\delta (tr)}{r}=\frac{\delta ^{\prime \prime }(tr)}{r}.$$
(38)
Now

$$\frac{1}{r^2}(x_2x_1)^2=\frac{2\pi }{3}[Y_{11}(\widehat{𝒓})Y_{11}(\widehat{𝒓})]^2=\frac{1}{3}+\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{15}}Y_{22}(\widehat{𝒓})\frac{1}{3}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{5}}Y_{20}(\widehat{𝒓})+\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{15}}Y_{22}(\widehat{𝒓}).$$
(39)
Using this in (27), then substituting (27) and (28) in (10) and taking the limit $`ϵ0`$ everywhere except in the $`\delta (tr)`$ term of the monopole component, we obtain the function $`U_{A_{xx}}(t,𝒓)`$ as a multipole sum

$`U_{A_{xx}}(t,𝒓)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{4\pi }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\prime \prime }(tr)}{r}}+\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{(r+ϵ)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r}}\right]\mathrm{i}^0Y_{00}(\widehat{𝒓})`$ (40)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{15}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\prime \prime }(tr)}{r}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{}(tr)}{r^2}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r^3}}\right]\mathrm{i}^2\left[Y_{22}(\widehat{𝒓})\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}Y_{20}(\widehat{𝒓})+Y_{22}(\widehat{𝒓})\right].`$ (41)
The limit $`ϵ0`$ was performed in the multipole expansion of $`U_{A_{xx}}(t,𝒓)`$ everywhere except in the $`\delta (tr)`$ term of the monopole component because it can be seen easily that it is only with this term that the regularization (26) can contribute to the geometric factor $`A_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$. No regularization is required in the functions (11) and (12), which turn out not to contain any monopole components:

$`U_{A_{xy}}(t,𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{15}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\prime \prime }(tr)}{r}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{}(tr)}{r^2}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r^3}}\right]\mathrm{i}^2[Y_{22}(\widehat{𝒓})Y_{22}(\widehat{𝒓})],`$ (42)
$`U_{B_{xy}}(t,𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\prime \prime }(tr)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{}(tr)}{r^2}}\right]\mathrm{i}Y_{10}(\widehat{𝒓}).`$ (43)
The multipoles $`U_{lm}(r,t)`$ of the various forms of $`U(t,𝒓)`$ are found easily from equations (30)–(32), and the integrals required for the monopole $`(l=0)`$, dipole $`(l=1)`$ and quadrupole $`(l=2)`$ Fourier–Bessel coefficients (15) are evaluated as follows:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\prime \prime }(tr)}{r}}+\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{(r+ϵ)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r}}\right]j_0(qr)r^2dr`$ (44)
$`=q\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)+\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}(q,r_{\mathrm{ex}},t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\mathrm{sin}(qt)}{(t+ϵ)^3}}\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t),`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\prime \prime }(tr)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{}(tr)}{r^2}}\right]j_1(qr)r^2dr=q\mathrm{cos}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)+\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}(q,r_{\mathrm{ex}},t),`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\prime \prime }(tr)}{r}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{}(tr)}{r^2}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (tr)}{r^3}}\right]j_2(qr)r^2dr=q\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)`$ (47)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}(q,r_{\mathrm{ex}},t).`$ (48)
Here,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}(q,r_{\mathrm{ex}},t)=\delta (t)\mathrm{cos}(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})\delta (tr_{\mathrm{ex}})r_{\mathrm{ex}}j_0(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})\delta ^{}(tr_{\mathrm{ex}}),`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}(q,r_{\mathrm{ex}},t)=\mathrm{sin}(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})\delta (tr_{\mathrm{ex}})r_{\mathrm{ex}}j_1(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})\delta ^{}(tr_{\mathrm{ex}}),`$ (50)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}(q,r_{\mathrm{ex}},t)=[\mathrm{cos}(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})j_0(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})j_2(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})]\delta (tr_{\mathrm{ex}})r_{\mathrm{ex}}j_2(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})\delta ^{}(tr_{\mathrm{ex}}).`$ (51)
These results are obtained following the rules that govern the use of the delta function and its derivatives:†††††† As a multidimensional integration with finite integration limits is involved here, care has to be taken to use the derivatives of the delta function properly.

$`{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2}}f(x)\delta (xx_0)dx=f(x_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0x_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(x_2x_0),`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2}}f(x)\delta ^{}(xx_0)dx=f^{}(x_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0x_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(x_2x_0)`$ (53)
$`+f(x_2)\delta (x_2x_0)f(x_1)\delta (x_1x_0),`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2}}f(x)\delta ^{\prime \prime }(xx_0)dx=f^{\prime \prime }(x_0)\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0x_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(x_2x_0)`$ (55)
$`f^{}(x_2)\delta (x_2x_0)+f^{}(x_1)\delta (x_1x_0)+f(x_2)\delta ^{}(x_2x_0)f(x_1)\delta ^{}(x_1x_0),`$ (56)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t)`$ is the Heaviside step function: $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t)=1`$ for $`t>0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t)=0`$ for $`t<0`$; and utilizing the fact that $`lim_{x0}j_l(x)=lim_{x0}d[xj_l(x)]/dx=\delta _{0l}`$.

Using equations (30)–(35), the time averaged Fourier–Bessel coefficients (21) needed in (25) for the BR geometric factor $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ are thus given by

$`\overline{c}_{A_{xx}n}^{(00)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{4\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w_n^{(0)}}}[q_n^{(0)}\mathrm{sin}(q_n^{(0)}t)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}(q_n^{(0)},r_{\mathrm{ex}},t)`$ (57)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_n^{(0)}}}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}ϵ(t+ϵ)^3\mathrm{sin}(q_n^{(0)}t)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)],`$ (58)
$`\overline{c}_{A_{xx}n}^{(2\pm 2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\overline{c}_{A_{xx}n}^{(20)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{15}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w_n^{(2)}}}\left[q_n^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}(q_n^{(2)}t)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)+\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}(q_n^{(2)},r_{\mathrm{ex}},t)\right];`$ (59)
for the BR geometric factor $`\overline{A}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ by

$$\overline{c}_{A_{xy}n}^{(2\pm 2)}=\pm \mathrm{i}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{15}}\frac{1}{w_n^{(2)}}\left[q_n^{(2)}\mathrm{sin}(q_n^{(2)}t)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)+\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}(q_n^{(2)},r_{\mathrm{ex}},t)\right];$$
(60)
and for the BR geometric factor $`\overline{B}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ by

$$\overline{c}_{B_{xy}n}^{(10)}=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{3}}\frac{1}{w_n^{(1)}}\left[q_n^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}(q_n^{(1)}t)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)+\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}(q_n^{(1)},r_{\mathrm{ex}},t)\right].$$
(61)
Here, the quantities $`w_n^{(l)}`$ are given by equation (16), and the angular brackets denote the time averaging

$$f(t)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}dt_1_T^{T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}dt_2f(t_2t_1).$$
(62)
Let us first evaluate the time averages $`\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)`$. A straightforward way of doing so is to integrate by parts in both $`t_2`$ and $`t_1`$, and to utilize the fact that $`d\mathrm{\Theta }(x)/dx=\delta (x)`$:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}}dt_1{\displaystyle _T^{T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}}dt_2q\mathrm{sin}[q(t_2t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(t_2t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t_2+t_1)`$ (63)
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}}\{\mathrm{cos}[q(t_2t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(t_2t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t_2+t_1)|_{t_2=T}^{T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}`$ (64)
$`+{\displaystyle _T^{T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}}\mathrm{cos}[q(t_2t_1)][\delta (t_2t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t_2+t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(t_2t_1)\delta (r_{\mathrm{ex}}t_2+t_1)]\mathrm{d}t_2\}\mathrm{d}t_1`$ (65)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\mathrm{sin}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+t_1)|_{t_1=0}^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}`$ (66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}}\mathrm{sin}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2t_1)\delta (r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+t_1)dt_1`$ (67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\mathrm{sin}[q(Tt_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(Tt_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T+t_1)|_{t_1=0}^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}`$ (68)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}}\mathrm{sin}[q(Tt_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(Tt_1)\delta (r_{\mathrm{ex}}T+t_1)dt_1`$ (69)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}}\left\{\mathrm{\Theta }(t_1T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2t_1)\mathrm{cos}(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T+t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}}t_1)\right\}dt_1.`$ (70)
Here, terms with $`\mathrm{sin}x\delta (x)`$ were dropped immediately. This gives for the time average $`\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2q\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)`$ (72)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\{\mathrm{sin}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)`$ (73)
$`\mathrm{sin}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)`$ (74)
$`\mathrm{sin}[q(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)+\mathrm{sin}(qT)\mathrm{\Theta }(T)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T)`$ (75)
$`\mathrm{sin}(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})[\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(Tr_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T+r_{\mathrm{ex}})]\}`$ (76)
$`\mathrm{cos}(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T+r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{max}(Tr_{\mathrm{ex}},0)]`$ (77)
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{max}(T,0)].`$ (78)
The time average $`\mathrm{cos}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)`$, calculated in a way similar to that for the time average (48), yields

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2q\mathrm{cos}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)`$ (79)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\{\mathrm{cos}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)`$ (80)
$`\mathrm{cos}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)`$ (81)
$`\mathrm{cos}[q(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)+\mathrm{cos}(qT)\mathrm{\Theta }(T)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T)`$ (82)
$`\mathrm{cos}(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})\left[\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(Tr_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T+r_{\mathrm{ex}})\right]`$ (83)
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T)\}+\mathrm{sin}(qr_{\mathrm{ex}})`$ (84)
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T+r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{max}(Tr_{\mathrm{ex}},0)].`$ (85)
The ambiguity that may arise in these expressions when the argument of the step function vanishes is removed correctly by the definition $`\mathrm{\Theta }(0)=\frac{1}{2}`$. The correctness of the somewhat lengthy analytical expressions (48) and (49) was checked by performing the two-dimensional integration numerically for cases with the time intervals $`(0,\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)`$ and $`(T,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)`$ in all the possible logical relations of one to another.

For the time averages $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(l)}(q,r_{\mathrm{ex}},t)`$, we need the time averages $`\delta (tr_{\mathrm{ex}})`$ and $`\delta ^{}(tr_{\mathrm{ex}})`$, which are evaluated easily to give

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\delta (tr_{\mathrm{ex}})=\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T+r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})`$ (86)
$`\times [\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{max}(Tr_{\mathrm{ex}},0)],`$ (87)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\delta ^{}(tr_{\mathrm{ex}})=\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+r_{\mathrm{ex}})`$ (88)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(Tr_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T+r_{\mathrm{ex}}).`$ (89)
These time averages vanish in the limit $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{}`$. The $`ϵ0`$ term in equation (42) can be evaluated by taking the limit $`ϵ0`$ already after one time integration, and the result is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}ϵ(t+ϵ)^3\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}t)`$ (90)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)}{2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}}[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{max}(T,0)],`$ (91)
which equals one half of the $`q`$-independent term in (48), which, in turn, equals the average $`\delta (tr_{\mathrm{ex}})`$ with $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}=0`$ of equation (50).

Using equations (48)–(52) and utilizing the fact that the quantities $`q_n^{(l)}r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ are the roots of the spherical Bessel functions $`j_l(x)`$ and thus $`j_l(q_n^{(l)}r_{\mathrm{ex}})=0`$, the time averaged Fourier–Bessel coefficients (42)–(45) are evaluated finally as follows:

$`\overline{c}_{A_{xx}n}^{(00)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4\pi }}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2w_n^{(0)}q_n^{(0)}}}`$ (96)
$`\times \{\mathrm{sin}[q_n^{(0)}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}[q_n^{(0)}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}[q_n^{(0)}(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)+\mathrm{sin}(q_n^{(0)}T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_n^{(0)}\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{max}(T,0)]\},`$
$`\overline{c}_{A_{xx}n}^{(2\pm 2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\overline{c}_{A_{xx}n}^{(20)}=\pm \mathrm{i}\overline{c}_{A_{xy}n}^{(2\pm 2)}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{15}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2w_n^{(2)}q_n^{(2)}}}`$ (104)
$`\times \{\mathrm{sin}[q_n^{(2)}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}[q_n^{(2)}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}[q_n^{(2)}(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)+\mathrm{sin}(q_n^{(2)}T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}(q_n^{(2)}r_{\mathrm{ex}})\{\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+r_{\mathrm{ex}})`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(Tr_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T+r_{\mathrm{ex}})+\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T+r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})`$
$`\times r_{\mathrm{ex}}^1[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{max}(Tr_{\mathrm{ex}},0)]\}`$
$`+q_n^{(2)}\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{max}(T,0)]\},`$
$`\overline{c}_{B_{xy}n}^{(10)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2w_n^{(1)}q_n^{(1)}}}`$ (111)
$`\times \{\mathrm{cos}[q_n^{(1)}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)`$
$`\mathrm{cos}[q_n^{(1)}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)`$
$`\mathrm{cos}[q_n^{(1)}(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)+\mathrm{cos}(q_n^{(1)}T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T)\mathrm{\Theta }(r_{\mathrm{ex}}T)`$
$`\mathrm{cos}(q_n^{(1)}r_{\mathrm{ex}})[\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2r_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T\mathrm{\Delta }t_2+r_{\mathrm{ex}})`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(Tr_{\mathrm{ex}})\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T+r_{\mathrm{ex}})]+\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2T)`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(T)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T)\}.`$
Equations (25) and (53)–(55) furnish a general solution to the problem of finding Fourier–Bessel expansions of the representative BR geometric factors (6)–(8) with space regions specified by the multipoles (24) of their Fourier transforms. Obviously, the formalism developed can easily be used to give Fourier–Bessel expansions of all possible BR geometric factors, and not only the representatives (6)–(8), as long as their space regions have well-behaved multipole expansions.

3. BR geometric factors with spherical space regions

3.1 Fourier–Bessel expansions

Formula (25) gives a Fourier–Bessel expansion of the BR geometric factor $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ for the general case when the uniform densities $`\rho _k(𝒓_k)`$ as well as the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$ are not spherically symmetric functions of space coordinates. Let us assume now that the densities are spherically symmetric with radii $`R_k`$, $`\rho _k(𝒓_k)=\rho _k(r_k)=(3/4\pi R_k^3)\mathrm{\Theta }(R_kr_k)`$. Such an assumption should not entail any serious loss in generality as space regions of practical relevance can be approximated by regions of spherical shape, but the main reason for considering spherical space regions is that it simplifies considerably the formulation of the problem and the actual calculations. With spherical space regions, only the $`l_1=l_2=0`$ terms contribute in the general formula (25), Substituting further $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{00}^{(k)}(q)=(4\pi )^{1/2}3j_1(qR_k)/qR_k`$ for the Fourier transforms of the spherical uniform densities $`\rho _k(r_k)`$, equation (25) simplifies to

$$\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}=\frac{9}{R_1R_2}\underset{lm}{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\overline{c}_{Un}^{(lm)}}{(q_n^{(l)})^2}j_1\left(q_n^{(l)}R_1\right)j_1\left(q_n^{(l)}R_2\right)j_l\left(q_n^{(l)}R\right)\mathrm{i}^lY_{lm}\left(\widehat{𝑹}\right).$$
(112)
But more importantly, this assumption allows an alternative and simpler formulation based on a Fourier–Bessel expansion of one of the spherically symmetric densities, say $`\rho _1(r_1)`$, instead of the one based on the Fourier–Bessel expansion of the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$.

Let us then expand the uniform density $`\rho _1(r_1)`$ as a Fourier–Bessel series in the spherical Bessel functions $`j_0(q_nr_1)`$ in a range $`0r_1<r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$:

$$\rho _1(r_1)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_nj_0(q_nr_1).$$
(113)
Here, $`q_n=n\pi /r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$, and the coefficients $`c_n`$ are given by

$$c_n=\frac{2}{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}\left(\frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}\right)^2_0^{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}\rho _1(r_1)j_0\left(\frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}r_1\right)r_1^2dr_1=\frac{3n}{2r_{\mathrm{ex}}^2R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}j_1\left(\frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right),$$
(114)
where $`R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\mathrm{min}(R_1,r_{\mathrm{ex}})`$, with $`R_1`$ the density’s radius. Since the value of the density $`\rho _1(r_1)`$ is needed in the multiple integral (9) that defines the BR geometric factor $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ only when

$$r_1=|𝑹+𝒓_2𝒓|r_{1\mathrm{max}}=R+R_2+\mathrm{max}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2,0),$$
(115)
where $`R`$ is the separation of the centres of the two densities, and $`R_2`$ and $`\mathrm{max}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2,0)`$ are respectively the radii beyond which the density $`\rho _2(r_2)`$ and the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$ vanish, the expansion radius $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ should satisfy the relation $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}r_{1\mathrm{max}}`$. Substituting then the expansion (57) with an expansion radius $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}r_{1\mathrm{max}}`$ in equation (9), and utilizing the identity (18) for $`j_0(q_nr_1)`$,

$$j_0(q_nr_1)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒒_n𝒓_1)d\widehat{𝒒}_n$$
(116)
with $`𝒓_1=𝑹+𝒓_2𝒓`$, one obtains for the BR geometric factor $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ a Fourier–Bessel expansion:

$$\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(q_n)\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}(𝒒_n)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒒_n𝑹)d\widehat{𝒒}_n,$$
(117)
Here,

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(q_n)=4\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}\rho _2(r_2)j_0(q_nr_2)r_2^2dr_2=3\frac{j_1(q_nR_2)}{q_nR_2}$$
(118)
is the Fourier transform of the uniform density $`\rho _2(r_2)`$ with a radius $`R_2`$, and $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}(𝒒)`$ is the time averaged Fourier transform of the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$:

$$\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}(𝒒)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}dt_1_T^{T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}dt_2d𝒓U(t,𝒓)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝒒𝒓).$$
(119)
With the multipole expansion (13) of $`U(t,𝒓)`$ and a further use of the identity (18), the time averaged Fourier transform (64) can be written also as a multipole sum

$$\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}(𝒒)=\underset{lm}{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{lm}(q)\mathrm{i}^lY_{lm}(\widehat{𝒒}),$$
(120)
where

$$\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{lm}(q)=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{i}^l}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}dt_1_T^{T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}dt_2_0^{\mathrm{}}r^2drU_{lm}(t,r)j_l(qr).$$
(121)
Using the multipole expansion (64) and again the identity (18), the Fourier–Bessel expansion (61) of $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ now takes the form of a multipole sum:

$$\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}=\underset{lm}{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(q_n)\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{lm}(q_n)j_l(q_nR)Y_{lm}(\widehat{𝑹}).$$
(122)
Substituting here for $`c_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(q_n)`$ from equations (58) and (62), respectively, and writing $`q_n`$ explicitly as $`n\pi /r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$, one obtains finally

$$\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}=\frac{9}{2\pi r_{\mathrm{ex}}R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}R_2}\underset{lm}{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}j_1\left(\frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)j_1\left(\frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}R_2\right)\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{lm}\left(\frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}\right)j_l\left(\frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}R\right)Y_{lm}(\widehat{𝑹}),$$
(124)
$$R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\mathrm{min}(R_1,r_{\mathrm{ex}}),r_{\mathrm{ex}}R+R_2+\mathrm{max}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2,0).$$
(125)
Note that while different spherical Bessel function roots $`q_n^{(l)}r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ and associated weights $`w_n^{(l)}`$ are required with the different multipolarities $`l`$ of the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$ in the formula (56) based on the Fourier–Bessel expansion of this function, here only the simple quantities $`q_n^{(0)}=n\pi /r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ and $`w_n^{(0)}=r_{\mathrm{ex}}^3/2(n\pi )^2`$ are used for all these multipolarities. For this practical reason, when one of the densities is a spherically symmetric function, the formulation based on the Fourier–Bessel expansion (57) is preferable to an application of the general formula (25) to such a case. Moreover, because the infinite-radius Fourier transform of the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$ is now used, rather than the finite-radius transforms (33)–(35), the expressions for the time-averaged multipoles (65) of the Fourier transform will be simpler than those required in (42)–(45) for the coefficients $`\overline{c}_{Un}^{(lm)}`$ needed in the general formulation. It follows from equations (15), (21), (42)–(45), (50)–(52) and (65) that the quantities $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{lm}(n\pi /r_{\mathrm{ex}})`$ needed in (67) for the BR geometric factor $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ are given by

$`\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{00}^{(A_{xx})}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`(4\pi )^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[q\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\delta (t)\right],`$ (126)
$`\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{2\pm 2}^{(A_{xx})}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{20}^{(A_{xx})}(q)=4\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{15}}}q\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t);`$ (127)
for the BR geometric factor $`\overline{A}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ by

$$\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{2\pm 2}^{(A_{xy})}(q)=\mathrm{i4}\pi \sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{15}}q\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t);$$
(128)
and for the BR geometric factor $`\overline{B}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ by

$$\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{10}^{(B_{xy})}(q)=4\pi \sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{3}}q\mathrm{cos}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t).$$
(129)
Here, the time averages $`\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)`$ are the limits $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}\mathrm{}`$ of the finite-radius time averages (48) and (49):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2q\mathrm{sin}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)`$ (130)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\{\mathrm{sin}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{sin}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)`$ (131)
$`\mathrm{sin}[q(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)+\mathrm{sin}(qT)\mathrm{\Theta }(T)\}`$ (132)
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{max}(T,0)],`$ (133)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2q\mathrm{cos}(qt)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)`$ (134)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}\{\mathrm{cos}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)\mathrm{cos}[q(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)`$ (135)
$`\mathrm{cos}[q(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)]\mathrm{\Theta }(T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1)+\mathrm{cos}(qT)\mathrm{\Theta }(T)`$ (136)
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2T)\mathrm{\Theta }(T)\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1T)\},`$ (137)
and the quantity $`\delta (t)`$ in (68) is the time average (50) with $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}=0`$, which also happens to equal the $`q`$-independent term in (72) and twice the $`ϵ0`$ term of equation (52).

The greatly simplified (when compared with those of the general formulation) equations (67)–(73) give the Fourier–Bessel expansions of the representative BR geometric factors (6)–(8) with spherical space regions; it is gratifying to note that it was possible to express the terms of these expansions in terms of elementary functions. In fact, it turns out that the BR geometric factors with spherical space regions can be evaluated in closed form, which will provide a means of testing the accuracy of the Fourier–Bessel results, but this is most easily accomplished starting with the standard Fourier-integral treatment of the multiple folding integrals involved.

3.2 Closed-form evaluation

Using the standard Fourier-integral method of calculating multiple folding integrals, a BR geometric factor $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ with spherical space regions $`\rho _k(r_k)`$,

$$\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1}dt_1_T^{T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}dt_2\rho _1(r_1)d𝒓_1\rho _2(r_2)d𝒓_2U(t,𝒓),$$
(138)
can be written as a multipole expansion, the multipoles of which are Fourier integrals:

$$\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}=\frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^3}\underset{lm}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1(q)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(q)\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{lm}(q)j_l(qR)q^2dqY_{lm}(\widehat{𝑹}).$$
(139)
Here, $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{lm}(q)`$ are the multipoles (65) of the time-averaged Fourier transform of the function $`U(t,𝒓)`$, given by equations (68)–(73), and

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_k(q)=4\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}\rho _k(r_k)j_0(qr_k)r_k^2dr_k=3\frac{j_1(qR_k)}{qR_k}$$
(140)
are the Fourier transforms of the spherically symmetric uniform densities $`\rho _k(r_k)`$, which have radii $`R_k`$ and are normalized to unit volume. This result follows from the convolution theorem (see, for example, ) according to which the Fourier transform of a folding integral, like the one in equation (74), is the product of the Fourier transforms of the functions appearing in the folding integral; equation (75) is simply the time average of the Fourier transformation of the folding integral from the momentum space back to the configuration space. In general, Fourier integrals of the type of those in equation (75) have to be evaluated numerically, and the great advantage of the Fourier–Bessel formulation is that it replaces such numerical integration by the analytical method of a series expansion. However, in the case of spherical space regions with the Fourier transforms (76), and with the time-averaged Fourier transforms (68)–(73) of the functions $`U(t,𝒓)`$, the Fourier integrals in (75) can in fact be evaluated in closed form, and we present such evaluation in this section.

The quantities $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{lm}(q)`$ in (75), as given by equations (68)–(73), are linear combinations of terms of the form $`\tau j_0(\tau q)`$ and a $`q`$-independent term for the multipolarities $`l=0,2`$, and of terms of the form $`\tau j_1(\tau q)`$ and a $`1/q`$ term for the multipolarity $`l=1`$, while the Fourier transforms (76) of the densities are of the form $`j_1(aq)/aq`$. We define therefore the integrals

$$\mathrm{ji}_4(n;l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4;\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )=_0^{\mathrm{}}j_{l_1}(\alpha x)j_{l_2}(\beta x)j_{l_3}(\gamma x)j_{l_4}(\delta x)\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x^n},$$
(141)
the evaluation of which is required in (75) for the parameter values (i) $`n=0`$, $`l_1=l_2=1`$, $`l_3=0`$, $`l_4=0,2`$; (ii) $`n=0`$, $`l_1=l_2=1`$, $`l_3=1`$, $`l_4=1`$; and, on account of the $`1/q`$ term in (73), (iii) $`n=1`$, $`l_1=l_2=1`$, $`l_3=0`$ (with $`\gamma =0`$), $`l_4=1`$.

In principle, it should be possible to evaluate the integral $`\mathrm{ji}_4(n;l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4;\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )`$ in closed form for all the integer values $`n`$ and $`l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4`$ for which the integral exists, as the integrand can be written as a sum of a finite number of terms, with each term having the form $`a\mathrm{sin}(bx)/x^k`$ or $`a\mathrm{cos}(bx)/x^k`$, where $`k`$ is an integer, and the indefinite integrals of such terms can be done in terms of the sine or cosine integrals. In practice, however, such a procedure is prohibitively lengthy for all but very small values of the parameters $`n,l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4`$: for example, the integrand of the integral $`\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,2;\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )`$ has already 96 terms of the above mentioned form with $`k`$ ranging from 4 to 8, and the indefinite integral of each of these terms generates in turn $`k`$ new terms, giving in total 572 terms. Furthermore, complications arise when the limit $`x0`$ (or $`x\mathrm{}`$, depending on the definition of the sine integral) is taken in the sine integrals, which have arguments of the form $`ax`$, as the signs of the parameters $`a`$, which are linear combinations of the parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$, must be determined suitably. Remarkably, the computing system Mathematica is able to perform the definite integrations in the integrals $`\mathrm{ji}_4(n;l_1,l_2,l_3,l_4;\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )`$ required directly. After considerable simplifications, and using an economic way of writing linear combinations that contain terms with permuting signs by means of the definitions

$$\alpha _n=\alpha ,\beta _n=(1)^n\beta ,\gamma _n=(1)^{[n/2]}\gamma ,\delta _n=(1)^{[n/4]}\delta ,\delta _n^{}=(1)^{[n/2]}\delta ,$$
(142)
where $`[x]`$ is the integer part of $`x`$, the results are as follows:

$`\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,0;\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{1920\alpha \beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{7}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n+\delta _n|^3}{\alpha _n\beta _n\gamma _n\delta _n}}`$ (143)
$`\times [4\alpha _n^2+(4\beta _n\gamma _n\delta _n)(3\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n+\delta _n)];`$ (144)
$`\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,2;\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{26\hspace{0.17em}880}\alpha \beta \delta ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{7}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n+\delta _n|^3}{\alpha _n\beta _n\gamma _n\delta _n}}`$ (145)
$`\times \{(\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n)(\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n3\delta _n)[6\alpha _n^2+(6\beta _n\gamma _n)(5\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n)]`$ (146)
$`+[8(\alpha _n^212\alpha _n\beta _n+\beta _n^2)+9(\alpha _n+\beta _n)\gamma _n+\gamma _n^2]\delta _n^2+[24(\alpha _n+\beta _n)11\gamma _n]\delta _n^38\delta _n^4\};`$ (147)
$`\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,1,1;\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}520}\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{7}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n+\delta _n|^3}{\alpha _n\beta _n\delta _n}}`$ (148)
$`\times \{5\alpha _n^33\alpha _n^2(5\beta _n3\gamma _n+5\delta _n)+(3\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n+\delta _n)`$ (149)
$`\times [5\beta _n^2+(\gamma _n5\delta _n)(4\beta _n\gamma _n\delta _n)]\}.`$ (150)
Here, it is assumed that the parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are all nonzero; the required integrals that have some of these parameters equal to zero were evaluated separately:

$$\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,0;\alpha ,\beta ,0,0)=\frac{\pi }{12\alpha \beta }\underset{n=0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{|\alpha _n+\beta _n|}{\alpha _n\beta _n}(\alpha _n^2\alpha _n\beta _n+\beta _n^2);$$
(151)
$`\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,0;\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,0)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{192\alpha \beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n)|\alpha _n+\beta _n+\gamma _n|}{\alpha _n\beta _n\gamma _n}}`$ (152)
$`\times [3(\alpha _n\beta _n)^2+2(\alpha _n+\beta _n)\gamma _n\gamma _n^2];`$ (153)
$`\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,2;\alpha ,\beta ,0,\delta )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{384\alpha \beta \delta ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha _n+\beta _n+\delta _n^{})|\alpha _n+\beta _n+\delta _n^{}|}{\alpha _n\beta _n\delta _n^{}}}`$ (154)
$`\times (\alpha _n+\beta _n\delta _n^{})^2(\alpha _n^24\alpha _n\beta _n+\beta _n^2\delta _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2});`$ (155)
$`\mathrm{ji}_4(1;1,1,0,1;\alpha ,\beta ,0,\delta )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{1152\alpha \beta \delta }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _n+\beta _n+\delta _n^{}|^3}{\alpha _n\beta _n\delta _n^{}}}`$ (156)
$`\times [\alpha _n^33\alpha _n(\beta _n^24\beta _n\delta _n^{}+\delta _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+(\beta _n+\delta _n^{})(3\alpha _n^2+\beta _n^24\beta _n\delta _n^{}+\delta _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})].`$ (157)
Here, the definition $`j_0(0)=1`$ is assumed in the integrals (77); as $`lim_{x0}j_l(x)=0`$ when $`l>0`$, the integrals $`\mathrm{ji}_4(n;1,1,l_3,l_4;\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,0)`$ with $`l_4>0`$ vanish. The integral $`\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,0;\alpha ,\beta ,0,\delta )`$ that is required also is given already by the integral (83):

$$\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,0;\alpha ,\beta ,0,\delta )=\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,0;\alpha ,\beta ,\delta ,0).$$
(158)
Using equations (68)–(73), (75) and (76), the integrals (79)–(86), and the definitions

$`a_{00}^{(A_{xx})}=(4\pi )^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}},a_{2\pm 1}^{(A_{xx})}=0,a_{2\pm 2}^{(A_{xx})}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}a_{20}^{(A_{xx})}=4\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{15}}},`$ (159)
$`a_{20}^{(A_{xy})}=a_{2\pm 1}^{(A_{xy})}=0,a_{2\pm 2}^{(A_{xy})}=\mathrm{i4}\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{15}}},b_{10}^{(B_{xy})}=4\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}};`$ (160)
$$\tau _0=0,\tau _1=T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,\tau _2=T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2,\tau _3=T,\tau _4=T\mathrm{\Delta }t_1;$$
(161)
$`g_0^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau _4)\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau _2)}{2\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}}[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,\tau _2)\mathrm{max}(\tau _3,0)],`$ (162)
$`g_0^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}}[\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau _2)\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau _1)\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau _3)\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau _4)],`$ (163)
$`g_0^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau _4)\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau _2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}}[\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Delta }t_1,\tau _2)\mathrm{max}(\tau _3,0)],`$ (164)
$`g_i^{(l)}=(1)^{i+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau _i)}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_1\mathrm{\Delta }t_2}}[\tau _i+\mathrm{zr}(\tau _i)\delta _{1l}],l=0,1,2,i=1,2,3,4,`$ (165)
where

$$\mathrm{zr}(x)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& \mathrm{for}& x=0\\ 0& \mathrm{for}& x0\end{array},$$
(166)
and the definition $`\mathrm{\Theta }(0)=\frac{1}{2}`$ is used again, we obtain finally the following closed-form expressions for the representative BR geometric factors (6)–(8) with spherical space regions:

$`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{R_1R_2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l=0,2}{m}}{}}a_{lm}^{(A_{xx})}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}}g_i^{(l)}\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,l;R_1,R_2,\tau _i,R)Y_{lm}(\widehat{𝑹}),`$ (167)
$`\overline{A}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{R_1R_2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}a_{2m}^{(A_{xy})}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}}g_i^{(2)}\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,2;R_1,R_2,\tau _i,R)Y_{2m}(\widehat{𝑹}),`$ (168)
$`\overline{B}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{R_1R_2}}b_{10}^{(B_{xy})}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}}g_i^{(1)}\mathrm{ji}_4[\mathrm{zr}(\tau _i);1,1,\mathrm{zr}(\tau _i)1,1;R_1,R_2,\tau _i,R]Y_{10}(\widehat{𝑹}).`$ (169)
3. Numerical results and concluding remarks

The convergence properties of the Fourier–Bessel expansions were examined in numerical calculations of some representative examples of BR geometric coefficients with spherical space regions, using the formula (67) with the Fourier–Bessel coefficients given by equations (68)–(73) and an expansion radius $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}=R+R_2+\mathrm{max}(T+\mathrm{\Delta }t_2,0)`$.

For the BR geometric factors to have an appreciable magnitude, it is obvious that, in a system of units where the speed of light $`c=1`$, the separation in space and time of the space-time regions must not be much greater than the dimensions of the space-time regions themselves. The calculations were done using an unspecified unit of length; choosing the millimetre as the unit of length, for example, the unit of time equals approximately $`3.33\times 10^{12}`$ s in a system of units with $`c=1`$. This illustrates the fact that, on a realistic laboratory scale, the time intervals corresponding to even relatively large distances are very short, but we leave aside the question of how field measurements occupying and/or separated by such short time intervals can be realized.

The numerical values of the representative BR geometric factors (6)–(8) for various spherical space-time regions with dimensions of the order of unity and similar or smaller space-time separations, in a $`c=1`$ system of units, are collected in table 1. As the quantities that are required in the field commutation relations are the values of the differences $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{II},\mathrm{I})}`$, while some BR spring constants require the value of the sum $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}+\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{II},\mathrm{I})}`$, the “reverse” geometric factor $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{II},\mathrm{I})}`$ was calculated together with a given geometric factor $`\overline{C}_U^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$. This was done by interchanging the radii $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ of the spherical space regions and changing their relative displacement $`𝑹`$ to $`𝑹`$ (i.e., changing the polar angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ of $`𝑹`$ to $`\pi \theta `$ and $`\varphi +\pi `$), together with interchanging the time intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_2`$ and changing their separation $`T`$ to $`T`$. BR geometric factors $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{I})}`$ with fully coinciding space-time regions were calculated also as they are required for some of the BR spring constants. When the sphere separation $`R=0`$, only the monopole ($`l=0`$) term contributes in the expansion (67) because $`j_l(q_nR)0`$ for $`l>0`$ as $`R0`$, and thus the BR factors $`\overline{A}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ and $`\overline{B}_{xy}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ with spherical space regions vanish when $`R=0`$. The Fourier–Bessel expansions of the BR geometric factors, except those of the geometric factor $`A_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ for spherical space regions whose centres coincide, converge rapidly as less than a hundred terms were required for the four-digit accuracy with which the geometric factors are printed in table 1.

The slow convergence of expansion (67) in the case of spherical space regions with coinciding centres is due to the presence of a $`q`$-independent term in the quantity $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{U}}_{00}^{(A_{xx})}(q)`$ of equation (68). However, the contribution of this term to the BR geometric factor $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ has then a simple form and can be summed easily. With sphere separation $`R=0`$, it follows from equations (67) and (68) that the $`q`$-independent term contributes to the BR factor $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ the quantity

$$\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}(g_0^{(0)})=\frac{12g_0^{(0)}}{\pi R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}R_2}\frac{\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}j_1\left(\frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)j_1\left(\frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}R_2\right),$$
(170)
where $`g_0^{(0)}`$, defined by equation (90), is the $`q`$-independent term in question. The series in (98) is a Fourier–Bessel representation of of the simplest of the integrals evaluated in section 3.2:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}j_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}}R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)j_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{r_{\mathrm{ex}}}}R_2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}j_1(R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}q)j_1(R_2q)𝑑q`$ (171)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{ji}_4(0;1,1,0,0;R_1^{},R_2,0,0)={\displaystyle \frac{R_<}{R_>^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}}.`$ (172)
Here, the result (82) is simplified using $`R_<`$ and $`R_>`$, which are respectively the lesser and the greater of the radii $`R_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`R_2`$, and the parameter $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ should be such that $`r_{\mathrm{ex}}R_>`$, which condition is guaranteed by that of equation (67b). When the result (99) is used in the expansion (67) in the cases of sphere separation $`R=0`$, the rate of convergence improves dramatically and becomes similar to that of the geometric factors for space regions with noncoinciding centres.

The accuracy of the numerical results of table 1, obtained using the Fourier–Bessel expansions, was checked using the closed-form expressions (95)–(97). As no calculated values of the BR geometric factors could be found in the literature, this is the only check of the correctness and accuracy of our results. Admittedly, this check is not a fully independent one, as both the closed-form expressions and Fourier–Bessel expansions are obtained using Fourier-transform methods. However, the calculations reported here use only proven analytical methods, of which Fourier integrals and Fourier–Bessel expansions are a part, and thus our results would be invalidated only if the same algebraic errors were made in the derivation of the closed-form and Fourier–Bessel expressions. In this connection, we note that the analytical expressions (48) and (49) for the double time averages, used in both the Fourier-integral and Fourier–Bessel formulations, were checked by doing the two-dimensional integrations involved numerically.

A rather interesting result of the calculations is that the geometric factors $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{I})}`$ with fully coinciding space-time regions turn out to have negative values. The closed-form expression (95) for the geometric factor $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{II})}`$ with radii $`R_1=R_2=R_0`$, time intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_1=\mathrm{\Delta }t_2=\mathrm{\Delta }t_0`$ and separations $`R=T=0`$ simplifies to‡‡‡‡‡‡Using this simple expression, it can be shown that, contrary to a conclusion of , the BR average ‘self-force’ on the field measurement’s test body approximates correctly the average self-force that obtains when the duration of the momentum measurements on a test body of sufficiently great mass is sufficiently short .

$$\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{I})}=\frac{1}{8R_0^4\kappa }(4+\kappa )(2\kappa )^2\mathrm{\Theta }(2\kappa )\frac{1}{R_0^4\kappa },$$
(173)
where $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Delta }t_0/R_0`$. For a fixed value of $`R_0`$, this function of the ratio $`\kappa `$ increases monotonically from $`\mathrm{}`$ when $`\kappa 0`$ to the value of zero for $`\kappa 0`$. For $`\kappa 2`$, the geometric factor $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{I})}`$ reduces to the value $`1/R_0^4\kappa `$, and so the BR average ‘self-force’  on the field-measurement’s test body of charge density $`\rho _\mathrm{I}`$ is then $`\rho _\mathrm{I}^2V_\mathrm{I}^2\mathrm{\Delta }t_0D_x^{(\mathrm{I})}\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{I})}=\rho _\mathrm{I}^2V_\mathrm{I}^2D_x^{(\mathrm{I})}/R_0^3`$, which is simply the electrostatic force of attraction between the test and neutralizing bodies when their centres are displaced by a distance $`|D_x^{(\mathrm{I})}|R_0`$. The negativity of the BR geometric factor $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{I})}`$ means that the spring constant $`k_\mathrm{I}=\rho _\mathrm{I}^2V_\mathrm{I}^2T_\mathrm{I}\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{I})}`$ of the spring that is used in a BR field measurement involving a space-time region $`V_\mathrm{I},T_\mathrm{I}`$ to compensate the test body’s average ‘self-force’ has to be negative. While it is certainly possible to envisage a spring mechanism that would provide a force proportional to and in the direction of a test body’s displacement,\**\**\** A spring system with a negative spring constant can be constructed as follows. Two elastically compressible rods, each of spring constant $`k`$ and length $`l+d`$ when not stressed, are aligned “head to tail” along a common axis and joined via a movable joint, while their outer ends are fastened using similar joints to rigid supports so that this spring system is compressed to a total length $`2l`$. It can be shown easily that a body attached to the middle joint and moved a small distance $`x`$, $`xl`$, $`xd`$, from the system’s axis and in a direction perpendicular to it, will experience a force $`F=(2kd/l)x=\kappa x`$, which is proportional to and acting in the direction of the displacement $`x`$, i.e., the spring constant $`\kappa =2kd/l`$ of such a system is negative. we note that Bohr and Rosenfeld did not consider it necessary to make a comment on this rather unusual specification that their measurement procedure would place on the spring mechanism—but one can now only speculate whether Bohr and Rosenfeld were in fact aware of this consequence of their analysis.\*†\*†\*† A hint that Bohr and Rosenfeld were aware of the possibility of the geometric factor $`\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{I})}`$ being negative is given by their careful writing of its square root as $`|\overline{A}_{xx}^{(\mathrm{I},\mathrm{I})}|^{1/2}`$. In any case, despite its inherent instability, a spring mechanism with negative spring constant should present no difficulty of principle for a BR measurement procedure because a BR spring, together with the test body to which it is attached, is supposed to be released only for the exact duration of the field measurement, and the spring force is designed so that its effect is compensated by the test body’s ‘self-force’.

We conclude that a well-controlled method for the computation of the BR geometric factors was developed using Fourier–Bessel expansions. The efficiency and accuracy of the method were tested numerically in the case of spherical space regions when a BR geometric factor can be represented by a Fourier–Bessel series with terms expressed entirely in terms of elementary functions, and, using the computing system Mathematica, it is possible to obtain the factor in terms of manageable closed-form expressions. The space-time-averaged electromagnetic-field commutators, as well as the formal expressions and “gedanken” experimental procedures of the famous Bohr–Rosenfeld analysis of the measurability of the electromagnetic field now can be translated easily and accurately into concrete numbers.

Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to F. Frescura for a careful reading of the manuscript. He also acknowledges gratefully correspondence with F. Persico, whose searching questions helped the author to realize that the formal expressions for some BR geometric factors imply a suitable regularization.